HomeMy WebLinkAbout991571.tiff Hard-Le Holsteins
/o Mr. Lester Hardesty
15274 WCR 72
Greeley, Colorado 80631
Special Use Permit Application
Submitted to Weld County
Spring 1999
Application Prepared By:
EnviroStock, Inc.
11990 Grant Street, Suite 402
Denver, Colorado 80233
(303) 457-4322
EXHIBIT
991571
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES
Weld County Phonenistrative(970) 353-6100,O Extt0 N..3 40,17th
Avenue,(970) 353reeley,6312 CO 80631 \ -
Fax 4,01
USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW APPLICATION
App 'l Receipt# (c 3 Date `t' (� V99-'
Application Fee Paid• 1)1 O V �I Recording Fee Paid
Date I .
Receipt#
Application Reviewed by: 1\
TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT: (Please print or type,except for necessary signature)
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT AREA: .NW 4, SEG I0 76 W
G IJ (12 digit number-found on Tax I.D.
PARCEL NUMBER: ._. .—i.���—��—
Information or obtained et the Assessor's Office.
1� T 6 N,R,(212_1/11-Total Acreage 136 Zone District A Overlay Zone FASection ,
Property Address (if available) 15 2.7 4' WC I2. 7 Z
' Proposed Use ANIMAL FEEDING OPERATION - CALM/ CATTLE
SURFACE FEE(PROPERTY OWNERS) OF AREA PROPOSED FOR THE SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT
Name:VS�ER AND SFfEKI?lu WDESTyAddress: I527'+ WGIz 12.
Home Tele hone:170.154-363cBusiness Telephone470-454-3635
City/State2ip(7�ELE y/ 8 �
p
•
Name: Address:
City/State/Zip:
Home Telephone: Business Telephone
APPLICANT OR AUTHORIZED AGENT(if different than above)
Name: ENVIR.OS'(OGK , INC. . — PNILIP BANK
•
Address: I lgg0 G/ZANT 5T.I STE. 402. City/state/zip: QFA VE'2 GO 9023 .
Home Telephone:
Business Telephone:(503) 457- 4'32.2
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES USE ONLY •
Case# � —
Floodplain• a Yes .a-"No Geologic Hazard: a Yes -'C< No
I hereby state that all statements and plans submitted with the appli on a t and correct t the best of
my knowledge. Weld County Planning Dept.
"( t 7 !f,'"a Sign ure: Owner or Authorized Agent
Rev. 1-27-97 Road File 0 ��
R E C E R D RE:
5
Weld County Planning and Zoning Department
Use by Special Review Questionnaire
Hard-Le Holsteins
15274 WCR 72
Greeley, Colorado
1. The existing and proposed use of this property includes farming, commercial beef production, and
a dairy facility for milk production. Related activities include milk production, raising replacement
heifers and growing steers, feeding beef cattle, and farming. Supporting infrastructure includes
buildings and corrals for livestock husbandry, equipment storage, maintenance facilities, waste
management and control structures and residences for the owners and employees. This proposal is
for 1,850 animals, the addition of four cattle housing units, one new corral area, feed storage area,
and one wastewater and stormwater retention structure, with improvements to the existing drainage.
This proposal also includes the addition of two modular homes for employee housing (see question
7).
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, 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 approximately sixteen 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 farmland and some cattle feeding facilities.
This proposal is compatible with the surrounding agricultural uses and the Weld County
Comprehensive Plan. There are three (3) residential homes located within 500 feet of the property
boundary. There are no residential homes located within 500 feet of physical dairy milking
operations. Livestock production facilities of one form or another have existed on this property
since approximately 1905, when the site was homesteaded.
5. a. Approximately sixteen employees, the owners and owners' family, various sales representatives,
supply delivery people will use this site.
b. Hard-Le Holsteins will employ approximately sixteen people at this site. Dairies typically have an
employee to animal ratio of approximately one employee per every 100 animals. However, this
number may vary by as much as 20 percent.
c. The facility would continue to operate 24 hours per day in the milking parlor and related facilities as
it does presently. Equipment operations, trucks, farming activities and maintenance activities other
than emergencies will occur primarily during daylight hours.
d. Most structures are currently in place. Proposed structures would include the addition of two (2)
modular employee accessory dwellings, four cattle housing units, one new corral area, a feed
storage area, and one wastewater and stormwater retention structure, with improvements made to
existing drainage. Please refer to the site plan maps for existing and proposed structures.
e. A maximum of 1,800 dairy cattle and up to 50 4-H and hobby animals, for a total of 1,850 animals.
Hard-Le Holsteins - Animal Unit Table
Animal Type Totals
Milking Cows 960
Dry Cows / Close-ups 150
Heifers/Steers* (500 lbs. Avg.) 600
Calves and others 140
TOTAL 1,850
f. Typical vehicles accessing this site include feed and hay delivery trucks and semi-tractors and
trailers, employee and owner vehicles, animal product vendors, and ag-related equipment. 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 1-2/day
Semi-Tractor Commodity truck 5/wk
Commodity Farm Trucks 24k
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
Rendering truck—when needed
g. Fire protection for this site is provided by Eaton Fire Protection District.
Eaton Fire Protection District
2241"Street
Eaton, CO 80615
(970) 454-3925
h. Domestic and livestock water, and water for milking systems is supplied by North Weld County
Water District. Irrigation water is provided through a combination of shares of Larimer and Weld
Irrigation Company, Windsor Reservoir and Canal Company, and Northern Colorado Water
Conservancy District.
i. This site uses individual private septic facilities for residential and office wastewater. Copies of the
Individual Sewage Disposal System permits for the dairy are included in the Sewage and Water
section.
j. Storage and warehousing are not proposed as the primary use of this site. Feedstuffs, livestock
bedding, manure, equipment parts and supplies typical of farming activities are stored on site.
6. Over the past several years numerous trees have been planted to provide both wind and weather
protection for the livestock, as well as a visual buffer from nearby roads. Windbreaks and privacy
fencing has also been installed around some of the livestock housing areas. No additional
landscaping is currently planned except as outlined in the Nuisance Management Plan.
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 will be handled by a storm water retention pond, which will be constructed,
maintained and operated in accordance with the Colorado Confined Animal Feeding Control
Regulations. Water from this pond will be used to irrigate farmground.
9. The proposed expansion is expected to be implemented over a period of approximately five years,
and will take place as economic and other factors dictate the need for expansion and greater
efficiency. Construction is expected to begin in the latter half of 1999. The performance of the
commodity milk market will be the primary determinant of the speed and scope of this expansion.
10. Manure storage will continue to be located on the east side of the facility where runoff can be
controlled and nuisance conditions minimized. Use of manure 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
structure is land applied to farmground at agronomic rates. Debris and solid waste are 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. A portion of the solid manure is composted, sold and moved to
offsite locations. The remaining solid manure, stormwater and agricultural wastewater will be
collected for application to farmground at agronomic rates. Refuse is collected regularly by:
Name of trash hauler: Waste Management, Inc.
Address: 500 E. Vine Drive, Fort Collins, CO., 80524
Phone: (970) 482-6319
/1111 WILLISWELD COUNTY TAX NOT E UUILUUELli
WELD-Ced NTY TREASURER
PO. BOX 458 RI 318786
GREELEY,CO 80632-0458 `-: - 1997 Taxes Due in 1998
LEG't a ESC 1 TI�N •F " E TY = ` TAX"AUTH 0 'ITY"' ` TAX LEVY nwPoe rtrvaavean I GENE'
17796 NW4 10666(4R2D6L). WELD COUNTY 22.038 1676.65 -
SCHOOL DIST RE2 43.436 3304.61
- - NCW WATER 1.000 76.08
NWC WATER 0.000 0.00
EATON FIRE 3.000 228.24
AIMS JUNIOR COL 6.322 480.98
WELD LIBRARY 1.449 0.040 107.20
WEST GREELEY SOIL 0.414 31.50
SB No.25,..in absence of State Legislative Funding,...) 107.301
your School General Fund Lew would have been
TAX DISTRICT ACTUAL PROPERTY VALUE IS VALUATION OF LAND VALUATION IMPS OR PERS TOTAL VALUATION TOTAL LEVY FULL TAX
0226 305022 18890 57190 76080 77.619 5905.26
PARCEL# UN Au P•lo•YEA•tax •AYIAENT SCHEIULE
NUM:E•SA EA•HE•E
080510000009
REAL "C•NTACTT•EASU•E•"IMMEOIATELV! i i i i i
/5;1111Aca
1st Half Tax DUE MARCH 2 2952.63
2ntl Half Tax DUE JUNE 15
2952.63
WATER FEES ON THIS ACCOUNT {• � Lilt
1
` 4t) y, J3 FULL PAYMENT 5905.26
DUE APRIL 30
THE TREASURER'S OFFICE IS REQUIRED BY LAW TO SEND THE TAX
NOTICE TO THE OWNER OF RECORD.IF YOUR TAXES ARE PAID BY A
•
HARDESTY LESTER E R SHERRILL R MFOR YOUR RECORD.IF YOU
HAOVETGAGE COMPANY KEEP THIS NOSOLD THIS PROPERTY,PLEA ETFOICERWARDTH S NOTICE TO THE
15274 WELD CO RD 72 NEW OWNER OR RETURN TO THIS OFFICE MARKED'PROPERTY SOLD"
GREELEY,CO 80631 �/ NOTICE
Please see reverse side of this form for additional information. TAX X
RETAIN TOP PORTION FOR YOUR RECORDS.
Manure & Process Wastewater Management Plan
Hard-Le Holsteins
15274 Weld County Rd 72
Greeley, CO 806331
Developed in accordance with the
Colorado "Confined Animal Feeding Operations Control Regulation"
Generally Accepted Agricultural Best Management Practices
Prepared by
NVIRO
TOGK,f. .
11990 Grant Street, Suite 402
Denver, Colorado 80233
April 14, 1999
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
2.2 SITE GEOLOGY AND HYDROLOGY 6
3. MAPS 7
3.1 LOCATION MAP-FIGURE 1 7
3.2 SITE MAP-FIGURE 2 8
4. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT 9
4.1 GRADING AND DRAINAGE 9
4.2 FLOOD PLAINS 9
4.3 DRAINAGE SCHEMATIC 10
4.4 FLOODPLAIN MAP 11
5. STORMWATER RETENTION FACILITIES 12
6. RETENTION FACILITY DEWATERING 14
7. SOLID MANURE MANAGEMENT 14
8. IRRIGATION AND NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT 14
9. INSPECTIONS AND REVIEWS 15
10. FORMS 16
11. NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT REFERENCES 17
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 Hard-Le 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 15274 WCR 72, Greeley, CO is:
Lester E. and Sherrill R. Hardesty
Correspondence and Contacts should be made to:
Mr. Les Hardesty
15274 WCR 72
Greeley, CO 80631
(970) 454-3635
The individual(s) at this facility who is (are) responsible for developing the implementation,
maintenance and revision of this MMP are listed below:
Les Hardesty Owner
(Name) (Title)
Sherrill Hardesty Owner
(Name) (Title)
(Name) (Title)
4
1.3 Legal Description
The confined animal feeding facility described in this MMP is located at:
Dairy and Facilities:
The NW 1/4 of Section 10, Township 6 North, Range 66 West of the 6th principal meridian,
Weld County, Colorado.
5
2. Site Description
2.1 Facilities
Hard-Le Holsteins is owned by Lester and Sherrill Hardesty. The subject property is shown on
Figures 1 and 2. The average annual working capacity of Hard-Le Holsteins is 640 animals.
The dairy is bordered on the north by WCR 72 and on the west by WCR 31. Farmground and
pasture 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, office and feed storage areas, and loading areas.
Proposed improvements include three cattle housing units, two additional corral areas, one
wastewater retention structure, and a feed storage area. The capacity of the existing dairy and
the new additions is 1,850 animals, with updated provisions for waste management and
nuisance control. Corrals are graded for proper drainage. The additional wastewater retention
structure will be located on the southwest side of the facility, and will be designed to meet
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.
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. The geology of the area is unconsolidated surficial
deposits and rocks of quaternary age, specifically, older gravels and alluviums (pre-Bull Lake
age). 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 Otero sandy loam. The Otero soil is a deep, well-drained soil formed on smooth
plains in mixed outwash deposits. The surface is a sandy loam. The underlying material is a
calcareous fine sandy loam. The soils have rapid permeability. Their available water holding
capacity is moderate. Depth to water in the alluvial aquifer is approximately±25 feet.
Surface water generally flows south toward the Cache la Poudre River Basin. The dairy is not
located in the 100-year flood plain. Figure 4 shows the floodplain map of the area.
6
3. Maps
3.1 Location Map - Figure 1
The Topographical Location Map shows the location of Hard-Le Holsteins, surrounding sites,
topography and major drainages.
7
rt
_. Hun ,1 33 \ G
\ 1� � I'V/, T.7 Nl/i) .
A \t
2
II 0
• 0
�. \ 1;1 \ Q W
4859 _ \— _• 8°3 •
-
•
I '114846 — . 1 489J
Il
IIIn
•
I N
l \
)
o II r 'NGI�I
\p
up I ; O S
n o 0 T.6 N
n
u
\
n
u
/ 483 -- 3€21,;4 -- - 3 \ � Nix RM2 -a 44
.4 ss
° 11 ✓✓ . SITE 1 S
88 Y I
� 4828 • `, �
I' ', I xm .)c uggoaam.N
I Sp f.
G \
9 S. % . . .
ICS
kil
? 4870 - U -489,
J v ••
40°30'
N QB/. sue 486. ' 448
/L e
9 \ �Bsp .. •_ 11
0
g3
L+ hool n�i
- 4804.: .v A.•.n' i 4B/. •
e a./` ve � 4.73 48/6
"e
0/
^vie - •
I Al10 u82
N.
1. 15 .a
Q. gait ,6 . . • a0 14
Doe //•
V
�a .: ,ter.. "A � 420000
. 4]64 all; all FEET
l 'fir- S... -t • .. _,
_ . " 0 1 • I
0 4]52 ( � I® A CANAL I ° • 4481 0
"R AO 4764 •• a
Well
u• W
eCe
! Reservoir W
T-P•••a nn
1 1 I \ 91 ,9. 99 •t-- _ .
3.2 Site Maps - Figures 2 & 3
Figure 2 shows the configuration of the existing site layout. Figure 3 details the proposed site
layout, including the corrals, structures, and stormwater and wastewater retention system to be
added.
8
.....-r.,:. _ � = 00090100 Ammo 013M "Yfd N19 3Hl JD 1S3M 99 30Ntltl -M..�
.,......=.:=
~� m Avouvr ave 'H19DN 9 dIHSNM01 '10 50a335 30 PR 153NH1NDN 3H1 NI 03195001 YYti14Yq.a' b .,
geo WV puwr emu
ar b Ole Mad ,. Ad A1530NI 2:1 VW +�"„
NVId 3J VNIV210 3115 i Immin���'
awlw1
Wile ILA 'MI
.1Yc A
PgK \
iii —��` i
IMO WI WIFII
II (KT / , r� / -- � , / 4 /o
`~' i f ,/ fir Ni // I/
/ j ( (\J ,.
k
p
Q Ili € k , 6 i°`f ; i /� r f
3 r ^ `ter\ /y�h ' 6 f'
Z oz _ E lJ f f
W } U 3 f �i fff�\
CI-3
11 r . �r.b /
K w /
cn O x - $ J/ �� \ / JpE e
W z w
Li tF rJ_-1..L 6 § iY a�A
Z 0 v r1 / \ \ \ ai�o O
s
o z % / /�
CC
<
U
O
J
Y
rY�
i !
t!iuis
N iI q i g i 0
.4 i I + ,
"4-I i l
:gig a
eYeail
ryzg 1 4
139.." OOtltlOIOJ A00 •0I O.039 J 9/ 3N� 40 353M 99 NI 031 / FF
W Lwt IMO NMI "'� 'N1tlON 9 tl�H5NMpi 'p1 IVO A1S JO o/t i53MNitlOry 1.1 Ni p31VJpl -.4i�s.M b
q 1miawq ANitlp US30tlVN S3l 904 aMiali c
IN all,W9IBS NVId 39VNIVN0 311S os mg,••=i I aw w
woe Ye sii
EIEI E
I II
I
119..®,.4N
It Ifr / Ir 14 / 1 JII J /
i
; I 7 Is SA ''t
1 d •
�J
0 a r i at
a o r♦
N 0 r 4s ' /
r I °'
z
!1Z o 6
!II I! on „_.
0- � g o a
R i
rz z w j A /� \ iq
a -� /\6\ �\ ip O
z
1 7N / /�
0 Z
za
a
0o d
1
Y e
_ lee Minn
�II
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 run-off management is necessary at this site. The
primary water source into the stormwater retention ponds is from stormwater runoff from the
facility surfaces.
4.1 Grading and Drainage
The facility's grading and drainage is toward the wastewater retention ponds. A drainage
schematic is show in figure 4.3.
Process wastewater and some stormwater is directed toward wastewater retention structures
located on the northeast side of the facility. The remaining stormwater runoff will be directed
via surface grading to a wastewater retention pond on the southwest side of the facility. 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.
9
4.3 Drainage Schematic
10
J_ _ «2 CHI %, _ II IN% _ . . )
al�_� no AdIVO_� Wild 3N %a � .1•8.I _a. !
1+1 ----- Q - , |
II
,
L . ' _ n — —._- ,
I § T -/ { •x ] ) & &
H , z ! 1 ® . 2
$ o !N/N 9 r I
a . ~ � � °� x ! ® &
fr-- 1
~ { | � _ * ' � I
I ` _I \+,, ~
_ ♦
` ~ ` `
\ � / .
0 � - � '
Z/ -
r
z \ _ % ®
< , \ / | & �� /
ate : : J
. «
/ \ � j I )\ I /
oG § - ! , m Da Op �� . /
FliE
|;, d V//E � Z / ^ 1 ii
k ,
( : { � j . ' i g
® - lej 81 j ii N
Z Q
/ / | � / /
J
wig ■ | . .
r ; !
a , � | i , |
+i ! '
, 1
s.itl-
m -
Ea
;r+
4.4 Floodplain Map
11
u1'. ySiT H �5i _� r. _ ..
it '. 1 ,%
1..i'Qis 22 \ i (27 26
a <
J,IWO; \ )I
L. ,t II!!i
II
I
$ GREAT WESTERA
71111 FIIItltl ! Hilt I TUBER tilZrt++4' GATES c
HURRICH \ 39 \ 35) 0
(1
t
ti\ ( \,.. .
. k
LiE\ 4 o a
3 1 2
J — • LEI
I I
-"-\ i I
9 1e
^i7 5, El �s l4
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 in the vicinity of Eaton, Colorado, with a minimum of two feet of freeboard for±35 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± 35 acres. The 25 year, 24 hour storm event for the Eaton 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 I.II 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 35 acres x 1 n/I2 m = 7 acre/ft. runoff capacity retention required
for existing operations
Capacity for the current stormwater and process water storage system is± 1 acre/feet on the
northeast side of the facility. The wastewater retention structure to be constructed on the
southwest side of the facility will have a capacity of± 8.5 acre-feet. Total storage capacity for
the facility will be approximately 9.5 acre-feet. Upon completion of the new retention
structure, wastewater from the milking parlor will be diverted to the southwest pond, and the
northeast wastewater system will receive only stormwater runoff. An earthen berm will be
constructed along the north side of the northeast drainage area to contain stormwater runoff in
excess of+ 1 acre/feet. The berm will parallel WCR 72 and will create additional capacity of
approximately 11.5 acre-feet. Additionally, stormwater from the lagoon on the northeast side
will be routinely pumped to the southwest structure to maintain the northeast lagoon in a
dewatered state.
The retention ponds will 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 proposed wastewater retention pond will be designed to meet requirements
in Section 4.8.4 of the Confined Animal Feeding Operation Control regulation of/32 inch per
day maximum seepage limitation. Upon completion of the new wastewater retention pond, the
12
liner will be inspected and certified by a licensed professional engineer with results forwarded
to the state regulatory authority. When the new retention structure is completed, the facility
will have 1.3 times the necessary stormwater and process wastewater capacity. With the
addition of the earthen berm along the northeast side, the facility will have approximately 3
times the necessary stormwater and process wastewater capacity. Stormwater runoff volumes
and wastewater/ stormwater retention capacity calculations are included in the appendix.
The wastewater retention ponds will be managed to maintain a two (2) foot free-board
capacity. The ponds will be dewatered periodically to supply water and nutrients for irrigation
of native grassland and farmground. In the event of a 25-year, 24-hour storm, the ponds will
be dewatered within fifteen (15) days to regain their original holding capacity.
13
liner will be inspected and certified by a licensed professional engineer with results forwarded
to the state regulatory authority. When the new retention structure is completed, the facility
will have 1.3 times the necessary stormwater and process wastewater capacity. With the
addition of the earthen berm along the northeast side, the facility will have approximately 3
times the necessary stormwater and process wastewater capacity.
The wastewater retention ponds will be managed to maintain a two (2) foot free-board
capacity. The ponds will be dewatered periodically to supply water and nutrients for irrigation
of native grassland and farmground. In the event of a 25-year, 24-hour storm, the ponds will
be dewatered within fifteen(15) days to regain their original holding capacity.
13
6. Retention Facility Dewatering
Lagoon water is applied for irrigation to approximately± 100 acres of adjacent farmground
owned and or managed by Hard-Le Holsteins. A PTO-driven pump and an electric pump is
used to transfer water and to dewater the retention ponds onto farmground.
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. A portion of
the manure is also composted.
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 will be composted and sold, or 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 is most typically applied as fertilizer and soil amendments to
produce crops or forage. Generally, manure and lagoon effluent are applied to crops that are
most responsive to nitrogen inputs.
14
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 declines. Throughout
several years of continuous cultivation in which crop residue returns are low, organic matter
content in most soil decreases dramatically. This greatly reduces the soils ability to hold
essential plant nutrients.
Land application of the Hard-Le Holsteins stormwater and wastewater recycles valuable
nutrients and 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 Hard-Le 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.
Date Initials Notes
P P
15
•
10. Forms
These forms will be used for record keeping and maintenance at the Hard-Le Holsteins facility:
• Manure Removal Log
• Manure Application Log
• Wastewater Application Log
• Retention Facility Inspection Report
• Preventative Maintenance Log
• Manure Management Record Sheet (Agronomic Evaluation)
16
EmzroStock, Inc. Apr-99
SOLID MANURE REMOVAL LOG
(Record manure removal data every day that manure is hauled.)
(For manure taken off feedyard property)
SITE NAME: Hard-Le Holsteins YEAR: 1999
Date Person Taking Manure Pounds per #of Loads Total Amount Taken
Load (tons)
EnviroStock, Inc. Apr-99
SOLID MANURE APPLICATION LOG
(Record manure application data every day that manure is hauled.)
FIELD NAME: Hard-Le Holsteins YEAR:
Date Person Applying Manure Pounds # of Field Acres Crop Pounds
per Load Loads Name in to be per Acre
Field Grown Applied
EnviroStock.Inc. Apr-99
WASTEWATER APPLICATION LOG
(Record manure application data every day that manure is applied.)
FIELD NAME YEAR: 1999
Date Person Applying Gallons Amount Acres Crop to Gallons per
Manure being of time in Field be Acre
pumped pumped Grown Applied
EnviroStock, Inc. Apr-99
WASTEWATER POND INSPECTION FORM
(Complete this form on approximately the same day each month.)
Fill out each category using"Y"for Yes,"N"for N,or"NA"for Not Applicable. If you answer"NO"to a
question,provide details in the comment section below the table.
SITE NAME: Hard-Le Holsteins DAY/MONTH: YEAR: 1999
b F
O 0
p 0.
Embankment free of visible seepage.
Embankment showing no signs of cracking.
Vegetation growing on embankment
Vegetation mowed where applicable.
Erosion controls in place if required.
Interior slope free of erosion. •
Exterior slope free of erosion.
Water level measurement device in place&working.
Minimum freeboard of 2'present
Manure pumping equipment is functional.
Rain gauge in place and functional.
Trees excluded within root zone distance.
Holes or signs of rodent damage.
Fence in place and well maintained.
Other:
Other:
Other:
Other:
Continents:
(signature) (print name) (date)
EnviroStock. Inc. Apr-99
Preventive Maintenance Log
(Complete this form on a quarterly basis.)
SITE NAME: Hard-Le Holsteins DATE: YEAR: 1999
YES NO N/A COMMENTS Motors of Dewatering Equipment
Electrical panel enclosed and free of trash.
All components are free of rodent nests.
Motors operational.
Other
YES NO N/A COMMENTS Valves
Valves operational.
Other
YES NO N/A COMMENTS Flow Line
Drained before freezing temperatures.
Breaks or cracks?
Flow line operational.
Other
YES NO N/A COMMENTS Diversions & Culverts
Diversions free of visible seepage.
Diversions free of burrowing animals.
Culverts not plugged.
Other
YES NO N/A COMMENTS Other Preventative Maintenance
General Comments:
(signature) (print name) (date)
EnviroStock, Inc. Apr-99
Agronomic Determination Sheet (Solid Manure)
EXAMPLE FORM
Fce1.d Name
Pre+lious cr413. ' Meld
Marie tested by Sail tested Uy
'K k<; A 'k k e
Crop to be Planted: Year:
N Requirement
1. Expected yield (Past 5 year average + 5%): Ru/A
2. Total N needed to achieve expected yield: 150 x 1.2 = lbs./A
(Expected yield(Bu/A)x crop factor(lbs. N/Bu))
Crop factors: Corn = 1.2, Wheat = 2.5,Malt Barley =1.5, Feed Barley = 1.7,
Oats =1.3, Rye =2.5 and Sugar Beets = 6 lbs. N/ton
N Credits
3. Residual soil nitrate (from soil test): lbs. N/A
4. Nitrogen Credit from Irrigation water: 1 ppm x 2.7 = lbs. N/A
(PPM NO3-12.7 =lbs./AF of water)
5. Soil organic matter credit (from soil test): 2.3% OM x 30 = lbs. N/A
(Credit 30 lbs. Nper% OM)
6. Nitrogen credit from previous legume crop: lbs. N/A
(Refer to Extension Service Bulletins in Appendix)
7. Total Nitrogen Credits (sum lines 3, 4, 5 and 6) lbs. N/A
Calculation
8. Plant Available Nitrogen (PAN) in manure: lbs.N/ton
(Total N(from manure test) —5%of ammonium-N— 65%of organic N)
ex: 21 lbs N/ton— (7 lbs NH4-N x 5%)— (14 lbs org.-N x.65%)
= 21 lbs N/ton—0.35 lbs NH4-N—9.1 organic-N= 11.55 lbs PAN
9. Maximum manure application rate: ton/A
((Line 2—Line 7)/Line 8)
= 180—91.7/11.5 =2.46 tons per acre
`b` ,n�^5: .`{b••:•••"`t.•^�: •• gg .`.'..`:�`�:"'A`s::;`aU'U<'::..:y': .,�'�"'.�4S ryLo a n.... ... �;: , �¢2o�k:.h.....b, .. . A .....
hs.n. . ;;'5 k{h�3k>b X�"Ey� •'C£# o,•
. KS/ki +:y@kif pb.• •
*VI,¢≥£id v 7' a s a �s z•a •
. ..E ° •a "s a
Rwv ,e X83 vS {'2. 8 G 88 9 ,>1•
�{Fer'SR '5'.kmw': cP � ca •rYQ • a • .a
a'L"'NpaV"p,'; x.:o,. a, oz 3;otm 9° : M1 ... a�V,V`.,C• °E.., ..•.: `a;c..c�yko.: r: . 'x .. aw' , ? ;°co Y`<ryx:. .y. �:.. ..,3. •A il..;:•..., •
wo::.. • D, h: g:.. .@dt'C°Y+K�k tr2<C. `Qk b'.;k4�5.`nti:G Y<'�`. •`. .. `.`.:'�tkik• •kk.,:°a`.ff,:E;Tko�.A[2el ea-
- `.r s:a.. ,:Y"' . . ., xaF"xu?ris's?.�v.�s;.. g„. : w •`-•.:R: .• ."3::-'�sx« . •a.
EnviroStock, Inc. Apr-99
Agronomic Determination Sheet (Liquid Manure)
EXAMPLE FORM iNummisguFieldName
Previous crap Yield
mue tested by Soil tweed by
i 3 ": .v` k k
... ::wf aka.n::w .:v' •:.:
Crop to be Planted: Year:
N Requirement
1. Expected yield (Past 5 year average + 5%): 150 Bu/A
2. Total N needed to achieve expected yield: 150 x 1.2 = 180 lbs./A
(Expected yield(Bu/A)x crop factor(lbs. N/Bu))
Crop factors: Corn = 1.2, Wheat=2.5,Malt Barley = 1.5, Feed Barley =1.7,
Oats =1.3, Rye =2.5 and Sugar Beets =6 lbs. N/ton
N Credits
3. Residual soil nitrate (from soil test): 20 lbs. N/A
4. Nitrogen Credit from Irrigation water: 1 ppm x 2.7 = 2.7 lbs. N/A
(PPMNO3-Nx 2.7 =lbs./AF of water)
5. Soil organic matter credit (from soil test): 2.3% OM x 30= 69 lbs. N/A
(Credit 30 lbs. Nper% OM)
6. Nitrogen credit from previous legume crop: 0 lbs. N/A
(Refer to Extension Service Bulletins in Appendix)
7. Total Nitrogen Credits (sum lines 3, 4, 5 and 6) 91.7 lbs. N/A
Calculation
8. Plant Available Nitrogen(PAN) in manure: 11.5 lbs. N/1000 gal
(Total N(from manure test)—5%of ammonium-N—65%of organic N)
9. Maximum manure application rate: 7.6 1000 gal/A
((Line 2—Line 7)/Line 8)
.vft':
' 0y `q.
alry
s a a , 8 s as '. :,' s' Tact b a ra a••3'�'
' a° 556 n6 `:
F," a
�,��a a , , > yga
' a�"T�`A�'�."k': .%,xi.`: : :»;,.. 3S:;u 'w:A`:i ...�. '��M>:.»:.• y:afe • .,._.,..>:;ihn`:.>.axnJn>xtF�.�>:
11. Nutrient Management References
17
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 1 82
Barley 48 80 bu
2 tons straw 0.75
56 150 bu 1.61
Corn 3.5 tons stover 1.11
Oats
32 60 bu 1.95
1.5 tons straw 0.63
56 30 bu 2.08
Rye 1.5 tons straw 0.50
56 60 bu 1.67
Sorghum 3 tons stover 1.08
•
60 40 bu 2.08
Wheat 1.5 tons straw 0.67
Oil crops 3.60
Canola 50 35 bu
3 tons straw 4.48
60 35 bu 6.25
Soybeans 2 tons stover 2.25
25 1,100 lb 3.57
Sunflower 2 tons stover 1.50
Forage crops 4 tons 2.25
Alfalfa 3 tons 0.99
Big bluestem 3 tons 2.49
Birdsfoot trefoil 3 tons 1.49
Bromegrass 4 tons • 1.52
3 tons
Alfalfa-grass 1. 2
Little bluestem 4 tons 1.47
• Orchardgrass 3 tons 2.47
Red clover 4 tons 1.35
Reed canarygrass 4 tons 1.35
Ryegrass 3 tons 1.17
4 tons
Switchgrass 1.15
Tall fescue 3 tons 1.97
Timothy ton 1.42
Wheatgrass
Continued on next page
J
•
Table 3.Nitrogen removed in the harvested part of selected Colorado crops(continued)
Crop %dry matter Typical yield/A(tons) %N in dry
• harvested material
Silage crops
Alfalfa haylage 50 10 wet/5 dry 2.79
Corn silage 35 20 wet/7 dry 1.10
Forage sorghum 30 20 wet/6 dry 1.44
Oat haylage 40 10 wet/4 dry 1.60
Sorghum-sudan 50 10 wet/5 dry 1.36
Sugar crops
Sugar beets 20 0.20
Turf grass
Bluegrass 2 2.91
Bentgrass 2 3.10
Vegetable crops
Bell peppers 9 0.40
Beans,dry 1 . 3.13
Cabbage 20 0.33
Carrots 13 0.19
Celery 27 0.17
Cucumbers 10 0.20
Lettuce(heads) 14 0.23
18 0.30
Onions
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.
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,
0.2%
and organic matter before determining final N requirement. ISO 0.5%
2. Available N in manure
Total N .= 1.0%
If manure is applied at the maximum rate,additional NO3-N = 10 mg/kg/10,000=.001%N
fertilizer N should not be applied.Maximum rate is based .001%N x 20(lb/ton)/%=.02 lb NO3-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. Organic N =Total N-(NOj N+NH;N)
Manures with high moisture and low N content = Total-(.0N%+.+N =N)0%
require high tonnages to meet crop N requirements.This 0 70%N x 20 1.0%-(. 01
may result in application of excessive salts and P.Therefore, = 14(l.0/t N/ton
Th
for land receiving frequent manure applications,it is 14.0 lb N/ton x.35 b N Organic n N/ton manure(from Table
recommended that approximately half of the crop N t 4.9 Organic N/ton i /y available(frm inT first
requirement should be met from manure and the other half Available N=4.9 lbb Organic N+
from commercial N fertilizer.This will minimize the .02 lb NOa N+6.0 lb NH4-N
potential for salt problems or excessive P buildup. = 10.92 lb N/ton manure
3. Available Pin manure
Evaluating Sufficiency of Land Base P2O3 =0.2%x 20 (lb/ton)/%
for Application =41b P2O2/ton manure
Livestock producers should determine if they have 4. Crop N requirement-Refer to Guide to Fertilizer
land base ate land for fined application nf deqmanuae , arrangements
If the Recommendations in Colorado(Bulletin XCM 37),or a
land is determined to be inadequate, arrangements must current soil test report.
be made to apply manure to other crop lands.To calculate a• for 150 bu corn crop=20516 N/A
conservative estimate of the minimum land base required, Example:xm Ca N l requiredation 1)Subtract N corn crop=m 05l N/A
you i yneed know the tomanalure
manure produeoo of N,P,r (fsuch as soil NO3,legume crop,irrigation water NO3.
facility and have a erm ne sample analyzed mate ffr and K If 205 lb additional N required for expected yield,
rle removal Then a iv hb best e pounds n of annual crop Maximum manure loading rate=(205 lb N/A)/
nutrient This and i divide uanbytotalslm tofof N perept ton of (10.9 lb available N/ton manure)= 18.8 tons manure/A
manure.This will give you estimate of the acceptable
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 P2O2/ton manure=75 lb P=C
minimum land base for annual manure application rates
(Calculation 3). Conversion factors: P x 23=PrOr
ppm=mglkg
ppmE 10,000=% Kx 1.2=IC,0
%nutrient x 20=lb nutrient/ton
Total N can be used to calculate a conservative surface runoff.Delayed incorporation may be acceptable on
estimate of safe continuous manure application, as all N will level fields if sunlight decomposition of pathogens or NH3
eventually become available. However, the most precise volatilization is desired.If fresh manure is not incorporated
method of calculating long-term application rates requires a within 72 hours after application, more than 30%of the
calculation of decay rate over a period of three to four years. NH4-N may be lost to volatilization.The rate of volatiliza-
Computer software is available to help make this calcula- tion increases in warm, dry,windy conditions.
don. 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 150 bu corn/A
good scavenger crop to remove deep NO3.• crop x 1.35lb 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 1,725 tons/yr = 86 A minimum
injection application under the soil surface,but still may 20 tons/A land base
pause problems on sloping or erosive fields.In general,
manure application should be avoided an 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 P205 K=0
(lb/day) (tons/yr) (gal/yr) (lb/day/1,000 lb animal)
Beef cow 60 11.5 2,880 034 0.27 031
Dairy cow 82 15.0 3,610 0.36 0.10 0.27
Broilers 80 14.5 3,500 1.10 038 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
turkey 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)
qe Available nutrients in lb/ton
Manure Moisture First year Second year Third year
N P205 N N
Beef 3 2
feedlot 48 10 8
with bedding 50 10 10 3 2
lagoon sludge(1bn,000 gal) 89 36 15 10 5
Dairy 1
without bedding 82 6 2 1
with bedding 79 6 2 1 1
lagoon sludge(ltdl•000gal) 92 16 10 3 2
Swine 5 1 1
without bedding . 82 8
with bedding 82 6 4 1 1
lagoon sludge OM 400 gal) 96 38 15 9 4
Sheep 3 2
( • without bedding 72 8 6
with bedding 72 7 5 2 2
Horses •
2 1
with bedding 54 6 2
Poultry • 2 1
without litter 55 28 26
with litter 25 • 43 25 5 2
deep pit(compost) 24 52 ' 35 6 3
•
Turkeys 2 1 ,
• without litter 78 20 11
•
with litter 71 15 9 • 2 1
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
variability in nutrient content caused by source,moisture,age,and handling.
IN credit assumes all NI-1,-N and NOS N is available during the first crop season.Organic N becomes available slowly over a longer period of time.F.
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 thereat
should be determined by soil testing. .
Values derived from Colorado State University Cooperative Extension Bulletin 552A,Utilization of Animal Manure as Fertilizer,1992.
I
i
This plan was prepared in general accordance with the Agreement for Services between Hard-
Le Holsteins and EnviroStock, Inc. (ES). This report was prepared based on and developed in
accordance with generally accepted environmental consulting practices. It has been prepared
for the exclusive use of Hard-Le 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 experienced and qualified professionals familiar with the
agriculture industry. ES makes no warranty, expressed or implied.
18
APPENDIX
19
O r in N.. CO CO U R N r o CO
L- CO
N r O (D r N CO M T o
N W C V r (") O) c°
N O M a
m N P
0.1 m E (O V O) r
O) N
O c a.. m (f CO
CO t v 0J C
r to c w r
H w t r
C 0 CO
r d W-
O m § ° L
a 3
Q N N r in
l'7 r O (MO co r r co CO) N G
TO O ai V awi R r CO Oi in (V O M O) I Qi G
V N , d rn N r
d F N (h
•
p 0 o m
U m
M 10
in O r N N-r CO MN N 0 (O N N
0. W o N r CO N. O O O W N C N
m Oc O M NiO in r N co(D (p N I I a ( N
U O yH E o r° N
.1C ~ T N CU N CV-
CO
I 'O > 0 N
U
�O c > m n
of d
>-. O r co N- O) N O) N r O O O CO V N CO
NE N r r [O N 0) to U] 7 h 0 V r LO OD O r
o as V WO N E M r N N• ° r 0 (D CO. O M N m• p Id
C 7 y dgig 4-Of cc O n r LO
T j [7 CO
O O 3_ o
a > d m N L N
O 0 0 O r r N-r CO O N o O) O O 00 N N r in
N r r r V N NOL0 V O) O r V co• 0 CO
To C r V co r N CO 0 0 M O) N o 00 N
c (n `p r CO r
r CO I-, m r
r
W N
A d
C E Z N
7 £ O
CC L. TA
0 ._ 0
(a f/l 00 t� c
t 0 u. O E
0 a N 0 (I) `) 0 V d ° V
y v 0 d et ca it
to d es 0 -E e- O 6 U 0 d) c la
O >. a .- r) d d U (iJ� d CO L. D c .:
x N •O O H p C > > a m I..
dU.
la d o a N h
J 00 0 0 N cc R ` c c .� N ilk
a
'a d C e v) d ° n n 0 'D Q
Ca Z (o U Q c c n-
Q w
_ L. *0 h. O c CO if H - c c d a
d G 0
'(O' �' co 3 j C O O N .- E d ' 0
N C w, d N 0 h m a ?)
a > > _'5 t 0
W G O N c o„ c `) d N *ZS
Q.
E m yEFP-E2 ea c55 -6 = �` ,
y d 52 o ° 'c0 vi y G d N N ins"
0' ri € ^GF d d
6. 2 a 0 - c d c d' d d — co dL'a a) d c ' 3
t U PO) N O N 11 -d w ° > > p c m ��.. N 7
`} ? m � ill e Cas 92 ° °> ccV a Q.° � o � c EE N
d -OC
NW 2 ,Oa CZ C 'C -0 v .� I O) cU Qd ° L. d
%h U O f.. O d ° 7 -O V O O Q d a ° e c G N
N CO O) O) {-- (n [n Q Q V- H J J J (nu- J - m
Hard-Le Holsti -NE side-Stormwater Generation Calculatioi Average Values) pond ml
Process Wastewater,GPO= - Surface area of Pond,ft2= 9,066 Middle area of Pond,ft'=
5,300 0.4
Precip.' Percent Runoff Area Total Runoff Pan Evap. Evap.Area Total Evap. Process H2O Net Change Amt Pumped Vol.In Lagoon
Month (inches) Runoff" (Acres) (Acre-Ft) (inches)' (Acres) (Acre-Ft.) (Acre-Ft.) (Acre-FL (Acre-Ft
)) (Acre-F[)
Jan 0.76 3.0% 19 0.05 0 0.12 - - 0.05 0.45
Feb 0.08 5.0% 19 0.01 0 0.12 - - 0.01 0.46
Mar 0.94 5.0% 19 0.09 1.32 0.12 0.01 - 0.08 0.54
Apr 0.67 12.5% 19 0.14 4.32 0.12 0.04 - 0.11 0.64
May 2.46 22.0% 19 0.90 5.45 0.12 0.05 - 0.85 1.00 0.50
Jun 1.65,22.0% 19 0.60 6.43 0.12 0.06 - 0.55 1.00 0.04
Jul 2.55 20.0% 19 0.85 7.23 0.12 0.06 - 0.79 0.50 0.33
Aug 0.65 18.0% 19 0.20 6.34 0.12 0.05 - 0.14 - 0.48
Sep 1.75 16.0% 19 0.47 4.93 0.12 0.04 - 0.43 0.50 0.41
Oct 0.45 16.0% - 19 0.12 3.23 0.12 0.03 - 0.09 0.50
Nov 0.41 5.0% 19 0.04 2.23 0.12 0.02 - 0.02 0.52
Dec 0.00 3.0% 19 - 0 0.12 - - - 0.52 .
_
Jan 0.76 3.0% 19 0.05 0 0.12 - - 0.05 0.57
Feb 0.08 5.0% 19 0.01 0 0.12 - - 0.01 0.58
Mar 0.94 5.0% 19 0.09 - 1.32 0.12 0.01 - 0.08 0.66
Apr 0.67 12.5% 19 0.14 4.32 0.12 0.04 - 0.11 0.76
May 2.46 22.0% 19 0.90 5.45 0.12 0.05 - 0.85 1.00 0.62 •
Jun 1.65 22.0% 19 0.60 6.43 0.12 0.06 - 0.55 1.00 0.17
Jul 2.55 20.0%, 19 0.85 7.23 0.12 0.06 - 0.79 0.50 0.45
Aug 0.65 18.0% 19 0.20 6.34 0.12 0.05 - 0.14 0.60
Sep 1.75 16.0% 19 0.47 4.93 0.12 0.04 - 0.43 1.00 0.03
Oct 0.45 16.0% 19 0.12 3.23 0.12 0.03 - 0.09 0.12
Nov 0.41 5.0% 19 0.04 2.23 0.12 0.02 - 0.02 0.14
Dec 0.00 3.0% 19 - 0 0.12 - - - 0.14
Jan 0.76 3.0% 19 0.05 0 0.12 - - 0.05 0.19
Feb 0.08 5.0% 19 0.01 0 0.12, - - 0.01 0.20
Mar 0.94 5.0% 19 0.09 .1.32 0.12 0.01 - 0.08 0.28
Apr 0.67 12.5% 19 0.14_ 4.32 0.12 0.04 - 0.11 0.39
May 2.46 22.0% 19 0.90 5.45 0.12 0.05 - 0.85 1.00 0.24
Jun _ 1.65 22.0% 19 0.60 6.43 0.12 0.06 - 0.55 0.50 0.29
Jul 2.55 20.0% 19 0.85 7.23 0.12 0.06 - 0.79 1.00 0.08
Aug 0.65 18.0% 19 0.20 6.34 0.12 0.05 - 0.14 0.22
Sep 1.75 16.0% 19 0.47 4.93 0.12 0.04 - 0.43 0.50 0.15
Oct 0.45 16.0% 19 0.12 3.23 0.12 0.03 - 0.09 0.24
Nov 0.41 5.0% 19 0.04 2.23 0.12_ 0.02 - 0.02 0.26
Dec 0.00 3.0% 19 - 0 0.12 -• - 0.26
Jan 0.76, 3.0% 19 0.05 0 0.12 - - 0.05 0.31
Feb 0.08 5.0% 19 0.01 0 0.12 - - 0.01 0.32
Mar 0.94 5.0% 19 0.09 1.32 0.12 0.01 - 0.08 0.40
Apr 0.67 12.5% 19 0.14 4.32 0.12 0.04 - 0.11 0.51
May 2.46 22.0% 19 0.90_ 5.45 0.12 0.05 , - 0.85 1.00 0.36
Jun 1.65 22.0% 19 0.60 _ 6.43 0.12 0.06 - 0.55 0.50 0.41
Jul 2.55 20.0% 19 0.85 7.23 0.12 0.06 - 0.79 1.00 0.20
Aug 0.65 18.0% 19 0.20 6.34 0.12 0.05 - 0.14 0.34
Sep 1.75 16.0% 19 0.47 4.93 0.12 0.04 - 0.43 0.50 0.27
Oct 0.45 16.0% 19 0.12 3.23 0.12, 0.03 - 0.09 0.36
Nov 0.41 5.0% 19 0.04 2.23 0.12 0.02 - 0.02 0.38
Dec 0.00 3.0% 19, - 0 0.12 - - - 0.38
Jan 0.76 3.0% 19 0.05 0 0.12 - - 0.05 0.43
Feb 0.08 5.0% 19 0.01 0 0.12 - - 0.01 0.44
Mar 0.94 5.0% 19 0.09_ 1.32 0.12 0.01 - 0.08 0.52
Apr 0.67 12.5% 19 0.14 4.32 0.12 0.04 - 0.11 0.63
May 2.46 22.0% 19 0.90 5.45 0.12 0.05 - 0.85 1.00 0.48
Jun 1.65 22.0% 19 0.60_ 6.43 0.12 0.06 - 0.55 1.00 0.03
Jul 2.55 20.0% 19 0.85 7.23 0.12 0.06 - 0.79 0.50 0.32
Aug 0.65 18.0% 19 0.20 6.34 0.12 0.05 - 0.14 0.46
Sep 1.75 16.0%, 19 0.47 4.93 0.12 0.04 - 0.43 0.50 0.39
Oct 0.45 16.0% 19 0.12 3.23 0.12 0.03 - 0.09 0.49
Nov 0.41 5.0% 19 0.04 2.23 0.12 0.02 - 0.02 0.51
Dec 0.00 3.0% 19 - 0 0.12 - - - 0.51
'Precipitation for Greeley,CO,NOAA,1996 "SCS,National Engineering Handbook "'Evaporation for Ft.Collins.CO.NOAA
Hard-Le Holsteins-. side-Stormwater Generation Calculation(Avera, ✓alues) Pcr:-middle(Ae)
Process Wastewater,GPD= 6472 Surface area of Pond,n'= 69,775 Middle area of Pond,ft'= 57,319 4
Precip.' Percent Runoff Area Total Runoff Pan Evap. Evap.Area Total Evap. Process H2O Net Change Amt Pumped Vol.In Lagoon
Month (inches) Runoff'' (Acres) (Acre-Ft.) (inches)'^ (Acres) (Acre-Ft.) (Acre-Ft) (Acre-Ft.) (Acre-Ft) (Acre-Ft)
Jan 076 3.0% 16 0.13 0 1.32 - 0.62 0.75 4.75
Feb 0.08 5.0% 16 0.02 0 1.32 - 0.56 0.57 5.32
Mar 0.94 5.0% 16 0.19 1.32 1.32 0.12 0.62 0.68 6.00
Apr 0.67 12.5% 16 0.20 4.32 1.32 0.40 0.60 0.39 6.39
May 2.46 22.0% 16 1.05 5.45 1.32 0.51 0.62 1.16 1.50 6.05
Jun 1.65 22.0% 16 0.70 6.43 1.32 0.60 0.60 0.70 2.00 4.75
Jul 2.55 20.0% 16 1.02 7.23 1.32 0.67 0.62 0.96 2.00 3.72
_
Aug 0.65 18.0% 16 0.24 6.34 1.32 0.59 0.62 0.27 1.50 2.48
Sep 1.75 16.0% 16 0.61 4.93_ 1.32 0.46 0.60 0.74 1.00 2.23
Oct 0.45 16.0% 16 0.16 3.23 1.32 0.30 0.62 0.47 2.70
Nov 0.41 5.0% 16 0.08 2.23 1.32 0.21 0.60 0.47 3.17
Dec 0.00 3.0% 16 - 0 1.32 - 0.62 0.62 3.78
Jan 0.76 3.0% 16 0.13 0 1.32 - 0.62 0.75 4.53
•
Feb 0.08 5.0% 16 0.02 0 1.32 - 0.56 0.57 5.10
Mar 0.94 5.0% 16' 0.19 1.32 1.32 0.12 0.62 0.68 5.78
Apr 0.67 12.5% 16 0.20 4.32 1.32 0.40 0.60 0.39 6.18
May 2.46 22.0% 16 1.05 5.45 1.32 0.51 0.62 1.16 1.50 5.84
Jun 1.65 22.0% 16 '0.70 _ 6.43 1.32 0.60 0.60 0.70 2.00 4.54
•
Jul 2.55 20.0% 16 1.02 7.23 1.32 0.67 0.62 0.96 2.00 3.50
Aug 0.65 18.0% 16 0.24 6.34 1.32 0.59 0.62 0.27 1.50 2.27
Sep 1.75 16.0% 16 0.61 4.93 1.32 0.46 0.60 0.74 1.00 2.01
Oct 0.45 16.0% 16 0.16 3.23 1.32 0.30 0.62 0.47 2.48
Nov 0.41 5.0% 16 0.08 2.23 1.32 0.21 0.60 0.47 2.95
Dec 0.00 3.0% 16 - _ 0 1.32 - 0.62 0.62 3.57
Jan 0.76 3.0% 16 0.13 0 1.32 - 0.62 0.75 4.31
Feb 0.08 5.0% 16 0.02 0 1.32 - 0.56 0.57 4.89
Mar 0.94 5.0% 16 0.19 1.32 1.32 0.12 0.62 0.68 5.57
Apr 0.67 12.5% 16 0.20 4.32 1.32 0.40 0.60 0.39 5.96
May 2.46 22.0% 16 1.05 5.45 1.32 0.51 0.62 1.16 1.50 5.62
- Jun 1.65 22.0% 16 0.70 6.43 1.32 0.60 0.60 0.70 2.00 4.32
Jul 2.55 20.0%, 16 1.02 7.23 1.32 0.67 0.62 0.96 2.00 3.28
Aug 0.65 18.0% 16 0.24 _ 6.34 1.32 0.59 0.62 0.27 1.50 2.05
Sep 1.75 16.0% 16 0.61 4.93 1.32 0.46 0.60 0.74 1.00 1.79
Oct 0.45 16.0% 16 0.16 3.23 1.32 0.30 0.62 0.47 2.26
Nov 0.41, 5.0% 16 0.08 2.23 1.32 0.21 0.60 0.47 2.73
Dec 0,00 3.0% 16 - - 0 1.32 - 0.62 0.62 3.35
Jan 0.76 3.0% 16 0.13 0 1.32 -
_ 0.62 0.75 4.10
Feb 0.08 5.0% 16 0.02 0 1.32 - 0.56 0.57 4.67
Mar 0.94 5.0% 16 0.19 1.32 1.32 0.12 0.62 0.68 5.35
Apr 0.67 12.5% 16 0.20 4.32 1.32 0.40 0.60 0.39 5.75
May 2.46 22.0% 16 1.05 5.45 1.32 0.51 0.62 1.16 1.50 5.40
Jun 1.65 22.0% 16 0.70 _ 6.43 1.32 0.60 0.60 0.70 2.00 4.10
Jul 2.55 20.0% 16 1.02 7.23 1.32 0.67 0.62 0.96 2.00 3.07
Aug 0.65 18.0% 16 0.24 6.34 1.32 0.59 . 0.62 0.27 1.50 1.83
Sep 1.75 16.0% 16 0.61 4.93 1.32 0.46 0.60 0.74 1.00 1.58
Oct 0.45 16.0% 16 0.16 3.23 1.32 0.30 0.62 0.47 2.05
Nov 0.41 5.0% 16 0.08 2.23 1.32 0.21 0.60 0.47 2.52
Dec 0.00 3.0% 16 - 0 1.32 - 0.62 0.62 3.13
_
Jan 0.76 3.0% 16 0.13 0 1.32 - 0.62 0.75 3.88
_
Feb 0.08 5.0% 16 0.02 0 1.32 - 0.56 0.57 4.45
Mar 0.94 5.0% 16 0.19 1.32 1.32 0.12 0.62 0.68 5.13
Apr 0.67 12.5% 16 0.20 4.32 1.32 0.40 0.60 0.39 5.53
May 2.46 22.0% 16 1.05 5.45 1.32 0.51 0.62 1.16 1.50 5.19
Jun 1.65 22.0% 16 0.70 6.43 1.32 0.60 0.60 0.70 2.00 3.89
Jul 2.55 20.0% 16 1.02 7.23 1.32 0.67 0.62 0.96 2.00 2.85
Aug 0.65 18.0% 16 0.24 6.34 1.32 0.59 0.62 0.27 1.50 1.62
Sep 1.75 16.0% 16 0.61 4.93 1.32 0.46 0.60 0.74 1.00 1.36
Oct 0.45 16.0% 16 0.16 3.23 1.32 0.30 0.62 0.47 1.83
Nov 0.41 5.0% 16 0.08 2.23 1.32 0.21 0.60 0.47 2.30
Dec 0.00 3.0% 16 - 0 1.32 - 0.62 0.62 2.92
*Precipitation for Greeley,CO,NOM,1996 "SC5,National Engineering Handbook "'Evaporation for Ft Collins,CO,NOAH
Hard-Le Holsteins
Envirostock, Inc-Project 24042-1-99
Management Plan
for
Nuisance Control
A Supplement to the
Manure & Process Wastewater Management Plan
' for
Hard-Le Holsteins
15274 Weld County Road 72
Greeley, Colorado 80631
Developed in accordance with
Generally Accepted Agricultural Best Management Practices
Prepared By
NVIRO
TOCK,L.
11990 Grant Street, Suite 402
Denver, Colorado 80233
February, 1999
'Serving Environmental Needs of the livestock Industry°
Hard-Le Holsteins
Envirostock, Inc-Project 24042-1-99
Table of Contents
Introduction 32
Legal Owner, Contacts and Authorized Persons 32
Legal Description 32
Dust 33
Odor 34
Pest Control 35
Insects and Rodents 35
References 36
"Serving Environmental Needs of the Livestock Industry"
Hard-Le Holsteins
Envirostock, Inc-Project 24042-1-99
Introduction
This supplemental Management Plan for Nuisance Control has been developed and implemented
to identify methods Hard-Le Holsteins will use to minimize the inherent conditions that exist in
confinement feeding operations. This supplemental plan 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 Hard-Le Holsteins.
Legal Owner, Contacts and Authorized Persons
The legal owners of Hard-Le Holsteins are Lester E. and Sherrill R. Hardesty
Correspondence and Contacts should be made to:
Mr. Les Hardesty
15274 WCR 72
Greeley, CO 80631
(970) 454-3635
The individual(s) at this facility who is(are) responsible for developing the implementation,
maintenance and revision of this supplemental plan are listed below:
Les Hardesty Owner
(Name) (Title)
Sherrill Hardesty Owner
(Name) (Title)
Legal Description
The confined animal feeding facility described in this NMP is located at:
The northwest Yr of section 10, township 6 north, range 66 west of the 6`k principal meridian,
Weld County, Colorado.
"Serving Environmental Needs of the Livestock Industry"
Hard-Le Holsteins
Envirostock, Inc-Project 24042-1-99
Air Quality
Air quality at and around confined animal feeding operations is 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
Hard-Le 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 Hard-Le Holsteins shall use to
control dust are:
I. 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
Hard-Le 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. Hard-Le 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 minimise nuisance dust conditions.
"Serving Environmental Needs of the Livestock Industry"
Hard-Le Holsteins
Envirostock, Inc-Project 24042-1-99
Odor
Odors result from the natural decomposition processes that start as soon as the manure is
excreted and continue as long as any usable material remains as food for microorganisms living
everywhere in soil, water and the manure. Odor strength depends on the kind of manure, and the
conditions under which it decomposes. Although occasionally unpleasant, the odors are not
dangerous to health in the quantities customarily noticed around animal feeding operations and
fields where manure is spread for fertilizer.
Hard-Le 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 Hard-Le Holsteins. No chemical additives or treatments 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. Hard-Le 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, Hard-
Le Holsteins will increase the frequency of the respective management practices previously
outlined such aspen cleaning, surface grading and pen maintenance. Additionally, if nuisance
conditions continue to persist beyond increased maintenance interval controls, Hard-Le
Holsteins will install physical or mechanical means such as living windbreaks and/or solid
fences to further minimize nuisance conditions from dust and odors.
"Serving Environmental Needs of the Livestock Industry'
Hard-Le Holsteins
Envirostock, Inc-Project 24042-1-99
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. Key practices Hard-Le Holsteins will use to manage insects
and rodents are to first eliminate possible habitat and then, reduce the available food supply.
Hard-Le 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.
S. Minimize stockpiles or storage of manure
Stockpiles of manure provide both breeding and protective habitat. Keeps 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. However,they are very effective. Baits and treatments must be
applied routinely.
Rodent control at Hard-Le Holsteins is best achieved by minimizing spillage of feedstuffs around
the operation. Good housekeeping practices and regular feedbunk cleaning, site grading and
maintenance are used to reduce feed sources. Rodent traps and chemical treatments are effective
control methods and will be used as necessary.
In the event Weld County Health Department determines nuisance conditions from pests such as
flies and rodents persist, Hard-Le Holsteins will initially increase the frequency of the
housekeeping and management practices outlined previously. If further action is necessary,
Hard-Le Holsteins will increase use of chemical controls and treatments, such as fly sprays,
baits and Rodendicide for pest control.
"Serving Environmental Needs of the Livestock Industy
Hard-Le Holsteins
Envirostock, Inc-Project 24042-1-99
References
These references are provided as a resource to Weld County Health Department and Hard-Le
Holsteins for making nuisance control decisions for the facility. These references represent the
latest and most modem management and scientific information to date for control of nuisance
conditions for the livestock feeding industry.
"Serving Environmental Needs of the Livestock Industry'
Pantorop«ny«u Dust Control
100 Dust can threaten not only the health of cattle
BO 7z� r e: v:•:•:-: (Franzen, 1984) and people,but can also compromise a
:;•re•.•• = :: ` : :;:; y- feedyard's ability to continue to operate.The major source of
A :g;:;; • : y, the pens; however, dust also
dust in the feedyard comes from
ao s :;,:., can come from roads, service areas,and feed processing.
Generally,the peak time for dust occurs around sunset, when
r.20 9 •• ` y to cool and cattle become more active.
g. ____ 5:::::::::::::::Mthe temperature starts
o e -� •••••e` 0�0 • The best way to control dust is through proper pen
�e'E� re.v`s `y • b, _ design and maintenance of surface moisture levels. Routine
SQ s'0 ec,47 Is,� cleaning of pen surfaces also helps to minimize dust
-4- problems. A recent survey(Figure 1)suggests that most
Figure 1:Dust control practices on beef feedyards use a mechanical scraper as the main tool in their dust control strategies.
- feedlots of 1,000 or more bead. Keep the loose manure layer less than one inch deep and pen moisture between
25 and 35 percent.Too much moisture will increase odor and fly problems; too
little moisture will promote difficulties with dust.
Pen size and shape dictate the type of water-distribution system to use. Far• Fenceline.vs.Mobile Sprinklers example,large,deep pens probably require fence-line sprinkling systems,while
shallow pen's may favor mobile equipment.Selecting a sprinkling system assumes
The decision to install fenceline that the feedyard has adequate amounts of water beyond dunking water needs.
sprinklers versus acquiring mobile Wind breaks also may be used to control or capture fugitive dust. Fast-
equipment is a tradeoff between initial growing poplar trees planted along the perimeter of the feedyard will provide cost,labor.
maintenance,depreciation, and shelter from the wind and may largely contain any fugitive dust.
labo The permanent fenceline sprinkling There are numerous surface amendments and chemical agents being
system nally. e u 1 evaluated for dust control.Fly ash looks promising,and other compounds that have
per pen initially.However, continued gypsum.
labor expense is minimal once the system been considered include sawdust, apple:pumice,ligno sulfate,and
is operational. Drain the system in the fall
vyre vent freezing,alt hough dust can still Stocking Rate 'P
- be a problem in the winter. Surface moisture can be man `ulated through stocking rate changes.
Mobile equipment is expensive:A used However,linear-bunk space,water trough space, and pen square footage may be
8,000-gallon tanker may exceed$60,000 limiting and may preclude increasing the stocking rate enough to achieve the
initial cost, plus it will require a driver desired pen moisture.The stocking rate can be altered by increasing
using the the number of
and operating expenses. For a medium- head per pen-or by reducing pen square footag sin of Panels
above-averageorelectric
to large-sized feedyard;.there may not be Temporary fencing also gives flexibility during periods
enough time to haul water to raise the' precipitation: '
pen moisture. Manipulating the stocking rate of feedyard pens to c.-ontrol the amount of
feces and urine produced per pen is.art economical dust-Control strategy Know the• area and weight per animal. For example, a 1,000-pound steer allocated to 125
- square feet of pen space produces about 28 inches of moisture per year or 0.08
Odor Control inches per day(Table 2).
Offensive odors froth feedlots are Table 2:Manure moisture production in cattle feedlots(Sweeten,No.7045)
intimately related to manure Av;rage Animal Spacing(sq ft/hd)
management. If you are siting a new • 75 100 125 - 150 175
feedlot, select an isolated location Moisture(in/day)
Animal size(avg Ibs/hd)
downwind from neighbors with an 05 p4 03 03 02 _
adequate and well-drained land base. 400 _ A8 06 ,05 04 .03
Design the feedlot to accommodate Soo', .0 • ` 06 .06- 05,. •.04 _
13 i0 08 07 06
frequent scraping, and keep manure 1000 12 -%.:•:::.:;45--'2••••-.•.-‘08.., A7
Stockpiles dry and covered. When 1200 . `r 16 -
manure is applied to land, the timing ckmq density has a significant Influence on the animal arid•ma aged to re du ehodornon ern be • • 5 o c
managed to reduce odor concerns. environmental'performance of afeedlot Stocking density partl•y determines the
Apply manure. when the wind is cairn, ' average moisture content of the pensurface cattle add moisture through fecQ5r,
and urine to the_pens each day. Determining how much moisture is desirable
preferably in the morning, and
incorporate it as soon as possible. requires careful observation.This decision varies with management style and
Front-end Loaders vs. Box Scrapers experience with the specific site and climatic cotiuttions. Cattle siz
stockingnse.
and
ons also
will influence moisture balance and the corresponding appropriate
pp P rs
Two of the most common methods of :Typical pen stocking densities in Colorado are between and and 300re f t2 per
uce dens density
-4 loader
removal are e the scraper.
wheeled front- animal.Increase stocking density during warmer,dry periods,
loedev . The thebox box scraper. Both
r effective. scraper or other during wet or cool seasons.For both odor and dust control,the choice of stocking
scraping devices, such as a paddle density should achieve a balance between a pen surface that is too dry versus one
scraper or road grader, are more that is too wet. If this management goal is not achieved,more elaborate and
effective at(1)providing a smooth pen expensive methods,such as sprinkling systems for dust control or frequent manure
surface that facilitates proper drainage removal for odor control,will be necessary.• and precipitation
and(2)maintaining the integrity of the A combination of cattle density, sprinkling, spraying,
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.
lems.
tofo manure accumulatedmust with shift g gears
lfour There are numerous options to consider when Each has advantages and disadvantages. It is important to shave a plahr nbplace
loader, theoperator ecks
times while manipulating the bucket. and start prior to the time dust is a serious problem. Remember,na timely manner.
This is most likely to result in an is minimized by removing loose manure and dust from p
irregular pen surface at best or damage
to the protective"hard pan."A Manure Removal
combination of a wheeled front-end The removal o of accumulated manure reduces odors, controls fly larvae, and
scraper e for major manure removal and and a
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 1 area provides
ti
ming rdes the
can be
producer with flexibility in land application so that land application
pp'
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 to reduce runoff volume by settling Table 3.Manure production per 1,000-pound animal.
As Excreted Dry Matter Basis
solids and removing nutrients. (88% 1.38 tons/yr
Beef Cattle 11.5 tons/yr water) y
15.0 tons/yr(88%water) 1.80 tons/
Soil sample downhill from stockpiles to Dairy Cattle 7.3 tons/yr(75%water) 1.82 tons/yr
r
monitor nitrate buildup. 5:i<4)
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
quate, nge to apply manure to other management conalso play an p important rote manure.to market it for cond base is mpost ng orgard n use. Sample the manure and
or
c insect ccan grtrol.eatly
atly t pue stress prepare the manure
cattle and can greatly reduce provide the laboratory analysis to manure users so that they can apply
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(fable 3)to
around waterers and feedbunks. One determine how much manure is produced. Multiply the tonnage by the lb N/ton in
ar¢a commonly overlooked in pen that manure(fable 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. Multipl
under fence rows and adjacent to the expected yield by the average N content of the harvested crop to determine N
strucThen areas waterers and feed bunks. removal by the crop. Finally,divide the pounds N produced in the manure by the
These areas are not readily accessible pounds N used by the crop per acre.The result is the acreage required as a land
with heavy equipment and require small base for your feedlot.
equipment and/or manual labor.
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 apro
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._On
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
ey,but uces Use sheet o.manure0 54 . crop pro Station. Fact spnnklers not only saves Collect and store allnwastewaterr and stormfwater runoff from pens. It car
C orado n 0C o native State
_ University Cooperative Extension. be treated and discharged, or it can be applied to cropland as a source of water
Franzen, o . borne Particle
and nutrients. If it is applied to cropland,the irrigation application rate must be Ic
• 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 grass
Collins, CO. waterways or by using a sediment basin to settle the solids out. Removing solids
NAHMS. 1995.Environmental
from the runoff will reduce odors and prevent the pond from filling up with solid'
Monitoring by Feedlots. Centers forEp Management of Runoff Holding Ponds
USDA: logy
:and Animal He4lth.
USDA:APHIS:VS. N167. 1194. Seal storage ponds and lagoons to prevent seepage. Seepage is requirec
by law to be less than 1/4 inch per dayc if
ftthe and1/3 contains
per day if the pond ff-
sto
onomic W, and D. Te fer. o only,but the seepage requirement i
ma Economics Fact ofsheetcomposting o. . feedlot. Colorado
processing wastewater(for example, manure flushed from a milking parlor)in
State U.University
Cooperative o . Conran. addition to stormwater runoff. Seepage can be reduced by several methods, ane• State University Extension.
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 selects
Cattleman's Library: Stocker-Feeder Locate ponds in the most impervious soil available. Soils must be loams or clays
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 fe
the ways to reduce seepage from runoff holding ponds. Prohibit access of livest
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. Davis, Colorado State University
Cooperative Extension soil specialist and
associate professor,soil and crop sciences;
ooper;
T.L.Stanton,
Cooperative Extension sci fnee s; t with the U S.Department of Agrd in furtherance of iculture,Milan A.Rewerts,dire for of Cooperative Extension,Co
specialist and professor,o animal sciences;and
T.Hare,, Director of Natural Resources, State University,Fort Collins,Colorado.Cooperative Extension programs are available to all withc
Colorado Cattle Feeders Association. discrimination.
•
6-5011
as Ag ricultural 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 technoi- factors(along with climate and soils)into a single
ogy and management practices which can reduce criteriwhere omanure production and/or animal traffic occurs
pollution from livestock and poultry operations. are high.
Van Dyne and Gilbertson(1978)estimated the total
----------------
collectable(economically recoverable) manure
Intensive Animal from all livestock and poultry production to be 52
Production Systems million tons per year(drymatterbasis).Theper-
Ycentages from various species were:dairy cattle
39 percent;feeder cattle 31 percent;hogs 11 per-
cent;laying hens 6 percent;broilers 5 percent;
• 3 percent; turkeys 2 percent;and other 3
The major types of livestock and poultry produc- sheepercent.
don facilities, their design and the manure manage- pThese manure production estimates are based on
ment systems associated with them are described
in several reports (MWPS,1987;U.S.EPA,1973; an engineering standard adopted by the American
yr Society of Agricultural Engineers (ASAE, 1976)
1987).Roofed o Fdror total confinement8;Poster and Ma es are which defines constituent production per unit
1987). or total facilities
common for poultry and swine and to a lesser weight of live animal.These standard values were
(National recently updated to reflect current research data
sears dairy r and beef However, Re- ASAE, 1988).In most cases,average values of dry
search Council, 1979).However,open feedlots
(non-roofed)are most commonly used for beef manure and nutrients(pounds per day per 1,000
upward.
d
cattle production.They are also widely used for pounds liveweight)were revise •.
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,avenging 850 pounds per head liveweight.
"waterstabledooru confined and fed or maintained for a as areas where animals aze Each
fattening period t is fed in a produces about 11 130-to dry ton of 150-day
and
of 45 days or more in any a 1a -month r post-
lectable manure solids.This equals about 2 dry
and...crops,vegetation,forage growth arrest- tons of collected manure per year per head of fee -
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
le,there are 100 to 125
• as (U.S. spec76).Tpe definition is of confinement specific other factors.For facilityor square feet per head in the desert southwest where
as to animal species, type there is less than 10 inches of annual rainfall;175 tc
200 square feet per head in the southern and cen-
' Extension Agricultural Engineer,Tne Texas Adc4 t University tral Great Plains where there is 15 to 25 inches of
System
._____.o,.."m.rnnrga Station,Texas
•
rs and
rain per year,and 300 to 400 square feet per head manure
storage
tanks
u eb for n beneath
m slottednure floor and
in the eastern and northern Great Plains wherelagoons
_ there is 25 to 35 inches per year.Most cattle feed- treatment are important odor sources.
lots are concentrated in the southern and central When open feedlot surfaces become wet,particv-
Great Plains. - larly in warm weather,anaerobic decomposition
Most of the manure deposited on the feedlot stir- 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 maybe a nut- there is inadequate drainage or poor drying condi-
sance to employees and downwind neighbors. tions.
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 and areas of Arizona,California ammonia and amines;sulfides;volatile fatty adds;
and Texas,there is a potential for dust problems alcohols;aldehydes;mercaptans;esters;and car-
(National Research Council,1979). bonyls(Table 1)(Ashbacher,1972;Miner,1975;
Dust from cattle feedlot surfaces,alleys and roads Barth et al.,1984.ASAE,1987;National Research
can annoy neighbors,irritate feedlot employees, Council,1979).
possibly impair cattle performance and 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
Melvin:tine
Ethylamine
Odors from livestock Adds Tdmethvlamine
feeding Butyric Diethylamine
- operations Acetic
• Although odors from livestock feeding facilities Ilso a yric Esters
are sometimes an annoyance,odorous gases are Fixed Cases
-not toxic at concentrations found downwind.How- Carbonyls CaroonDioxide(odorless)
ever,nuisance lawsuits can threaten the survival of Methane(odorless)
an operation(George et al,1985), and livestock Ammonia
producers need to control the evolution of odorous Sulphur compounds
Hydrogen Sulfide
compounds (Miner,1975;National Research Coun- methyl Sulfide Nitrogen Heterocycles
dl, 1979). Diethyl Sulfide Indole
• Methylmercaptan
Odorous gases arise from feed materials (food-pro- Disulndes Stole
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 are a the measurement of odor.However,the instru-
function of the material as excreted, the biologic re- ments and techniques used in sensory odor meas-
actions occurring in the material and the configure- urement may vary.Odor measurement techno-
lion 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- cads,etc);
tional Research Council, 1979).Manure-covered
surfaces (e.g.,building floors and animals), • -
lam co llected eot dust r Dilutions to threshold with a dynamic forced- E t1 ) California feedlots,using sa amples
in
choice olfactometer or scentometer,and side 65 plex hi pens at 10 h-volume air sampler and operating in
r 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 7:00a3 and d averaged aged anm., g 0
ed
property- from 1,946 to 35,536 µg per
line odor l states ar s based municipalities haveper 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 Algeo et al. (1972)measured total suspended per-
verse manure was that y Meyer and Con- ticulates in 24-hour samplings both upwind and
ammonia
(1981),iao who found that hydrogen sulfide and downwind in 25 California feedlots(Table 2).Net
percent
and concentrations were, at degrees respectively, F particulate concentrations (downwind minus up-
than at 60 gr percent European e at 73 rch( F ind for a 24-hour period ranged from 54 to 1,268
1985),th degrees F.Iemission rfroarch(IQaren- ) g
µg per m3.The average value for all?3 feedlots
hoes swithe odor taly stored from swine was 654+376 µg per m3.Upwind concentrations
houses with each 18 degree
manure immersed averaged-25 percent of the downwind concentra-
t tare
ead,i i8 ventilation
rise in manure tempera- dons. oth uwind and downwind particulate lev-
more than
four timesng greater in summer thate an
influences,was els usually exceeded the U.S.EPA ambient
wore r.Emissions four were 73 p c summer than in air-quality standards for TSP.
• winter. 73 percent.greater with q tY
i fully slotted floors than with partially slotted floors. Table 2. Summary of 24-Hour Particulate
SP Concentrations at 25 California
In the same study,odor intensity observations (TCattle Feedlots (Algeo et al., 1972).
were made with scentometers both upwind and
' downwind of feedlots.Upwind odor intensities Up
Downwind wi
nd Net,Downwind
were usually in the range of 0 to 2 dilutions topwin minus Upwind
threshold,while downwind concentrations aver- (n=25)) (n=24)
(s Up)
aged 13 to 49 dilutions to threshold. nit
Mean 836 206
• Dust emissions from livestock std.Devia- ±437 .t16 =376
•
ton
feeding operations Range:
•
Minimum 100 1,268
In 1971,the U.S.EPA(1987)defined primary and 54
Maximum 1109 460
secondary ambient au-quality standards for total
suspended particulate matter(TSP).The primary lackwood(1977)cited major standards were set at 260 µg per mar for a 24-hour dons in peters and these results:
limita-
average,not to be exceeded more than once per
year,with an annual geometric mean of 75 µg per a All sampling was performed in the dry sea-
m3.Secondary standards were set at 150 µg per m3 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 from
in favor of a new indicator that includes only those Algeo et ae s,using(1972),Peters and Californiarnia data wood(1977)
particulates with an aerodynamic particle diameter developed what they considered to be worst-case
less than or equal to a nominal:110 mm(U.S.EPA, ro ections for cattle feedlots.According to their
1987).The new standard:1)replaced the 24-hour projections
feedyards with more than 500 head,
primary TSP standard with a PM-10 standard of at 140 square feet per head,would emit more
150 µg per ms;2)replaced the annual geometric than 100 tons of particulates per year,not includ-
mean with an arithmetic mean PM-10 standard of in the feedmill.
of.
50 µg per m3;and 3)replaced the secondary TSP g treatment
standard with 24-hour and annual PM-10 stand- Based on Peters and Blackwood's(1977)
ards that are identical to the primary standards. of the California data,the U.S.EPA published emi
These standards,of course,apply to livestock sion factors(AP-42) for cattle feedlots as being
feeding operations. aside estimates at best(U.S.EPA,1986).
These emission factors were based on the assump- 700
tion that feedlots would generate 280 pounds of IIIIIIIIIII
particulates per day per 1,000 head,and 27 tons of — H,va Pmm -
articulates per 1,000 head fed.Other emissions050-°.11 e'"
P P T cso_zn zit
factors were similarly written for ammonia,amines Io — T -
and total sulfur compounds. _ i
•
The U.S.EPA emission factors ignored the major -
climatic differences among cattle feeding regions e
of California,the Great Plains and the Midwest. 9 t0 — 14
Both total rainfall and seasonality of rainfall are I= i "
different.-Also,California has less than 4 percent " ` `
a a q
of the United States cattle on feed,as compared to m 40 _ o I
Texas and Nebraska which combined have 40
percent. f
I
U -
To obtain a broader data base,dust emissions were I
measured at three cattle feedlots in Texas,ranging 20 - EI i
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 IIIIIIILTIII
particulates below 10µm aerodynamic particle size 0
(PM-10)(Sweeten et al.,1988).Net feedlot dust con- S. O m N 7: Pt m ^ o e o
N N N
N C V n Y YI b CO N N i'l
centrations (downwind minus upwind)ranged Aerodynamic diameter[um)
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. Cumurativevoit.rne!radian w feeds«dust parlktes of given size cap
California data).Dust concentrations were gener- on Inez or High Volume and PM10 samplers;dowm4nd samplers:
ally highest in early evening and lowest in early feedlots A.nC and nB .na(Experiments 77,14 and 16).
g (sweeten and Fames,tsa9.)
morning,and upwind concentrations averaged 22
percent of downwind concentrations.
Using)wo 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
Parnell,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
with the expected early evening peaks caused by Controlling dust
cattle activity.Hence,comparatively little of the Feedlot dust is usually controlled by sprinkling sur-
actual feedlot manure dust may have been faces with water at strategic times and in proper
captured in Wedding's instruments. amounts (Andre,1985;Gray,1984;Simpson,1970;
Analysis with a Coulter Counter showed aerody- Sweeten,1982).Carroll et al. (1974)compared two
namic particle size distribution curves for TSP and feedlots,one unsprinkled and the other sprinkled
PM-10 samplers (Figure 1) (Sweeten and Parnell, each day on a schedule of 2 hours on,21/2 hours
1989).The PM-10 sampler over-sampled particles off and 1 1/2 hours on.He reported that sprinkling
larger than 10µm,since 34 percent of the particles reduced dust emissions by at least half.
trapped on the PM-10 sampler filters were larger
- than 10µm and 66 percent were smaller than 10µm. Elam et al. (1971)reported that feedlot manure
Mass median diameters (IvflvID)of dust particles moisture content of 20 to 30 percent was needed
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
odorous gases and elimate anaerobic storage condi-
nated for 7 days. lions 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
content in the top 1 inch of feedlot surface,al- agents,moul for odor
control in deodorants,
though odor intensity(dilutions to threshold) in- cemical deodorants, ie and feed deodorants,
addi-
` creased.Regression equations indicated that the ayes(Ritter,1980).Digestive deodorants are the
manure moisture needs u fa a manure6 to 1 percent most widely used.They must be added frequently(wet41 percent c an 1-loose ept in cod r5 to to allow selected bacteria to become predominant.
f1 lo du at a allowable o depth TSP fn order of control Potassium permanganate(100-500 ppm),hydrogen
feedlot dust to limits 150 and peroxide(100-125 ppm)and chlorine are oxidizing
260 µg per m3. chemicals capable of controlling hydrogen sulfide
emissions.
controlling odorWarburton 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(lcarenbeelc 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 capadty 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,
et all.,,11979;ASAE,1990) ash,1976; from or concentration
swine house, lthough captured dus of t
formed a sludge which made it difficult to recircu-
Mechanicalt solagoons
aeration an liquid manure in oxidation tol late the scrubbing water.Schirz(1977)cited prob-
method hes or lagoons is effective odor control lems with the clogging of spray nozzles when
A only(Humenik h top f third or Jones t swinel., lagoon scrubbing with recycled water,and biological tree
Aerating proved v the and reduced f power ment was required.Licht and Miner(1978)built a
contents successful and re- horizontal cross-flow,packed-bed wet scrubber fc
quirements as compared with complete mixing a swine confinement building and achieved 50 an
(Humenik limited aeration et al.,of liquid swine ee manure ea al. wit(1971hout
used 90 percent removal of particulates larger than 1
enu le dissolved
sof o al without a and 5 microns,respectively,and ammonia reduc-
duced measurable as compared opa to non-aerated residual std ra lion of 8 to 38 percent;and an 82 percent reductio
odor as to storage. odor intensity.
packed-bed dor tens
Phillips et al. (1979)rapidly reduced hydrogen sul- ofdry scrubber filled with a zeolite
fide and methanol emissions from swine manure A(dinoptilolite)reduced ammonia emissions from
by ands suc but phenols lese persisted.er and less Aeration offensive j a tc poultry house by 45 percent initially,but efficien
pounds such as just
prior to land spreading could reduce odors from dropped to only 15 percent in 18 days(Koebliker
• field application. al.,1980).
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
tally biodegrades organic gases(Bohn,1972). livestock odors.
r. 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,I 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 Apical-
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.
tern.Prokop and Bohn(1985)reported 99.9percent HFeo toot Co Water dlo Pollution.l Ano rat'
a
P How to Control Feedlot C'at;fomia Cattle
odor reduction when a soil filter was used to treat Feeders Association,Bakersville,CA,June.75 p.
high intensity odors in exhaust from rendering
plant cookers.Soil filters require a moderately fine- American Sudety of Agricultural Engineers.1987.Con-
textured soil,sufficient moisture and a pH of 7 to trol of Manure Odors.ASAE EP-379,Agricultural
is 2,500 to 4,600 square Engineers Yearbook of Standards,American Society
8.5.The land area required
q of Agricultural Engineers,St.Joseph,MI,pp.405-06
feet per 1,000 dm,depending upon the air flow
rate (Prokop and Bohn,1985).Sweeten et al.(1988) Andre,P.D.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 poul- 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 Anaerc
bic Livestock Waste Lagoons,In:Agricultural
downwind from their source the more they di-areWaste:Utilization and Management,Proceedings o.
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.,
1983),over a distance of half a mile downwind Barth,C.L,L.F.Elliot and S.W.y to Support Animal
Using
Agri-
from a cattle feedlot in Texas (Sweeten et al.,1983). Odor Control.ASAE,27:859-864.
864. Animal culture.Trans.ASAE,27:859-Sb4.
Atmospheric dispersion models are sometimes Bohn,H.1972.Soil Absorption of Air Pollutants.J.Em:-
used to predict the travel of odor emissions(Janni, ron.Quality,1:372-377.
1982)and the impact on communities.However, Carroll,J.J.,Dunbar,J.R.,Givens,R.L.,et al.1984.Sprin-
the use of dispersion models is limited to short dis- kling for dust suppression in a cattle feedlot.Calif o
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.197.regulatory applications.The prediction models re. Aeration with ORP Control to Suppress Odors Erni
g� ry pP ted from Liquid Swine Manure System.In:Live-
quire that atmospheric stability,wind speed and stock Waste Management and Pollution Abatement
odor emission rates are known. Proceedings of International Symposium on Live-
stock Wastes,American Society of Agricultural En€
Based in part on dispersion model results,required
nets,St.Joseph MI,pp.267-271.
minimum separation distances for livestock feed-
- ing operations (based on number of head)have Elam,C.J.,Alego,J.W.,Westing,T.,et al.1971.Measure
been developed for swine facilities in the Nether- ment and control of feedlot particulate matter.Bull
lands arenbeek, 1985 and for cattle feedlots in tin C.How to Control Feedlot Pollution.California
These Cattle Feeders Association,Bakersviile,CA,Januar-
Austra (QDPI,1989). relationships are
being used to determine the size of operation that Foster,J.and W.Mayrose.1987.Pork Industry Hand-
should be allowed in a particular location.The kook Cooperative Extension Service,Purdue Uni-
versity,West Lafayette,IN -
Hello