HomeMy WebLinkAbout981852.tiff HUNT FEEDYARD
%Mr. Dave Hunt
14460 Weld County Road 40
Platteville, Colorado 80651
Special Use Permit Application
Submitted to Weld County
June 1998
Application Prepared By:
EnviroStock, Inc.
11990 Grant Street, Suite 402
Denver, Colorado 80233
981852
EXHIBIT
1 7
' DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERMS' County Planning Dept.
Weld County Administrative Offices, 1400 N. 17th Avenue, Greeley, CO 80631
Phone (970) 353-6100,Ext.3540, Fax (970) 353-6312. 1 9 1998
USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW APPLICATION
RECEIV EP
Application Fee Paid 000 `t"-11-- Receipt# 234, 1 Date (o ' i et t CieRecording Fee Paid Receipt# Date
Application Reviewed by:
TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT: (Please print or type, except for necessary signature)
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT AREA: NV.!lla, 533 TM , RG,6tiI.
' PARCEL NUMBER:152513_a_ o 044,_9.3(12 digit number-found on Tax l.D.
- c'.'` Information or obtained at the Assessor's Office. f`n t t
\ Section 33 ,T R N, R lc W-Total Acreage ISO Zone District Overlay Zone
\ \\ r Property Address (if available) 1L\46v tiICZ ry� �L1TT6vz��E Co
{ '
Proposed Use rEED‘-oT — ANTMPrI FEEDING OPERATTOIV
SURFACE FEE (PROPERTY OWNERS) OF AREA PROPOSED FOR THE SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT
Name: HUNZ FEEOYPRO t3AV3b AUNT Address: t441e(6\NCR 40
City/State/Zip!?tKWv VIDE &51Home Telephone: Business Telephone 737-243
Name: Address:
City/State/Zip: Home Telephone: Business Telephone
APPLICANT OR AUTHORIZED AGENT (if different than above)
Name: CNVIR05`COCV }TNC . — I oN\AS \\R(V£N
Address: )\0.90 GRRNT ST. , SUITE you City/State/Zip: tEMER CO $00.33
Home Telephone: Business Telephone: (303) 457- Li3aa
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES USE ONLY
Case#
Floodplain: o Yes o No Geologic Hazard: O Yes o No
I hereby state that all statements and plans submitted with the applicatio re true an orrect to the best of
my knowledge.
I '4 1Nuib If vNT
Rev: 1-27-97 Signature: Owner or Authorized Agent
Road File#
RE:
5 9 n852
ART WILLIS
WELD COUNTY TREASURER WELD COUNTY TAX NOTICE SCHEDULE#
P.O.BOX 458
`REELEY,CO 80632-0458 1997 Taxes Due In 1998 R4472a8t
GALaESC-l-TI•N •F • - • •E'TY �TAX 'UTH• 'ITY TXLEVY '
17246 NW4 33-4-66 EXC BEG S89D40'E 392.10' WELD COUNTY 22.038 716.91
FROM SW COR TO SELY 11/W LN OF UPRR THENCE SCHOOL DIST REl 41.361 1345.47
W4IDIl'E 379.03'S45D39'E 143.81'S40D42'E NCW WATER 1.000 32.53
153.95'S20D16'E 75.36'TO S LN OF NW4 THENCE CCW WATER 1.144 37.21
N89D40'W 478.96'TO BEG ALSO EXC UPRR RES(31 RR CWC WATER 0.000 0.00
4R) %14488 WCR 38% CCS WATER 1.889 0.009 61.16
PLATTEVILLE-GILCREST Fl 2.303 74.92
AIMS JUNIOR COL 6.322 205.65
WELD LIBRARY 1.449 0,040 45.83
SB No.25,..In absence of State LegislatNe Funding..
your School General Fund Levy would have been 43.933
TAX DISTRICT ACTUAL PROPERTY VALUE IS VALUATION OF LAND VALUATION IMPS OR PERS TOTAL VALUATION TOTAL LEVY FULL TAX
0121 137166 13590 18940 2 I 2519.68
PARceLs •AYNENTSCHEeULE
UN•AID -I• YEA•TA%
- - '• EA•HE•E -r -
105733000043 REAL "C•NT•CT T•EASU•E•"IMMEEIATELVI f
,t { , 1st Half Tax DUE MARCH 2
'�°�s ' ':" tl ?r4 t Z. x ' + �, ' 2nd Half Tax DUE JUNE I5 1259.84
+•r x 1259.84
3 >Thy ° cf Tea':v t 1,4A.17.'"...-f.
a. x a '
F3 r, , n
FULL PAYMENT
A.
/ DUE APRIL 30 2519.68
'` / THE TREASURERS OFFICE IS REQUIRED BY LAW TO SEND THE 7
1 NOTICE TO THE OWNER OF RECORD.IF YOUR TAXES ARE PAID B'
HUNT DAVID W&KAYLEEN J MORTGAGE COMPANY KEEP THIS NOTICE FOR YOUR RECORD.IF Y
HAVE SOLD THIS PROPERTY,PLEASE FORWARD THIS NOTICE TO T
14460 WELD CO RD 40 NEW OWNER OR RETURN TO THIS OFFICE MARKED'PROPERTY SO'
PLATTEVILLE, CO 80651
Please see reverse side of this form for additional information. TAX NOTICE
RETAIN TOP PORTION FOR YOUR RECORD
The treasurer is not responsible for erroneous payments.If In doubt Unpeld prior ydar tezea !please check with your mortgage holder to determine who la to x Z make the tax payment.Failure to do so could result In delayed •`-"` '•? d ,
processing of your account. TAX YEAR 1997 Coiiteer County above.er's Office Immediately H a
number appears above
YOUR CANCELLED CHECK
D RETURN THIS COUPON FOR SECOND HALF PAYMENTS DUE BY JUNE 15
YOUR BEST RECEIPT,AND
OVES YOU TECEIYp ° 2nd Half Coupon - x 2
MUST RETIRN THIS COPY ❑ .
AHD CAEcK HERE si
RETURN THIS COUPON WITH PAYMENT TO:
ART WILLIS SCHEDULE I
I IllIIIII III 1111111111111111111111111 IIIII III1111111111 PWRT LULSCOUNTY TREASURER 84472386
GREELEY,CO 80632-0458
TAX AMOUNT 1259 04
HUNT DAVID W&KAYLEEN J
PROPERTY 14460 WELD CO RD 40 091.952
OWNER PLATTEVILLE,CO 80651
OF
RECORD TOTAL
AMOUNT
COLLECTED
PAID BY
REPORT DATE 05/22/98 COLORADO WELLS, APPLICATIONS, AND PERMITS PAGE 1
COLORADO DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES
PERMIT D CO OWNER INFORMATION
ACTIVITY STATUS 1ST USED ANNUAL ACRES GEOL WELL WELL WATER SEC LOCAT'N TOWN F
CD DATE CD DATE WD MD DH USE DATE APROP IRA AQFR YIELD DEPTH LEVEL COORDINATES QTRS SC SHIP RANGE N
89856 1 62 EMESON SIDNEY A & STANLEY E 1602 16TH ST GREELEY, CO 80631
2 89 08/31/50 1765N,0250E SENE 33 4 N 66 W S
92148VE. 1 62 STREAR LEONARD & SIDNEY 6825 E TENNESSEE DENVER, CO 80224
AV 05/13/92 2 1 GW 0030N,1860W NENW 33 4 N 66 W S
664R R 1 62 HUNT DAVID W & KAYLEEN J 14460 WCR 40 PLATTEVILLE, CO 80651
NP 05/12/92 OC 02/24/97 2 1 06/25/92 GW 900.00 94 22 003014,1860W NENW 33 4 N 66 W S
664R 1 62 WATERMAN JULIS & Z BROWN 929 MARION DENVER, CO 80202
03 03/31/67 AB 09/23/92 2 1 04/30/50 GW 300.00 93 21 0030N,0720W NWNW 33 4 N 66 W 6
665R 1 62 HUNT DAVID W & KAYLEEN J 14460 WCR 40 PLATTEVILLE, CO 80651
NP 10/02/59 OC 02/24/97 2 1 03/31/55 GW 200.00 51 15 06115,0050E NWNW 33 4 N 66 W S
666R 1 62 HUNT DAVID W & KAYLEEN J 14460 WCR 40 PLATTEVILLE, CO 80651
NP 10/02/59 OC 02/24/97 2 1 03/31/55 GW 300.00 54 15 26305,2605E SENW 33 4 N 66 W S
667R 1 62 HUNT DAVID W & KAYLEEN J 14460 WCR 40 PLATTEVILLE, CO 80651
NP 10/02/59 OC 02/24/97 2 1 04/30/47 GW 450.00 57 15 15845,2605E SENW 33 4 N 66 W S
668R 1 62 HUNT DAVID W & KAYLEEN J 14460 WCR 40 PLATTEVILLE, CO 80651
NP 10/02/59 ON 02/24/97 2 1 04/30/47 450.00 57 15 13265,2605E SENW 33 4 N 66 W S
90231 1 62 WEBBER PAUL 18539 WELD CO. RD. 31 PLATTVILLE, CO 80651
2 9 04/07/78 GW 20.00 43 7 13305,1340E NWSE 33 4 N 66 W F
e' 1,,352
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.
2. Explain how this proposal is consistent with the intent of the Weld County Comprehensive Plan.
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.
4. What type of uses surround the site? Explain how the proposed use is consistent and compatible
with surrounding land uses.
5. Describe,in detail,the following:
a. How many people will use this site?
b. How many employees are proposed to be employed at this site?
c. What are the hours of operation?
d. What type and how many structures will be erected (built)'on this site?
e. What type and how many animals, if any,will be on this site?
f. What kind (type,size,weight) of vehicles will access this site and how often?
g. Who will provide fire protection to the site?
h. What is the water source on the property? (Both domestic and irrigation).
What is the sewage disposal system on the property? (Existing and proposed).
j. If storage or warehousing is proposed,what type of items will be stored?
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.
7. Explain any proposed reclamation procedures when termination of the Use by Special Review
activity occurs.
8. Explain how the storm water drainage will be handled on the site.
9. Explain how long it will take to construct this site and when construction and landscaping is
scheduled to begin.
10. Explain where storage and/or stockpile of wastes will occur on this site.
991 852
8
Weld County Planning and Zoning Department
Use by Special Review Questionnaire
Hunt Feedyard, Inc.
14460 Weld County Road 40
Platteville, CO 80651
1. The proposed use of this property is for a feedlot for beef production, associated structures and
pens for livestock husbandry, equipment storage and maintenance facilities, waste management and
control structures and residence(s) for the owners/employees. The existing facility primarily feeds
replacement dairy heifers throughout the year. This requires animal densities of ±300 ft2 per
animal. This plan is for finishing cattle for beef production. This increases the animal density to
±175 ft2 per animal. This proposal is for 10,000 cattle maximum, and the addition of one new
alleyway with two opposing feedbunks and pen areas.
2. This use is consistent with the Weld County Comprehensive plan through the preservation,
enhancement and growth of agriculture. This expansion is not located on prime farmland due to
soil types and slopes. The expanded portion of the facility is not in a municipal growth area. 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, family-owned agricultural business. The proposed site is not located within a
flood hazard zone, a geologic hazard zone or airport overlay zone. The proposed use is necessary in
Weld county to preserve the agricultural economic base historically attributed to the area. The
proposed use provides up to 8 agriculture jobs for Weld county residents. Typically, feedlot
operations contribute 2.5 times their gross sales into the local economy.
3. This proposal meets the intent of the agricultural zoned district where the site is located. A
livestock confinement operation is permitted in the "A" 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. Agricultural uses surround this site. Uses consist of primarily prime farmland. This proposal is
compatible with surrounding areas, agricultural uses and the Weld County Comprehensive Plan.
There are no residential homes located within 500 feet of the property boundary. No residential
homes are located within 500 feet of physical feedlot facility's operations. A feedlot facility has
existed on this property since prior to 1969 through present.
5. a. Up to eight employees,the owner and owners family, various sales representatives, supply
and delivery people will use this site.
b. Eight people could be employed at this site at maximum capacity.
c. Hours of operations are up to 24 hours per day for shipping, receiving and during harvest.
Equipment operations, trucks, farming activities and maintenance activities other than
emergencies will occur primarily during daylight hours.
9S1.852
d. Most structures are currently in place. Proposed structures would include installation of one
feed alley with feedbunks, feed aprons and pens on opposite sides of the alleyway. Refer to the
site plan map for existing and proposed structures.
e. A maximum of 10,000 cattle is proposed at any one time. Average working capacity is 8,000
cattle.
f. Typical vehicles accessing this site include feed and hay delivery trucks and semi-tractors and
trailers, employee and owner vehicles, and animal product vendors.Operating equipment
includes typical farming equipment, tractors, loaders and attachments, trucks, and semi-tractor-
trailers.
This facility currently buys, stores and re-sells feed items. This practice will be minimized and
most feedstuffs consumed on-site. At present,the facility feeds a majority of dairy animals.
Dairy animals require more volume of feed than finished beef cattle. This proposal outlines a
change from feeding dairy animals to finishing beef cattle. This reduction in truck traffic from
the storage and resale of feedstuffs will account for any increased truck traffic generated by the
additional animal capacity. No net increase in truck traffic is expected.
g. Fire protection for this site is provided by Platteville/Gilcrest Fire District.
Platteville/Gilcrest Fire District
303 Marian
Platteville, CO 80651
(970) 785-2232
h. Residential and office water is supplied by the Central Weld County Water District. Livestock
drinking water is supplied by a groundwater well. Irrigation water is provided through 4
groundwater wells and 3 shares English Ditch surface water.
i. This site uses 3 individual private septic facilities for residential and office wastewater.
j. Storage and warehousing are not proposed as the primary use of this site. Feedstuffs,
equipment parts and supplies typical of farming activities are stored on site.
6. Landscaping plans includes providing an eye-appealing and well groomed facility that has a
professional appearance. Shelter belts for wind and water erosion control and wildlife habitat are
coordinated through Federal and State agricultural technical assistance programs.
7. 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 under
the current ownership, it would be marketed under applicable county planning and zoning
regulations to its greatest and best use.
9c1852
8. Storm water drainage is handled by a storage pond designed, maintained and operated in
accordance with the Colorado Confined Animal Feeding Control Regulations. Water from the
pond is used to irrigate adjacent fannground.
9. Improvements and reconfiguration of existing facilities is ongoing. The performance of the beef
cattle market will determine the aggressiveness or passiveness of this expansion. Construction of
the new alleyway, feedbunks, aprons, pens and associated water supply and sprinkler facilities will
begin upon approval of the USR and subsequent conditions.
10. Solid waste stockpiles will be centrally located where runoff can be controlled and nuisance
conditions minimized. Use of solid waste stockpiles will be minimized to reduce fly and insect
concerns. Stormwater is stored in an earthen structure designed to meet the requirements of the
Colorado Confined Animal Feeding Control Operations Regulations. Water from the retention
structure is land applied to farmground at agronomic rates. Debris and solid waste will be collected
and disposed of by a contracted trash pick-up service on a routine schedule. Hazardous or solid
waste storage is not proposed for this site. Solid waste will be collected by a contracted trash pick-
up service. Solid manure, stormwater will be collected for application to farmground at agronomic
rates. Refuse is collected weekly by:
B&C Refuse
P.O. Box 484
Platteville, CO 80651
(970) 785-2232
991852
Manure & Process Wastewater Management Plan
Hunt Feedyard
14460 Weld County Road 40
Platteville, Colorado
Developed in accordance with the
Colorado "Confined Animal Feeding Operations Control Regulation"
Generally Accepted Agricultural Best Management Practices
June 10, 1998
°''l'1552
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION 3
LEGAL OWNER, CONTACTS AND AUTHORIZED PERSONS 3
LEGAL DESCRIPTION 4
MAPS
5
LOCATION MAP 5
SITE MAP
6
SITE DESCRIPTION 7
CURRENT FACILITIES 7
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT 7
Flood Plains 8
STORMWATER RETENTION FACILITIES 9
RETENTION FACILITY DEWATERING 10
SOLID MANURE MANAGEMENT 10
IRRIGATION AND NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT 10
INSPECTIONS 11
2
?S1852
Introduction
This Manure and Process Wastewater Management Plan (MMP) has been developed and
implemented to comply with requirements, conditions and limitations of the Colorado
"Confined Animal Feeding Operations Control Regulation" 4.8.0 (5 CCR 1002-19). This
MMP outlines site conditions, structures and areas requiring management of solid manure,
storm water run-off and process wastewater. This MMP will be kept on-site and amended
prior to any change in design, construction, operation or maintenance which significantly
increases the potential for discharge of solid manure, stormwater run-off and process
wastewater to waters of the State. This MMP shall be amended if it is ineffective in
controlling discharges from the facility. Below is the date of the last MMP amendment:
Amendment 1:
Amendment 2:
Amendment 3:
Amendment 4:
All records relating to the MMP will be kept on-site for a minimum of three years.
Legal Owner, Contacts and Authorized Persons
The legal owner of the Greeley Location is Hunt Feedyard
Correspondence and Contacts should be made to:
Hunt Feedyard
Mr. David Hunt
14460 Weld County Road 40
Platteville, Colorado 80651
(970) 737-2437
The individual(s) at this facility who is (are) responsible for developing the implementation,
maintenance and revision of this MMP are listed below:
David Hunt
(Name) (Title)
(Name) (Title)
(Name) (Title)
3
�� 852
Legal Description
Parts of the NW )/4 of Section 33,Township 4 North Range 66 West of the 6th P.M., Weld
County, Colorado.
- 1
'�
P CEL 2: ) !
The WW1/4 of Sectinr 3,, Colorado,w 4l North, Range 6e 65West of stgofathe eo6th h5P.M ,
County of Weld, Stlying
EXCEPT the right-c. —, of the Union Pacific Railroad as reserved in Deed
recorded May 19, t:C : ',r. Book 36 at Page 112.
AND EXCEPT parcel -'^^-'^ ' to The Department of Highways, recorded January
15, 1957 in Book 1.4i .t Page 73.
AND EXCEPT a tract c•t land commencing at the Southwest corner of said
NW1/4 of Section ' -:unship 4 North, Range 66 West of the 6th P.M. ,
County of Weld, Stat' )1 Colorado;
thence South 89 degre- 7, 40 minutes 44 seconds East along the South line
of said NW1/4 a dint.: :e of 392. 10 feet to the point of beginning on the
Southeasterly rig: .gay line of Union Pacific Railroad;
thence North 41 de9 ...:- :a 11 minutes 19 seconds East along said
right-of-way line J6:? ,)5 feet;
.hence South 45 degrc-..•_,s 39 minutes 14 seconds East 143 .81 feet;
hence South 40 de ;. , : 42 minutes 28 seconds East, 153 .95 feet;
chence South 20 def;re > 16 minutes 13 seconds East, 75.36 feet to the
South line of said NW ! /4 ;
thence North 89 dearc -; 40 minutes 44 seconds West, along said South line
478.96 feet to the of beginning.
PARCEL 3:
The North 8 acres of • he E1/2 of the SW1/4 of Section 33, Township 4
North, Range 66 We " the 6th P.M. , County of Weld, State of Colorado.
Page 2
ra4i2CeLs .9, 4 c war YOU Aigt
4 991! 952
Maps
Location Map
The Topographical Location Map shows the location of Hunt Feedyard, surrounding sites,
topography and major drainages.
I
0/ 4763
496 //, I4100
g e 117'30`
d
4737
° y ° 4739 �,� a
_o �.° .47 -- ° 4148 I•° •
4740
V^ __,,r! , /U 0 47413 WelPO ell 6 =.° IIIl l�" �P •
4760
w I � 27 26 <.
59
9 —177/ r �,
4750 _ 0
:mss
476/ ...
• BM
° 4754
•
775
4761 ; 4 •
.
C8' •
4780-7800
760 4458
a\O� 46 p1j0
0 is '
1 ell I �
QWell 766 . .
t 8758 ` ���� 61g0 A 0 46p00�,; nv °
' 4799 34 0 /�� I .
°a° 2 ' h n3fi, I
cc 4768 !!
8 �°j4457
/ G$ t., •
84 Q �Pv
a o OP
.. 'a / . T 4
�� L. CZ) T.3
4801 p
0 4791 �'-, 6 ^ �I
�✓ o EJ PtAt n
I,
o
T. �M / y�6ii I `J m 4456e/ / PLATTE
o 5 ell 4780 I / I — �� ��� '� ��
0 ✓ �� h
/ °� I > �� J �—��� P
_` 'e �' 1, I 4850 4C
O vu—�aae 5 OOOm
-s 0 ��_i _ „,n� s,.ey o - 71 E. 1ne on F'
"--� - ->� OOVM0='ASNI=013•'W 3n reoWN Kit
ryry((�� U M 'W'NNro.at0n Ina M XINVtl'MEOW V A16Mbl mvr 7 &•"gm..
m
x SS i' 6 ® cot'a
t�aolw.:1 K n LI035 u ill u3•wuoN per•. B
�1��a`+03 31IS OMVAII333 1Nl1H ^'1N'ay Aa1""'N tarw Wt Roe ....
al...
1-'I2
1 k . ,„,
. v ,
iiii
; illi. Plil , ia\hiO ; e • • I I : N
�; I
I
!n I
! !I
a ! !n '
IQ
te)tip ti
:r : r ..
g 1 I • ! r 3
1
a •i P l� p�
IWI o I •
. : 1I��`
bii
I—I�n In J U ♦ Y ��.
v/ M 3 I \� ! I ! ! If ! 3 i3n�
/�� O m I , N . I !!!;
n W a V I 4,i- ' ! ! ! !
n O
¢ � ccI �ks,
•
W▪ Z
L. N d, 6 % \
a E
I-- cc6Q
Z i
Z
2
0.
ii .wrist Cm.;---------- -
gP.
i !!
is • I ��.
ffhLhJff1
Qi t ii I
l1P 1!e IL
1 ii
IMitug4thii at iin
11I rtl 1 , ditt k
•sulanud a2uuiuip
alis puu ulalsAis puod `sdalju puu suad lojpaoj aql;o uogumfguoo aql sjiulap d&TN alis sign,
dew ens
Site Description
Current Facilities
The average annual working capacity of Hunt Feedyard is 5,000 beef cattle. The feedlot is
bordered on the north by Weld County Road 40, and on the west by Highway 85. Irrigated
farmground predominately surrounds the property on all sides. The pens are arranged in a
rectangular configuration with feed alleys aligned north to south. The feedmill, office, scales,
silage pits and maintenance facilities are located on the north end of the operation. Cattle
working facilities are located on the north end of the site. The pens use continuous flow-
through watering systems to prevent water from freezing during winter months and ensure a
continuous supply of fresh water to the livestock. Overflow from the flow-through watering
system drains into the stormwater retention ponds. The major drainage patterns on the feedlot
surface are north and west with stormwater runoff flowing to a retention area north and west of
the pens. Hunt Feedyard is constructing one additional alley. Upon completion, the
feedyard's maximum capacity will be 10,000 beef cattle. Average annual working capacity
will be 8,000 beef cattle.
Stormwater Management
The feedlots primary drainage pattern for feeding operations is north and west. Stormwater
management consists of an earthen retention pond located on the north and west edge of the
pens. Water from the retention ponds will be used on irrigated farmground surrounding the
site.
Due to the semi-arid conditions of northeastern Colorado, very little stormwater run-off
management is necessary at this site. Currently, an additional process water source into the
retention ponds is from the continuous-flow watering system used during winter months. The
continuous-flow watering system will be upgraded to on-demand pressure valve systems
during future growth of the feedyard.
The feedyard and associated facilities are not located within a mapped 100-year floodplain.
7
991852
\ o^.
II
z
a
43 CO o a c E
O3 a
> rn > E 7
aSccc '- t E
a -. + + + +
3 V.
a o v, N 0 II
C .; r o a. H
~ m o ET ≥ a C
W _ ii -.,
(13
II-- m _ R x 0 S C
Z = ar a30 $co
Q
N. OP gy ac to
m o
� ,,' .CC 0.00‘jr O
a, 0 e -,
_ °a
V .rt
O csr
a
V) Z .1. 1 Z a
Q Q V a
003
CO s
— x
ct m
W Z d `
Q . N N u t 03
$
C73 0 to
*<. o a ro RI. x
a W x.�..s...<., K. N. 4 ruCI ,_,,.�.. % x
« m
s Au 4 a v, f f z `'y , ,,
Q
VE
Z > ,.s
O
Dco
Q .*". 4 is O ID
�
C 3 Wco
O W c ) .s' o
Oct O U W
Oo. 3 ,— ,cc +
V Wig' N a c CC3 C 4
d O w W J 2.
a o E 'o , w
Q LL ^ T S y W a m V
Lo Oe cic. 0 0.
W L r a1 1 . w c _
re oc co
a �d v m ° E a - xt}
y 1 U co
t i5 fc m o w w -R.. 'S y
d. Po �W a y o
v $ 8. 3 d m
CD
(� �, ( 0 a 0 O U Q N b
y Z. OW q . m V ?5 5 E n m t
ii �- Q ; 0 G 0 2 a o of t a =ft O m
w 'C A o 3 m a LL U o r o
ca.g:1 852
Flood Plains
8
.991852
I. FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
See the attached O.M.A.No.3067 0264
STANDARD FLOOD HAZARD DETERMINATION
instructions Expires April 30,1998
SECTION I-LOAN INFORMATION
i.LENDER NAME AND ADDRESS 2.COLLATERAL(Building/Mobile Home/Personal Property)PROPERTY ADDRESS
(Legal Description may be attached)
ColorHunt
11990 St.Feeders Association 14460 Weld County Road 40
11990 Grant St., Suite 402 Gilcrest CO
Denver CO 80233 NW 4 Sec 33,T4N,R66W
3.LENDER ID.NO. 4.LOAN IDENTIFIER
5.AMOUNT OF FLOOD INSURANCE REQUIRED
I Thomas Haren
I SECTION II
A.NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM(NFIP)COMMUNITY JURISDICTION
NFIP CommunityState NFIP Community
County( ) Number
Name
Unincorporated
Weld CO 080266
B.NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM(NFIP)DATA AFFECTING BUILDING(MOBILE HOME) No NFIP
NFIP Map Number of Community Panel Number NFIP Map Panel Effective LOMA/LOMR Flood Zone
Revised Date Map
(Community name,if not the same as'A') C
080266-0750 -C 9/28/82 Yes Date
C.FEDERAL FLOOD INSURANCE AVAILABILITY(Check all that apply)
X Federal Flood Insurance is available(community participates in NFIP) X Regular Program — Emergency Program of NFIP
Federal Flood Insurance is not available because community does not participate in NFIP
— Building/Mobile Home is a Coastal Barrier Resources Area(CBRA),Federal Flood Insurance may not be available
CBRA designation date:
D.DETERMINATION
IS BUILDING/MOBILE HOME IN THE SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREA YES X NO
(ZONES BEGINNING WITH LETTERS 'A' OR'V')?
If yes,flood insurance is required by the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973
If no,flood insurance is not required by the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973
E.COMMENTS(Optional)
Please see copy of the attached map. The box with the diagonal lines through it marks the approximate
location of the property. If you have any questions,please do not hesitate to call.
This determination is based on examining the NFIP map,and Federal Emergency Management Agency revisions to it,and any other
information needed to locate the building/mobile home on the NFIP map.
F.PREPARER'S INFORMATION DATE OF DETERMINATION
NAME,ADDRESS,TELEPHONE NUMBER(if other than lender)
Flood Insurance Services, Ltd. 12/1297
1685 E.160th Avenue
Broomfield,CO 60020
Phone(303)452-1716 Fax(303)452.1208
.. Trans 214270
FEMA Form 81-93,Jun 95
¶ 1S52
determine If flouu Insurance Is available In this community,
ntact your Insurance agent,or call the National Flood Insurance
?gram at(800)638-6620.
•
APPROXIMATE SCALE 000 FEET
2000
NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM
FIRM
FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP
WELD
COUNTY,
COLORADO
UNINCORPORATED AREA
PANEL 750 OF 10755 NOT PRINTED)(SEE MAP INDEX FOR NUMBER
080266 0750 C
MAP REVISED:
SEPTEMBER 28, 1982
federal emergency management agency
?d1952
Stormwater Retention Facilities
Calculations for the necessary retention capacity were based on the 25-year, 24-hour rainfall
event for northeastern Colorado with a minimum of two feet of freeboard for a 45 acre feedlot
pen area including the alleys and processing areas. The retention facilities are maintained to
contain the following volumes:
1. Runoff volume from open lot surfaces,plus
2. Runoff volume from areas between open lot surfaces and the retention facility,plus
3. Process generated wastewater including(1)volume of wet manure that will enter the
retention facility and(2) other water such as drinking water that enters the facility.
The area of the cattle pens, processing and feeding areas and upgrading water control is
approximately 45 acres. The 25-year, 24-hour storm event for the Greeley area is 3.2 inches.
Using SCS runoff soil cover complex curve number 90 for unpaved lots per the "Confined
Animal Feeding Operations Control Regulation"4.8.0 (5 CCR 1002-19, section 4.8.3 (B)(3),
and the U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service National Engineering
Handbook, Section 4,Hydrology,total runoff is calculated below:
f3.2 inches - (0.2 x 1.11 SCS complex curve #90 S value))2 = 2.17 inches of runoff
3.2 inches + (0.8 x 1.11 SCS complex curve #90 S value)
2.17 inches x 45 acres x 1f`/12 in = 8.14 acre ft. runoff capacity retention required
The total current retention capacity is ±21 acre-ft.
9
9S1952
Retention Facility Dewatering
Lagoon water is applied for irrigation to approximately 80 acres of adjacent farmground
owned by Hunt Feedyard. A 500 gallon-per-minute PTO pump is used to dewater the retention
pond.
Solid Manure Management
Solid manure is managed through routine pen maintenance. Animal density per pen is
controlled to optimize the surface area and feed bunk space while maintaining solid, dry
footing for livestock. The maximum cattle density at 10,000 head is 175 ft2 per animal. The
average density at 8,000 head is 220 ft2. per animal. As typical with feedlot management, solid
manure in the pens is mounded to allow proper stormwater drainage, eliminate low spots and
ponding, providing dry,high ground for livestock. Solid manure from the existing operation is
routinely collected, sold or given to area farmers, and land applied. No stockpiles of solid
manure are located outside of the pen areas.
It takes several seasons to properly create adequate pen mounds. Feedlot pen surfaces are
compacted by the livestock forming a 4"to 6""hardpan" layer that easily sheds water and
provides for minimal infiltration. This common practice virtually eliminates deep percolation
of manure nutrients beneath the feedlot pen area. Once a proper"hard pan" is developed and
adequate pen mounds constructed, solid manure management for the proposed growth area
will be analyzed for nutrient content, loaded, and applied to farmground at agronomically
beneficial rates through arrangements with local farmers. Land application onto Hunt
Feedyard property is consistent with"Tier Two" land application at agronomic rates as defined
in the Colorado Confined Animal Feeding Operations Control regulation.
Irrigation and Nutrient Management
Nitrogen is the element that most often limits plant growth. Nitrogen is naturally abundant.
However, it is the nutrient most frequently limiting crop production because the plant
available forms of nitrogen in the soil are constantly undergoing transformation. Crops
remove more nitrogen than any other nutrient from the soil. The limitation is not related to the
total amount of nitrogen available but the form the crop can use. Most nitrogen in plants is in
the organic form and is incorporated into amino acids. By weight, nitrogen makes up from 1
to 4 percent of harvested plant material.
Essentially all of the nitrogen absorbed from the soil by plant roots is in the inorganic form of
either nitrate or ammonium. Generally young plants absorb more ammonium than nitrate; as
the plant ages the reverse is true. Under favorable conditions for plant growth, soil micro-
organisms generally convert ammonium to nitrate, so nitrates generally are more abundant
when growing conditions are most favorable.
10
q91852
Manure and lagoon effluent are most typically applied for fertilizers and soil amendments to
produce crops. Generally manure and lagoon effluent are applied to crops that are most
responsive to nitrogen inputs.
The primary objective of applying agricultural by-products to land is to recycle part of the
plant nutrients contained in the by-product material into harvestable plant forage or dry matter.
Another major objective in returning wastes to the land is enhancing the receiving soil's
organic matter content. As soils are cultivated,the organic matter in the soil decreases.
Throughout several years of continuous cultivation in which crop residue returns are low,
organic matter content in most soil decreases dramatically. This greatly decreases the soils
ability to hold essential plant nutrients.
Land application of Hunt Feedyard pond water for irrigation and to recycle valuable nutrients
is a practical, commonly accepted best management practice given that fertilization rates are
applicable and that deep soil leaching does not occur. Stormwater quantity from a 25-year, 24-
hour storm event from the Hunt Feedyard facility is approximately 8 acre-feet. The Natural
Resource Conservation Service,National Engineering Handbook indicates an average of 100
lbs. of Nitrogen per acre-inch of stormwater collected. This yields 10,560 pounds of nitrogen
from a regulated storm event. (8 acre feet x 12"per acre-foot x 110 lbs. Nper acre-inch) Land
application onto 80 acres owned by the feedyard equals approximately 132 lbs. of N per acre.
Typically, irrigated corn crops would require±200 lbs. of N per acre. The feedyard has
additional land application areas available if necessary. Land application is easily managed
and proactive measures taken to protect groundwater using textbook values for crop needs,
simple agronomic calculations and appropriate recordkeeping.
Inspections
The authorized person(s) will inspect the retention facilities, equipment and material handling
areas for evidence of or potential for problems resulting in manure or wastewater entering
waters of the State. Appropriate corrective actions will be taken immediately and properly
documented. Management controls will be inspected routinely for integrity and maintenance.
Reports of these evaluations will be inserted into this MMP.
11
99i952
PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE LOG
(complete on a quarterly basis)
Year:
Motors of Dewatering Equipment----- YES NO N/A COMMENTS
Electrical panel enclosed and free of trash
All components are free of rodent nests
Operational _ YES NO N/A COMMENTS
Valves- ---
Operational
Flow Line------- ----------- YES NO N/A COMMENTS
Drain before freezing temperatures
Operational
Dams, Dikes, Terraces & Diversions------ YES NO N/A COMMENTS
Free of visible seepage
Free of cracks in the embankment
Exterior slope free of erosion
Interior slope free of erosion
Sediment removed from settling basins Other Preventive Maintenance YES NO N/A COMMENTS
Date:
Signature:
Nutrient Management Pan
S81852
RETENTION FACILITY INSPECTION REPORT
(complete this form for each retention facility on a quarterly basis)
•
Year:
Retention facility:
YES NO N/A
Embankment free of visible seepage
Embankment showing no signs of cracking
Vegetation maintained on embankment as designed
Riprap or erosion controls in place (if required)
Exterior slope free of erosion
Interior slope free of erosion
Liner has not been disturbed
Dewatering equipment is functional
_Minimum freeboard of 2feet
At least 50% of the design capacity is available
Trees excluded within root zone distance
_-_Water level measuring device in place and functional
-__Rain gauge in place and functional
Runoff from manure storage area is contained
--_Runoff from land application site is contained
-__Other:
___Other:
-_Other:
Comments:
Date:
Signature:
Nutrient Management Pan
S81832
WASTEWATER APPLICATION LOG
(wastewater applied to feedyard property)
Field:
Year:
Acre inches = allons er minute X number fminutes er irri ation event
27,158
Inches per event = Acre inches
Acres
GALLONS NUMBER INCHES
PER NUMBER OF ACRE OF PER
DATE CROP MINUTE. MINUTES INCHES ACRES
AC� EVIIIIIIIIIIIIMISENT
IIIIIIIIIISSISISSIS
SINS IIIIIIIIS
---IIIIIIISSISSIMIIMIS
MIIIISISI Si
SS IIIIIIIIIS
- --
�SIIiIIIIISI=-SCSI
___-
IIIIIIII --_-
IIIIIISSIIIIIIIIIIIIMIS
_-_--_-
_ IIIIIIIIIIIIIMIS
��-_IIIIIIISIISISI_-
SI
-_SIIIISISSI
IIIIIIISIS--_-
ISSIIIIIIISISSIS
-IISISSIS
Nutrient Management Pan
9'!ii 552
MANURE APPLICATION LOG
(manure applied to feedyard property) •
Field:
Year:
DATE CROP TONS ACRES TON/ACRE
NIS
EMS
SEISI
MIS
MIS
MINIS
M --
MINIMS NMI
INNS
EMS
Nutrient Management Pan
Y?l 852
MANURE REMOVAL LOG
(manure taken off feedyard property)
Year:
DATE PERSON TAKING MANURE AMOUNT (tons)
•
Nutrient Management Pan
981852
MANURE MANAGEMENT RECORD SHEET
r f
�. .if 3 A ��>F `S C.P )Y.f, 53@ dC
�]� 1 pp f i
-..•R'���, b'@Y 5F ,S-r:' .A\ 3 M lf .fY.i4 ekft r fh
ieldSDescnption Yaeid,
Previous op: -,:
Soil tested by'
Manested
Wa er test Y .
Nos'.
Crop planted: '
Cro Seaso rf\\._
:
,i)
N Requirement
1. Expected yield (Past year a erage %):
bu/A
2. Total N needed to chieveexpected yield: .
lbs/A
(Expected yield x crop fac or/Efficiency factor)
N Credits
lbs N/A
3. Residual soil NO3 : ,, r:
lbs N/A
4. Irrigation water NO3 credit:
(ppm NO3-N x 2.7 = Ibs/acre ft. water)
5. Soil organic matter credit (credit 30 lbs N p1.1
er % OM): ____ r lbs N/A
6. Nitrogen available from previous legume crop:
lbs N/A
7. N available to crop (sum of lines 3, 4, 5, and 6):
1 lbs N/A
lbs/ton Ll S. Plant available N/ton manureaxs -
# �g _ ns/A to\9. Maximum manure application rate:
z iii tans/A Actual Vi dbu/A
'total Manure applied: ,�., �..z:
N Fertilizer applied ibs/A Total irrigation water applied AF
hates:
381952
11. Nutrient Management References
18 9 1852
Table 3.Nitrogen removed in the harvested part of selected Colorado crops
Crop Dry weight Typical %N in dry
lb/bu yield/A harvested material
Grain crops
48 80 bu- 1.82
Barley 2 tons straw 0.75
Corn 56 150 bu 1.61
3.5 tons stover 1.11
Oats 32 60 bu 1.95
1.5 tons straw 0.63
Rye 56 30 bu 2.08
1.5 tons straw 0.50
Sorghum 56 60 bu 1.67
3 tons stover 1.08
Wheat 60 40 bu 2.08
1.5 tons straw 0.67
Oil crops
Canola 50 35 bu 3.60
3 tons straw 4.48
60 35 bu 6.25
Soybeans 2 tons stover 2.25
Sunflower 25 1,1001b 3.57
2 tons stover 1.50
Forage crops 2 25
Alfalfa 4 tons
Big bluestem 3 tons 0.99
Birdsfoot trefoil 3 tons 2.49
Bromegrass 3 tons 1.87
4 tons 1.52
Alfalfa-grass 3 tons - 1.10
Little bluestem 4 tons 1.40
Orchardgrass 247
Red clover 3 tons
Reed canarygrass 4 tons 1.35
Ryegrass4 tons 1.67
Switchgrass 3 tons 1.15
fescue 4 tons 1.97
Ti th 3 tons 1.20
Timothy I ton 1.42
Wheatgrass
Continued on next page
i
981852
Table 3.Nitrogen removed in the harvested part of selected Colorado crops(continued)
Crop %dry matter Typical yield/A(tons) %N in dry
harvested material
Silage crops
Alfalfa haylage 50 10 wet/5 dry 2.79
Corn silage 35 20 wet/7 dry 1.10
Forage sorghum 30 20 wet/6 dry 1.44
Oat haylage 40 10 wet/4 dry 1.60
Sorghum-sudan 50 10 wet/5 dry 1.36
Sugar crops
Sugar beets 20 0.20
1hrf grass
Bluegrass 2 2.91
Bentgrass 2 3.10
Vegetable crops
Bell peppers 9 0.40
Beans,dry 1 3.13
•
abbage 20 0.33
Carrots 13 0.19
Celery 27 0.17
Cucumbers 10 0.20
Lettuce(heads) 14 0.23
Onions 18 0.30
Peas 2 3.68
Potatoes 14 0.33
Snap beans 3 0.88
Sweet corn 6 0.89
Sweet potatoes 7 0.30
Adapted from USDA Agricultural Waste Management Field Handbook;1992.
981852
Calculation 1.Nitrogen uptake Calculation 2.Maximum loading rates of manure
Example: 150 bu/A corn x 56 lb/bu=8,400 lb grain/A 1. Example manure analysis(beef feedlot manure,wet
8,400 lb/A x 1.61 %N= 135 lb N/A in grain weight basis; data from sample analysis)
(from Table 3) Dry matter 20.0%
Total N 1.0%
Assuming fertilizer N is 66%efficient: NH4-N 3,000.0 mg/kg
135 lb N x 100/66=205 lb N required/A NO3-N 10.0 mg/kg
Be sure to subtract N available from soil,irrigation water, P2O5 0.2%
and organic matter before determining final N requirement. K2O 0.5%
2. Available N in manure
Total N = 1.0%
If manure is applied at the maximum rate, additional NO3-N = 10 mg/kg/10,000= .001% N
fertilizer N should not be applied. Maximum rate is based .001%N x 20(Ib/ton)/%= .02 lb NO3-N/ton
upon a one-time application. If yearly application of manure NH4-N =3,000 mg/kg/10,000=0.3% N
is made, credit should be given to the N mineralized from 0.3%N x 20(Ib/ton)/% =6.0 lb N/ton manure
manure applied during the two previous years.
Manures with high moisture and low N content Organic N =Total N- (NO3-N+NH4-N)
require high tonnages to meet crop N requirements.This = 1.0% - (.001%+.3%)=0.70%
may result in application of excessive salts and P.Therefore, 0.70% N x 20(Ib/tan)/%
for land receiving frequent manure applications,it is = 14.0 lb Organic N/ton manure
recommended that approximately half of the crop N 14.0 lb N/ton x .35 N mineralized/yr(from Table 2)
requirement should be met from manure and the other half =4.9 lb Organic N/ton available in first year
from commercial N fertilizer.This will minimize the Available N=4.9 lb Organic N+
potential for salt problems or excessive P buildup. .02 lb NO3-N+6.0 lb NH4-N
= 10.92 lb N/ton manure
Evaluating Sufficiency of Land Base 3. Available P in manure
for Application P2O5 =0.2% x 20 (16/ton)/%
=4 lb P2O5/ton manure
Livestock producers should determine if they have
adequate land for application of manure produced. If the 4. Crop N requirement- Refer to Guide to Fertilizer
land base is determined to be inadequate,arrangements must Recommendations in Colorado (Bulletin XCM 37), or a
be made to apply manure to other crop lands.To calculate a current soil test report.
conservative estimate of the minimum land base required, Example: N required for 150 bu corn crop=205 lb N/A
you need to know the total manure production of your (from Calculation 1)Subtract N credits from other sources
facility and have a manure sample analyzed for N,P, and K such as soil NO3,legume crop, irrigation water NO3.
(Table 4).Then determine the best estimate of annual crop If 205 lb additional N required for expected yield,
nutrient removal and divide by total pounds of N per ton of Maximum manure loading rate=(205 lb N/A)/
manure. This will give you an estimate of the acceptable (10.9 lb available N/ton manure)= 18.8 tons manure/A
application rate in tons of manure per acre.Total manure 5. Phosphorous supplied by manure
production divided by acceptable tons per acre will give the 18.8 tons manure/A x 4 lb P2O5/ton manure=75 lb P2O5/A
minimum land base for annual manure application rates
(Calculation 3). Conversion factors:
ppm=mg/kg P x 2.3=P20,
ppm_10,000=% K x 1.2=Ki0
%nutrient x 20=lb nutrient/ton
i
i
I981852
if—
Total N can be used to calculate a conservative surface runoff. Delayed incorporation may be acceptable on
estimate of safe continuous manure application,as all N will level fields if sunlight decomposition of pathogens or NH3
eventually become available. However, the most precise volatilization is desired. If fresh manure is not incorporated
method of calculating long-term application rates requires a within 72 hours after application, more than 30% of the
calculation of decay rate over a period of three to four years. NH4-N may be lost to volatilization. The rate of volatiliza-
Computer software is available to help make this calcula- tion increases in warm, dry, windy conditions.
tion. Phosphorus loading should also be considered in
determining an acceptable long-term loading rate. In
general, P loading is not a primary concern in Colorado Calculation 3.Land base for long-term manure disposal
because of the large capacity for P fixation of most Colorado Example: Beef feedlot with 150 steers at 1,000 lb each
soils. It is recommended that manure be applied on a Total manure produced = 11.5 tons/yr/1,000 lb
rotational basis to fields going into a high N use crop such animal(from Table 4)
as irrigated corn or forage. In situations where a field is 11.5 ton x 150 animals = 1,725 tons/yr
loaded with very high amounts of residual NO3,alfalfa is a
good scavenger crop to remove deep NO3. 150 bu com/A
crop x 1.35 lb N/bu = 200 lb N/A
Manure Application Total N in manure = 10 lb/ton
Surface applied manure should be incorporated as 200 lb N/A = 20 tons manure/A
soon as possible to reduce odor and nutrient loss by volatil- 10 lb N/ton
ization or runoff.The risk of surface loss is reduced by
iection application under the soil surface, but still may 1,725 tons/yr = 86 A minimum
use problems on sloping or erosive fields. In general, 20 tons/A land base
.nanure application should be avoided on frozen or saturated
fields,unless very level (less than 1% slope),to avoid
Table 4. Typical manure and nutrient production by livestock calculated on an"as excreted"basis per 1,000 pounds
of animal
Animal Raw manure/1,000 lb animal N P2O5 K10
(Ib/day) (tons/yr) (gal/yr) (lb/day/1,000 lb animal)
Beef cow 60 11.5 2,880 0.34 0.27 0.31
Dairy cow 82 15.0 3,610 0.36 0.10 0.27
Broilers 80 14.5 3,500 1.10 0.78 0.55
Horse 50 9.0 2,160 0.28 0.12 0.23
Lamb 40 7.0 1,680 0.45 0.16 0.36
Swine (grower) 63 11.5 2,800 0.42 0.37 0.26
key 43 8.0 1,880 0.74 0.64 0.64 Source:USDA,Agricultural Waste Management Field Handbook, 1992.Actual amount and content may vary significantly with age,feed ration, `-..)
breed,and handling.
981852
Approximate nutrient credits' from various manure sources(calculated on a wet weight basis)
qo Available nutrients in lb/ton
Manure Moisture First year Second year Third year
N P2O5 N N
Beef
feedlot 48 10 8 3 2
with bedding 50 10 10 3 2
lagoon sludge nbn,000 gal) 89 36 15 10 5
Dairy
without bedding 82 6 2 1 1
with bedding 79 6 2 1 1
lagoon sludge nbn,000 gal) 92 16 10 3 2
Swine
without bedding 82 8 5 1 1
with bedding 82 6 4 1 1
lagoon sludge nbn,000 gal) 96 38 15 9 4
Sheep
without bedding 72 8 6 3 2
with bedding 72 7 5 2 2
Horses •
with bedding 54 6 2 2 1
Poultry
without litter 55 28 26 2 1
with litter 25 43 25 5 2
deep pit(compost) 24 52 ' 35 6 3
Turkeys
without litter 78 20 11 2 1
with litter 71 15 9 2 1
'Values given are approximations only.Analysis of manure and soil is the only accurate way to determine nutrient loading rates due to the wide range of
variability in nutrient content caused by source,moisture,age,and handling.
2N credit assumes all NH4 N and NO3-N is available during the first crop season.Organic N becomes available slowly over a longer period of time.First
year N credit assumes manure is incorporated and little volitization occurs.P credit assumes 60%of the P is available in the first year.P credit thereafter
should be determined by soil testing. ,-
Values derived from Colorado State University Cooperative Extension Bulletin 552A,Utilization of Animal Manure as Fertilizer, 1992.
981852
This plan was prepared in general accordance with the Agreement for Services between
Empire Dairy. and EnviroStock, Inc. (ES). This report was prepared based on and developed
in accordance with generally accepted environmental consulting practices. This report was
prepared for the exclusive use of Empire Dairy. for specific application to the subject project.
The opinions provided herein are made on the basis of ES's experience and qualifications and
represent ES's best judgment as an experienced and qualified professional familiar with the
agriculture industry. ES makes no warranty, expressed or implied.
19
981852
Management Plan
for
Nuisance Control
A Supplement to the
Manure & Process Wastewater Management Plan
for
Hunt Feedyard
14460 Weld County Road 40
Platteville, Colorado
Developed in accordance with
Generally Accepted Agricultural Best Management Practices
Prepared By
NVIRO
TOCK,I .
11990 Grant Street, Suite 402
Denver, Colorado 80233
June 10, 1998
981852
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION 3
LEGAL OWNER, CONTACTS AND AUTHORIZED PERSONS 3
LEGAL DESCRIPTION 3
AIR QUALITY 4
DUST 4
ODOR 5
PEST CONTROL 6
INSECTS AND RODENTS 6
REFERENCES 7
2 981.852
Introduction
This supplemental Management Plan for Nuisance Control has been developed and
implemented to identify methods Hunt Feedyard 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 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 Hunt Feedyard.
Legal Owner, Contacts and Authorized Persons
The legal owner of the property located at 14460 Weld County Road 40, Platteville, Colorado is
Hunt Feedyard, David Hunt.
Correspondence and Contacts should be made to:
Mr. David Hunt
14460 Weld County Road 40
Platteville, Colorado 80651
(970) 737-2437
The individual(s) at this facility who is (are) responsible for developing the implementation,
maintenance and revision of this supplemental plan are listed below:
David Hunt Owner
(Name) (Title)
(Name) (Title)
Legal Description
The confined animal feeding facility described in this MMP is located at:
Parts of the NW 1/4 of Section 33, Township 4 North, Range 66 West of the 6th P.M, Weld
County, Colorado.
3 981852
Air Quality
Air quality at and around confined animal feeding operations are affected primarily from the
relationship of soil/manure and available moisture. The two primary air quality concerns at
feedyards 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
Hunt Feedyard will use. The Hunt Feedyard 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 as guidance to the feedyard manager is attached in section
"References".
Dust
Feedlot dust is usually controlled by sprinkling surfaces with water at strategic times and in
proper amounts Comparisons of two feedyards, one unsprinkled and the other sprinkled daily are
shown to reduce dust emissions by one-half. The best management systems for dust control
involve moisture management. Management methods Hunt Feedyard shall use to control dust
are:
1. Pen density
Moisture will be managed by varying stocking rates and pen densities. The animals wet
manure and urine keep the surface moist and control dust emissions. Stocking rates between
175 ft2 and 220 ft2 will be managed based on moisture conditions.
2. Regular manure removal
Hunt Feedyard will conduct regular manure removal. Typically manure removal and pen
maintenance will be conducted with every"turn" of cattle;usually 2 time per year. Regular
manure removal reduces the fine particulates generated during the decomposition and drying
of manure.
3. Sprinkler systems
Sprinkler systems,timed appropriately is an effective method for keeping feedlot surfaces
moist. Hunt Feedyard is developing, implementing and will use automatic pen sprinkler
systems for areas of new construction to control dust from the feedyard pen surfaces and
internal roadways. For existing areas not equipped with automated pen sprinkler systems, a
tanker truck will be used on the roads and pens where accessible.
4. Water Trucks
Water tanker trucks will be used for moisture control on feed alleys and roadways to
minimize nuisance dust conditions. A water tanker truck is available to add surface moisture
during dusty periods.
4 981852
Odor
Odors result from the natural decomposition processes that start as soon as the manure us
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 noticed around animal feeding operations and
fields where the manures are spread for fertilizer.
Hunt Feedyard 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. The feedyard will conduct routine pen
cleaning and surface grading to reduce standing water and dry or remove wet manure.
2. Regular manure removal
Reduce the overall quantity of odor producing sources. The feedyard will conduct routine
pen cleaning after each"turn" of cattle; approximately 2 times per year.
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 feedyard to reduce standing water.
The stormwater ponds will be dewatered regularly in accordance with the Manure and
Wastewater Management Plan for Hunt Feedyard. No chemical additives or treatment of the
stormwater ponds for odor control is planned. Research to date indicates poor efficacy, if any,
of these products.
4. Land application timing
Typically air rises in the morning and sinks in the evening. Hunt Feedyard will consider
weather conditions and prevailing wind direction to minimize odors from land application.
Typically, land applications will be timed for early mornings.
If Weld County Health Department determines nuisance dust and odor conditions persist, Hunt
Feedyard will increase the frequency of the respective management practices previously outlined
such as pen cleaning, surface grading and pen maintenance. Additionally, if nuisance condition
continue to persist beyond increased maintenance interval controls, Hunt Feedyard will install
living windbreaks and/or fences to further minimize nuisance conditions from dust and odors.
5 981.852
Pest Control
Insects and Rodents
Insects and rodents inhabit areas that 1) have an adequate to good food supply and 2) foster
habitat prime for breeding and living. Keys Hunt Feedyard will use to manage insects and
rodents are to first eliminate possible habitat and then,reduce the available food supply.
Hunt Feedyard 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.
S. 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 Hunt Feedyard is best achieved by minimizing spillage of feedstuffs around the
operation. Good housekeeping practices and regular feedbunk cleaning, site grading and mill
maintenance are used to reduce feed sources. Rodent traps and chemical treatments are effective
for temporary control and will be used as necessary.
In the event Weld County Health Department determines nuisance conditions from pest such as
flies and rodents persist, Hunt Feedyard will initially increase the frequency of the housekeeping
and management practices outlined previously. Iffurther action is necessary, Hunt Feedyard
will increase use of chemical controls and treatments, such as fly sprays and baits and
Rodendicide for pest control.
6 981852
References
These references are provided as a resource to Weld County Health Department and Hunt
Feedyard for making nuisance control decisions for the facility. These references represent the
latest and most modem management and scientific information to date for control of nuisance
conditions for the livestock feeding industry.
7 981852
L I V E S T T'RO C K 4$ SERIES
`1
•
______ vIAN AG E \AENT
1 S' n
L., 2 ' •„� :Feedlot manure management, $'ix ono 'T4.22a
)
V ,. byi.G. Davis, T.L. Stanton, and T. Haren '
Quick Facts... Many concerns at feedlot operations are directly linked to pen
maintenance and manure management. Odors and dust problems, animal health
and performance,water runoff, and protection of groundwater and surface water
Under prolonged muddy are all interconnected in confined feeding operations. Studies have shown animal
conditions, animal performance performance to be reduced b as as and trs much 25 percent ent underosts prolonge lly d a ddyase,
y
can be reduced as much as 25 conditions. Respiratory problems occur,
percent.
if pens are constantly dusty.Improper pen cleaning can result in low areas that
collect water or a rough surface that impedes effective and efficient runoff control.
The nutrients excreted in cattle Aggressive pen cleaning can damage the underlying compacted "hard pan" and
manure in Colorado have a contribute to groundwater contamination.
Therefore, it is vital and necessary to take an integrated approach to
eve
ye value of $34.7 million feedlot pen maintenance and manure management. Encompassing so many
every year. variables will, however, result in compromises between opposing performance
Aim for pen moisture of 25 to 35 objectives. For example, low initial construction costs might equate to higher
maintenance costs. Another common compromise is between dust and odor
percent to control odor, fly, and control. If the feedlot surface is too dry, dust will become a problem. If it remains
dust problems. too wet, odor is a great concern. Compromises often are needed in an integrated
• approach if the overall feedlot goals are to be met.
Pens with light-weight feeder Typically, there are about 1,000,000 cattle on feed at any one time in
cattle, high winds, and low Colorado. Each 1,000-pound animal produces between 50 and 60 pounds of
precipitation are at greatest risk manure and urine per day with a moisture content of about 90 percent. By the
for dust problems. time the manure is removed from the feedlot, its moisture content has dropped to
about 30 percent. The nutrients excreted in the manure from these cattle have a
Pens designed with a minimum fertilizer value of $34.7 million every year(Table 1). How these nutrients are
of 3 percent slope are best for managed determines whether they are an economic benefit or an environmental
managing excess moisture and liability to the feedlot operator. Nitrates from manure can be leached to
collecting runoff. groundwater, and excessive nutrients in surface water can lead to overgrowth of
aquatic plants, which use up all the oxygen and suffocate fish. Nutrients can be lost
Seepage from runoff holding or conserved for future crop use at every stage: in the production units, in storage,
ponds is required by law to be and after the manure is applied back to the land. •
less than 1/4-inch per day. Table 1:Fertilizer value of manure from feeder cattle in Colorado.
Total Fertilizer Nutrients in
Fertilizer value(5/yr)
Manure arer b/ton Nutrients in Colorado Feeder Cattle
7^ (Ib/ton on an as- rmillinn Ih/year)
CO—
t 'O ry spread basis)
Wl \TT``�pv/
21 lb N 42 million Ibs N 56.5 million
3_million lbs P,Os 516.5 million
26 lb P,Os 72 million Ibs K,O 58.7 million
UIllV21Sit}® 36 lb K,O
Cooperative
Extension To calculate fertilizer value,the following prices were used:mono-ammonium phosphate$305 ton;urea
produced by 3290/tan;muriate of potash 5145/ton.These figures do not include the manure.proJ��52p and
O Colorado State University dairy cattle housed in feedlots.
Cooperative Extension. 5/97.
Percent of oat+«u Dust Control
100 1302 Dust can threaten not only the health of cattle
ao na (Franzen, 1984)and people,but can also compromise a
feedyard's ability to continue to operate.The major source rof
60 dust in the feedyard comes from the pens;
however,dust also
40 3G'' can come from roads, service areas, and feed processing.
gilizisilial :MOM11 thepeak time for dust occurs around sunset,when 20 • Generally, and cattle become more active.
the temperature starts to cool
0 ....:•.'r: 'r:...�.. .: : :4a.-- ' :: e�r2... :.:.o\':. The best way
to control dust is through proper pen
• ��' `0q• A \5 vis design and maintenance of surface moisture levels. Routine
SQ s�° °p�� !`. cleaning of pen surfaces also helps to minimize dust
4- problems. A recent survey(Figure 1)suggests that most
Figure nical r as he 1:Dustt control practices ea . on beef feedyards use a Keep the loose manure layer lesethantone itnch deep and pen dust
moiissture between strategies.
feedlots of 1,000 or more head. problems; too
25 and 35 percent.Too much moisture will increase odor and fly
little moisture will promote difficulties with dus of twater distribution system to use. For
Pen size and shape dictate the type
example,large,deep pens probably require fence-line sprinkling systems,while
Fenceline vs.Mobile Sprinklers shallow pens may favor mobile equipment.Selecting a sprinkling system assumes
The decision to install fenceline that the feedyard has adequate amounts of water beyond drinking water needs.
sprinklers versus acquiring mobile Wind breaks also may be used to control or capture fugitive dust.Fast-
equipment is a tradeoff between initial growing poplar trees planted along the perimeter of the feedyard will provide
cost, maintenance, depreciation, and shelter from the wind and may largely contain any fugitive dust.
labor. The permanent fenceline sprinkling There are numerous surface amendments and chemical agents being
system nally. However,
continued o $1,000 evaluated for dust control. Fly ash looks promising, and other compounds that have
per pen expense is inimal e system been considered include sawdust, apple pumice, ligno sulfate, and gyp
um.
labor is minimal once the
is operational. Drain the system in the fall
v/prevent freezing, although dust can still Stocking Rate
be a problem in the winter. Surface moisture can be manipulated through stocking rate changes.
Mobile- equipmentl is expensive.A ed
However, linear-bunk space, water trough space, and pen square footage may be us8,000-gallon tanker may exceed$60,000 limiting and may preclude increasing the stocking rate enough to achieve the
initial cost, plus it will require a driver desired pen moisture.The stocking rate can be altered by ails increasingr cthe number of
fence.
and operating expenses. For a medium- head per pen or by reducing pen square footage using p
to large-sized feedyard, there may not be Temporary fencing also gives flexibility during periods of above-average
enough time to haul water to raise the precipitation.
pen moisture. Manipulating the stocking rate of feedyard pens to control the amount of
feces and urine produced per pen is an economicalis strategy.
to 125the
a 1,000-pound
and weight per animal. For example, pandallocated25
square feet of pen space produces about 28 inches of moisture per year or 1
inches per day(Table 2). ,
Odor Control
Offensive odors from feedlots are Table 2:Manure moisture production in cattle feedlots
ot (S a ten,spat No.0 45) ft/hd)
intimately related to manure 0 125 150 175
management. If you are siting a new 75 10Moisture(in/day)
feedlot, select an isolated location Animal size(avg Ibs/hd) 03 .02
downwind from neighbors with an .05 .04 •03 .03
400 .08 .06 .05 .04
adequate and well-drained land base. 600
Design the feedlot to accommodate 800 .71 .08 .06 .05 .04
•04 .06
3
13 .10 .08
trccluent scraping, and keep manure 1000 .12 09 .08 .07
stockpiles dry and covered. When 1200
.16
manure is applied to land, the timing Stocking density has a significant influence on the animal and
and placement edto reduce o or can concerns. environmental performance of a feedlot. Stocking density partly determines the manag Apply m n w odoridi average moisture content of the pen surface. Cattle add moisture through feces
e manure when the wind is calm, and urine to the pens each day. Determining how much moisture is desirable princorporalyte
in the morning,aand
incorporate it as soon as possible. requires careful observation.This decision varies with management
SSst 952
Front-end Loaders vs. Box Scrapers experience with the specific site and climatic cot„rations. Cattle
t l note stocking rate.
rations also
will influence moisture balance and the corresponding appropriate
pp P t2 per
Two of the most common methods of Typical pen stocking densities in Colorado are between 150and 2 and 300 freduce density
manure o removal the e the wheeled front- animal.Increase stocking density during warmer,dry periods,
'id loedev . The box box scraper. Both
a effective. scraper or other during wet or cool seasons. For both odor and dust control, the choice of stocking
scraping devices,such as a paddle density should achieve a balance between a pen surface that is too dry versus one
scraper or road grader, are more that is too wet. If this management goal is not achieved, more elaborate and
effective at(1)providing a smooth pen expensive methods,such as sprinkling systems for dust control or frequent manure
surface that facilitates proper drainage removal for odor control,will be necessary• klin spraying, and precipitation
and(2)maintaining the integrity of the A combination of cattle density, sprinkling,
compacted protective seal or"hard pan" may need to be used, since cattle density alone may not be enough to control
under feedlot pens. dust, especially in areas with high evaporation rates. Pens with light-weight feeder
A wheeled front-end loader requires an cattle, high winds(high evaporation), and low precipitation are at greatest risk for
experienced operator. For each bucket dust problems.
of manure accumulated with a wheel There are numerous options to consider when attacking dust problems.
loader, the operator must shift gears four Each has advantages and disadvantages. It is important
mpo anetoe have
vera plan
rinp place
cetion
times while manipulating the bucket. and start prior to the time dust is a serious p bi a timely application
This is most likely to result in an is minimized by removing loose manure and dust from pens
irregular pen surface at best or damage
to the protective"hard pan."A Manure Removal
combination of a wheeled front-end The removal of accumulated manure reduces odors, controls fly larvae, and
scraper
for o major manure removal and a
would rbe anneffectiivet compromise. firm, dry feedlot ng and grding minimizes the osurf surface is an itential for mportant groundwater
actor inagood animal health and a healthy
environment.
Frequency of manure removal also varies
cleaning once per year is of lot
and pen stocking rate. However, a thorough pen once per
to ear receiving
an
absolute minimum. Most feedyards clean and prepare a pen replaces cattle or
new or "fresh" cattle. A feedyard operated year round typically P
"turns a pen" 2.5 times per year and conducts pen maintenance as frequently,
weather permitting. Dairies also are concerned with animal health, comfort, and
cleanliness. Some dairies harrow their pens daily with good results in both
environmental and animal health benefits. While this is labor intensive for
• feedlots, it does indicate that pen cleaning as frequently as feasible for your
specific operation is good management.
Stockpile Location and Management
Having adequate storage area to handle the quantity of manure
production has many benefits. Primarily, adequate storage area provides the
producer with flexibility in land application so that land application timing can be
Stockpile Management determined by labor availability, weather and field conditions, and crop nutrient
Locate stockpile areas away from needs rather than by lack of storage space. Use the information in Table 3 to
watercourses and above the 100-year calculate how much manure you expect your livestock to produce, and be sure
flood plain. that your storage capacity is adequate.
Use grassed filter strips below stockpiles
Table 3.Manure production per 1,000-pound animal. Dry Matter Basis
to reduce runoff volume by settling As Excreted
solids and removing nutrients. 15.0 tons/yr(88%water11.5 tons/yr(88%water) 1.38 tons/yr
Beet Cattle 1.80 tons/yr
) 1.82 tons/yr
Soil sample downhill from stockpiles to Dairy Cattle 7.3 tons/yr(75%water)
monitor nitrate buildup. S„eeN
Locate manure stockpiles at least 750 The more control a feedlot manager has over the facility's manure
feet downstream from any well. handling, the more likely nutrients will be conserved and beneficially used.
Protect wellheads with grassed buffer Composting manure requires additional land and equipment, but may be
areas.
advantageous where markets are available (see Spencer and Tepfer, 1993).
981852
•
Insect Control Land-base Calculation
Feedlot pen maintenance and manure Feedlot operators should have an adequate land base to spread their
management also play an important role ' manure. If land base is inadequate, arrange to apply manure to other cropland or
in insect control. Insect pests stress prepare to market it for composting or garden use. Sample the manure and
cattle and can greatly reduce provide the laboratory analysis to manure users so that they can apply the manure
performance. Insects reproduce and at agronomic rates.
mature in wet areas such as muddy First, a feedlot operator must know how much manure nitrogen (N) is
pens, wet manure piles, and wet spots produced. Multiply the number of head by the tons produced (Table 3) to
around waterers and feedbunks. One determine how much manure is produced. Multiply the tonnage by the lb N/ton in
area commonly overlooked in pen that manure(Table 1)to calculate how many pounds N are available for land
maintenance is manure build-up directly application. Next, calculate how much crop removal there will be per acre. Multiply
under fence rows and adjacent to
the expected yield by the average N content of the harvested crop to determine N
structures like waterers and feed bunks.
removal by the crop. Finally, divide the pounds N produced in the manure by the
These areas are not readily accessible
with heavy equipment and require small pounds N used by the crop per acre. The result is the acreage required as a land
equipment and/or manual labor. base for your feedlot.
However, they are significant breeding
areas for insects. Keeping pens clean Runoff Management and Collection •
and dry will reduce insect populations, • Pens designed for good drainage(minimum of 3 percent slope from apron
enhance performance,and minimize a to back of pen with adequate mounds)help manage excess moisture. The primary
feedlot's reliance on chemicals and goals of runoff management are to divert water from flowing across the feedlot or
other costly insect-control methods. storage area and prevent direct runoff from the feedlot or the stock-piled manure
into.waterways. Runoff can be diverted by digging ditches and building berms. One
of the primary principles of runoff management is to keep clean water clean. In
other words, direct clean water away from manure, whether manure is already
Resources
stockpiled or still in the feedlot. Decreasing the volume of water used reduces the
Follett, R.H.,and R.L. Croissant. 1990. potential for runoff, so minimizing water waste from inefficient waterers and
Use of manure in crop production. Fact sprinklers not only saves money, but reduces runoff hazard.
sheet no. 0.549. Colorado State Collect and store all wastewater and storm water runoff from pens. It can
University Cooperative Extension. be treated and discharged, or it can be applied to cropland as a source of water
Franzen, D. 1984.Airborne Particle and nutrients. If it is applied to cropland, the irrigation application rate must be less
Concentration Associated with than the infiltration rate, so that runoff does not occur from the cropland. Fence
Pneumonia Incidence in Feedlot Cattle. animals out of watercourses to eliminate direct deposition of manure into water.
iivi. Colorado State University;Fort Runoff solids can be removed by directing the runoff through filter strips or grassed
Collins, CO. waterways or by using a sediment basin to settle the solids out. Removing solids
NAHMS. 7995. Environmental from the runoff will reduce odors and prevent the pond from filling up with solids.
Monitoring by Feedlots. Centers for •
Epidemiology and Animal Health. Management of Runoff Holding Ponds
USDA:APHIS: VS. N!67. 7194. Seal storage ponds and lagoons to prevent seepage. Seepage is required
by law to be less than 1/4 inch per day if the pond contains stormwater runoff
Spencer, W,and D. Tepfer. 1993. .Economics of composting feedlot only, but the seepage requirement is lo« than 1/32 inch per day if the pond stores
manure. Fact sheet no.3.762. Colorado processing wastewater(for example, manure flushed from a milking parlor) in
State University Cooperative Extension. addition to stormwater runoff. Seepage can be reduced by several methods, and
manure itself has an ability to seal soil surfaces over time. Compact soil to a
Sweeten,I.M. Feedlot dust control.
minimum 12-inch thickness. Take soil type into consideration during site selection.
Cattleman's Library: Stocker-Feeder
Locate ponds in the most impervious soil available. Soils must be loams or clays to
Section no. 7045. Texas Agricultural
compact well. Low permeability materials may be required in sandier soils.
Extension Service.
Installing synthetic plastic impermeable liners or adding clay(bentonite)are a few o
the ways to reduce seepage from runoff holding ponds. Prohibit access of livestock
to pond banks in order to maintain the seal. Wastewater holding ponds must be
sited a safe distance from wells, a minimum of 150 feet downstream.
'1.G. Davis, Colorado State University
Cooperative Extension soil specialist and
associate professor,soil and crop sciences;
T.L.Stanton,Cooperative Extension feedlot Issued in furtherance of Cooperative Extension work,Acts of May 8 and June 30, 1914,in cooperation
specialist and professor,animal sciences;and with the U.S.Department of Agriculture,Milan A.Rewerts,director of Cooperative Extension,Colorad
T. Haren, Director of Natural Resources, State University,Fort Collins,Colorado.Cooperative Extension programs are available to all without
Colorado Cattle Feeders Association. discrimination.
981.952
•
6-5011
Texas Agricultural Extension Service
,
Odor and Dust From
Livestock Feedlots
John M.Sweeten'
This report discusses the relationship of livestock animal density,but essentially integrates these
production to air pollution and assesses the technol- factors (along with climate and soils)into a single
ogy and management practices which can reduce criterion-the absence of vegetation-which occurs
pollution from livestock and poultry operations. where manure production and/or animal traffic
are high.
Van Dyne and Gilbertson(1978)estimated the total
Intensive Animal collectable (economically recoverable)manure
from all livestock and poultry production to be 52
Production Systems million tons per year(dry matter basis).The per-
centages from various species were:dairy cattle
39 percent;feeder cattle 31 percent;hogs 11 per-
. cent;laying hens 6 percent;broilers 5 percent;
The major types of livestock and poultry produc- sheep 3 percent; turkeys 2 percent;and other 3
Lion facilities, their design and the manure manage- percent.
ment systems associated with them are described These manure production estimates are based on
in several reports (MWPS,1987;U.S. EPA, 1973; an engineering standard adopted by the American
White and Forster, 1978;Foster and Mayrose, Society of Agricultural Engineers (ASAE, 1976)
1987).Roofed or total confinement facilities are which defines constituent production per unit
common for poultry and swine and to a lesser weight of live animal.These standard values were
extent, dairy and beef production (National Re- recently updated to reflect current research data
search Council, 1979).However, open feedlots (ASAE, 1988).In most cases, average values of dry
(non-roofed) are most commonly used for beef manure and nutrients (pounds per day per 1,000
cattle production.They are also widely used for pounds liveweight)were revised upward.
dairy,swine and sheep production in the south-
western United States. Cattle feedlots
Intensive livestock production systems are re-
garded as "animal feeding operations."The U.S. The United States has 9.4 million beef cattle in feed-
EPA defines such operations (for purposes of lots,averaging 850 pounds per head liveweight.
water pollution control) as areas where animals are Each animal that is fed in a normal 130-to 150-day
"stabled or confined and fed or maintained for a fattening period produces about 1 dry ton of col-
total of 45 days or more in any 12-month period, lectable manure solids.This equals about 2 dry
and...cops,vegetation, forage growth or post- tons of collected manure per year per head of feed-
harvest residues are not sustained in the normal lot capacity.The animal spacing per head varies ac-
growing season over any portion of the lot or facil- cording to rainfall and temperature,slope and
ity" (U.S.EPA, 1976).The definition is not specific other factors.For example, there are 100 to 125
as to animal species, type of confinement facility or square feet per head in the desert southwest where
there is less than 10 inches of annual rainfall;175 to
200 square feet per head in the southern and cen-
" Extension Agricultural Engineer,The Texas MeetUniversity
System tral Great Plains where there is 15 to to 25 inches 4 of
, ra...,,,"enr nirc.?,,r..ThP_Texas ASM University SYetem 515145grexas
•
tsebe eath rain per year,and 300 to 400 square feet per head manure strae tanks
b fne manure slotted floors oo and
in the eastern and northern Great Plains wherelagoons
there is 25 to 35 inches per year.Most cattle feed- treatment are important odor sources.
_
lots are concentrated in the southern and central When open feedlot surfaces become wet,particu-
Great Plains. larly in warm weather,anaerobic decomposition
' Most of the manure deposited on the feedlot sur- occurs over a large surface area for the evolution of
face is compacted by cattle into a manure pack of odorous gases(National Research Council, 1979).
35 to 50 percent moisture content(wet basis). At Feedlot odor problems are most frequent in warm,
higher moisture contents odors can develop, espe- humid areas and in feedlots constructed where
daily in warm weather.Such odors may be a nui- there is inadequate drainage or poor drying condi-
sance to employees and downwind neighbors.
Cattle hooves may pulverize surface manure dur- Animal manure odor is comprised of gaseous com-
ing prolonged dry weather to only 10 to 25 percent pounds that are the intermediate and final prod-
moisture.When surfaces are excessively dry,as is ucts of biodegradation,and includes these groups:
often the case in arid areas of Arizona,California ammonia and amines;sulfides;volatile fatty adds;
and Texas, there is a potential for dust problems alcohols;aldehydes;mercaptans;esters;and car-
(National Research Council,1979). bonyls(Table 1) (Ashbacher,1972;Miner,1975;
Dust from cattle feedlot surfaces,alleys and roads Barth et al,1984;ASAE,1987;National Research
can annoy neighbors,irritate feedlot employees, Council,1979).
possibly impair cattle performance and aeate a
traffic hazard on adjacent highways (Sweeten, Table 1. Compounds Resulting From the
1982).The amount of dust produced is affected by Anaerobic Decomposition of
feedlot area, cattle density in pens,wind speed and Livestock and Poultry Manure
precipitation and evaporation patterns (Peters and Alcohols Amines
Blackwood,1977). Methylamine
Ethylamine
Odors from livestock feeding Acids Trimethylamine
butyric
Diethylamine
operations pro ti ic
on
ic
Isobutvric Esters •
Although odors from livestock feeding facilities Isovaleric
are sometimes an annoyance,odorous gases are Fixed Gases
not toxic at concentrations found downwind.How-
Carbonyls Carbor.Dioxide(odorless)
ever,nuisance lawsuits can threaten the survival of Methane(odorless)
an operation(George et al.,1985), and livestock Ammonia
Sulphur compounds
producers need to control the evolution of odorous Hydrogen Sulfide
compounds (Miner, 1975;National Research Coun- Dimeth 1 Sulfide Nitrogen Heterocycles
dl, 1979). Diethyl Sulfide lndole
Methylmercaptan
Odorous gases arise from feed materials (food-pro- Disulfides Skatole
cessing wastes and fermented feeds),fresh manure
and stored or decomposing manure (National Re-
search Council,1979).The odor from fresh manure Concentrations of these compounds are usually'
is generally less objectionable than that from an- low and downwind from feedlots.However, some
aerobically decomposing manure.Fresh manure may exceed olfactory threshold values and aeate a
has large quantities of ammonia,but little of the nuisance.
other decomposition products that have the most There is almost universal acceptance of sensory
objectionable characteristics.Odorous compounds approaches,using trained human panelists,for
which develop in manure treatment a s are a the measurement of odor.However, the instru-
function of the material as excreted, the biologic re- ments and techniques used in sensory odor meas-
actions occurring in the material and the configura• urement may vary.Odor measurement techno-
don of the storage or treatment unit. logy applicable to livestock operations includes
Roofed confinement facilities usually have signifi- determining:
cant odor potential because of the high animal den- a Concentrations of specific compounds
sity involved,the large amount of manure in (ammonia,hydrogen sulfide,volatile organic
storage and the limited rate of air exchange (Na- acids, etc);
tional Research Council, 1979).Manure-covered 81852
surfaces(e.g.,building floors and animals), 9
a Dilutions to threshold with a dynamic forced- Elam et al.(1971)collected feedlot dust samples in-
choice olfactometer or scentometer,and
side 65 pens at 10 California feedlots,using a Sta-
plex high-volume air sampler and op erating in
r sampling
■ Equivalent concentration of butanol vapor 1-to 3-hour increments during
rn e24-hours,which
periods.Peak particulate
(using a butanol of ntnsity. that matches m and averaged n
the ambient odor intensity. were collected between 7:00 and 10:00 p.m.,ranged
from 1,946 to 35,536 µg per
Severalodor a and s bas d on the have property- per m3.Lowest concentrations occurred in early
,200
morning and were only 130 to 250 mg per line standards based on these and other mess- µg
urement methods(Sweeten,1988). some feedlots.
The odor caused by anaerobic decomposition of Algeo et al.(1972)measured total�uended and
er-
swine manure whowas found that by Meyer and Con- ticulates in 24-hour samplings upwind 2).Net
verse(nia 1), that hydrogen sulfide and downwind in 25 California feedlots gable
percent
ammoniaand concentrations8penctwere, atre degrees 218
particulate concentrations(downwind minus up-
than
percent gr percent higher at 73 Paren- wind)for a 24-hour period ranged from 54 to 1,268
µg per m3.The average value for all 25 feedlots beek,1985),t the
F.In European research e rm in was 6 3 3 6 µg per m3.y Upwind feedlots
houses tthe odor emission s storedra manure a swine
averaged ti percent of the downwind concentra-
rations
20fold with each 18 degree increased bons Both upwind and downwind particulate a
lev-
20 fold for c ui8 ventilation
rise in manure tempera els usually ded the ow EPA ambient
mo and,four t times gr ea er i rate iml r thanes as au quality eexceedds for TSP.
wore r.E four ns 73 in tnm
• winter.Emissions were 73 percent greater with Table 2. Summary
of 24-Hour Particulate
fully slotted floors than with partially slotted floors. (TSP) Concentrations at 25 California
w In the same study,odor intensity observations
Cattle Feedlots is (Alger t 5 1972r•
were made with scentometers both upwind and Upwind Net,Downwind
downwind of feedlots.Upwind odor intensities Downwind wind
were usually in the range of 0 to 2 dilutions to wi (n=24) minus Downwind
threshold,while downwind concentrations aver-
(s up)
aged 13 to 49 dilutions to threshold. 636 206 654
Mean _t 16 .;376
Std.Devia- =437
Dust emissions from livestock son
feeding operations Range: lzs
46
In 1971,the U.S.EPA (1987) defined primary and Minimum 100
Maximum 1,599 460
secondary ambient air-quality standards for total Blackwood(1977)cited major limita-
standa ds particulate matter e Sma The primary
Peters onr in and Blackwood
ckwoo
standgrds were set exceeded
260 µg p year,with t to e more an once per
■ All sampling was performed in the dry
year,with an annual geometric mean of 75 µg p 3
sea-
m3.Secondary standards
were
set at not to 150 0 usex peer ni a Details such as feedlot size,cattle number,mfor a than sampling ye period,
more than once per year. dis-
tances from samplers to feedpens and climate
Effective July 31,1987,the U.S.EPA replaced TSP conditions were not reported.
as the indicator(PM-10) for the ambient standards Nevertheless, the California data from
in favor of a new indicator that includes only those Algeo et al.e s,using Peters and Blackwood (1977)
EPA, developed what they considered ctol be (19-case
lessparticulatesan with to aerodynamic 10 particle . projections for cattle y feedlots. According to their 1987)less than or equal st o a nominal replacedm (U.S.
primary The new standard:with PM-1 the 24-hour p feedyards with more than 500 head,
at 140 square feet per head,would emit more
1usTSP ;standard)replaced a annual geometric
of projections,
me µg per an r thmeti the M-1 standard than 100 tons of particulates per year,not includ-
meanwith an arithmetic mean PM-10 standard of ing the feedmill.
50 µg per m3;and 3)replaced the secondary TSP
standard with 24-hour and annual PM-10 stand-
Based on Peters and Blackwood'( (1977) treatment
ards that are identical to the primary standards. of the California data,the U.S.EPA published emis-
These 1 to livestock sion factors(AP-42) for cattle feedlots as being
g operatic s.f course,apply crude estimates at best(U.S.EPA,1986).
feeding operations.
981.852
3
These emission factors were based on the assump- 100 I I I I I I I I I I I
Lion that feedlots would generate 280 pounds of Nd emro —
particulates per day per 1,000 head,and 27 tons of — NMUD,.H Ni a.'T
_ particulates per 1,000 head fed. Other emissions - cso- 2" —
factors were similarly written for ammonia,amines so —
and total sulfur compounds. - —
The U.S.EPA emission factors ignored the major r —
climatic differences among cattle feeding regions e — L —
of California,the Great Plains and the Midwest. 6 Tea
Both total rainfall and seasonality of rainfall are e I —
different.'Also,California has less than 4 percent
of the United States cattle on feed,as compared to ;o — IT _ -
Texas and Nebraska which combined have 40 .E —
percent. —.
o I
To obtain a broader data base, dust emissions were T —
measured at three cattle feedlots in Texas,ranging 20 -
in size from 17,000 to 45,000 head.Measurements o•
f —
were made on 15 occasions in 1987 to determine — I I I III .
both the total suspended particulates(ISP) and the 1 1 I 1 I 1 I
particulates below 10µm 0 aerodynamic particle size ra r o 3 co co - ' ^ N N ei
S ,e N N
(PM-10)(Sweeten et al.,1988).Net feedlot dust con- _ ea rr e
centrations (downwind minus upwind)ranged Aerodynamic diameter(pm)
from 16 to 1,700 µg per m3 and averaged 412±271
µg per m3 (which is 37 percent less than the earlier Fpura 1. cwrulaw.volune!ration of teedbl dust particles of given size
on Ahem:of High Vdvne and FI.110 samplers:downwind samplers at
California data).Dust concentrations were genes- feedlots A,C and B(Expeernents 11.14 and 16).
ally highest in early evening and lowest in early (Sweeten and Ramat,1989.)
morning,and upwind concentrations averaged 22
percent of downwind concentrations.
Using iwo types of PM-10 sampler(Wedding and captured on high averaged
Anderson-321A), the PM-10 dust concentrations ca 2µm downwind n high and volume samplers upwind of feedlots
were 19 ntto 40 s.percent,Tre rea goo ly,of mean be- (Sweeten and Parnell,1989).Thirty-three percent
concentrations.There was n good oncorrelationr2= of the downwind TSP were smaller than 10µm,
0. 34- andP 0.858 and TSP Wedding and concentrations with = while 40 percent of upwind TSP was smaller than
0.634 for and Anderson's
321-A samplers,respectively(Sweeten et al.,1988). 10µm.
Mean particle sizes of feedlot dust were 8.5 to 12.2
mm on a population basis,while respirable dust
(below 2µm)represented only 2.0 to 4.4 percent of Air Pollution Control
total dust on a particle volume basis (Hebner and Methods
Pamell, 1988).
When the Wedding sampler was used for PM-10
measurements,feedlots were below the new EPA
standard,and peak concentrations did not coincide Controlling dust
with the expected early evening peaks caused by
cattle activity.Hence,comparatively little of the Feedlot dust is usually controlled by sprinkling stir-
actual feedlot manure dust may have been faces with water at strategic times and in proper
captured in Wedding's instruments. amounts (Andre,1985; Gray,1984;Simpson,1970;
Analysis with a Coulter Counter showed aerody- Sweeten,1982).Carroll et al. (1974)compared two
namic particle size distribution curves for TSP and feedlots,one unsprinkled and the other sprinkled
PM-10 samplers (Figure 1) (Sweeten and Parnell, each day on a schedule of 2 hours on,21/2 hours
1989).The PM-10 sampler over-sampled particles off and 1 1/2 hours on.He reported that sprinkling
larger than 10µm,since 34 percent of the particles reduced dust emissions by at least half.
trapped on the PM-10 sampler filters were larger Elam et al. (1971)reported that feedlot manure
than 10µm and 66 percent were smaller than 10µm. moisture content of 20 to 30 percent was needed
Mass median diameters (MMD)of dust particles for dust control. Particulate concentrations
981852
•
(24-hour averages)increased from 3,150 to 23,300 Frequent manure collection by flushing,cable
gµa per m3 when daily water sprinkling was teamscraping or pit drainage recharge helps absorb
team" scraping
gases and climate anaerobic storage condi-
ntedfor 7 days. tions in confinement buildings(Korsmeyer et al.,
Sweeten et al.(1988)found that feedlot dust con- 1981;Meyer and Converse, 1981;Raabe et al., 1984).
centrations decreased with increasing moisture Biochemicals for odor control include masking
thoughtent in the top 1 inch(dit tions to surface, dal) agents,counteractants,digestive deodorants,
chemical deodorants,adsorbents and feed addi-
creased.Regression intensity equations t threshold)in- g
needs to indicated that the fives(Ritter,1980).Digestive deodorants are the
(wet basis)re moisture nth to surface percent most widely used.They must be added frequently
41 percent in the loose h manure and 35 to to allow selected bacteria to become predominant.hydrogen
Potassium permanganate (100-500 ppm),
41 at a 1-inch depth in order to control m and chlorine are oxidizing
feedlot dust to allowable TSP limits of 150 and peroxide (100-12.5 pp m)260 µg per m3. chemicals capable of controlling hydrogen sulfide
emissions.
Controlling odor Warburton et at (1981) significantly reduced odors
Odor control methods for livestock facilities in- from anaerobic swine manure slurry w two bio-
ith four s-aeration,digestion or biochemical treatment treatment;(2)capture and chemicalon,anaerobic tformulations.L Lindvall et al.orination (9 4) re-
treatment of odorous gases using covered storage duced odors from liquid swine manure with
pits or lagoons,soil incorporation,soil absorption
determined on ed that zee;a d(Miner ind t oh(1976)
beds or filter fields,or packed beds;and(3)
dispersion,accomplished by selecting a site that is erionite)were somewhat effective in reducing
far enough away from neighbors and that takes ad- odors from a dirt-surfaced cattle feedlot.
vantage of topography,wind direction frequency Odor capture and treatment Installing a cover on
and atmospheric stability data(Sweeten,1988). an outside manure storage pit,tank or lagoon is an
Manure Treatment.Controlled anaerobic diges- effective means of odor control because it reduces
tins of liquid swine manure at 90 degrees F re- the ventilation rate and hence the rate of odor emis-
cduced onipa e to n rate (1y ar90 enbeek,1985). ible membrane covers over large sercent as sion.However,rigid covers are urfaces are and flex-
Anae compared pit-storedto slurry( subject to photodegradation and wind damage.
Anaerobic digestion also reduced the time for odor
dissipation from 72 hours to 24 hours. Wet scrubbers that involve spraying exhaust air
uate capacity cals are widely sed
(i.e.,lowlloading rate)to produce relatively little for with water
and food processing l plant odors,and oor. eveloped based some researchers have on the volaat le solids loading rae,which s adapted
criteria have bn propor- confinement buildings.Van Gee en and Van Der
tional to the volume per pound of liveweight Hoek(1977)obtained an 88 percent reduction in
(Barth,1985;Humenik and Overcash,1976; odor o a concentration swnt house,with h wet scrubbing captured of
exhaust
Sweeten et al.,1979; ASAE,1990). formed a se,which made c ptured to recircu-
st
lormed scrubbing sludge Sc e it (1977)cited circa
Mechanical aeration of liquid manure c oxidation tol lams with the dogging water.o spray nozzles when
prob-
metho ( lagoons is a l 1975;,effe7 Jones odor control
Aerating
(Humenik etthird swine 1971).o scrubbing with recycled water,and biological Aeating v the top third half olagoon ment was required.Licht and Miner(1978)built a
treat-
contents proved sup ul and reduced power re- horizontal cross-flow,packed-bed wet scrubber for
quumenik et compared).Converse al t( 971) a swine confinement building and achieved 50 and
(Humd x of liq idswin et n manure without 90 percent removal of particulates larger than 1
limited aeration of liquid swine a a and 5 microns,respectively; and ammonia reduc-
measurable dissolved compared to n n-ae at and ra tion of 8 to 38 percent;and an 82 percent reduction
duced odor as to non-created storage. of odor intensity.
Phillips et al. (1979)rapidly reduced hydrogen sul- packed-bed dry scrubber filled with a zeolite
fide and methanol emissions from swine manure A odor
by aeration,but less volatile and less offensive corn- (clinoptilolite) reduced ammonia emissions from a
pounds such as phenols persisted.Aeration just poultry house by only percent in
initially,but efficiency
f et
prior to land spreading could reduce odors from dropped 80 to 15 in 18 days (K
• field application.
).
1.852
5
The soil is an excellent odor scrubbing medium be- research base is not yet well enough developed to
cause it chemically absorbs,oxidizes and aerobi- support heavy reliance on dispersion models for
cally biodegrades organic gases(Bohn,1972). livestock odors.
Lindvall et al. (1974)determined that soil injection
reduced odor emissions(measured as dilutions to
threshold)from liquid swine manure by 90 to 99 References
percent as compared to surface spreading.Odor
from a soil-injected manure site was about the
same as from a nonmanured soil surface.Disk har-
rowing or plowing of surface spread manure re- ASAE.1976.Manure Production and Character stie.
doted odor by 67 to 95 percent. ASAE Data 0384,American Society of Agricultural
Soil filters with perforated pipe in a shallow soil Engineers,St.Joseph,MI,1 p.
bed have proved effective for scrubbing odors ASAE.1988.Manure Production and Characteristia.
from exhaust air.Kowalewsky(1981)removed 52 ASAE Data D384.1,American Society of Agricul-
to 78 percent of the ammonia and 46 percent of the tural Engineers,St.Joseph,ML 4 p.
organic constituents from ventilation air from a Alego,J.W.,C.J.Elam,A.Martinez and T.Westing.1972.
swine confinement building using a soil filter sys- Feedlot Air,Water and Soil Analysis:Bulletin D,
tern.Prokop and Bohn (1985)reported 99.9 percent How to Control Feedlot Pollution.California Cattle
odor reduction when a soil filter was used to treat Feeders Association,Bakerssille,CA,June.75 p.
high intensity odors in exhaust from rendering American Sodety of Agricultural Engineers.1987.Con-
plant cookers.Soil filters require a moderately fine- trol of Manure Odors.ASAE EP-379,Agricultural
textured soil,sufficient moisture and a pH of 7 to Engineers Yearbook of Standards,American Society
8.5.The land area required is 2,500 to 4,600 square of Agricultural Engineers,St.Joseph,ML pp.405-06.
feet per 1,000 cfm,depending upon the air flow Andre,PD.1985.Sprinklers solved this feedlot dust
rate(Prokop and Bohn,1985).Sweeten et al.(1988) problem.Beef(Feb):70-72,74,79.81.
measured a 95 to 99 percent reduction in ammonia
emissions and a 30 to 82 percent reduction in odor Asehba h er, 1972.P.W.als. irP Air olluton2-153,Research
eahNeeds 65th
intensity(matching butanol concentrations)using wiAnnual Meeting of Air Pollution Control Presented at 65t-
a 1/4-acre sand filter field to scrub air from a poul- Annual PA
try manure composting operation.
dispersion.The farther odorous gases travel Barth, es85.A Rational e Design Standard for Anaero-
Odor bic Livestock Waste Lagoons,In:Agricultural
downwind from their source the more they are di- Waste:Utilization and Management,Proceedings of
luted, depending on atmospheric turbulence and the 5th International Symposium on Agricultural
odorant reactions.An odor panel observed a 90 Wastes,American Sodety
of Agricultural Engineers,
percent reduction in odor intensity,as determined St.Joseph,MI,pp.
by a matching butanol olfactometer(Sorel et al., Barth,C.L,L.F.Elliot and S.W.Melvin.1984.Using
1983),over a distance of half a mile downwind Odor Control Technology to Support Animal Agri-
from a cattle feedlot in Texas (Sweeten et aL,1983). culture.Trans.ASAE,27:859-864.
Atmospheric dispersion models are sometimes Bohn,H.1972 Soil Absorption of Air Pollutants.J.Emil-
used to predict the travel of odor emissions (janni, ron.Quality,1:372-377.
1982)and the impact on communities.However, Carroll,J.J,Dunbar,J.R.,Givens,R.L.,et al.1984.Sprin-
the use of dispersion models is limited to short dis- kling for dust suppression in a cattle feedlot.Calif or-
tances and to nonreactive odorous gases (National nia Agriculture(March):12-13.
Research Council,1979).One or more versions of Converse,J.C.,D.L.Day,J.T.Pfeffer and B.A.Jones.1971.
the Gaussian diffusion model are used in most Aeration with ORP Control to Suppress Odors Emit-
regulatory applications.The prediction models re- ted from Liquid Swine Manure System.In:Live-
quire that atmospheric stability,wind speed and stock Waste Management and Pollution Abatement
odor emission rates are known. Proceedings of International Symposium on Live-
stock Wastes,American Society of Agricultural Engi-
Based in part on dispersion model results,required neers,St.Joseph,MI,pp.267-271.
minimum separation distances for livestock feed-
ing Elam C.J.,Alego,J.W.,Westing,T.,et a1.1971.Measure
eoperations (based in number s of head) a he went and control of feedlot particulate matter.Bulle-
tin been developed for swine facilities in the Nether- C.How to Control Feedlot Pollution.California
lands(Klarenbeelc,1985)and for cattle feedlots in Cattle Feeders Association,Bakersville,CA,January.
Australia (QDPI,1989).These relationships are Foster,J.and W.Mayzose.1987'Pork Industry Hand-
should used to determine the size l location.operation Thethat book Cooperative Extension Service,Purdue Uni-
versity,West Lafayette,IN 981.852
••
Noren George,J.A.,C.D.Fulhage and S.W.Melvin 1985.A Linddu ,T.,O. Liquid and
M L.Tre Systems.s. 974.Odor
Re-
Summary of Midwest livestock Odor Court Ac- duction for
tions.In:Agriculture Waste:Utilization and Manage-
went,Proceedings of the 5th International MWPS.1987.Beef housing and Equipment Handbook
Symposium on Agricultural Wastes,American Sod- MN/PA-6,Midwest Plan Service,Iowa State
ety of Agricultural Engineers,St Joseph,MI, University,Ames,IA
pp.431-438.
Meyer,D.J.and J.C.Converse.1981.Gas Production vs.
Gray,A.S.1984.Feedlot sprinkling.Western Feed(June). Storage Time on Swine Nursery Manure.Paper No.
Heber,D.J.,Parnell,C.B.1988.Comparison of PM-10 and 81.4512,American Society of Agricultural
high-volume air samplers using a Coulter counter Engineers,St.Joseph,MI
particle size analyzer.Paper No.SWR 88-109.Pre- Miner,J.R 1975.Management of Odors Associated With
sented at 1988 Southwest Region Meeting of ASAE, Livestock Production.In:Managing Livestock
Lubbock,TX Wastes,Proceedings of the 3rd International Svmpo-
Hill,D.T.and C.L.Barth.1976.Quantitative Prediction of slum on Livestock Wastes,American Society of Agri-
Odor Intensity Transactions of the ASAE.19:939-944. cultural Engineers,St.Joseph, a MI, p.378-3 .
Humenik F.J.and M.R.Overcash.1976.Design Criteria Miner,J.R.and R.C.Stroh.1976.Controlling Feedlot
for Swine Waste Treatment Systems.EPA-600/2-76- Surface Odor Emission Rates by Application of
233.USEPA,Ada,OK,291 p. Commercial Products.Trans.ASAE,19:533-538.
Humenilc,F.J.,RE.Sneed,M.R.Overcash,J.C.Barker National
Sources,Council.en 97 .Odors A0 from
of&cionc
tionary
and G.D.Weatherhill.1975.Total Waste Manage-
and Mob
ment for a Large Swine Production Facility.In:Man- Washington,DC
aging Livestock Wastes,Proceedings of Third Peters,J.A.and T.R.Blacicwood.1977.Source Assess-
International Symposium on Livestock Wastes, ment:Beef Cattle Feedlots.Montsanto Research
American Society of Agricultural Engineers,St. Corporation,EPA-600/2-77-107,USEPA,Industrial
Joseph,MI,pp.168-171. Environmental Research Laboratory,Research
Janni,KA.1982.Modeling Dispersion of Odorous Triangle Park,NC
Gases from Agricultural Sources.Trans.ASAE. Phillips,D.,M.Fattori and N.R.Bulley,1979.Swine Ma-
25-1721-1723. nure Odors:Sensory and Physico-Chemical Analy-
Jones,D.D.,D.L.Day and A.C.Dale.1972.Aerobic Treat- sis.Paper No.79-4074,American Society of
ment of Livestock Wastes.Final Report SW-16 rg, Agricultural Engineers,St.Joseph,MI,19 p.
USEPA,Washington,DC,55 p. Prokop,W.H.and H.L.Bohn.1985.Soil Bed System for
KGarenbeek,J.V. 1985.Odour Emissions of Dutch Agricul- Control of Rendering Plant Odors.Paper No.85-79.6
tore.In:Agricultural Waste Utilization and Manage- (Presented at the 78th Annual Meeting,Detroit,MI),
went,Proceedings of the 5th International Air Pollution Control Association,Pittsburgh,PA,
Symposium on Agricultural Wastes,American Sod- 17 p.
ety of Agricultural Engineers,St.Joseph,MI, Raabe,S.J.,J.M.Sweeten,B.R.Stewart and D.L.Reddell.
pp.439-445. 1984.Evaluation of Manure Flush Systems at Caged
Koelliker,J.K,J.R.Miner,M.L.Hellickson and H.S. Layer Operations,Tans.ASAE,27:852-858.
Nakave.1980.A Zeolite Packed Air Snubber to Ritter,W.F.1980.Chemical Odor Control of livestock
Improve Poultry House Environments.Trans. Wastes,Paper No.804059,American Society of Ag-
ASAE 23:157-161. ricultural Engineers,St.Joseph,MI,16 p..
Korsmeyer,W.,M.D.Hall and T.H.Chen.1981.Odor Schirz,S.1977.Odour Removal from the Exhaust of Ani-
control for a Farrow-to-Finish Swine Farm--A Case mai Shelters.Agriculture and Environment,3:223-
Study.In:Livestock Waste:A Renewable Resource, 228.
Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on
Agricultural Wastes,American Society of Agricul- Simpson,FM 1970.The CCFA control of feedlot pollu-
tural Engineers,St.Joseph,MI,pp.193-197,200. tion plan.Bulletin A.How to Control Feedlot Pollu-
tion,California Cattle Feeders Association,
Kowalewsky,H.H.1981.Odor Abatement Through Bakenville, CA,May 28.
earth Filters,Landtechnik 36(1):8-10.
,H.H,R.Scheu and H.Vetter.1979. Sorel,J.E.,R.O.Gauntt,J.M.Sweeten,D.L.Reddell and
Kowalewsky, A.R McFarland.1983.Design of a 1-Butanol Scale
Measurement of Odor Emissions and Imissions.In Dynamic Olfactometer for Ambient Odor Measure-
Effluents from livestock(MR.Gasser,Editor). ments.Trans.ASAE.26:1201-1206.
Applied Science Publishers,London,U.K
pp.609-625. Sweeten,J.M.1982.Feedlot Dust Control.L-1340,Texas
Agricultural Extension Service,The Texas A&M Uni-
Licht,L.A.and J.R.Mme:. 1978.A Scrubber to Reduce versity System,College Station,TX
Livestock Confinement Building Odors.Paper No.
PN-78-203,American Society of Agricultural
Engineers,St.Joseph,MI,12 p.
981852
Sweeten,J.M.1988.Odor Measurement and Control for U.S.EPA.1986.Supplement A to Compilation of Air .
the Swine Industry.Journal of Environmental Health, Pollution Emission Factors,Section 6.15 Beef Cattle
VoL 50,No.5,pp.286. Feedlots (Stationary Point and Area Sources,Vol 1).
J.M. d C.B.Parnell 1989.Particle Size Dis AP-42,Office of Air Quality Planning and Stand-
Sweeten,
ands,Research Triangle Park,NC
tribution of Cattle Feedlot Dust Emissions.ASAE
Paper No.894076,International Summer Meeting U.S.EPA.1987.40CFR50,Revisions to the National
of American Society of Agricultural Engineers,Que- Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate
bec,Canada,June 25-28.20 p. Matter and Appendix J—Reference Method for the
C.B.Parnell,R.S.Etheredge and D. Determination of Particulate Matter as PM-10 in
Sweeten,
J.M., 8 the Atmosphere.Federal Register 52(126)O4.614_
Osborne.1988.Dust Emissions in Cattle Feedlots. 24669
Veterinary Clinics in North America:Food Animal
Practice,VoL 4,No.3,Nov.,pp.557-578. Van Dyne,D.L and C.B.Gilbertson.1978.Estimating
.M.,C.L.Barth,RE.Hermanson and T.Lou- U.S.Livestock and Poultry Manure and Nutrient
Sweeten,
J Production ESCS-12,Economics,Statistics and Co-
don.1979.Lagoon Systems for Swine Waste Treat- operative Services,U.S.Department of Agriculture,
ment,PIH-62,National Pork Industry Handbook, Washington,DC,150 p.
Cooperative Extension Service,Purdue University,
West Lafayette,IN,6 p. Van Geelen,M.A.and KW.Van Der Hoek.1977.Odor
Sweeten,J.M,D.L.Reddell,A.R.McFarland,R.O. Control with Biological Air Washers.Agriculture
and Environment,3:217-222.
Gauntt and J.E.Sorel.1983.Field Measurement of
Ambient Odors with a Butanol Olfactometer.Trans. Warburton,D.J.,J.M.Scarbrough,D.L.Day and A.J.
ASAE,26:1206-1216. Muehling.1981.Evaluation of Commercial Products
Sweeten, .M,RE.Childers andJ.S.Cochran 1988.Odor for Odor Control and Solids Reduction of Liquid
J JSwine Manure.In:Livestock Waste:A Renewable
Control from Poultry Manure Composting Plant Resource,Proceedings of the 4th International
Using a Soil Filter.ASAE Paper No.88-4050,Interns- Symposium on Livestock Wastes,American Society
tional Summer Meeting,American Society of Agri- of Agricultural Engineers,St.Joseph,MI,
cultural Engineers,Rapid City,SD,June 26-29,1988. pp.309-313.
40 p.
U.S.EPA.1973.Development Document for Proposed White,RK and D.L.Forster.1978.A Manual on Evalu-
Effluent Limitations Guidelines and New Sourceanon and Economic Analysis of Livestock Waste
Management Systems.EPA 600/2-78-102,USEPA,
Performance Standards for the Feedlots Point
Source Category.EPA-440/1-73/004,Washington, Ada, S. 302 Environmental Research Laboratory,
g rY• � Ada,OK,302 p.
DC,pp.59.64.
U.S.EPA.1976.State Program Elements Necessary for
Participation in the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System—Concentrated Animal Feeding
Operations,40 CFR 124.82.Federal Register,March
18,1976.p.11460.(See also 40 CFR 171 9'1 including
Appendix B thereof.)
•
Educational programs conducted by the Texas Agricultural Extension Service serve people of all ages regardless of
socioeconomic level,race, color, sex,religion, handicap or national origin.
Issued in furtherance of Cooperative Extension Work in Agriculture and Home Economics,Acts of Congress of May 8.1914,
as amended,and June 30,1914,in cooperation with the United States Department of Agriculture.Zede L Carpenter,Director,
Texas Agricultural Extension Service,The Texas AMM University System.
2M-6-91,New ENG,EBNR 1
981852
L-13,
FEEDLOT DUST CONTROL
John M. Sweeten
Dust from cattle feedlots can be a nuisance during Strategy Water treatment should begin before dust
prolonged dry periods. Depending upon feedlot loca- becomes a problem. When water is applied to feedlot
tion. dust can be a sanitation problem to neighbors , surfaces. a balance between effective dust control and
and create a traffic hazard. In sufficient concentra- the control of odors and flies is necessary. Maintain
tions. feedlot dust can also impair cattle performance moisture content of the surface manure at 25 to 35
and irritate feedlot employees. percent.
California research showed that peak dust genera- During dry weather. surface manure may contain
tion occurs between 7 and 8 p.m., which coincides only 7 to 10 percent moisture, causing severe dust .
with experience in Texas. This is because cattle be- problems. The moisture can be raised to the desirable
come more active at dusk, when temperature and level by an initially heavy water application. by ani-
uind velocity decrease. mal crowding, or by both, followed by a daily water
sprinkled treatment program. The sprinkler water
Techniques can provide moisture for aerobic stabilization of the
manure. A moisture content of between 25 and 40
Dust control techniques for feedlots should pre- percent is required for rapid aerobic bacterial activi-
vent dust from becoming a problem, since it is not t•, which produces little unpleasant odor.
feasible to remove suspended dust from the air. Avoid ovenvatering. Excessively wet spots sup-
There are several aproaches: port anaerobic decomposition, the primary source of
Feed Pens Roads and Service Areas feedlot odor. Manure with 25 to 85 percent moisture
Removal of excess manure Water sprinkling also provides a good environment for fly breeding,
increasec ca.tle stocking oiling especially under fence lines, and other locations
rate
where there is little cattle traffic.
,
Water application Chemical application
Chemical application
Water application is the most effective, economical Bates and timing Adjust water application rates
and reliable means of controlling dust from feedpens. according to weather conditions, animal size and ma-
However, the other methods can be of supplemental nure depth. Recommended initial application rates
benefit. should be at least 1 gallon per square yard per day
(0.18 inches per day)until a 25 to 35 percent moisture
Manure Removal level is reached in the loose manure near the surface.
An important step in reducing manure dust is Thereafter, water should be applied at one-half to
removal of excess manure from corrals. Although the three-fourths gallon per square yard per day (0.09 to
manure pack may contain stored moisture, dry. pul- 0.13 inches per day) while the weather remains dry.
verized manure hampers dust control. Thus, For recently scraped feed pens, one-fourth gallon per
minimizing manure accumulation increases dust con- square yard per day is recommended.
trol effectiveness. A maximum depth of 1 inch of loose California research showed that daily watering
manure is recommended. gave significantly better dust control than alternate
day watering. Watering frequency has proved to be a
Water more critical factor than depth of loose manure on the
The most common and effective method of dust feedlot surface.
control is application of water to the feedlot surface. Water treatment for dust control within the feed-
In California research, properly sprinkled feedlots yard will increase the relative humidity, which in
generated up to 18 times less dust than untreated humid weather, can impair the animals'ability to lose
lots. Dust levels rose more than 850 percent vhenev- body heat by evaporation during the hottest part of
er water treatment was discontinued for 7 days. the day. In humid climates, apply water treatments
-Extension agricultural enaineer — waste management. The during the early evening hours. This coincides with
Texas A&M University System. the period of heaviest dust activity.
981.852
Texas Agricultural Extension Service•The Texas ASIA Unlvenity System•Daniel C.Ptannetiel,Director•College Ststlon..Texas
Equipment The following types of water applica- Solid set sprinkler systems require a constant
lion systems have been used for feedlot dust control: supply of clean water. These systems need to be
Irrigation Equipment carefully engineered with respect to sizes and place-
ment of pumps, pipes and nozzles. Many system
Permanent sprinklers configurations have been used successfully. Water
Fence line sprinklers droplet size is related to spray nozzle design and
Shade-mounted sprinklers hydraulic pressure.
Protected risers (inside pen)
Portable big gun sprinklers High capacity systems(sprinkler irrigation or mobile
equipment)with large droplet sizes and low pressures
Mobile Equipment
can be operated less frequently and for short periods.
Water tankers They require fewer spray nozzles, lateral lines and
Water trucks risers. However, they are more likely to lead to
If designed to provide adequate coverage of the feed- ponding of water on the feedlot surface unless spray
pen and proper application rates, these systems are pattern and duration of water application are carefully
about equal in controlling dust. Pen size and shape controlled.
are a major factor in equipment selection. For exam- Low capacity sprinklers are characterized by high
ple, deep pens are difficult to 'cover with mobile pressure (50 to 60 pounds per square inch), small
equipment and may require supplemental sprinklers. nozzle size (5/64 inch to 3/32 inch), small droplet
Large or irregularly shaped pens may also require diameters and narrow sprinkler spacing (40 to 50 feet
special equipment or extra sprinklers. Pens with apart). These high pressure systems reduce the likeli-
shades may require mobile sprinkling from both feed hood of surface ponding, and can sometimes be
and cattle alleys to obtain good coverage without
creating a mud problem under the shades. The
shaded area is kept moist b}• the cattle and should
receive little or no water. Feed bunks should also be -
i. •
kept free from sprinkling water.
Permanent sprinkler systems
Permanent sprinkler systems (Figure 1) can treat
large sections of a feedlot surface simultaneously. Y I mi...,...
Sprinkler systems require little labor and can be fully
-
----T�
automated to apply water at the correct time every t � a�) M-• 5�!!�r�+ ' .�--
day. AY'Sfiw �: . .
Major disadvantages to permanent sprinklers are } �'�� 1 �eI �;)��
high initial cost, frequent maintenance and depen-
dence on relatively calm weather for uniform dis ` _, .� �t sl ^M�'
. nrlvS:7xc.�:
tribution. Routine inspection of the entire system will nt�rt _�;_
prevent or minimize poor distribution or ovenwater ie
ing. Sprinkler heads placed inside feedpens can ham-
} r -
per pen cleaning. Sprinkler systems can be damaged lic =-≤ � __ �`• '=' '=" •-
from freezing or impact during idle seasons. Perma .LL 'ar • fit'
nent sprinkler systems are inflexible because they `� ,-�- r_- '
P t it t rely �_'"i„-: r
must be designed. installed and operated for a par s _� S p'% rn _
titular feedlot configuration. The system may not -- 4 • 4 ,-_
function properly if the feedlot is expanded or the e.. tai , �a s r -
water pumping rate is altered. Vacant pens will re- S=yz„N �"- • _ _,' _ • -_ , --
ceive water. Stationary sprinkler systems installed
after a feedlot is built may not be optimally designed Figure 1. Permanent sprinkler systems can be fully
and may be expensive. If such sprinkler systems automated to treat large areas of the feedlot at once.
prove ineffective initially, they cannot be rendered uniform coverage is achieved under ideal conditions
completely effective, and have little salvage value. of operation.
981852
•
feedlot. even corners, can be treated. Dusty trouble
spots in a feedyard can be treated heavily without
sprinkling the entire lot. Mobile equipment for dust
control can be readily adapted to changes in feedlot
L configuration and for dust control in allenvays.
Major disadvantages of tank trucks include high
r := labor costs, high operating expense- difficulty in gain-
! <:a ing quick control over dust and the need for backup
• I equipment.
='—= -- i - Mobile units used for feedlot dust control vary
. from standard t vo and one-half ton trucks outfitted
with 4,000 to 5,000 gallon tanks, up to large tankers
/ with a 6,000 to 9,000 gallon capacity. The tanker
capacity recommended for a particular feedlot can be
` - estimated from Figure 4.
_ = Mobile units should be outfitted with 40- to 120-
. , horsepower pumps supplying 500 to 2,000 gallon per
minute discharge rate. As many as six nozzles con-
_ — trolled by air valves may be installed. An elevated
main nozzle with 80- to 120- foot trajectory is re-
quired, with at least one lower nozzle for uniform
;" distribution within 6 to 80 feet of the water tanker or
truck. A typical custom-built elevated nozzle with
3/5-inch by 7- inch opening tilted from the vertical in
Figure 2. Dust control sprinklers need to be well two dimensions is shown in Figure 5.
protected from possible damage by manure collection The operating efficiency of mobile units is highly
machinery and cattle- dependent upon time required to load the unit, travel
to and return from the feedpens being watered. Op-
timum turn-around time for fillup, hauling, water
operated frequently throughout the day to relieve application and dead haul is 15 minutes per load. In
heat stress. However, water distribution patterns are large feedlots, provide more than one water loading
adversely affected by high winds- and there is more station. These loading stations can be either overhead
evaporation loss from small droplets. (elevated\tanks of earthen ponds- If ponds are used, a
Sprinkler heads can be implanted inside the pens tractor PTO driven, long-shaft, centrifugal pump with
and encased for protection (Figures 1 and 2). They 2,000 to 4.000 gallons per minute capacity can be
can be mounted on fences in cattle alleys or mounted used to load the water tanks or truck.
atop sun shades. Nozzle spacings, diameters, dis- An elevated filler tank (Figure 3) should have a
charge rates and operating pressures are interrelated, 5.000- to 10,000-gallon capacity and be supplied
and should be selected for each precise application. either with pond or well water at the rate of 1,000
Small nozzles (1/5 inch diameter), closely spaced to gallons per minute. A 9- to 12-inch gravity discharge
provide considerable overlap, will provide the most p 1 at the bottom
o can
gallons per truck
m or tanker at the
uniform distribution pattern available. rate
e.
Mobile equipment Mobile tankers or tank trucks
(Figure 3) cost less initially than permanent sprinkler Increasing Cattle Stocking Rate
systems and are more versatile. With skilled
operators. equal or better watering uniformity can be The quantity of moisture added to the feedlot
achieved. Spray patterns from mobile equipment can surface in the form of feces and urine is controlled by
be more easily adjusted to compensate for high animal spacing (area per animal).and body size. The
winds- Evaporation loss is probably lower. With amount of manure moisture generated is shown in
properly designed discharge nozzles, all areas of the Table 1. A 1,000 pound steer at a spacing of 1.5
981.852
•
Average animal spacing.112/lid sprinkling or-chemical treatment. It could also lower
Animal solid waste management costs, since the manure pack
size 75 100 125 150 175 would be concentrated over a smaller area and easier
(average los.
per head) .Moisture. inchesaay to collect. However, the California experiments sug-
aoo 005 o.oa 0.03 0.03 002 gest that excessive moisture could eventually result.
600 0.8 .06 .06 .0403 .03 Research in Arizona indicates that a space alloca-
800 .11 .08 .06 .05 .04 tion of about 0.1 square feet per pound of live weight
1000 .13 .10 .08 .07 .06 controls dust in moderate weather. On hotter days,
1200 .16 .12 .09 .08 .07 the cattle concentrate in shaded areas, reducing the
moisture .production in much of the open corral.
Table 1. Manure Moisture Production in Came Feedlots Shade space per head limits animal spacing in hot .
weather. Crowding cattle together during hot weath-
square feet per head produces about 28 inches of er when dust conditions are worst, without compen-
moisture per year or 0.08 inches per day. Light sating for body heat loss, can affect performance and
replacement cattle may produce only half as much health.
manure moisture as slaughter-weight cattle. This Feedlots with good drainage (3 to 6 percent
moisture, together with precipitation and water re- slopes) may be able to use this control method. The
leased through digestion of organic matter and pre- stocking rate would need to be reduced during high
cipitation, may not be enough to offset evaporation moisture periods. For instance, the stocking rate
from the feedlot surface in some years. could be doubled during extremely dry weather, then
Average daily evaporation from a feedlot surface decreased if rain falls. Portable fences may facilitate
has not been measured directly, but can be estimated stocking rate adjustments. Unpredictability of rainfall
from soil evaporation data (Figure 6). For 8 or 9 days may make high stocking rates risky, since cattle per-
after a heavy rainfall the soil surface is wet. Rapid formance is measurably lowered by muddy condi-
drying occurs at rates of 0.2 inches per day or more tions.
and almost equals evaporation from standing water.
• When the soil or manure surface is no longer
saturated, the drying rate drops sharply to approxi-
mately one-tenth the peak rate. Such a low rate is
probably never reached in a feedlot because wet
manure is continually added and the surface is mixed
by cattle hoof action. Also, drying rates increase with •
wind speed. with 15 miles per hour winds causing up
to 2.4 times greater evaporation than the constant
rate of 0.018 inches per day depicted in Figure 6. .
Whenever moisture produced by the cattle and by -- '
•
precipitation is consistently less than daily evapora- --
tion rate, dust will become a problem. The number of
days until dust problems arise cannot be estimated
from available data. In dry weather, dust problems `- j are often noticed first in pens with light replacement 0 T
cattle and where the moist manure pack has been a - ,
r.
removed recently. '`
Stocking rates in Texas and the Southwest range
tvpically from 100 to 150 square fee per head. Re-
search in California showed that when stocking rates rte: :.: � ;___. . �'.-'__ __
were increased to 70 to 80 square feet per head no
detrimental effects on daily gain were observed and Figure 3. The cost effectiveness of mobile equipment
feed conversion was slightly lower. Under carefully such as this water tanker depends upon proper equip-
managed conditions, crowding can be a more eco- merit sizing. placement of loading facilities. equip-
nomical method of dust control than either water merit reliability and operator skill.
981.852
(Pivot) TANKER
FEEDLOT DAILY WATER WATER • R
LOADS CAPACITY CIY
AREA APPLICATION RATE REQUIREMENTS
(ACRES) (GAL.SQ.YD.) (1000 GAL./DAY) PER DAY (1000 GAL)
01 J 20
400 - - 0125 25 30 -- 27 5
- 350 015 - 1 0 - 2'
300 - 02 - 30 I - t 0 5 _ 22 5
- 275 - 02`° 35 2.0 - 20 -
250 - 03 — e0 — — 2 5 :7.5
— 225 — .04 - 45 3 0 - :5
200 - 05 - 50 — — a 0
-
- 775 07 -- 06 06 - 60 - 6.0 '- 12 5-150 - 10 -I- 09 • 70 - 7.0 10
- 125 - 80 - -
ti _ 100 p 8
100 s�� 106 zo — :oe — is _ ���i _ 7
— �� 20 30 - 20 6
80 - ••••
- 70 \�N� a° .50 25 - �� S
�� •50 — 32 es
60 55 N.,0 --���`\ - 175 �.�� _
50 - N. 60 y� 230 - _.i� 60 64. - 3 5
45 ' 0��.` to \ ��i22' �'
70 3 -
40 - 35 I i s. 250 275 x1.00 _ - 2 5
•30 - 2 0 - � 300 - �� _ 150 2
- 27.5 - 25 �� - 350 .../ 200 -
25 - 30 - x`00 - i� - 250 - 1.75
- 22.5 - 40 �� ,_ A 300 - : 5 -
20 - 5 0 - 500 S-V 513 - 350 2.
7.5
6 0 - 550' - : 5
7 0 - 600 - 600 -- 500
15 - -
10 0 -+ -° _ 700 _ 700 ` 0 -
- 12.5 -750 ^� 120 600 - 1000 -
- 17 5 - 900
10 _ 200 - 1C00 -
•
Figure 4. Nomograph for estimating the optimum size of water tankers or trucks for feedlot dust control.
Example Problem •
Computing Water Requirements and ground speed of 5 mph loaded. A 2.000 gallons per
Tanker Capacity for Dust Control minute gravity loading station will be located at one
end of the feedlot.
Given: A 33,000 head cattle feedlot operating at To determine: Will this tanker provide adequate dust
almost full capacity is developing a dust problem. control?
Cattle spacing is 1.40 square feet per head. The mana- Solution: (Use Nomograph — Figure 3.'
ger has located a new water tanker with 8.000 gallon
capacity, 800 gallons per minute discharge pump and Step 1. Calculate the feedlot surface area:
981.852
Feedlot surface area = 33.000 hd x 140 sq ft/hd 106 acres
43,560 sq ft/acre
Step 2. Draw a straight line between the feedlot area Chemical Application
of 106 acres and the water application rate of 1.0 Chemical agents with demonstrated potential for
gallons per square yard per day. Continue this dust control in construction and aviation applications
straight line over to the axis labeled Water Require- have shown little effectiveness in feedlots. These
ments, and read 513.000 eallons per day of water chemicals and their modes of action include:
needed for a complete feedpen cover. • Lignosulfonate — particle binding
Step 3. Draw a straight line from the water re- • Sodium carbonate — dispersion and moisture ab-
• quirement of 513.000 gallons per day to the given sorption from the atmosphere
tanker capacity of 8,000 gallons. Where this line • Calcium sulfate—water penetration improvement
intersects the loads per day axis, read 64 loads per
day. • Calcium nitrate and glycerol — moisture absorp-
tion from the atmosphere
Step 4. Estimate the round trip time requirement for The first three chemicals listed need sufficient
each load as follows:
a. Loading time = 8,000 gal _ 2.000 gpm = 4 water to be effective. The fourth is least effective at
low humidities, when it is needed most. All are
minutes
relatively expensive and require reapplication after
b. Discharge time = 8,000 gal _ 800 gpm = S pens have been cleaned.
minutes
c. Travel to discharge point = (0.25 mi - 5 mph) x
69 min/hr = 3 minutes (average)
d. Deadhead to fill station = (0.5 mi + 5 mph) x
60 min/hr = 6 minutes (average) .
e. Total time per load = 21 minutes
Step 5. Estimate the maximum daily productivity as
follows: (8 hrs/day x 50 min/hr) = 21 min/ ,.
load = 19 loads per day.
T.:'
Step 6. Compare the 64 loads per day needed with
the 19 loads per day achievable at 83 percent opera-
ting efficiency.
0
Answer: No, the 8,000 gallon tanker will not ""--
be adequate for peak application rates of 1.0
gallons per day per square yard. It would be
adequate for the maintenance application rate of -_ _ -
0.5 gallons per day per square yard when I
operated at 13.5 hours per day(32 loads per day)
during the dust season, or when supplying only
60 percent pen surface coverage at the mainte-
nance application rate with 8 hours per day.
Figure 5. Typical custom-designed pressure nozzle
for uniform distribution of water from a mobile tank-
er or water truck onto the feedlot surface.
98%852
Calcium sulfate reduces nitrogen loss from ma- sampling of the feedlot surface to anticipate re-
nure. Calcium nitrate will increase nitrogen content quirements. Restore dust control systems and equip-
in manure. Other chemicals. such as calcium chloride ment to peak working effectiveness as the dust season
and waste oils, hinder the resale value of manure. approaches, then maintain it in good repair through-
Chemicals provided little or no dust control in out the period of use. Keep backup equipment availa-
Arizona research. In California research, calcium sul- ble. Repair service capabilities should be no longer
fate(gypsum)applied to a feedlot surface at the rate of than two days.
0.36 pounds per square yard showed some potential The best means of feedlot dust control is water
for dust control. However. the cost was 50 to 80 application. Either permanent sprinklers or mobile
percent more than for treatment with water. equipment can be effective.
Chemicals may be more effective and practical in For most Texas and Southern Great Plains feed-
controlling dust from feed alleys. roads and loading/ yards where dust control is a periodic rather than a
unloading areas around the feedlot, rather than the perennial need, mobile equipment of adequate capac-
feedlot surface itself. Other materials commonly used ity with well-planned water loading facilities will be
for roadways include waste petroleum oils, coarse effective.
gravel and asphalt. A mixture of 240 pounds of cal- The operating cost of dust control equipment is
cium nitrate, 3 gallons of glycerine and 47 gallons of not appreciably different for either mobile equipment
water has also been recommended for this purpose. or permanent sprinklers, but when depreciation is
considered, sprinkler systems cost three times more.
Summary Both methods cost substantially less than calcium
sulfate, the most effective chemical.
Dust from cattle feeding operations can be reason- Recommendations
ably controlled by conventional methods. These Follow these steps to control feedlot dust:
methods require dedicated management. skilled op-
eration,and adequate financing. 1. Remove excess manure from the feedlot surface as
The most important steps in dust control are dry weather approaches. Keep loose manure pad
attacking the problem early and maintaining steady less than 2 inches deep.
control. This requires periodic inspection or moisture 2. plan water distribution system to insure uniform
coverage of at least 75 percent of the unshaded pen
area.
a 0.20- -,T,-r2_0Lor -20,-;MOT s •,,,s 3. Apply water to the feedlot surface at the rate of
9,.,.Cr
one-half gallon per day per square yard (or 0.
inches per day) using mobile or stationary equip-
ment. Begin water treatment before dust actually
reaches the problem stage. Initial applications on a
dry feedlot surface may require twice this amount
until manure moisture levels reach 25 percent.
4. Control dust on roads and alleyways using-coarse
gravel, waste oils, chemicals or water.
E 5. To control fly breeding, avoid watering vacant
F 04- pens or over-watering beneath fencelines or feed-
.o.- bunks. Correct improper pen drainage to avoid
wet spots where odors and fly breeding also occur.
• a
6. When necessary and feasible, temporarily de-
. : 24 '. .o �: �. �. �� 20 22 � crease cattle spacings to increase manure mois-
*'V( IGLLOwiNG •AAAr L LL `°"S'
cure. commensurate with operating constraints
Figure 6. Typical daily moisture remocal by ecapo- and animal health considerations. Installation of
ration from surface of -wet' and "dry' soil (Olton portable fences may facilitate animal density ad-
clay loam). justment.
981.852
October 1979
General Guidelines for Design of
Sprinkler System for Feedlot Dust Control
By
John M. Sweeten, Ph.D. , P.E.
Extension Agricultural Engineer
Waste Management
Texas Agricultural Extension Service
General Recommendations for Dust Control
1 . Provide 80-100% sprinkler coverage of surface of feedpens, cattle
alleys and working pens. .
2. Sprinkle once or twice daily in dry season as needed.
3. Start dry season by removing loose, powdery surface manure.
4. Apply water at 1/4 to 1 .0 gal/sq yds/day as needed (400-1600 gal/
acre/day) . This amounts to 0.05 to 0. 19 inches/day. With daily manure
moisture, this should match evaporation rate of 0.25 to 0.35 inches/
day.
5. Select moderate to high operating pressure (50-60 PSI ) , small diameter
nozzles (1/8-3/16") and close spacings (45 x 45 ft. grid) to give
small droplet sizes and uniform coverage.
6. Provide water supply and distribution system to provide at least
27 gpm/acre of feedlot surface. This is same as applying 1 gal/sq.
yd/day at 60 min/day operating time. For instance, to sprinkle
25 acre section of the feedlot in 60 min per day, a pump output of
675 gpm will be needed. To reduce the pumping rate and pipe sizes ,
the feedlot can be divided into sections, with automatic valves used
to cycle from one section of the feedlot to the next.
7. Select pipe sizes from hydraulic engineering tables. For example,
an 8" main line should be used to supply 675 gpm to a 25 acre feedlot
section. Lateral lines can be smaller and reduced in size downstream
as water is dispersed through the system.
Design steps;
1 . Select water application rates (gal/day/acre) and schedules (min/day) .
2. Select sprinkler nozzle sizes, spacings, and pressures.
3. Select riser pipe sizes. Design guards to protect sprinkler nozzles
and riser pipes from cattle damage.
4. Determine optimum layout, sizes and materials for lateral lines
(tradeoff between head loss vs. cost) .
5. Determine size, materials and location for main water supply pipes.
6. Select pump that provides pressure & flow rate established from
above steps.
7 . Repeat, if necessary steps 1-6, working from downstream to upstream
end of the system.
981..852
Hello