The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About982250.tiff 4,6 Li Pe-- rmy gasmCI iliC H990 9Rt♦nT STREET, s9IrC 402, b 1VCR, (0 80233, VM0E:O03D 4574322, MX: 00314574009 Thursday, June 11, 1998 Julie Chester Weld County Planning Department Weld Co. Admin. Offices 1400 North 17th Street Greeley, CO 80631 Subject: Bella Holsteins, Inc. USR Application Dear Julie: Attached are 20 copies and one original notebook application for Bella Holsteins, Inc. located in Platteville. Additionally, 10 copies of the "Site Map"and "Proposed Conditions"and an application fee of$1,100 are enclosed. I am out of the office on Monday the 15th. I will call you on Tuesday. Thank you. Sinc ely, Thomas Haren Vice President 982250 anew "Serving Environmental Needs of the Livestock Industry" II '" 7 JUN 1 i BELLA HOLSTEINS; Inc. `/o Mr. Gary Henrickson 13278 Road 32 Platteville, Colorado 80651 Special Use Permit Application Submitted to Weld County May 1998 Application Prepared By: EnviroStock, Inc. 11990 Grant Street, Suite 402 Denver, Colorado 80233 (303) 457-4322 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES Weld County Administrative Offices, 1400 N.17th Avenue, Greeley,CO 80631 Phone (970)353-6100, Ext.3540, Fax (970)353-6312J(;ti USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW APPLICATION .,�� yr s r !a7 Application Fee Paid •CO Receipt# Date Recording Fee Paid Receipt# 1454"L lksbli Date Application Reviewed by: TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT: (Please print or type, except for necessary signature) LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT AREA: EZ NE4 S19,NW4 5to1T3N}{R66141 PARCEL NUMBER: SE.E. E. A TT A C H E D (12 digit number-found on Tax I.D. Information or obtained at the Assessor's Office. Section 19-20 ,T 3 N, R 66 W-Total Acreage f 2-40 Zone District A Overlay Zone NA Property Address (if available) 132.78 I4ICR 31 PLATTEVILLE. Proposed Use DAIRY - ANIMAL FEEDING OPERATION SURFACE FEE (PROPERTY OWNERS) OF AREA PROPOSED FOR THE SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT Name: GARY He nRtcK5oN Address: t3178 14CR, 31 City/State/Zip: Puarevar-e. 80651 Home Telephone: Business Telephone +&5-2415 Name: BE.L.LA I-6—STaINS• INC. Address: SAA City/State/Zip: Home Telephone,. Business Telephone APPLICANT OR AUTHORIZED AGENT (if different than above) Name: 6nvirco$rocK1INC. - ' IDMAS N'ARat Address: 11990 GRANT ST Suite 2 40 _City/State/Zip: DtMV-R CO 60233., Home Telephone: _Business Telephone: 303-457-f32.2. DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES USE ONLY ICase# 1i — 1\ R. Floodplain: 0 Yes o No Geologic Hazard: ❑ Yes ❑ No I hereby state that all statements and plans submitted with the applicat' are true and,cprrect to the best of my knowledge. i} I ^ P 'A 64LP dim arrK5oN Rev: 1-27-97 Signature: Owner or Authorized Agent Road File it RE: 5 Ab ) q a § a E § . _ z !° \ \ h000 { ° bq9 $ , d/ , . . « k2 U/ ci _ a_ ) � ?� 7 ( O§ %Ill § m +l a �§ ea k \ 7 \ § ( cot- )\ i %umi\ �/ CO / � & } § ° LIJ \ | \� 47. I— ( � ` 2 R — ! / % ( ea I \ § e ( � « � / � \ \ \ § ( \ ® 2 ^ 2 , ° o » * Efm | \ : Bo / � B 0 \ % § { ( ) $ ; - \ \ ...r - »: E _J ` 2 Ill & | kq § _| / • i q \ \ / P § \ § ` § B ) k a , a S § \ � ) In . ) § ( to § f2 21- .. ; _ ) E * I . z !k/ R e k2e � \ Sox < | . � . / # e§ @ ® $U. ) ) get 0:0 . . 2'ies 6- —VI ret tN In In el 2 »77 co cri \ 2$ \ ) § } - ° - dp k § / ) \ t � W\ i \ ) mgi / �z o § ® �� wis O ({ %I§ O\ § : ter Zb §: �2 \ § 8 \ ] � )\ j ><( ~ \ t ID•} 0 § _ il � w • , Q —— § 0 - ( 9 O ( h _ 2 ) \ ) 10 t X & | « ` § G � t � ; � a ; \ o ) ( ) / ] 0 8 � � ; § e ( © »` ! ZTo S = <rli ! O / ; y/ 2 < & - . \ o y € w \ b / \ ` ! - \ [ 7 ( 2ri # \ } § § \ # m \ \ f H 2#| ) §( <fl: % III $} ( ) f ) §LI1L . ..\ PS dJ] A> M ; ) - co iyi c § § / L 0 / d \ \ \ � jd � L. . 296 c ) ! d�l W m en 9§`I U\ § } \ cv to r �& 2 O§ )Z ; l Z) 2 �en / & ) ° ` )\ \al O ® Xz ri. ; ® ° // { 5 § <§ U. k�� y co • ) \\ ` \ `q 0 § A0 I , i\ § I Ai !$ ( \ \ / ; k \ E I— § / � ; � � § < o Z \ ` m ] 22 8 § A ' § § § \ c Z « S / @ [ k ) o { y ) 2ek » — O 3 as _ » H \ § § § ^ i _ _ _ 3 \ ( _ / ) ) \ = k yaN§ § 22 k r.4 ix; f � - [ S / ® } \ ( k ) | � / ° ) k | y = ' ■ 1_ - - 3 [ @ ' % % ) moo del .0 ` ) # tsme \ & |!I = � e. E ; ) ! ! §\ § ( \ m & ii> _ ; 0 >- ~ co ° ° . $ � , eeG ) ee « a . > , lCrI- , ; k % § )2 = � ` \ \ / ( ° _ % @ §2f § ) ) ) 4 . `Q a. q . . . - �I ART WILLIS V`LLD COUNTY TAX NOTICE _ WELD COUNTY TREASURER • R4917486 P.O.BOX 458 1997 Taxes Dua in A»d GREELEY CO 80832.0458 . in Ind <' ° �". 'r�GENE' :f=TAX .'-:.t , 3(T.'.j(t(UYH+8ITY �. ..�. I;EG'AL.eESC• •TI+N,gli'." 0•E•TY 38 57983 V 'W2NW4 20 366(IR) WELD COUNTY 21.22.0031 1579.83 1.000 SCHOOL DIST RE1 88.21 1.144 2631 NCW WATER CCW WATER 30.10 PLATTEVILLE-GILCREST Fl 2.303 AIMS JUNIOR COL 6.322! 166.33 WELD LIBRARY 1.4491 0.040 37.07 II I Il I 1 ! I S No.u...„+o.«e of State L+palae'I+Funding,-) 43.933 1 General Fund Lon wank,hew DeanTO*A LEVY FULL TAX TAX DISTRICT I ACTUAL PROPERTY VALVE IS VALUATION OP LAND 26310 I 75.57 1988 4: , >PPCELe 0130 VALUATION IMPS OR PERS TOTAL`/AWA'ION 265026 7I 25570 ,.PAYMENT SCHEDULE III 1121120000011 REAL 1st Half Tax DUE MARCH 2 994.E 2nd Halt Tax DUE JUNE 15 994.1 'Ft1LC,PAY.MENT T 1988.4 r c� Di*APRIL-30 :-— _ THE TREASURER'S OFFICE IS REQUIRED BY LAW TO SEND THE Tl NOTICE TO THE OWNER OF RECORD.IF YOUR TAXES ARE PAID BY MORTGAGE COMPANY KEEP THIS NOTICE FOR YOUR RECORD.IF YC BE TO Ti WCR 32 GINS INC NEW OWNER OR RETURD THIS N TY.O THIS PLEAOFFICCE MARKED SE FORWARD !PROPES RTY SOL 13278 32 PLATTEVILLE,CO 80651 TAX NOTICE Please see reverse side of this form for additional Information. 1 f AX NO I ICE RFTAIN TOP PORTION FOR YOUR RECORC ART mats Vir LD COUNTY TAX NOTICE .. SCHEDULE: WELD COUNTY TREASURER R4917786 P.O.BOX 458 1997 Taxes Due in '8 GREELEY CO 80632-0458 in'8Y ^~'-IGENE•AL�TAX_i_:;:. ` TXUTHe •jTYi I LEGG.:ESC•I'T �NsE•.• •'E•TY=' _ - ' I 22.038 664.66 I 6673A W550'OF N3/4 OF NEON W4 20 3 66(.33R) WELD COUNTY 4.66 331 166 21. SCHOOL DIST REl 47.15 NCW WATER 1.000 CCW WATER 1.144 34.50 PLATTEVILLE-GILCREST Fl 2.303 69.45 AIMS JUNIOR COL 6.322 190.67 WELD LIBRARY 1.449 0.040 ; 42.50 SB No.25...a1 absence d Slab Lerpal:aw FurBng.a 43.933 your Edwot General Fund L. would hays taw TAX DISTRACT ACTUAL PROPERTY VALUE IS 'VALUATION OF LAND 1470 VALUATION IMPS OR PERS TOTAL VALUATION 30160 TOTAL LEVY 75.577 FULL A 2279.40 0130 103943 28690 PAYMENT SCHEDULE : tII1J, r (J PAP.GEL• I11120000021 n until IL ��.. 1 _� REAL Ir I u-= I I;�' - 1St Half Tax DUE MARCH 2 1139.70 2nd Halt Tax DUE JUNE 15 1139.70 . .FULC PAYMENT ` - 2279.40 DUE APRIL 30 THE TREASURERS OFFICE IS REQUIRED BY LAW TO SEND THE TA NOTICE TO THE OWNER OF RECORD.IF YOUR TAXES ARE PAID By I BELLA HOLSTEINS INC MORTGAGE HAVE SOLD THIS PROPERTY,PLEASE FORWARD THIS NOTICE TO TH 13278 WELD CO RD 32 NEW OWNER OR RETURN TO THIS OFFICE MARKED'PROPERTY SOLE PLATTEVILLE,CO 80651 AX A �/ NOTICE Please sae reverse side of this form for addkional Information. TAX 0.,-b.,TMD D(IOTIf1M FIlo Yfll IP nnrflnnc 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. 8 Weld County Planning and Zoning Department Use by Special Review Questionnaire Bella Holsteins, Inc. 13278 Road 32 Platteville, Colorado 1. The existing and proposed use of this property is for a dairy facility for milk production, raising replacement heifers and growing Holstein steers, associated structures and corrals for livestock husbandry, equipment storage and maintenance facilities, waste management and control structures and residences for the owners and employees. This proposal is for 5000 cattle,the addition of two new corral areas, replacement of the milking parlor, and reconfiguration of existing corrals. Additionally, this proposal includes the removal and replacement of one existing mobile home dwelling by a permanent 4-plex employee housing unit. 2. This use is consistent with the Weld County Comprehensive plan through the preservation, enhancement and growth of agriculture. This facility is not located on prime farmland due to soil types and slopes. 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 eighteen agriculture jobs for Weld county residents. Typically, feedlot and dairy 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 and non-prime farmland. This proposal is compatible with surrounding areas, agricultural uses and the Weld County Comprehensive Plan. There are five residential homes located within 500 feet of the property boundary. No residential homes are located within 500 feet of physical dairy milking operations. A dairy facility has existed on this property since prior to 1969 through present. 5. a. Up to eighteen employees,the owner and owners family, various sales representatives, supply and delivery people will use this site. b. Eighteen people could be employed at this site at maximum capacity. c. Hours of operations are up to 24 hours per day in the milking parlor and related facilities. Equipment operations,trucks, fanning activities and maintenance activities other than emergencies will occur primarily during daylight hours. d. Most structures are currently in place. Proposed structures would include installation of free stall shed rows over existing pens to shelter cattle. Refer to the site plan map for existing and proposed structures. A new milking parlor will be constructed. The existing milking parlor will be converted to a vet/medical facility for livestock. Two additional corral areas will be constructed. An existing mobile housing unit will be removed and replaced by a permanent 4-plex housing unit. e. A maximum of 5,000 cattle is proposed at any one time. 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. Semi-tractor tanker trucks will pick up milk on a daily basis. Operating equipment includes typical farming equipment, tractors, loaders and attachments,trucks, milking and milk handling equipment. Semi-Tractor Milk Truck 1/day Semi-Tractor Commodity truck 5/wk Commodity Farm Trucks 2/wk Hay Trucks, Semi-Tractors daily during hay season Harvest trucks for haylage and silage season Haylage - 3 days/3 times/year Silage - 10 days/year g. Fire protection for this site is provided by Platteville Fire District. Platteville Fire Dept. 303 Marian Platteville, CO 80651 (970) 785-2232 h. Domestic and livestock drinking and milking systems water is supplied by the City of Platteville. Irrigation water is provided through shares of the Farmers Reservoir and Irrigation Company. Town of Platteville Farmers Reservoir &Irrigation Co. 400 Grand Avenue 80 South 27th Avenue Platteville, CO 80651 Brighton, CO 80601 (970) 785-2245 (970) 659-7373 i. This site uses 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 fanning 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. 8. Storm water drainage is handled by a series of storage ponds designed, maintained and operated in accordance with the Colorado Confined Animal Feeding Control Regulations. Water from these ponds is used to irrigated farmground. 9. Improvements and reconfiguration of existing facilities is ongoing. Additional expansion is variable and dependent on the commodity milk market. The performance of the milk market will determine the aggressiveness or passiveness of this expansion. Landscaping and improvements to the physical appearance of the facility will begin subsequent to USR approval at the first optimum planting and/or transplanting period for selected species. 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 due to sanitary conditions required at dairy facilities. Stormwater and water from the milking facilities is stored in earthen structures designed to meet the requirements of the Colorado Confined Animal Feeding Control Operations Regulations. Water from the retention structures 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 and agricultural wastewater 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 Town of Platteville 400 Grand Avenue • Platteville, CO 80651 ADMINISTRATION • PUBLIC SAFETY • PUBLIC WORKS • RECREATION May 26, 1998 Thomas Haren EnviroStock, Inc. 11990 Grant Street, Suite 402 Denver, CO 80233 Dear Thomas: This letter is to inform you that the Town will continue to serve Bella Holsteins at 13278 Weld County Road 32, Platteville, Colorado 80651 with town water. On Behalf of the Town of Platteville, ane Danielzuk Town Administrator IIPEP �Y4 2 7 19 ' 98 __� TOWN HALL • P.O. Box 70 • Fax: 970-785-2476 • 970-785-2245 PUBLIC SAFETY • P.O. Box 389 • Fax: 970-785-2476 • 970-785-2215 REPORT DATE 05/22/98 COLORADO WELLS, APPLICATIONS, AND PERMITS PAGE 1 COLORADO DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES P' '•T D CO OWNER INFORMATION ACTIVITY STATUS 1ST USED ANNUAL ACRES GEOL WELL WELL WATER SEC LOCAT'N TOWN P CD DATE CD DATE WD MD DB USE DATE APROP IRR AQFR YIELD DEPTH LEVEL COORDINATES QTRS SC SHIP RANGE M 1 62 PLATTEVILLE TOWN OF %HOLLY I HOLDER PC DENVER, CO 80202 AP 07/10/95 AU 08/21/95 2 2 - GW 01508,2000W SESW 19 3 N 66 W S 1 62 HENRICKSON SHIRLEY PLATTEVILLE, CO 80651 AP 06/24/81 AU 12/30/86 2 89 GW NENW 20 3 N 66 W S 25147 1 62 OLIN RAY PLATTEVLLE, CO 80651 2 9 09/06/65 10.00 490 148 NENW 20 3 N 66 W S 36535 1 62 OLIN RAY RT 1 BOX 221 PLATTEVILLE, CO 80651 2 9 01/20/69 8.00 526 162 NENW 20 3 N 66 W S 68225 1 62 OLIN EMERY RT 1 BOX 221A PLATTEVILLE, CO 80651 2 89 03/20/73 1.00 15.00 510 150 0208N,2180W NENW 20 3 N 66 W S 162352 1 62 HENRICKSON GARY 1327E WCR 32. PLATTEVILLE, CO 80651 EX 11/07/91 2 8 L ELF 12.00 500 125 0400N,1200W NWNW 20 3 N 66 W S Manure & Process Wastewater Management Plan Bella Holsteins, Inc. 13278 Road 32 Platteville, CO 80651 Developed in accordance with the Colorado "Confined Animal Feeding Operations Control Regulation" Generally Accepted Agricultural Best Management Practices Prepared by NVIRO TOCK,I+. 11990 Grant Street, Suite 402 Denver, Colorado 80233 May 30, 1998 Table of Contents 1.INTRODUCTION 3 1.1 PURPOSE 3 1.2 LEGAL OWNER, CONTACTS AND AUTHORIZED PERSONS 4 1.3 LEGAL DESCRIPTION 5 2.SITE DESCRIPTION 6 2.1 FACILITIES 6 2.1.1 Average Working Capacity Worksheet 7 2.2 SITE GEOLOGY AND HYDROLOGY 8 3. MAPS 9 3.1 LOCATION MAP-FIGURE 1 9 3.2 SITE MAP-FIGURE 2 10 4.STORMWATER MANAGEMENT 11 4.1 GRADING AND DRAINAGE 11 4.2 FLOOD PLAINS 11 4.3 DRAINAGE SCHEMATIC 12 4.4 FLOODPLAIN MAP 13 5.STORMWATER RETENTION FACILITIES 14 6.RETENTION FACILITY DEWATERING 15 7. SOLID MANURE MANAGEMENT 15 8.IRRIGATION AND NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT 15 9.INSPECTIONS AND REVIEWS 16 10.FORMS 17 11.NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT REFERENCES 18 2 1. 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). The intent of this regulation is to prevent the discharge of manure or process wastewater from concentrated animal feeding operations into waters of the State and to encourage beneficial use on agricultural land. This MMP outlines current site conditions, structures and areas requiring management of solid manure, stormwater runoff 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 runoff 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. 1.1 Purpose The purpose of this Plan for Bella Holsteins is: 1. To describe stormwater and management practices 2. To describe solid waste (manure) management practices 3 1.2 Legal Owner, Contacts and Authorized Persons The legal owner of the property located at 13278 WCR 32, Platteville, CO is: Bella Holsteins Correspondence and Contacts should be made to: Mr. Gary Henrickson 13278 WCR 32 Platteville, CO 80651 (970)785-2415 The individual(s) at this facility who is (are) responsible for developing the implementation, maintenance and revision of this MMP are listed below: Gary Henrickson Owner (Name) (Title) (Name) (Title) (Name) (Title) 4 1.3 Legal Description The confined animal feeding facility described in this MMP is located at: Dairy and Facilities: Parts of the east 1/2 of the NE 1/4, Section 19 and the NW 1/4, Section 20, Township 3 North, Range 66 West of the 6th principal meridian, Weld County, Colorado. 5 2. Site Description 2.1 Facilities Bella Holsteins is owned by Mr. Gary Henrickson. The subject property is shown on Figures 1 and 2 . The average annual working capacity of Bella Holsteins is 5000 cows. (See Average Working Capacity Worksheet). The dairy is bordered on the north by WCR 32. Native rangeland and farmground surround the property on the three remaining sides. The existing dairy is an open lot and freestall configuration with concrete feedbunk areas and aprons, fenced corrals, alleys, offices and feed storage areas, and loading areas. Two additional corral areas are proposed south of the existing facilities. These corrals will follow the same general construction as existing facilities with the addition of updated provisions for waste management and nuisance control. The capacity of the existing dairy and the new corrals is 5000 animals. Corrals will be graded for proper drainage. Stormwater from the site is contained in an earthen stormwater retention pond located east and west of the facilities. The ponds are designed to meet current regulatory standards for volume requirements and seepage limitations. The stormwater and wastewater are used for irrigating adjacent farmground in an agronomic manner as required by current State regulations. 6 n re e d N .0 ri 9 m m v = d V. m a CI W. m a Q ≥ E o s v E E Lp Q U + + + + U O a O N ��, rn-icN. .Ci _ c I- d o E w m �w Ea u C u ` m LC V ^ _ d 6I . a ~ U C W mC JC cc R=O. ` > O N0. > Q cna a3 � a rz Y .=Y d w Z �rY o muriet It% a y Z. b 3 J i ,o x v o CC Z tl d n W "d co d N U...1cia tyG a W d U iin n Lel ``T h 4 a cia I.: IL ao 0 W Ufr.Ol g d t> a.o-'µ .. £ c Q U U 2 9 i U N U L U co O W a CO LL 8 J O a w-313 it.:-, O Q � Q Y Q a € V W L a ,c ' L d E v f ak oL Q d O it w i px!�1� LL t O t: a) .vim,z., v .9“.:, in E 0 u `E n,,.,.0 co la> c •c , a > >0 u co-"0 d l.m E ,.. n Cn CO c :c Ca O N c ^¢ to 0 4 p " -a U 'a >� c 0 o En co t1 d ca a N E• c '^ En > 'o adi to a m C 0 v u, a. cL cn i a `0. , o d Q h Vl d 0 i+ d 2 E d >.. To En '-.C.. ♦ d V " O .... d p lc cc G d uN� -C J •c 'o — To Q •E , ` •C N LL Q U 0 rG H d w C = m o 3 CO L _ j. Q co Z 2 co • — N CO V i0 [O Z 2.2 Site Geology and Hydrology The following geologic and hydrologic discussion is based on EnviroStock, Inc. 's review of United States Geologic Survey Maps. According to United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, soil survey maps of Weld County,the predominant near-surface soil at the dairy is classified as Olney fine sandy loam and Vona Sandy Loam. Depth to water in the alluvial aquifer is approximately± 100 feet and generally flows to the northwest. Depth to the alluvial groundwater at Bella Holsteins is estimated from existing well logs and well permits. Surface water generally flows to the north and west,toward the South Platte river basin located approximately 1 to 2 miles west. The dairy is not located in the 100-year flood plain. 8 3. Maps 3.1 Location Map - Figure 1 The Topographical Location Map shows the location of Bella Holsteins, surrounding sites, topography and major drainages. l � / � $ . \ A t m 'a Li/. / ' ,. 9 ,d ` G 'p797 -4]99 4799. ' °' \ II 4796 -� i I `1 JJI a 1I f y • 479' I : `1 o i / -----c_ 1 4]80 1 11 1 2 4801- 4 ' 900 1 O 2 IO)) � � • ° ��cgs 1311 o BM ,/ / 4'es 4 1: I 1 a• (NN-----\ ci- JY i =_• j `I 4-1 \, _°vI . MIZpa V •6 47959-. 2i . I'•,$ na t Cem �� II l— 4 "e m •I • Qao •Y 1 �4e--� \ IIar- •• •11 •-I l ��',', • :\% `.\\\ \` 1' 923 - y �'`n:. \ u ., IBM -goo • �.° • El -^mil. •RffisIA);��-��. �,; �_ \ \ \ '� �\ \ �J n i•-• i ,I! _-_ •i 7 1 �� I �� `eo• , P •tteville r, /4>90 .r• �. 'pry\I:t� I I I. be 0 09 • `:24 li -- ;�I h19 n him 1,T I /))Lol \ \ !i 1 1 i I �, 1 ( i _ 479. i.�� \ v I � � �.I A 4-eoo . . 6 --- .__, DI - �n I �. �1 ) A4, i so \ �� .--.a:12,. �� s-_/ `\ zoo C_ =aeu 2 �` 2 5 0 )) )- \ < \ ilu ' T 4812 s' q _ _ 85 • ,\ , III �. ` `. 1 Moore ° B o._'--,, - , ` ::1 �l,r-. -- — I p1 \ .----- ‘ ' 1 3.2 Site Map - Figure 2 This Site Map details the configuration of the dairy corrals, alleys and stormwater pond system. • °i i I sI 4 ' ! ' la g; 1A 11 I l� , i t� .9 °ri — 1 — — o i i ii— Bo _ € 11 B� °I— �E I I i I t f f 4 1 a ea I i I. Si9 1.--"q1) I van"' r Ill p 4 4 1 9 ea p 6 aY ' I l• 1 B I E E ° ! Y £ 4 T - E rip .. 1 Bhp B . .. ,..y p I ( i I gy, I ' i R BELLA HOLSTEINS e� ""Sa.�..-- �W q A u��j, PRG 0SCD CCNDIIfCNSKIP CLEM CAW* ,r ,^^ S£CIIMS 19& c'1l• T 3 N. N 66 V 4. Stormwater Management The stormwater and wastewater management plan for the dairy includes provisions for a drainage system, conveyance facilities and stormwater retention ponds and incorporates methods for managing stormwater runoff and solid wastes. Due to the semi-arid conditions of northeastern Colorado,very little stormwater nm-off management is necessary at this site. The primary water source into the stormwater retention ponds is from stormwater runoff from the dairy surfaces. 4.1 Grading and Drainage The dairy's grading and drainage plan is predominately east and west towards the stormwater retention ponds. A drainage schematic is show in figure 4.3. Precipitation, spilled water,urine and other drainage from the facilities will be directed to a common collection system by surface grading. The corrals will be graded such that the ground surface slopes downward approximately one (1)to two (2)percent. Drainage ways will be designed to transport the estimated stormwater runoff volume from a 25-year, 24-hour storm event. 4.2 Flood Plains As per the Colorado Confined Animal Feeding Control Regulations, dairy waste management structures such as ponds and manure stockpiles are not to be located within a prescribed 100 year flood plain without adequate flood proofing measures. The existing dairy is not located in a 100 year flood plain. Manure stockpiles will be located outside of the 100 year floodplain. 11 4.3 Drainage Schematic III ' ' / z�� __v_ e I I I 1 I a s¢` a I __ - n.m saw — I a. 1 A L — i III fi i C 1 I I , 1 .S ________ 2 a I y I- ?.. O Y I an w qq n g p 4 / I \ I $ AU. i �� R 3 3 1¢ s i t e'‘ e ,, s r .s F s t • z ...,, ,7^ .40 _ /, \\ R > �.� 1 i r--- -I:..) LJ / a i li ` K .� ,iIins. nNR�n rnIna n•w �owers Elevati n h BELLA HOLSTEINS 'se,:�� V co., Inc. Q_' ��' PARTIAL SITE NAP OF DAIRY AREA >m °"°'m u�� _ E"' '� SECTIONS 19 s 20, r 3 N, R 66 V ”4°Ll _p w_ 1� 4.4 Floodplain Map II I` 18 17 II 11 1/4\• ICC\ • • • te EDI ' A• 1 30 / „n 5. Stormwater Retention Facilities Design criteria for the stormwater retention pond to contain stormwater runoff from the facility is outlined below. Calculations for the necessary retention capacity were based on the 25-year, 24-hour rainfall event for Platteville, Colorado with a minimum of two feet of freeboard for±40 acre dairy facility 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 corrals,processing and feeding areas of the existing facility is approximately±40 acres. The 25 year, 24 hour storm event for the Platteville area is 3.4 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: (3.4 inches- (0.2 x 1.11 SCS complex curve #90 S value))2 = 2.36 inches of runoff 3.4 inches + (0.8 x 1.11 SCS complex curve #90 S value) 2.36 inches x 40 acres x I fi/12m = 8 acre/ft. runoff capacity retention required for existing operations Capacity for the current stormwater and process water storage system is±31 acre/feet on the east side and±92 acre-feet on the west. Total Storage capacity for the facility is 123 acre-feet. The east and west storage systems are interconnected. The retention ponds have adequate capacity to contain the estimated runoff from the exposed surface of the facility from a 25-year, 24-hour storm event and wastewater generated at the facility. The retention ponds are earthen structures with a liner intended to meet requirements in Section 4.8.4 of the Confined Animal Feeding Operation Control regulation of one-quarter ( 1/32 ) inch per day maximum seepage limitation for facilities that collect and store stormwater runoff and wastewater from their facility.No new storage systems are proposed. The existing structures contain 4 times the necessary stormwater and process wastewater capacity. The stormwater retention pond will be managed to maintain a two (2) foot free-board capacity. The pond will be dewatered periodically to supply water and nutrients for irrigation of farmground. In the event of a 25-year, 24-hour storm, the ponds will be dewatered within fifteen (15) days to regain its original holding capacity. 14 6. Retention Facility Dewatering Lagoon water is applied for irrigation to approximately±200 acres of adjacent farmground owned and or managed by Bella Holsteins. A PTO pump and several floating electric pumps are used to transfer water and to dewater the retention ponds onto farmground. Storage water is also recycled through the freestall barn areas. 7. Solid Manure Management Solid manure is managed through routine corral maintenance. Animal density per corral is controlled to optimize the surface area and feed bunk space while maintaining solid, dry footing for livestock. As typical with dairy management, solid manure in the corrals is mounded to allow proper stormwater drainage, eliminate low spots and ponding,providing dry, high ground for livestock comfort. Corrals are harrowed on a routine basis. Solid manure from the operation is routinely collected, sold or given to area farmers, and land applied. It takes several seasons to properly create adequate corral mounds. Dairy corral 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 dairy corral area. Once a proper"hard pan" is developed and adequate corral mounds constructed, solid manure management for the expansion area will be collected and applied to farmground at agronomically beneficial rates through arrangements and contracts with local farmers. 8. 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. 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. 15 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 the Bella Holsteins stormwater 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. Both scenarios are easily managed and preventative measures taken using soil, manure and wastewater sample data, simple agronomic calculations and appropriate record keeping. Any land application of manure or stormwater onto land owned or managed by Bella Holsteins may be supplemented by commercial fertilizers. This application system is consistent with"Tier Two" land application at agronomic rates as defined in the Colorado Confined Animal Feeding Operations Control regulation. Methods and references for nutrient uptake calculations from Appendix D and Appendix E of the Colorado Confined Animal Feeding Operations Control regulation are included on the following pages along with a standardized form for nutrient accounting. These records will be maintained on-site for three years. 9. Inspections and Reviews 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. Baste! Initinls ' tN'otes ;, 1.6 10. Forms These forms will be used for recordkeeping and maintenance at the Bella Holsteins facility: • Manure Removal Log • Manure Application Log • Wastewater Application Log • Retention Facility Inspection Report • Preventative Maintenance Log • Manure Management Record Sheet (Agronomic Evaluation) 17 MANURE REMOVAL LOG (manure taken off feedyard property) Year: DATE PERSON TAKING MANURE AMOUNT (tons) Nutrient Management Pan MANURE APPLICATION LOG (manure applied to feedyard property) Field: Year DATE CROP TONS ACRES TON/ACRE • Nutrient Management Pan WASTEWATER APPLICATION LOG (wastewater applied to feedyard property) Field: Year: Acre inches =gallons per minute X number of minutes per irrigation event 27,158 Inches per event .= Acre inches Acres GALLONS NUMBER INCHES PER NUMBER OF ACRE OF PER DATE CROP MINUTE MINUTES INCHES ACRES EVENT Nutrient Management Pan RETENTION FACILITY INSPECTION REPORT (complete this form for each retention facility on a quarterly basis) • Retention facility: Year: YES NO NIA Embankment free of visible seepage Embankment showing no signs of cracking Vegetation maintained on embankment as designed Riprap or erosion controls iii 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 2 feet 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: Signature: _ Date: Nutrient Management Pan 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 AU components are free of rodent nests Operational Valves- — — YES NO N/A COMMENTS 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 11. Nutrient Management References 18 This plan was prepared in general accordance with the Agreement for Services between Holsteins. 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 Holsteins. 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 • 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 Barley 48 80 bu 1.82 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 Soybeans 60 35 bu 6.25 2 tons stover 2.25 Sunflower 25 1,100 lb 3.57 2 tons stover 1.50 Forage crops Alfalfa 4 tons 2.25 Big bluestem 3 tons 0.99 Birdsfoot trefoil 3 tons 2.49 Bromegrass 3 tons 1.87 Alfalfa-grass 4 tons 1.52 Little bluestem 3 tons 1.10 Orchardgrass 4 tons 1.47 Red clover 3 tons 2.00 Reed canarygrass 4 tons 1.35 Ryegrass 4 tons 1.67 Switchgrass 3 tons 1.15 Tall fescue 4 tons 1.97 Timothy 3 tons 1.20 Wheatgrass 1 ton 1.42 Continued on next page • 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 Com 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 Turf grass Bluegrass 2 2.91 Bentgrass 2 3.10 Vegetable crops Bell peppers 9 0.40 Means,dry I 3.13 Cabbage 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. a Management Plan for Nuisance Control A Supplement to the Manure & Process Wastewater ManaMement Plan for Bella Holsteins `/o Gary Henrickson 13278 Road 32 Platteville, Colorado Developed in accordance with Generally Accepted Agricultural Best Management Practices Prepared By NVIRO TOCK,L. 11990 Grant Street, Suite 402 Denver, Colorado 80233 May 30, 1998 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 Introduction This supplemental Management Plan for Nuisance Control has been developed and implemented to identify methods Bella Holsteins 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 Bella Holsteins. Legal Owner, Contacts and Authorized Persons The legal owner of the property located at 13278 Road 32,Platteville, Colorado is Bella Holsteins. Correspondence and Contacts should be made to: Mr. Gary Henrickson 13278 Road 32 Platteville, CO 80651 (970) 785-2415 The individual(s) at this facility who is (are)responsible for developing the implementation, maintenance and revision of this supplemental plan are listed below: Gary Henrickson Owner (Name) (Title) (Name) (Title) Legal Description The confined animal feeding facility described in this MMP is located at: East 1/2 of Section 19, and Section 20, Township 3 North, Range 66 West of the 6th P.M, Weld County, Colorado. 3 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. NI-14N 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 njection application under the soil surface, but still may 1,725 tons/yr = 86 A minimum :ause problems on sloping or erosive fields. In general, 20 tons/A land base manure 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 K2O (lb/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 'urkey 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. Approximate nutrient credits'from various manure sources(calculated on a wet weight basis) • % 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 abn,000gal) 89 36 15 10 5 Dairy without bedding 82 6 2 1 1 with bedding 79 6 2 1 1 lagoon sludge nbrl.000 gal) 92 16 10 3 2 Swine without bedding 82 8 5 I 1 with bedding 82 6 4 I 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 NH,-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. • I _ 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 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. K,O 0.5% 2. Available N in manure Total N = 1.0% If manure is applied at the maximum rate,additional NO 3-N = 10 mg/kg/10,000= .001%N fertilizer N should not be applied. Maximum rate is based .001% N x 20 (1b/ton)/% = .02 lb NO}N/ton upon a one-time application. If yearly application of manure NH 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(lb/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-(NO 3-N+NH 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/ton)/% 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 (]b/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 PZO/A minimum land base for annual manure application rates (Calculation 3). Conversion factors: PPm=m€/kg P x 2.3=PA ppm+ 10,000=% K x 1.2=K2O %nutrient x 20=lb nutrient/ton 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 dairies are dust and odor. However,the management practices for dust or odor control are not inherently compatible. Wet pens and manure produce odor. Dry pens are dusty. The two paragraphs below outline the best management practices for the control of dust and odors that Bella Holsteins will use. The manager shall closely observe pen conditions and attempt to achieve a balance between proper dust and odor control. Additional reference information on odor and dust control as guidance to the dairy manager is attached in section "References". Dust Dust from pen surfaces is usually controlled by intensive management of the pen surface by routine cleaning and harrowing of the pen surface. The purpose of intensive surface management is twofold; to keep cattle clean and to reduce pest habitat. The best management systems for dust control involve moisture management. Management methods Bella Holsteins 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 in new portions of the facility will be managed to minimize dust. 2. Regular manure removal Bella Holsteins will conduct regular manure removal. Typically manure removal and pen maintenance will be conducted several times per month. 3. Sprinkler systems Sprinkler systems, timed appropriately, are an effective method for keeping dairy surfaces moist. Dairy cattle produce significant moisture through urine and feces. Pens surfaces are extensively maintained for cattle health and milk quality purposes. Bella Holsteins is not planning a sprinkler dust control system for this facility. 4. Water Trucks Should nuisance dust conditions arise, water tanker trucks or portable sprinkling systems will be used for moisture control on pens and roadways to minimize nuisance dust conditions. 4 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. Bella Holsteins 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 dairy will conduct routine pen cleaning and surface harrowing to reduce standing water and dry or remove wet manure. 2. Regular manure removal Reduce the overall quantity of odor producing sources. The dairy will conduct routine pen cleaning and harrowing several times per month. 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 dairy to reduce standing water. The stormwater ponds will be dewatered regularly in accordance with the Manure and Wastewater Management Plan for Bella Holsteins. No chemical additives or treatment of the stormwater ponds for odor control are 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. Bella Holsteins 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, Bella Holsteins 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, Bella Holsteins will install physical or mechanical means such as living windbreaks and/or solid fences to further minimize nuisance conditions from dust and odors. 5 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 practices Bella Holsteins will use to manage insects and rodents are to first eliminate possible habitat and then, reduce the available food supply. Bella Holsteins will control flies by: 1. Regular manure removal Manure management removes both food sources and habitat 2. Reduce standing water Standing water is a primary breeding ground for insects 3. Minimize fly habitat Standing water,weeds and grass, manure stockpiles, etc. are all prime habitat for reproduction and protection. Reduce or eliminate these areas where practical. 4. Weeds and grass management Keep weeds and grassy areas to a minimum. These provide both protection and breeding areas. 5. Minimize stockpiles or storage of manure Stockpiles of manure provide both breeding and protective habitat. Keep stockpile use to a minimum. 6. Biological treatments Parasitic wasps are excellent biological fly control and are widely used. The wasps lay their eggs in fly larvae hindering fly reproduction. 7. Baits and chemical treatments Due to environmental and worker's safety concerns, chemical treatments are a last line of defense for insect control. Baits and treatments must be applied routinely. However,they are very effective. Rodent control at Bella Holsteins 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 control methods and will be used as necessary. In the event Weld County Health Department determines nuisance conditions from pest such as flies and rodents persist, Bella Holsteins will initially increase the frequency of the housekeeping and management practices outlined previously. If further action is necessary, Bella Holsteins will increase use of chemical controls and treatments, such as fly sprays and baits and Rodendicide for pest control. 6 References These references are provided as a resource to Weld County Health Department and Bella Holsteins for making nuisance control decisions for the facility. These references represent the latest and most modern management and scientific information to date for control of nuisance conditions for the livestock feeding industry. 7 LIVES T O C K �1 SERIES 1'7t t ce of ri \ rt also when 1. \ fictive. I ../ - Pen 1 k W :fine ki;;; no ,1220 2,. V ANAGE VIENT ; ,� Feedlot.:manure ma;4:.,T.,..:„.,,,, f i.::._:,nagement, -, ,r 1 s 1� -1 by 1.G. Davis, T.L. Stanton, and T. Haren ' nes. Ho :k Facts... Many concerns at feedlot operations are directly linked to pen maintenance and manure management. Odors and dust problems, animal health . For and performance, water runoff, and protection of groundwater and surface water , .r prolonged muddy are all interconnected in confined feeding operations. Studies have shown animal les litions, animal performance performance to be reduced by as much as 25 percent under prolonged muddy be reduced as much as 25 conditions. Respiratory problems occur, and treatment costs dramatically increase, ent. 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. nutrients excreted in cattle Aggressive pen cleaning can damage the underlying compacted "hard pan" and ure in Colorado have a contribute to groundwater contamination. have Therefore, it is vital and necessary to take an integrated approach to Ii alue of $34.7 million feedlot pen maintenance and manure management. Encompassing so many 1 ir• variables will, however, result in compromises between opposing performance i for pen moisture of 25 to 35 objectives. For example, low initial construction costs might equate to higher maintenance costs. Mother common compromise is between dust and odor be :ent to control odor, fly, and control. If the feedlot surface is too dry, dust will become a problem. If it remains t problems. too wet, odor is a great concern. Compromises often are needed in an integrated ≥r of approach if the overall feedlot goals are to be met. is with light-weight feeder Typically, there are about 1,000,000 cattle on feed at any one time in de, high winds, and low Colorado. Each 1,000-pound animal produces between 50 and 60 pounds of cipitation are at greatest risk manure and urine per day with a moisture content of about 90 percent. By the of dust problems. time the manure is removed from the feedlot, its moisture content has dropped to r the about 30 percent. The nutrients excreted in the manure from these cattle have a 5 as designed with a minimum fertilizer value of $34.7 million every year gable 1). How these nutrients are $ 3 percent slope are best for managed determines whether they are an economic benefit or an environmental inaging excess moisture and liability to the feedlot operator. Nitrates from manure can be leached to Ilecting runoff. groundwater, and excessive nutrients in surface water can lead to overgrovith of aquatic plants, which use up all the oxygen and suffocate fish. Nutrients can be lost epage from runoff holding or conserved v for f future a crop applied the land. use at back erye: in the production units, in storage, e imds is required by law to b_n o after ed u ss than 1/4-inch per day. Table 1:Fertilizer value of manure from feeder cattle in Colorado. Total Fertilizer Nutrients in Fertilizer value($/yr) Manure arer Nutrients ons in as- Colorado Feeder Cattle basis)ton on an as- rmlllinn ihryear) r ,^rO spread Wl 42 million lbs N 56.5 million 21 lb N � million lbs P.O, 516.5 million 26 lb I SOr3.!72 million Ibs Kp $8.7 million university® 36 lb ISO Cooperative Extension To calculate fertilizer value,the following prices were used:mono-ammonium phosphate$305 ton;urea $290/tan;muriate of potash$145/ton. These figures do not include the manure produced by sheep and ©Colorado State University dairy cattle housed in feedlots. Cooperative Extension.5/97. Front-end Loaders vs. Box Scrapers experience with the specific site and climatic colaultions. Cattle size and rations also will influence moisture balance and the corresponding appropriate stocking rate. Two of the most common methods of nanure removal are the wheeled front- Typical pen stocking densities in Colorado are between 150 ft'and 300 ft2 per id loader and the box scraper. Both animal.Increase stocking density during warmer,dry periods,and reduce density a effective. The box 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. and(2)maintaining the integrity of the A combination of cattle density, sprinkling, spraying, and precipitation 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 to have a plan in place times while manipulating the bucket. and start prior to the time dust is a serious problem. Remember, water application This is most likely to result in an is minimized by removing loose manure and dust from pens in a timely manner. irregular pen surface at best or damage to the protective"hard pan."A Manure Removal combination of a wheeled front-end loader for major manure removal and a The removal of accumulated manure reduces odors, controls fly larvae, and scraper for final cleaning and grading minimizes the potential for surface and groundwater contamination. Maintaining a would be an effective compromise. firm, dry feedlot surface is an important factor in good animal health and a healthy environment. Frequency of manure removal also varies widely depending on size of lot and pen stocking rate. However, a thorough pen cleaning once per year is an absolute minimum. Most feedyards clean and prepare a pen prior to receiving new or "fresh" cattle. A feedyard operated year round typically replaces cattle or "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. to reduce runoff volume by settling Dry Matter Basis solids and removing nutrients. As Excreted Beef Cattle 11.5 tons/yr(88%water) 1.38 tons/yr Soil sample downhill from stockpiles to Dairy Cattle 15.0 tons/yr(88%water) 1.80 tons/yr monitor nitrate buildup. 36ccy 7.3 tons/yr(75%water) 1.82 tons/yr Locate manure stockpiles at least 150 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). 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 structureswaterers and feed bunks. removal by the crop. Finally, divide the pounds N produced in the manure by the areas ar e 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 from the runoff will reduce odors and prevent the pond from filling up with solids. NAHMS. 1995. Environmental Monitoring by Feedlots. Centers for Epidemiology and Animal Health. Management of Runoff Holding Ponds USDA:APHIS:VS. N167. 1194. Seal storage ponds and lagoons to prevent seepage. Seepage is required Spencer, W, and D. Tepfer. 1993. by law to be less than 1/4 inch per day if the pond contains stormwater runoff, only, but the seepage requirement is locc than 1/32 inch per day if the pond stores Economics of composting feedlot 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,J.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 of 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. V.G. Dal'is, 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. B-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 m s million tons per year(dry matter basis).The t' 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 tion 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.. .crops,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 A&M University tral Great Plains where there is 15 to 25 inches of System - c.-.e-"•?_-!=1 Caroerte, Director•The Texas ASM University System•College Station,Texas • rain per year,and 300 to 400 square feet per head manure storage tanks beneath slotted floors and in the eastern and northern Great Plains where anaerobic lagoons used for manure storage and _ 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,partic-u- 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. Lions. 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 • aand 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 create 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 Blackwood,1977). Alcohols Amines Methylamine Acids Ethylamine Odors from livestock feeding Trimethylamine Diethylanine operations Acetic Propionic bAlthough odors from livestock feeding facilities Lw Meric Esters c are sometimes art annoyance,odorous gases are • not toxic at concentrations found downwind.How- Fixed Gases Dever,nuisance lawsuits can threaten the survival of Carbonyls Carbon Methane((odorlodore sodorless) ess) an operation (George et at,1985), and livestock Ammonia Sulphur compounds producers need to control the evolution of odorous Hydrogen Sulfide compounds (Miner, 1975;National Research Coun- p Dimethyl Sulfide Nitrogen Heterocycles di, 1979). Diethyl Sulfide Indole • 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 create 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 facilities area the measurement of odor.However, the instru- function of the material as excreted, the biologic re- menu and techniques used in sensory odor meas- actions occurring in the material and the configura- urement may vary.Odor measurement techno- tion 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- • 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 surfaces (e.g.,building floors and animals), - es■ Dilutions to threshold with a dynamic forced- side be at 10 California Elam t pens 1 )collected lecteedlot dust usingplSs in choice olfactometer or scentometer,and plex high-volume air sampler and operating in • Equivalent concentration of butanol vapor 1- to 3-hour increments during 24-hour sampling z. (using a butanol olfactometer)that matches periods.Peak particulate concentrations,which the ambient odor intensity. were collected between 7:00 and 10:00 p.m.,ranged from 1,946 to 35,536 µg per m3 and averaged 14,200 Several odor states and smunicipalities bas d he have property- per m3.Lowest concentrations occurred in early line standards based on these and other mess- moing and were only 130 to 250 mg per m3 in urement methods(Sweeten,1988). some feedlots. The odor caused by anaerobic decomposition of swine manure was measured by Meyer and Con- Algeo et al. (1972)measured total suspended par- ticulate in 24-hour samplings both upwind and verse(1981),who found that hydrogen sulfide and downwind in 25 California feedlots(Table 2).Net ammonia concentrations prcntwere, atre degrees r F particulate concentrations(downwind minus up-percthan 60 d 118 percent European e at 73 rch( F ind for a 24-hour period ranged from 54 to 1,268 at 8 ),th degrees F. emission r from ch(iQaren- µg per m3.The average value for all 25 feedlots houses 8i the odor talyto d au swine was 654+ 376 µg per ms.Upwind concentrations houses with each 18 degree stored manure increased averaged-25 percent of the downwind concentra- ture and,i i8 ventilation rise in manure tempera- dons. oth upwind and downwind particulate lev- morethanincluding times grea er i summer thane was els usually exceeded the U.S.EPA ambient wore .Efour n were 73 tp in t than in air-quality standards for TSP. winter.Emissions percent greater with q �' fully slotted floors than with partially slotted floors. Table 2. Summary of 24-Hour Particulate • (TSP) Concentrations at 25 California In w the same study,odor intensity observations Cattle Feedlots (Alger) et al., 1972). were made with scentometers both upwind and downwind of feedlots.Upwind odor intensities wnwl Dond Upwind Net,Downwind were usually in the range of 0 to 2 dilutions toUpwind threshold,while downwind concentrations aver- nwi (s(n=24) minus U p) aged 13 to 49 dilutions to threshold. Mean 836 206 654 Dust emissions from livestock Std.Devi a- =437 =116 =376 • feeding operations tion RangeMin mum 100 46 54 In 1971,the U.S.EPA (1987) defined primary and Maximum 1,599 460 1,268 secondary ambient air-quality standards for total suspended particulate matter(TSP).The primary peters and Blackwood(1977) deed major standards were set at 260 µg per m3 for a 24-hour dons in these results: limita- average,not to be exceeded more than once per year,with an annual geometric mean of 75 µg per ■ All sampling was performed in the dry sea- m3.Secondary standards were set at 150 µg perm son;and for a 24-hour sampling period,not to be exceededa Details such as feedlot size,cattle number, dis- more than once per year. 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.Nevertheless, using(1972),Peters and particulates with an aerodynamic partide diameter Algeo ald what they e considered Blackwood to (1977) 9-case less thane wequal t a nominalreplaced a (U.S.e24-hour EPA, ro ections for cattle feedlots. According to their primary The new standard:dardwith1) PM-1 the arof pprojections feedyards with more than 500 head, 1TSP standard a annual-10 standard is at 140 square feet per head,would emit more mean pg per an 2)r hmeticd the PM- geometric than 100 tons of particulates per year,not includ- 50 with an arithmetic mean PM-10 standard of in the feedmill. µg per m3;and 3) replaced the secondary TSP g standard with 24-hour and annual PM-10 stand- Based on Peters and Blackwood's(1977) treatment ards that are identical to the primary standards. of the California data,the U.S. EPA published emis- These standards,of course,apply to livestock (ion factors (AP-42) for cattle feedlots as being feeding operations. crude estimates at best(U.S.EPA,1986). 3 These emission factors were based on the assump- 100 Lion that feedlots would generate 280 pounds of I I I I I I I I I 1 1 particulates per day per 1,000 head,and 27 tons of — HNd Prnte _ - particulates per 1,000 head fed.Other emissions u"°'9.54 6.1n 0$0.2.11 2,l factors were similarly written for ammonia,amines so _ — and total sulfur compounds. - ' i• The U.S.EPA emission factors ignored the major i — — climatic differences among cattle feeding regions E of California,the Great Plains and the Midwest. 2 60 — — Both total rainfall and seasonality of rainfall are e s i 9. different.'Also,California has less than 4 percent T of the United States cattle on feed,as compared to 40 — G t Texas and Nebraska which combined have 40 iT percent. 1 i . U --- — To obtain a broader data base, dust emissions were i measured at three cattle feedlots in Texas,ranging 20 - e( — in size from 17,000 to 45,000 head.Measurements o were made on 15 occasions in 1987 to determine — — both the total suspended particulates(TSP)and the I I I I I I I it 1 I I , particulates below 10µm aerodynamic particle size 0 (PM-10) (Sweeten et al.,1988).Net feedlot dust con- 2 CO e t - r r n ei 0 01 a N N n Ni: N CO m O— - '^ N N C, • 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 Figure 1. eunWmtree.plume Iradian of teedwt dust parliPes or given size capture California data).Dust concentrations were gener- on hors of Him Volume and PeA10 samplers:dwnvMd samWers at ally highest in early evening and lowest in early (Sweet A.C and a(6989.) 17,1a a d 16). g (Sweeten and Pamai.+sae.) morning,and upwind concentrations averaged 22 percent of downwind concentrations. • Using two types of PM-10 sampler(Wedding and Anderson-321A), the PM-10 dust concentrations captured on high volume samplers averaged were 19 to 40 percent,respectively,of mean TSP 14.2µm downwind and 12.3µm upwind of feedlots concentrations.There was good correlation be- (Sweeten and Parnell, 1989).Thirty-three percent tween PM-10 and TSP concentrations with r2= of the downwind TSP were smaller than 10µm, 0.634 and 0.858 for Wedding and Anderson's while 40 percent of upwind TSP was smaller than 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 Pamell,1988). Methods 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 captured in Wedding's instruments. faces with water at strategic times and in proper 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,2 1/2 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 than 10µm and 66 percent were smaller than 10µm. Elam et al. (1971)reported that feedlot manure moisture content of 20 to 30 percent was needed Mass median diameters (MMD)of dust particles for dust control. Particulate concentrations (24-hour averages)increased from 3,150 to 23,300 Frequent manure collection by flushing,cable µg per m3 when daily water sprinkling was termi- scraping or pit drainage recharge helps absorb nated for 7 days. odorous gases and climate anaerobic storage condi- 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 contentthough in the top 1 inch ito feedlot ionstosurface, d)al- agents,counteractants,digestive deodorants, odor intensity(dilutions threshold)in- g chemical deodorants,adsorbents and feed addi- manure Regression equations sto indicated ce the fives tter,1980).Digestive deodorants are the manure moisture needs u fab a 6 to 1 percent (wet basis)in the loose surface manure and 35 to most widely used.They must be added frequently 41 percent at a 1-inch depth in order to control to allow selected bacteria to become predominant. feedlot dust to allowable TSP limits of 150 and Potassium permanganate (100-500 ppm),hydrogen 260 µg per m3. peroxide (100-12.5 ppm) and chlorine are oxidizing chemicals capable of controlling hydrogen sulfide emissions. Controlling odor Warburton et al. (1981)significantly reduced odors Odor control methods for livestock facilities in- from anaerobic swine manure slurry with four dude: (1)manure treatment-aeration,anaerobic treatments-aeration,chlorination and two bio- digestion or biochemical treatment;(2) capture and chemical formulations.Lindvall et al.(1974) re- treatment of odorous gases using covered storage duced odors from liquid swine manure with pits or lagoons,soil incorporation,soil absorption ammonia persulfate,and Miner and Stroh(1976) beds or filter fields,or packed beds;and(3)odor determined that zeolites (clinoptilolite and 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 tion of liquid swine manure at 90 degrees F re- the ventilation rate and hence the rate of odor emis- duced the odor emission rate by 90 percent as sion.However,rigid covers are expensive,and flex- , compared to pit-stored slurry(Klarenbeek,1985). ible membrane covers over large surfaces are Anaerobic digestion also reduced the time for odor subject to photodegradation and wind damage. dissipation from 72 hours to 24 hours. Wet scrubbers that involve spraying exhaust air Anaerobic lagoons must have adequate capacity with water or oxidizing chemicals are widely used (i.e.,low loading rate)to produce relatively little for industrial and food processing plant odors,and odor.Design criteria have been developed based some researchers have adapted them to livestock on the volatile solids loading rate,which is propor- confinement buildings.Van Geelen 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 concentration with wet scrubbing of exhaust Sweeten et al.,1979; ASAE,1990). from a swine house,although captured dust formed a sludge which made it difficult to recircu- Mechanicaltsolagoons aeration an liquid effective manure in controlo on late the scrubbing water.Schirz(1977)cited prob- method h ( lagoons is al., 1975;Jones odor al., lems with the clogging of spray nozzles when Aerating (Humenik only the top fthird or etswine lagoon scrubbing with recycled water,and biological treat- contents Aeratingproved the c and half uf ed ment was required.Licht and Miner(1978)built a successful reduced power re- horizontal cross-flow,packed-bed wet scrubber for quirements as compared with complete mixing a swine confinement building and achieved 50 and (Humenik et aerational.,of 19 liquidC swine ee ea al. w(197ithout ut 90 percent removal of particulates larger than 1 limited ti manure without a an 5 microns,respectively; and ammonia reduc- tion of 8 to 38 percent;and an 82 percent reduction duced odor as compared to non-aerated storage. of odor intensity. Phillips et al. (1979)rapidly reduced hydrogen sul- of odor intensity. fide and methanol emissions from swine manure A packed-bed dry scrubber filled with a zeolite by aeration,but less volatile and less offensive com- (clinoptilolite) reduced ammonia emissions from a pounds such as phenols persisted.Aeration just poultry house by 45 percent initially,but efficiency prior to land spreading could reduce odors from dropped to only 15 percent in 18 days(Koebliker et field application. al.,1980). C 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 • percent as compared to surface spreading. Odor References 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- duced odor by 67 to 95 percent. ASAE.1976.Manure Production and Characteristics. ASAE Data D384,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 Characteristics. 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,MI,4 p. organic constituents from ventilation air from a swine confinement building using a soil filter sys- Alego,J.W.,C.J.Elam,A.Martinez and T.Westing.1972. tem.Prokop and Bohn(1985)reported 99.9 percent Feedlot Air,Water and Soil Analysis:Bulletin D, Feeders Association,Bakersville,CA,June.7une.7 Cattle How to Control Feedlot Pollution.cAlifomia odor reduction when a soil filter was used to treat high intensity odors in exhaust from rendering 5 p. plant cookers.Soil filters require a moderately fine- American Society of Agricultural Engineers.1987.Con- textured soil,sufficient moisture and a pH of 7 to trol of Manure Odors.ASAE EP-379,Agricultural 8.5.The land area re aired is 2,500 to 4,600 s uare Engineers Yearbook of Standards,American Society q q of Agricultural Engineers,St.Joseph,MI,pp.405-06. feet per 1,000 cfm,depending upon the air flow rate (Prokop and Bohn, 1985).Sweeten et al. (1988) Andre,PD.1985.Sprinklers solved this feedlot dust measured a 95 to 99 percent reduction in ammonia problem.Beef(Feb):70-72,74,79-81. emissions and a 30 to 82 percent reduction in odor Aschbacher,P.W.1972.Air Pollution Research Needs intensity(matching butanol concentrations)using with Animals.Paper No.72-153,Presented at 65th a 1/4-acre sand filter field to scrub air from a pouf- Annual Meeting of Air Pollution Control Associa- try manure composting operation. lion,Pittsburgh,PA Odor dispersion.The farther odorous gases travel Barth,C.L.1985.A Rational Design Standard for Anaero- 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 Society of Agricultural Engineers, percent reduction in odor intensity,as determined St.Joseph,MI,pp.638-647. 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.).Em-i- 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.rnlifor- tances and to nonreactive odorous gases (National nia Agriculture(March):12-13. Research Council,1979).One or more versions of the Gaussian diffusion model are used in most Converse,J.C.,D.L.Day,J.T.Pfeffer and B.A.Jones.1971. Emit- regulatory applications.The prediction models re- Aeration with ORP Control to Suppress Odors that atmospheric stability,winds speed and led from Liquid Swine Manure System.In:Live- quire P P stock Waste Management and Pollution Abatement odor emission rates are known. Proceedings of International Symposium on Live- Based in part on dispersion model results,required stock Wastes,American Society of Agricultural Engi- risers,St.Joseph minimum separation distances for livestock feed- ing MI,pp.267-271. ing operations (based on number of head)have Barn,C.J.,Alego,J.W.,Westing,T.,et al.1971.Measure- been developed for swine facilities in the Nether- merit and control of feedlot particulate matter.Bulle- tin lands(1Qarenbeek,1985)and for cattle feedlots inC.How to Control Feedlot Pollution.California Cattle Feeders Association, Australia (QDPI, 1989).These relationships are Bakasville,CA,January. being used to determine the size of operation that Foster,J.and W.May-rose.1987.Pork Industry Hand- should be allowed in a particular location.The book.Cooperative Extension Service,Purdue Uni- versity,West Lafayette,Ihr Hello