The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About982560.tiff U5,21)1) DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES Weld County Administrative Offices, 1400 N. 17th Avenue,Greeley, CO 80631 Phone (970) 353-6100, Ext.3540, Fax (970)353-6312 USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW APPLICATION • 14111 Application Fee Paid //(TD • Receipt# D L!o9cj Date q1/20Q Recording Fee Paid Receipt# Date Application Reviewed by: 2-- Weld Cniu t TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT: (Please print or type, except for necessmyrataeinq Dept. LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT AREA: p 1/4 S z9 WY aW1 4 28 T3Ne 14,14,5145 PARCEL NUMBER:L 2 l .1a.ja_ 0 .Q 1(12 digit nunritund on Tax I.D. Information or obtained at the Assessor's Office. "° t°`t VED Section 28-24,T 3 N, R 65 W-Total Acreage Iig Zone District A Overlay Zone Property Address (if available) N N t 1 Proposed Use DAIRY' CONFINED ANIMAL Fae-n%N4 OPLRATIoN (Q �X11� `T4t SURFACE FEE (PROPERTY OWNERS) OF AREA PROPOSED FOR THE SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT Name: TogN R. t Eu eN F. Mo36R Address: 12954 W C.K 43 City/State/Zip: guosoN i 8O6+2 Home Telephone: Business Telephone 3x3.536.4801 Name: Address: City/State/Zip: Home Telephone: Business Telephone APPLICANT OR AUTHORIZED AGENT (if different than above) Name: ENVIRo5Toc.K INd-. % ` oivIAS I-IAREN A ress: 11990 drRAtly ST.a 5m. 401 City/State/Zip: DENVER CO $01-33())114 R Home Telephone: Business Telephone: 303) 1 1- 4322 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES USE ONLY Case# (4,5/ � 0-0 1 Floodplain: ❑ Yes 0 No Geologic Hazard: o Yes o No I hereby state that all statements and plans submitted with the applic i are true apyf correct to the best of my knowledge. Folz $I1M Mose MoRwM DAIRY,LI Rev: 1-27-97 Signet re- ner or Au horized Agent Road File# RE: EXHIBIT 5 982560 Morwai Dairy, LLC 12954 Weld County Road 43 Hudson, Colorado Special Use Permit Application Submitted to Weld County September 1998 Application Prepared By: NVIRO TOCK,1 . 11990 Grant Street, Suite 402 Denver, Colorado 80233 (303) 457-4322 (Please submit all correspondence to EnviroStock, Inc. at the address above) 11990 Grant Street, Suite 402 Denver, Colorado 80233 NV1RO Phone (303) 457-4322 Fax(303) 457-4609 TOCK,tn. Friday, September 11, 1998 Weld County Planning &Zoning Weld County Administrative Offices 1400 North 17th Street Greeley, Colorado 80631 Subject: Morwai Dairy USR Application Dear Commission: Enclosed is the Use-by-Special-Review application for Morwai Dairy, LLC. The proposed Morwai dairy is a new facility planned for eastern Weld County in Sections 28 and 29 of township 3 north, range 65 west, north of Hudson, Colorado. Morwai Dairy, when completed,will encompass 6000 dairy cattle. The physical facilities will be located on approximately 125 acres. Approximately 2,640 additional acres adjacent or nearby the physical facility are owned by the Moser family and is available to grow feedstuffs and support the waste management of the facility. Great care was taken to properly locate this facility and to preserve prime agricultural lands necessary to support the dairy. Significant time and effort have been involved in developing a comprehensive plan for Morwai Dairy. The partners are insistent upon designing the most efficient,practical and environmentally optimum operation achievable. They have enlisted the aid of several nationally recognized engineers and consultants,university researchers and other local dairymen to design the facility outlined in this application. The Morwai Dairy partners have met individually with each neighbor to incorporate their concerns into this plan. Please direct all correspondence to EnviroStock, Inc. at the address listed above. If you have any questions regarding this plan or require additional information for consideration,please contact me directly at(303) 457-4322. Sinter ly, homas Haren Vice President ART WILLI5 YELL, COUNTY TAx NOTICE R4953386I WELD COUNTY TREASURER P.O.BOX 456 .• Taxes Due in ••: AX LEVY " " GENE•ALTAX GREELEY CO 80832.0458 TAX AUTM a•ITY ° LEG'.L iESC'I'TIaN aF "a 'ERTY 22.038 451.13 WELD COUNTY 22038 456.63 !1480 N2 78 3 65(2R) SCHOOL D1ST REF 46.66 CCW WATER 1.144 38,48 CCS WATER 1.889 0.009 2.303 47.14 ALA'FTEVILLE-GILCREST Fl 6 322 129.41 AIMS JUNIOR COL LM, ‘4.04‘. 1R R4 W GI. LIPTtfLRY . Ca No.2e..h ARene*ol Stale LedslWe Funan2,a 43.933 TOTAL LEVY FULL TM your scrod senor&Fwd Leo woAC have been 43.933 RAPS VP PERS TOTAL.VA4V4TbN TMDIRTRICT ACTUAL PROPERLY WAR IC YALUATION OF LAND 1565.08 •AYMENT SCHE a ULE oAROR a i, -.n ' A/♦ I umaix REAL n . 121328000001 1st Halt Tax DUE MARCH 2 .782.54 2nd Half Tax DUE JUNE 15 782.54 FULL PAYMENT 156S.OH 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 MORTOACE COMPANY KEEP THIS NOTICE FOR YOUR RECORD.IF YOU MOSEI0 NOTICC TO TUC 12623 JOHN CORD F NEW OWNEROIR0 PETURN TO THIS OFFICE MARKED I°PROPERTY SOLD' )2623 WELD O RD#43 . HUDSON,CO 80642 • Please see reverde oldie of t61s fatm for sddII onat information. I AX NO I ICE . . Morwai Dairy, LLC Envirostock, Inc-Project 24034 USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW QUESTIONNAIRE 1. Explain, in detail, the proposed use of the property The proposed use of this property is for a dairy facility for milk production, associated structures and corrals for livestock husbandry, equipment storage and maintenance facilities, waste management and control structures, and residences for employees. This proposal is for a new dairy consisting of 6000 head of cattle, associated corrals, milking facilities and storage, management and support facilities. Additionally, this proposal includes construction of 2 semi- permanent 4-plex employee housing units (See question 7). Three integral issues/items are proposed and contingent upon receipt of a USR permit: 1. 45 acres located on the east `/4 of section 29, owned by J.J. and Anna Wardell, are included in the plan. Morwai Dairy, LLP has an option to purchase this property contingent upon the receipt of a USR permit from Weld County. J.J. Wardell will initiate and request a "Recorded Exemption" from Weld County at Morwai Dairy's expense to release the property. Morwai Dairy will initiate a "property line adjustment"with Weld County to incorporate the additional 45 acres into the existing parcel in section 28 upon completion of the USR and subsequent purchase of the 45 acres. A copy of the option contract to purchase the 45 acres and "Property Line Adjustment" forms are included in this application. The additional property and associated expense was determined necessary for three reasons: a. Moving the dairy west further isolated the dairy from neighbors and allowed relocation of the proposed lagoon to the southern portion of the site. These were concerns expressed during Morwai's pre-planning meeting with neighbors. b. Relocation into section 29 allowed a southern access. The proposed southern access will not disrupt neighbors and minimizes dust. These were concerns expressed during Morwai's pre-planning meeting with neighbors. c. Relocation into section 29 allowed additional preservation of prime irrigated farmground located east of the facility. The irrigated farmground is essential to support the dairy. The 45-acre parcel is "non-prime"farmland. 2. A Right-of-Way (ROW), owned by Weld County exists on the section line between sections 28 and 29. The ROW traverses north to south. The facility is designed so pens or structures are not located on the ROW. The facility's main entrance and access road is planned due north from the intersection of WCR 41 and 28, along the existing ROW. A contract was developed with the Weld County Attorney to allow use of the ROW. Additionally, if possible, Morwai Dairy will seek to abandon the ROW. Both the ROW use contract or procedures to abandon the ROW are contingent upon receipt of a USR permit from Weld County. A copy of the ROW use contract is included with the "Road Access Information Sheet" in this application. "Serving Environmental Needs of the Livestock Industry" Morwai Dairy, LLC Envirostock, Inc-Project 24034 3. Water will be obtained from several potential sources. Quality municipal water from Central Weld County Water District for supplying cattle,personnel and tenants will be the primary water source.Negotiations to obtain a water tap from a new line have been initiated with the District. The line will cross the north portion of section 28. A draft copy of the agreement to obtain a water tap is included in the "Sewage and Water" section of this application. Procedures have been initiated with the State Engineer's Office to convert portions of 2 irrigation well(s)to multiple irrigation/commercial use. A portion of the water from these wells will be used to flush the freestall facilities and milking center. The remaining balance of water from the wells will by used to supplement irrigation of the farmground east of the facility. The wells will also be used as a backup emergency supply of drinking water for livestock. These procedures are expensive. Completion of these activities for a water supply are contingent upon receipt of a USR permit from Weld County. Copies of water well permits and agreements are included in this application. 2. Explain how this proposal is consistent with the intent of the Weld County Comprehensive Plan. This use is consistent with the Weld County Comprehensive plan through the preservation, enhancement and growth of agriculture. This facility was designed to protect prime farmland. Additional property was optioned to maximize surrounding irrigated farmground necessary to support the needs of the dairy. The majority of construction will be located on 45 acres in section 29 on non-prime farmland. 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 twenty-five agriculture jobs for Weld county residents. Typically, dairy operations generate 3 times their gross sales into the local economy. 3. Explain how this proposal is consistent with the intent of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance and the zone district in which it is located. This proposal meets the intent of the agricultural 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. Provisions to comply with applicable regulations and requirements are outlined in this application. "Serving Environmental Needs of the Livestock Industry" Morwai Dairy, LLC Envirostock, Inc-Project 24034 4. What type of uses surround the site?Explain how the proposed use is consistent and compatible with surrounding land uses. Agricultural uses surround this site. Uses consist of primarily prime and non-prime farmland. This proposal is compatible with surrounding areas, agricultural uses and the Weld County Comprehensive Plan. Irrigated farmground is located to the south and east; native rangeland. pasture to the west and north. A small feedlot and cattle operation is located northeast of the proposed facility. There are 2 residential homes located within 500 feet of the parcel boundary. No residential homes are located within 500 feet of physical dairy operations. 5. Describe, in detail, the following: a) How many people will use this site? The number of people using this site will be highly variable. This site will be a model facility. There will be several tours on-site, both professional as well as educational,throughout the year. Morwai Dairy also plans to conduct research at this site and will have researchers from Universities and pharmaceutical companies using and visiting the site. The owners,their families and employees, animal health and feed vendors, equipment suppliers, commodity truckers, veterinarians and maintenance workers will be accessing this site on a frequent basis. b) How many employees are proposed to be employed at this site? Morwai dairy will employ approximately 25 people at this site. This number may increase or decrease by 20%over several years. c) What are the hours of operation? Dairy farming operations will run 24 hours every day, 365 days per year. Office hours will be from 8 am to 5 pm, Monday through Friday, and from 8 am to Noon on Saturday and Sunday. Hours of operations are up to 24 hours per day in the milking parlor and related facilities. Equipment operations,trucks, farming activities and maintenance activities other than emergencies will occur primarily during daylight hours. d) What type and how many structures will be erected(built) on this site? The main structure on this site will be a dairy milking center, office, employee housing, commodity storage, cattle pens, waste management structures and other associated support structures. Connected to the main milking center structure will be holding pen for cleaning cows prior to the milking, and to sort cows leaving the parlor. The dairy will include a convalescent area for any sick animals and a small, separate milking parlor to milk any convalescent animals. Two 4-Plex housing units for agricultural accessory employee housing are proposed. "Serving Environmental Needs of the Livestock Industry" Morwai Dairy, LLC Envirostock, Inc-Project 24034 e) What type and how many animals, if any, will be on this site? The site will contain approximately 6000 head of dairy cattle. Of the 6000, head approximately 3000 will be milked three times per day. The balance will be dry cows waiting to calve, calves and replacement heifers. J) What kind(type, size, weight) of vehicles will access this site and how often? Most vehicles accessing this site will be employee's and owner's personal vehicles and semi tractors and trailers. Morwai Dairy will ship milk three times per day offsite with semi tractors and trailers. The dairy will receive feedstuffs, forages and feed additives delivered in semi trailers and trucks two to three times per day. Vendors and suppliers will frequent the site in pick-up trucks and personal vehicles. Tour buses will access the site several times per year. g) Who will provide fire protection to the site? Fire protection will be provided by the Platteville Fire District. Platteville Fire Dept. 303 Marian Platteville, CO 80651 (970) 785-2232 Morwai Dairy will also have a 30,000-gallon water tank accessible for emergency fire control at their facility. h) What is the water source on the property? (Both domestic and irrigation). Water will be obtained from several potential sources. Quality municipal water from Central Weld County Water District for supplying cattle, personnel and tenants will be the primary water source. Negotiations to obtain a water tap from a new line have been initiated with the District. The line will cross the north portion of section 28. A draft copy of the agreement to obtain a water tap is included in the "Sewage and Water" section of this application. Procedures have been initiated with the State Engineer's Office to convert portions of 2 irrigation wells to multiple irrigation/commercial use. A portion of the water from these wells will be used to flush the freestall facilities and milking center. The remaining balance of water from the wells will by used to supplement irrigation of the farmground east of the facility. The wells will also be used as a backup emergency supply of drinking water for livestock. These procedures are expensive. Completion of these activities for a water supply are contingent upon receipt of a USR permit from Weld County. Copies of water well permits and agreements are included in this application. "Serving Environmental Needs of the Livestock Industry" Morwai Dairy, LLC Envirostock, Inc-Project 24034 0 What is the sewage disposal system on the property? (Existing and proposed). There is no existing sewage treatment system on the site. Sewage disposal from the office, working facilities and 4-plex housing units will be with a leach field and septic tank system. Soil percolation tests and appropriate leach field designs will be completed by a registered professional engineer and submitted to Weld County Health Department, Environmental Protection Services for the necessary septic permits prior to operation of the facilities. j) If storage or warehousing is proposed, what type of items will be stored? No commercial storage or warehousing is proposed at this site. Storage consists of concentrated commodities, feed, alfalfa hay, and bedding materials necessary to support the dairy operation. Chemicals and petroleum products required for the facility will be stored in appropriate locations and include secondary containment where required. 6. Explain the proposed landscaping for the site. Landscaping plans include providing an eye-appealing and well-groomed facility that has a professional appearance. Shelter belts for wind and water erosion control and wildlife habitat are coordinated through Federal and State agricultural technical assistance programs. The entrance into the facility from WCR 28 will be landscaped to differentiate the private road from public roads and provide an aesthetically pleasing appearance. Landscaping will be placed at a distance sufficiently north from the intersection that will not interfere with traffic line-of-sight. Additionally, as outlined in the Nuisance Management Plan, if nuisance conditions persist beyond increased maintenance interval controls, Morwai Dairy, LLC will install physical or mechanical means such as living windbreaks and/or solid fences to further minimize nuisance conditions from dust and odors. 7. Explain any proposed reclamation procedures when termination of the Use by Special Review activity occurs. Reclamation procedures include compliance with applicable regulations such as the Colorado Confined Animal Feeding Control Regulations to manage solid manure and stormwater runoff until all relative material is adequately removed. Should the facility be permanently discontinued under the current ownership, it would be marketed under applicable county planning and zoning regulations to its greatest and best use. If the confined-animal-feeding special use is terminated either by Morwai Dairy, LLC or by Weld County, the 4-plex housing units will be removed or proceedings to rezone the area to allow for their continued use will be initiated. "Serving Environmental Needs of the Livestock Industry" Morwai Dairy, LLC Envirostock, Inc-Project 24034 8. Explain how the storm water drainage will be handled on the site. Storm water drainage is handled by a series of storage ponds designed, maintained and operated in accordance with the Colorado Confined Animal Feeding Control Regulations. Water from these ponds is used to irrigated farmground. Specific details regarding stormwater management are outlined in the Manure & Process Wastewater Management Plan. 9. Explain how long it will take to construct this site and when construction and landscaping is scheduled to begin. Earthwork to prepare the access and site for construction will begin in the fall of 1998. Earthwork is not possible during winter months when the ground is frozen. Construction of the pens, milking center and related structures will begin immediately upon granting of the USR permit and recording of the plat. The facility will be operational within 1 year from the permit date. All physical facilities will be completed within 2 to 3 years. 10. Explain where storage and/or stockpiles of wastes will occur on this site. Manure stockpiles, if used,will be centrally located where runoff can be controlled and nuisance conditions minimized. Use of solid waste stockpiles will be minimized to reduce fly and insect concerns due to sanitary conditions required at dairy facilities. Stormwater and water from the milking facilities is stored in earthen structures designed to meet the requirements of the Colorado Confined Animal Feeding Operations Control Regulations. Solid manure, stormwater and dairy wastewater will be collected for application to farmground at agronomic rates. Details of the manure management system are outlined in the Manure and Wastewater Management Plan. Hazardous or solid waste storage is not proposed at this site. Refuse removal will be contracted to a trash pick-up service and collected weekly by B&C Refuse located in Platteville, or Browning Ferris Industries (BFI). "Serving Environmental Needs of the Livestock Industry" 45 Acre Wardell Property 1. Purchase Option Contract 2. Subdivision Exemption Application: Property Line Adjustment 105 West 8th Avenue ll ) Q Fort Morgan, CO, 80701 w C.• c�Phone: 303-867-3373, Fax: 303-867-3373 'hits MINI IIAS IMPORTANT LEGAL C'ONgrpUENC'js ANn l'llE PARTIES MOULD CONSUI;r IEGAI,AM)TAX OR 01116,11 CoUNSEI.(uEPORF,SIGNING VACANT LAND/FARM AND RANCH CONTRACT TO BUY AND SELL REAL ESTATE (FINANCIAL SECTIONS OMITTED) -- AP it 17 , 1945 I. PARTIES AND PROPERTY. John R Mosero Moser (1 �y1 _ •�� Ellen F. 1aQ a.w;O'+a bo)er(s) Miner', (et j in:! tan—la' 1,44144(,/h4a(46) news to buy, and the tadersigncd actler(a) !Soiled, agrees In sell, on the terms and vtmd;tirxns act forth in this contract, the following described real estate in the County of WELD , Colorado, to wit: A 45 ACRE PARCEL (APPROXIMATELY) IN THE E1/2 E1/2 E1/2 OF SECTION 29 TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH RANGE 65 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M. LEGAL DESCRIPTION AND SURVEY SHALL PROVIDE FOR A 45 DEGREE ANGLE FENCE FROM NE TO SW ON NORTH END OF PROPERTY. known as No. NO ADDRESS IU➢SON f:0- BAL4T Sheet Address City State Yip together wilh all interest at Seller in vacated sheds and alleys adjacent thereto, all easements and other appurtenances thereto: all improvements t erean and oil attached fixtures thereon, except at heroin excluded(coilediwly the Property). 2. INCLIISIONS/EXCLLISIONS, the purchase pries includes the following items (n) if attached to the Property on the date of this contract lighting, heating, plumbing, ventilating; and sir and;tinning Edina, TV antennas, water softeners, smoke/fircrbwglar alarms, srana;ly devices, ineklc telephone wiring end coatxting blocks/jacks plans mirrors, floor coverings, intercom systems, built-in kitchen appliances, sprinkler systems and controls built-in vaatom aystems (including accessories), and garage door openers including n/a remote controls; on the Property whether attached or not on the date of this contract: stores windows, storm doors, window and porch shades, awnings, blinds. srerns curtain rrifn, draper' rods, fireplace inserts, fireplace screens, fireplace grates, heating stoves, storage sheds, all keys and (c) /a (d) Water Rights, Purchase price to include the following water rights: NONE (e) (:raving(S-opa With respect to the growing crops Seller and Buyer agree as follows. NATIVE VEGETATION ON DATE OF CLOSING The above-described included ;tuna(oclasions)are to be conveyed to Buyer by Seller by bill of sale, NONE decd or other applicable legal bsetmntent(s) at the closing, free and clear of all taxes, liens and encunn)rencee, except as provided in Section 12. The lotion ins attached fixtures at excluded from this sale: NONE 3, PURCHASE PRICE AND TERMS. The purchase price shall be $ 67.650.GO , payable in U.S, dollars by Buyer as follows.(Complete the applicable terms below.) (a) Earnest drone)'. p I,Oflasna in the form of shack , as earned money deposit and part payment of the purchase price, payable to and held by B1.6 VALLEY REAT.TY broker, in ha Imo account on behalf of bode Seller and Buyer. Drokn is authorized to deliver the earnest money deposit to the cloying aged, if any, in or before closing. 'flue balance of S 66, 650.00 (purchase price less tamest money)shall be paid as follows'. (b) ('ash at('losing. 66.650.00 , plus dosing Mss, to be pnid by Buyer at closing in finds which comply with All applicable Colorado laws, which include cash. eltnnaile transfer finch, certified chock, savings and loan tellers check, and cashier's check (Oond Funds). Subject to the pro);aiau of Somber; 4. if the existing loan balance at the time of closing shall be differed from the bran balance in Station 3, the adjttstment shall be made in (kW Rinds al closing or paid as follows: n/A (o) Nev limits (OMITTED-INAPPLICABLE( (d) Aaumpdon IOMITTED-INAPPLICABLE) (et Seller or Private'l'h1rd$ariy Financing, [OMITTED-INAPPLICABLE( 4. FINANCING CONDITIONS AND OBLIGATIONS. (OMITTED-INAPPLICABLE( 5. APPRAISAL PROVISION. (Chuck only one box) Suction S 0 shall 03 shall nor apply. If this Section 5 applies, as indicated above, Dryer shall have the aisle option and election to terminate this contract if the purchase price caeca)! the Property's valuation determined by an appraisa engaged by n/a The contract shall terminate by the Boyer caning the seller to teethe written notice of termination and a copy of such appraisal or written notice of termination and a copy of such appraisal or written notice front lender which confirms the Property's valuation is lees than the purchase price,on or before II/a (Appraisal Deadline). If Seller does not receive such written notice of termiruton on or before the appraisal deadline. Buyer waives any right to terminate under this section. 6. COST OF'APPRAISAL. Cost of any appraisal to be obtained after the date of this contract stall be timely paid by ZtIRf HASFR I 7. NOT ASSIGNABLE. 'this contract 'all not he ussignnblu by Buyer withbul Seller's prior -riitn convent. Except as an ',untitled. this cultirad shall inure to the benefit of and be hind Toe the heirs, personal representatives, successors are gas of the potties. (title .,tvadtuw) If a title intaasw commitment is furnished. 1Aryit may requite of Seller that copies of Inelntmcntt -(or nbelndz of inatrurnenls). halal in the achrdulo of caeeytions (Exceptions) in die title inwrwtee commitment also be funushep to Buyer el Seller's expense. this requirement shall pertain only to inetrumape Shown of reared in the office of the clerk and recorder of the • designee' coma). or counties. 'the title u,eerotxx commitment. tngelher with any copies or abstracts of instnunaus furnished wratiuit to this leclimh ', comhtule Ile isle crxumets ('Iue l)ocltnteats), Buyer, or Buyers designee, mum request Seller, in writing, to runtish copies or sbatrarAs of instruments listed in the schedule of exceptions BO later than 7 calendar dap alter Title Deadline, If Seller fundshes a title insurance connnnimnau, Seller will pay the premium at closing six! have the true inarance policy delivered to Buyer as soot at practicable alter closing: 9. TITLE. (a) '1'Itle Res few. Buyer dull base the right to iuspwt the Bile Documents or abstract. Written notice by Buyer of aanercheltebility of title or of any other tumitisfoctory title condition shown by the 'tide Documents or abstract shalt be signed by or on behalf of Buyer and given it. Seller on or before _ 3 celendar days after 'Lille Deadline, or within five (5) calendar days allot receipt by Buyer of any Title Puctment(a) or eudOrnentad(a) adding new Exception(v) to the title cotumilmarl together with a copy of the Title Document adding new Exception(*) to title. If Seller does nut receive I)nyer's notice by the date(s) specified above, Buyer accepts the condition of title as disclosed by the Title Docnaans. as entislactory. • (b) 'Slathers Nut Shown by tie Public Recortb. Seller shall deliver to Buyer. out of Icforc the Title Deadline act forth in Section 8, tow copies of all leases) and surw)(s) in Seller), possessor pertaining to the property and droll disclose to Buyer all easements, liens or other title matters not shown by the public teoorde of which Seller hos actual knowledge. Buyer shall haws the right to inspect the Property to determine if any third party(s) Ilse any right in the Property not shown by the public records (such as an unrecorded cosensam, unrecorded lease,or boundary line discrepancy). Written notice of any tatsatsfactory co litien(a) disclosed by Seller or revealed by such irepectiot shall be signed by or on behalf of Buyer and given to Seller on or before slut y 1 5. 1 4911 . If Seller does not cavity Buyer's notice by said date. Buyer accepts tide skject to such rights. if any, of third patties of which Buyer has actual knowledge. (r) Special Taxing Districts. SPECIAL, 1'A.YIN(: DISTRICTS RIAY DE SUDIECI 'fO GENERAL OBLIGATION IM)EBTIDNESS TIIAT IS PAID 111' HyV Nt%ES PRIn)lictl)I'RORI,WNIUl.TAX t.EVIKS ON 1'1(E 1'AXABLY.PROPERTY WITIIIX torch Oislti('tS.PROPERTY OWNERS IN BLCII DIStWC15 MAY BE PLACED AT RISK KOR INCREASED KIM], LEVIES AND tXCPSSIVE lAX nunuet1S to SUPPORT 'I1IE SERVICING OF SUCH DEBT' WHERE ('IRC('RISTANCES ARISE REDII.TING IN Tl1E INABIIJTY OF SUCH A DISTRICT TO DISCHARGE strut)INI)ElITEDNEfS wrtBWT SUED AN INCREASE IN aMIL1. LEVIES. D(IYER SHOIIIP INVESTIGATE 111E DEBT FINANCING REQUIREMENTS OF TILE A(n'IIDRiZED GENERAL ODLICATTON INDEBTEDNESS OF Stl('IH InKiRI(S$ ram*: MILL LEWES OF SLxct DISTRICT SERVICING Well IM)RBTEDNESS, AND TOR POf&NTIAL FOR AN INCREASE IN tit NW RIIIA.LE1'I ES. hl the Gwent the property is located within a special taxing district end Buyer desires to terminate this contract ea a result, if written uoticc is given to Seller on or before the date act forth in subsection 9 (b), slits contract shall then terminate. If Seller dues not reeciw Buyer's notice by the dude specified above, Buyer accepts the cited of the I'toperty's inclusion in stab special taxing districts) and waives the right to sea terminate. (d) Right to Cure. 1( Stiller receives notice of uuterchanlability o'' tide Or any other tatmlisfaclory tide condition(a) as provided in Rthautitm In) or (Is) above, Seller shall use reasonable effort In correct said tstaslivfictory tide eondi6mt(s) prior to the dale of doing. If Seller Dulls to unreel said unsatisfactory title craditirm(s) on or before the date of closing, this contract shall then terminate; provided, however, Buyer may, by wriltai malice rccdved by Seller, on of before closing, waive objection to said unsatisfactory title andition(a). II). INSPECTION. Seger agrees to provide Buyer cm or before P/a - ,with a Seller's Property Disclosure fonts wmpkicd by Seller to the best of Seller's current actual knowledge. Buyer or any designee, shall have the right to bete inspection's) of the physical condition of the Property and Inclusions, at Buyer's expense. If written whet of any unsatisfactory condition, signed by or oo behalf of Ducar,is not received by Seller oil or ',attire 11/A (Objection Deadline), the physical condition of the Property and Inclusions shall be deemed to be satisfactory to Beyer. If such notice is received by Seller as set forth above. and it' Buyer and Seller have not ne.recd, in writing.to a settlement thereof on or heLre D/a (Revolution Deadline), this contract shall terminate three calendar days following rise leesolttice Deadline: unless, within the three caledar days, Seller raxiws written notice from Buyer waiving nit)eeh(m to any unsatisfactory condition, Bny'er is leapossible for and shall pay for any damage which covers to the Property and Inclusion, se a result of such inspection. 11. DATE OF CLOSING. The date of closing shall be July 24., 1998 ,or by mutual agreement at an earlier date.The hour nod plate of closing shall he designated by *LLB VAT.LPY RPtAI,TY 12. TRANSFER OF TITLE, Sneject to fader or papnent at closing as required herein and compliance by Buyer flit h the other terns and provisions hereof Seller dlsll execute and deliver a good and flatulent f;ERERAT, WARRANTY deed to Beyer, on closing, conveying the Property free awl clear of all taxes except the general taxes kr the year of closing, end except NONE OTHER 'liule shall be amwyed free and clear of all liens far special improveunesul installed as of the date of Buyer's signature hereto, whether assessed or not: except (i) distribution utility easements (ieltding cable TV), (ii) (hose nutters reflected by the Title Documents accepted by Buyer in necordaee with subsection 9(a). (iii) those rights. it' Any. of third parties In the Properly not shown by the public record, in ecoordume will, I xldhsation 9(h), (iv) inclusion of the Property within any special taxing district, (v) subject to building and zoning regulations. 13. PAYMENT OF ENCUMBRANCES. Any encumbrance required to be paid shall be paid at or before closing Sum the proceeds of this transaction of hunt any other stlite. 14. CLOSING(O5Th,DOCUMEN1'S AND SERVICES. Buyer and Seller shall pay, its Coed Funds, their respective closing cotes ad all oilier items required to fa paid al closing. except as otherwise provided herein. Ihryer and Sella shall sign and complete ell customary or required do;un enln al or before dosing. Fees for real agate closing services shall not exceed S 200 (10 and shall he paid at closing by , L7 BY SELLERS AND 1 /2 BY THE BUYERS .The Inca!transfer ax of n/a %of the purchase price shall be paid at closng by D/a . Any sale, and 1550 tax that may accrue because of this Irntattclion Stall be paid when due by D/a ._._— 15. PRORATIONS. General taxes for r' weir of closing based on the taxes fir the calendar • immediately preceding closing, rents, water and newer charges, Owner's association dues, ms :welt an continuing loa(s), if tiny, and 1990 TAXES WILL BE PAID BY Put4CHASER shall he prorated to date of closing. 16, POSSESSION. Possession of the Property shall be delivered to Buyer us fellows: ON DATE OP DELIVERY OF DEED subject to the following Igase(s)or trnaw)(s): NONE • or oilier casualty prior to time of clueing in an amount of not more thin ten percent of the total purchase price, Seller shall be obligated to •repair the more Lvlirre the dole et closing In the event such damage is not repaired within void time or if the damages exceed such gum. tine c moue♦ may be terminated at the option of Buyer. Should Buyer elect to carry out this vontruct despite such damage, Buyer shall be entitled to credit lbw all the inaurnike proceeds resulting from such damage to the Property aid Imhnie+s, not exceeding, however, the total purchase price. Should any hxdusim(s) or service(s) foil or be damaged between the date of this contract and the date of dosing or the date of panscuict whichever shall It earlier, then Seller shall be liable for the repair or repla:entmt of such Iis:hwion(e) or service(.) with a unit of similar size, age anti quality, or an equivalent credit, less any insurance proceeds received by Buyer eowrilg such repair•or rephscement 'flit risk of loss for any dninnge to growing crops, by era or other casualty, shall be bone by the party entitled to the growing crops, if any, as provided in Section 2 and such party shall be befitted to such insurance proceeds or beregta for the growing crops,if any. iS. TIME Ole ESSENCE/REMEDiES. Time b or the easenoe hereof. If any note or check received as earnest money hereunder or any other payment due harcititlet is not paid, honored or tendered when due, or if any other obligation hereunder is not performed or waived as herein provided, there shall ha the following remedies: (a) IF'RIVER IS IN DKFAIIi:f: ((beck one hot only. ®( ) Specific Ecrfnnnnnes. ' Seller may elect to trait this contract as cancelled, in which once all payments end things of value received berander shall ho Infebled and retained on behalf or seller, rod Seller may recover such damages as may be proper, or Seller may elect to heat this contract as being lit full force aid&Perot end Seller Well have the right to specific performance or damages, or both. ❑(2) liquidated Damsel All payntenb and thing, of value received hereunder shall be forfeited by Buyer end retained on behalf of Seiler and both parties Alladl thereafter be released from all obligations hereunder. it is agreed that such payments and things of value are LIQUIDATED DAMAGES (eld'(ex epl as provided in subsection (c)) are SELLERS SOLE AND ONLY REMEDY for Buyer's failure to perform the obligations of this contract.Seller expressly waives the remedies of specific performance and additional damages. (b) IF SELLER IS IN DEFAULT: Buyer may elect to treat this contract as =melted, in which case all payments ad things of value received hereunder shall be reward and Buyer may recover such damages as may be proper, or Boyer may elect to treat this contract as being in hall form and effect and Buyer shall have the right to specific performance or damages, or both. (c) COSTS AND EXPENSES. Anything to the contrary herein notwithstanding, in the event of any arbitration or litigation arising out of Ibis contract, the arbitrator or court shall award to the prevailing party an reasonable costs and expenses, including attorney fees 19. EARNEST MONEY DISPUTE, NotwitIndanding any termination of this contract, Buyer and Seller agree that, in the event of any controversy regarding the earnest matey and things of valve held by broker or closing agent, unless mutual written instruction are received by the holder or the tamest mossy end things of talus, broker or closing agent shall not be requited to take airy scion hat may await any proceeding,or at trokses or closing agen'e option end solo discretion, may Interplant all parties and deposit any moneys or things of slue into a court of competent jurisdiction and shall recover court costs and reasonable attorney fees. 2(1, ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION: MEDIATION. If a dispute arises relating to this contract, and b sot resolved, the parties and broker(*) involved in such dispute (Ditputaub) shell first proceed ht good faith to submit the matter to mediation, The Ditputana will jointly oppbint an acceptable mediator and will share equally in the oust of inch maliatinn in the event the entire dispua is not resolved within thirty (30) calendar days from the date nation notice requesting mediation is sat by one Disputant to the oter(s), the mediation, unless otherwise agreed, shall terminate,This section 'hall not alter any date in this contract,unless otherwise agreed. 2 ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS: (lime language of these additional provisions has not bear approved by the Colorado Real Estate Commission). 1 . THE PARCEL SHALL not exceed 45.1 ACRES CONSISTING OF A PARCEL APPROXIMATELY 385 FEET WIDE BY. 1 MILE LONG IN THE E1/2 E1/2 E1/2 OF SECTION 29, Tin' 3 NORTH , RANGE 65 W OF 6TH P. M. 2. PURCHASER WILL LEAVE A 30 FOOT BUFFER ZONE BETWEEN ANY FEED STORAGE, FEED LOTS OR OTHER USES FROM SELLERS PROPERTY LINE AND BUFFER ZONE SHALL BE LEFT IN NATIVE VEGETATION AND UNDISTURBED. 3. ANY FENCE POSTS REMOVED FROM EXISTING FENCE BY THE PURCHASER SHALL GO TO THE SELLERS. 4. A NEW FIVE WIRE FENCE SHALL BE ERECTED AND MAINTAINED AT PURCHASERS EXPENSE BETWEEN SELLERS.AND PURCHASERS PROPERTY PRIOR TO ANY CONSTRUCTION OF DAIRY FACILITIES OR OTHER USES. 5. A WATER Tr' �fFr� ALL BE PROVIDED AT PURCHASERS EXPENSE AND PIPED TO SELLERS PROPERTY FOR XIOUNT OF STOCK WfrtEn. SELLERS SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO PIPE SAID WATER TO A PREFERRED LOCATION WITHIN ONE MILE FROM TAP SIGHT. 6. THE'NORTH END OF THE 45 ACRE PARCEL SHALL BE FENCED WITH A 45 DEGREE FENCE FROM NE TO SW. 7 . PURCHASE PRICE SHALL BE $1, 500.00 PER ACRE FOR THE ACRES IN THE PARCEL AS SURVEYED AND EXEMPT FROM THE LARGER PARCEL. 8. THIS CONTRACT SHALL BE CONTINGENT UPON PURCHASERS SUCCESSFUL ACQUISITION OF A PERMIT TO BUILD AND OPERATE A DAIRY OPERATION ON THIS PROPERTY AND ADJACENT PROPERTY.THIS CONDITION SHALL BE REMOVED IN WRITING ON OR BEFORE 07/01/98. 9.PURCHASERS ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ONE OWNER IN THE PARTNERSHIP IS A LICENSED REAL ESTATE BROKER. 10. PURCHASERS SHALL PAY THE COST OF EXEMPTING THIS PARCEL FROH AN 80 ACRE PARCEL. 22. RECOMMENDATION OF LEGE _COUNSEL. By signing this document, Buyer and _..,ter acknowledge that the Selling Company or the listing Company hair advised that this document has important legal connquancea and has reconnne deal she exanni®tion of title and consultation ssiilt legal and tax or other counsel before signing this contract. 23. TERMINATION.In the event Oita contract is terminated. all payments and things of value p,tehv4 hereuder shall be returned mid the parties alien he relieved of all obligations hereunder,subject to Seetiu, 19. 24, SELLING COMPANY BROKER RELATIONSHIP. The wiling broker, JIB; VALLEY REALTY and its salespersons have been engaged as TRANSACTION RROKEBS Selling Company has previously disclosed in writing to the Buyer that different relationships are awitable which include buyer agency, seller agency, culsmenvev. or trenrm,tmnn-hmkn _ ---_ 25. NOTICE TO_BUYER. Any notice to Buyer shall he eHecdte when received by Buyer, or, if this box is checked ❑ when.raeived fry Selling Company. 26. NOTICE TO SELLER. My n atio, to Seller shall be effective when received by Sutler or Listing Company. 27. MODIFICATION OF THIS CONTRACT.No aibeegngnt modification of any of the terms of this tomract shall be valid,binding upon the The printed portions of.his form have been approved bythe Colorado Real Estate Commission.(CBS3'7419) CG53.7.94. VACANT LANOIFARM AND RANCH CONTRACT TO BUY AND SELL REAL ESTATE (FINANCING SECTIONS OMITTED) R.IIPAITS Perms,Rex 4100,Frlseo,CO 50443, Verson 5.5,ORN?AST4t,1988:RegS PCOCOL22223O Completed Admintrater,AdMInt Yater,Els Valley Rattly CMT3+9414:44:4a Page Sole sw•r . YY�. 6ellerfs) it ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This contract constitutes the snare contact between the parties relating to the subject bocci, and my prior agreements pertaining thereto, wlusihcr oral or written. have been merged and integrated into tina contract. 29. NOTICE" OF ACCEPTANCE! COUNTERPARTS. This proposal shall expire mileas accepted in writing, by Ruyan and Seller, us ecidcmvd by their signatures below. ma the offering party receive. notice of such scapulae on or b find April 21. 1998 tA.w,•ir,ei t)WJh:,l.l), It' ...weri.J, this Jeeo n..n, shell L..eme • e•rtm.t 1.1,x..,. 94l.. .nJ O.y... A .spy of n$. J,w,a.ra .nay 1.. •t*,d..t 1;),each party, separately, end when each party has executed a copy thereof, such copies taken together shall be deemed to be a full end complete contract between the puttee. • DUYElflSL 2.31/1.0-ms.-1 • DATE John R Moser 12623 Weld County Rd 43, Hudson , CO 80642 BUYER fj�Rn k - lx O.�— DATE S-/ "?? Ellen F. Moser 12623 Weld ,County Rd 43, Hudson , Co 80642 • Wardell Family LTD., LLLP A CO registered limited liability limited partnership 18253 Weld County Rd. 32, Platteville, CO 80651 Home I: (970) 705-0145 SELLER DATE By: Roy T. Wardell • The wdersigned Ilruker(a) acknowledges receipt of the contort money deposit specified In Section 3, and Selling Company *Akins its Broker Relationship as act forth in Section 24. Selling Company:Big Valley Realty 105 West 8th Avenue Fort Morgan, CO, 80701 Phone: 303-867-3373, Fax: 303-867-3373 By. Signature Administrator DAte DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES Weld County Administrative Offices, 1400 N. 17th Avenue, Greeley, Colorado 80631 Phone: (970) 353-6100, Ext. 3540 Fax(970) 352-6312 SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION APPLICATION FOR PLANNING DEPARTMENT USE ONLY: Application Fee Receipt Number Case Number Recording Fee Receipt Number Zoning District Application Checked By Planner Assigned to Case TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT: (Print or type only except for required signatures): TYPE. OF EXEMPTION REQUESTED (check onel )( Property line adjustment _ Used with Recorded Exemption Financing purposes Public utility facility I (we);the undersigned hereby request that the following described property be exempted from the definition of the terms "subdivision" or "subdivided land" in accordance with Section 11.11 of the Weld County Subdivision Ordinance by the Weld County Board of County Commissioners. E'/4 5 29 Q Legal description: N '/z N W '/4 S 28 Section T 3 N, R 65 W of the 6th P.M., Weld Oounty, Colorado. Total Acreage 31,5 Has this property been divided from or had divided from it any other property since August 30, 1972? Yes X No FEE OWNERS OF PROPERTY: Name: loom R 4 E.(-1-5-k P. Moss.R Address: 17454 W P.. 43 FluosoN 80647_ Phone (303) 536 - 1601 Name: Address: Phone I hereby depose and state under the penalties of perjury that all statements, proposals,and/or plans submitted with or contained within this application are true and correct to the �b�t of my knowledge. Yom' ro/2-• "0-01/N MowR Signature: Owner or Authorized Agent Rev:10-21-97 7 • Morwai Dairy, LLC Envirostock, Inc-Project 24034 Floodplains Morwai Dairy is not located within a mapped 100-year floodplain as shown in the National Flood Insurance Program, Federal Emergency Management Agency maps on the following pages. "Serving Environmental Needs of the Livestock Industry" -U0 S.3 o determine If flood Insurance H araileble In this communuY, meet your Insurance agent,or nil the Natio*Flood Insurance rogram at(B00)6386620, a APPROXIMATE SCALE - 3000 0 2000 FEET INATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM) j FIRM FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP WELD COUNTY, COLORADO TTNINOORPORATED AREA li PANEL 900 OF 1075 (SEE MAP INDEX FON PANELS NOT PRINTED) t C0MMUNITY.PANEL NUMBER 080266 0900 C MAP REVISED: SEPTEMBER 28, 1982 :, federal emergency management agency AUG. -05 98 ,1.0,l .$:'o '..i'c)':' 9do.la.I&t 0 vA •,, . _ - -- — — --- $ce the attached O.MA.No.3067 0264 ,.. STANDARD FLOOD - -. - - FEDERAL E-�gGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY i�ro�oae T Wires Apri13U,1998 HAZARD DETERMINATION _ --'— ----- -- S4:CP10N I-LOAN INFORMATION pgOPIItTY ADDRESS 1.COLLATERAL(Building/Mobile Home/Personal Property) 1,LENDER NAME AND ADDRESS (Legal Description may be attached) EnvUnknown 11990 Stack Unknown of Sec 28&E 1/4 of 29,T3N, 1 Denver,CO 80233 Suite 402 Weld County,CO l^ I --- ---��r _—_____---- 3S LOAN IDENTIFIER 3•AMOUNT OF FLOOD INSURANCE REQUIRED b .NO. I— izabeth HarmL Moot}INSURANCE PROGRAM(NFIP)COMMUNITY JURISDICTION — —_ NFIP Community NFIP Community — County( ) —U State Number — _�°'e I CO 080266 Wcld Unincorporated • DATAAFFECTINGBUILDING(MOBILE HOME) .— — Ne NCI, P H.NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM Numb(NYIPer — NFIP Map Panel Flreetlee 0MA/IOMR flood Eon I Map NEW Map unmberm Community Pant Number %indeed Dam 1 (Community mime,if not the some N'A7 _ ---- _ C 9/28/82 Yes Dute 080266.0900 •C -- C.FEDERALlood su NC CHANCE AVAIIAB icy pa (Cheek 011 that apply) % Regular Program Emergency Program orlgFlP X Fedorel Flood Insurance le available(community panicipmee It Nilin —_ —Federal Flood Insurance Ls not available because community does not participate in NP —Building/Mobile Home is a Centel Barrier Roomed Area(CERA),Federal Flood Imurmec may not be available —^—� CBRA designation data -- D.DETERMINATION ---- YES X NO 1 IS BUILDING/MOBILE HOME IN THE SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD A _- (ZONES BEGINNING WITH ISETERS'A' OR'V')?n Ao.of 1973 — If yea.flood insurance is required by tketh Flood DicDinnenater rrotac nit Act et 19 ----� CC no,flood insurance Is not required by —•—_-- E.COMMENTS(Opliunoll I Please see copy of the attached a . The pleaseb xd with ot hesitate to theslashin it marks the approximate location of the property. U you have any questions, This determination le bated on examining the NFIP mep,and pederal Emergency Management Agency revisions to it,sad any other --- Information needed to locate the bullding/mobile home on the NF1P mop ---- ! F.PREPARRR'S INFORMATION ___ —— [%TEOF DETER MINATION NAME,ADgRESS,TELEPtlONR NUMBER(if other thank— lender) I Flood Insurance Services,Ltd. 6/3/98 LUIS Sath Avenue — —� Broonflald,G0 80020 — — — — — Trdaa 233711 phone(303)452.171 S Fax(303_)452-1208 —. - -_ — — — *— IrEMA Forst 81.91,Tun 95 • Morwai Dairy, LLC Envirostock, Inc-Project 24034 Morwai Dairy, LLC Road Access Information Sheet Attachment Morwai Dairy, LLC is proposing to access the new dairy facility from the intersection of WCR 28 and 41. There is an existing stop sign on WCR 41 northbound and in one direction on WCR 28. This location was chosen for the ease of access,the quality of the blacktop roads to the entrance, and consideration of dust and traffic concerns and their proximity to existing neighbors. An option to purchase the additional 45 acres in section 29 was obtained to move the existing eastern access away from neighbors and to enter on a paved road to minimize dust. Two oil and gas accesses are located on the eastern portion of the site. Morwai dairy will not use these accesses for dairy operations and additionally will gate these roads to further limit access. These oil and gas roads may be used temporarily during the fall harvest for the two irrigated fields located east of the facility. The new access will be sufficiently designed to carry the loads expected and be of adequate lane width to accommodate two-way traffic into and out of the dairy. Proper drainage will be established to prevent erosion of the access and the intersection of WCR 41 and 28. The entrance will be landscaped to differentiate the private road from public roads and provide an aesthetically pleasing appearance. Landscaping will be placed at a distance sufficiently north from the intersection that will not interfere with traffic line-of- sight. Morwai Dairy will install a stop_sign in the southbound lane at the entrance of the dairy. The dairy respectfully requests the consideration of designating the intersection of WCR 28 and 41 as a 4-way stop. The traffic pattern consists of one main access at the intersection of WCR 41 and 28. The road will terminate into a"turn-around" approximately%miles north. Sufficient parking areas will be designated for the office, support areas, loading and unloading, and the employee housing area. "Serving Environmental Needs of the Livestock Industry" • Copy LICENSE FOR THE UPGRADE AND MAINTENANCE 01 OF WELD COUNTY RIGHT-OF-WAY . • THIS LICENSE,made and entered into this day of , A.D.,_, by and between WELD COUNTY, COLORADO,by and through the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, 915 Tenth Street, Greeley, Colorado 80631, as First Party, and John Moser, d/b/a? whose address is , as Second Party. WITNESSETH; WHEREAS, Second Party desired tomore efficiently use property located on either side of the section line between § § 28 and 29,T3N, R65W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado, and WHEREAS, First Party is the owner of the right-of-way for what would be WCR 41 for a distance of a mile northof WCR 28 located as follows: the east 30' of § 28, T3N, R65W of the • 6th P.M. Weld County, Colorado the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado, and WHEREAS, said right-of-way is currently not being maintained by First Party nor used by the public,and WHEREAS, Second Party wishes to install corrals on either side of the section line and across the right-of-way. NOW,THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants contained herein and the agreements of said Second party to be performed hereunder and upon the conditions herein stated, First Party does grant to Second Party, its successors and assigns,a license to install and maintain corrals on either side of the section line and across the right-of-way . The conditions by which Second Party may upgrade and maintain said right-of-way are as follows: 1. First Party retains the right to revoke this license at any time for any reason. First Party shall give Second Party written notice of its intent to revoke this license at least ninety(90) days prior to the intended date of revocation. Such notice shall be sent to Second Party by Certified Mail to its address written above or served upon Second Party in accordance with the Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure. Second Party shall have the duty of informing First Party of Second Party's change in address from his address written above. 2. The maintainance of the right-of-way by Second Party shall be done in such manner as prescribed by First Party . 3. The maintainance of the corrals on the right-of-way by Second Party shall be at its own expense and without the aid or use of Weld County finds. 4. Except for the negligence of First Party, Second Party shall indemnify and save harmless First Party, its successors,assigns,employees, and agents from any damage or loss sustained by them or any of them arising by reason of Second Party's negligence with respect to use of the right-of-way. 5. Except for the negligence of First Party, Second Party agrees to protect First Party and save and hold it harmless from any and all third party claims and damages that said use and maintenance may directly or indirectly cause and hereby releases First Party,its successors, assigns, employees, and agents from any and all claims and damages of whatsoever character to property owned by Second Party resulting from any act,either on the part of the First Party or on the part of any third party. 6. Second Party shall not assign any or all of its rights under this license without first obtaining written consent to such assignment from First Party,which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. It is mutually understood and agreed that this license and all the terms and conditions hereof shall extend to and be binding upon the parties hereto,their successors, and assigns. EXECUTED IN DUPLICATE the day and year first above written. FIRST PARTY: WELD COUNTY, COLORADO, by and through the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF WELD COUNTY, COLORADO ATTEST: Clerk to the Board By: By: Deputy Clerk Barbara J. Kirkmeyer, Chair SECOND PARTY: RESCAR CLEANING CORPORATION OF CHANNELVIEW,INC. By: Title: SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this day of , 19_, By WITNESS my hand and official seal Notary Public My commission expires: Morwai Dairy, LLC Envirostock, Inc-Project 24034 Septic Systems There is no existing sewage treatment system on the site. Sewage disposal from the office,working facilities and 4-plex housing units will be with leech field and septic tank systems. Soil percolation tests and appropriate leach field designs will be completed by a registered professional engineer and submitted to Weld County Health Department, Environmental Protection Services for the necessary septic permits prior to operation of the facilities. "Serving Environmental Needs of the Livestock Industry" Sep 11 98 07: 35a T Smith 305' 536-9956 - P• 2 SEP-03-98 THU 03105 PM CENTRAL WELL CNTY WATER 970 353 5867 P.02 CPWrie CENTRAL WELD COUNTY WATER DISTRICT • September 3, 1998 John Moser • %Ves Moser& Sons,Inc. • P.O.Box 205 Ft.Lupton,CO 80621 RE: Water Service Dear Mr. Moser: • This letter is in response to your request for water service to serve the following property described as follows: Section 28,Township 3 North,Range 65 West of the 6th P.M.,Weld County,Colorado. Submitted herewith arc the costs for extending the District's line approximately 18,550 feet and setting a 2"meter at the North West corner of Section 28 based on the hydraulic analysis completed in May,a copy of which is attached. Tap Fee-2" $ 75,000.00 Line Extension Fee 293,500.00 Capital Improvement Fee Rebate (211000 00) Total Due $ 348,500.00 • • The above line extension costs are goad for 30 days only from the above date. Before proceeding with the line extension and meter set, the above "Total Due"will have to be paid in advance, end the appropriate documentation completed for your application for water service. The District requires a 30 day notice for a tap installation. Please note that you are responsible for confirming that this property has met the requirements of Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District and the Bureau. Central Weld cannot issue a tap until all requirements are satisfied, • 2235 2nd Avenue • Greeley,Colorado 80631 • (9701 3524284 • John W.Zadel,General Manager Sep 11 96 07: 36a T ' m Smith 30"-536-9956 P• " oe '-03-9e THU 03. _ PM CENTRAL WELD laf CNTY WATER 910 S55 6965 F. a3 • September 3, 1998 Page-2- You have indicated that you may be able to obtain a diagonal route across Section 20 shown on the attached map. Based on future growth considerations and service needs in the District,the District would not be in favor of this routing. The District water mains are generally located in areas that provide adequate access such as along County Roads or in easements just outside the County Roads. The estimate is based on the route shown. If after the project is bid additional funds axe required, you will have to provide the additional funds. However,if project costs are less,then excess funds will be refunded to you. If you have any questions regarding the above,please contact this office. Sincerely, CENTRAL WELD COUNTY WATER DISTRICT J.L.Walter Staff Engineer JWZ/ca Enclosure: Hydraulic Analysis Project Route Sketch Sep 11 38 07: 35a T ' i Smith 30"-536-9956 p• 3 SEP-03-98 THU 03:e0 Pr1 CENTRAL WELD CNTY WATER 970 333 6863 P. 04 • • + y • May 1, 1998 pp FILE NO.:98-004 • 11C�((��pp Central Weld County Water District 4CO MAY 0 4 Ma 2235 Second Avenue Greeley,CO 80631 ATTN: J.L Walter • RE:Moser&Sons Dairy • Dear J.L: As tequested,we have completed the analysis for the proposed Moser&Sons Dairy. We modeled a six- inch line that begins at the West Vs Corner of Section 8,T3N,R65W,end running southerly and easterly 3.5 miles to the Northwest comer of Section 28,T3N, The demand placed at the terminus of the line was 180,000 gpd,which translates to 125 gpm.For the analysis,we used the District diurnal pattern. Upon review, it appears that a six-inch PVC line running the entire 3.5•mile span would be adequate for the proposed service with the pressure generally ranging from 46 psi to 74 psi.There is a period front the 28'"through the 30"hour of the analysis when the pressure reached 150-165 psi.This is during the period when the altitude valves at Tanks 2 and 3 are closed. The analysis does not include provisions for a fire flow,nor does it include future increases in demands on this line. Two alternative line sizes were also investigated.The first scenario involved using an eight-inch PVC lint for the entire length and yielded pressures varying from 64.78 psi, In the second variation,an eight•inch line was used for the 2.5 miles south of node 790,and six-inch line was used for the mile to the east.This configuration yielded pressures in the range of 59-76 psi. If you have any questions concerning this analysis,please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, y/Cavan • CC.ter ein Thomas F.Ullmann,P.E. Principal The Engineering Co. The Engineering Co.•2310 East Prospect•pt.Collins.CO 50525•Phone(910)X84.747' •FAX(970)484.7488 REPORT DATE 08/20/98 COLORADO WELLS, APPLICATIONS, AND PERMITS PAGE 1 COLORADO DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES PERMIT D CO OWNER INFORMATION ACTIVITY STATUS 1ST USED ANNUAL ACRES GEOL WELL WELL WATER SEC LOCAT'N TOWN P CD DATE CD DATE WD MD DB USE DATE APROP IRR AQFR YIELD DEPTH LEVEL COORDINATES QTRS SC SHIP RANGE M 14373R 1 62 KILDOW ADAM RT 1 HUDSON, CO 80642 2 1 1200.00 81 12 NWSW 27 3 N 65 W S 1 62 MOSER FARMS 22468 WELD CNTY. RD HUDSON, CO 80642 AP 12/06/88 AU 03/30/89 2 1 GW - 0640N,0640£ NENE 28 3 N 65 W S 25722MH 1 62 MEADOW GOLD DAIRIES %WESTFALL & ASSOCIATES IN FT COLLINS, CO 80525 MH 05/23/95 2 0 M GW NENE 28 3 N 65 W S 10729F 1 62 MOSER NORMAN RT 2, BOX 52 FT LUPTON, CO 80621 2 1 12/14/66 1000.00 79 16 SENE 28 3 N 65 W S 25721MM 1 62 MEADOW GOLD DAIRIES &WESTFALL & ASSOCIATES IN FT COLLINS, CO 80525 MH 05/23/952 0 M. GW SENW 28 3 N 65 W S 3525F 1 62 MOSER ROY HUDSON, CO 80642 2 1 09/20/62 1000.00 85 20 SESE 28 3 N 65 W S 43662 1 62 GOODWIN GARY P & PENNY J 20991 WELD CNTY RD 28 HUDSON, CO 80642 NP 11/09/70 OC 05/17/96 2 8 11/16/70 OW 50.00 73 30 SESE 28 3 N 65 W S 3421F 1 62 LUNDVALL ELMER E 1024 9TH ST GREELEY, CO 80631 2 1 03/17/64 1000.00 80 22 NESW 28 3 N 65 W S 5521 1 62 WARDELL J J RT 1 PLATTEVILLE, CO 80651 2 8 04/14/60 3.00 60 30 SWNE 29 3 N 65 W S 39235 1 62 WARD JOHN W & AUDREY E RT 1 BOX 207 PLATTEVILLE, CO 80651 2 8 10/06/69 25.00 370 170 NENE 30 3 N 65 W S Morwai Dairy, LLC Envirostock, Inc-Project 24034 Manure & Process Wastewater Management Plan Morwai Dairy, LLC 12954 Weld County Road 43 Hudson, Colorado 80642 Developed in accordance with the Colorado "Confined Animal Feeding Operations Control Regulation" Generally Accepted Agricultural Best Management Practices Prepared By NVIRO TOCK,L, 11990 Grant Street, Suite 402 Denver, Colorado 80233 September, 1998 "Serving Environmental Needs of the Livestock Industry" Morwai Dairy, LLC Envirostock, Inc-Project 24034 Table of Contents Introduction 17 Legal Owner, Contacts and Authorized Persons 17 Legal Description 17 Location Map 18 Site Map 19 Site Description 20 Floodplains 20 Management Controls 20 Retention Facilities 20 Manure and Wastewater Management 21 Solid Manure 21 Wastewater 23 Irrigation and Nutrient Management 24 Retention Facility Dewatering 25 Inspections 25 Appendix A —Flood Maps 26 Appendix B- Wastewater and Stormwater Calculations 27 Appendix C—Manure Management Record Form 28 Appendix D—Record keeping Forms 29 "Serving Environmental Needs of the Livestock Industry" 16 Morwai Dairy, LLC Envirostock, Inc-Project 24034 Introduction This Manure and Process Wastewater Management Plan(MMP)has been developed and implemented to comply with requirements, conditions and limitations of the Colorado "Confined Animal Feeding Operations Control Regulation" 4.8.0 (5 CCR 1002-19). This MMP outlines current site conditions, structures and areas requiring management of solid manure, storm water run-off and process wastewater. This MMP will be kept on-site and amended prior to any change in design, construction, operation or maintenance which significantly increases the potential for discharge of solid manure, stormwater run-off and process wastewater to waters of the State. This MMP shall be amended if it is ineffective in controlling discharges from the facility. Below is the date of the last MMP amendment: Amendment 1: Amendment 2: Amendment 3: Amendment 4: All records relating to the MMP will be kept onsite for a minimum of three years. Legal Owner, Contacts and Authorized Persons The legal owner of Morwai Dairy is the Morwai Dairy Limited Liability Corporation (LLC) Correspondence and Contacts should be made to: Mr. John Moser 12954 WCR 43 Hudson, Colorado 80642 (303) 536-4801 The individual(s) at this facility who is (are)responsible for developing the implementation, maintenance and revision of this MMP are listed below: John Moser Partner (Name) (Title) Legal Description The legal description of Morwai Dairy is: The east '/4 of Section 29 and the west % of the northwest 'A of section 28, township 3 north, range 65 west of the 662 principal meridian, Weld County, Colorado. "Serving Environmental Needs of the Livestock Industry 17 • Morwai Dairy,LLC Envirostock, Inc-Project 24034 Maps Location Map • The Topographical Location Map shows the location of Morwai Dairy, surrounding sites, topography and major drainages. MAP32 R 65W JOINS MAP 29 • MAYNARD G. B JANE EVANS BEEBE DRAW CARL A. SHELTON PATRICK 1 MARILYN A. - -. CORNELIUS GUN QJEPSON BENJAMIN B JOANNE - - - LAND B a KNAUB .. „ LU DWIG re tr riy:' `� - CLUB CATTLE LENOR4 B. v ^�.EE VERNON L. LTD. • COLLINS co - - n MOSER • S I 64. 5 4 9`F7 w: FRED ARENS,JR REI LTD. ,:c....,.., LIVING TRUST LIABILITY v� ' A et al r d f • �d - c� -, EUNICE C. l J J a • v W ARISTOCRATi ANDERSON ANNA E. A 2ANGUS"'$. TRUST etas WARDELL �� BRANCH VeL VAL�, CR3A50 I 7 8 9 r I-1 " - a - a - ._ ARMERS RES. - B IRREG. "„ CO. JIB WL.O R E L.R. • / BTAK- JOXN- LET SOH LONNIE R.I. ,R.B 1.I Nm.,� REI LTD. STATE S 10 FORD ELLA La PAUL NE's 1I LIABILITY z `HA-E CO. co W C`B CON tr. EAVIIN MILTON Z I� � [AR VAN 4N Z 18 17 16 15� R'► RESERVOIR 14r FMER ;„ II� JABS LAMB GCM . MILT N N Q XOA ZI I Ti MBAR NUSON XOR WEN- EMIL r L TATES pp Via cN UB-DIN. I J > J GRACE & WILLIAM K.& CLAN. Y ,� LIGE MARJORIE A. CLAN. DENNY W B DARREL taiUFNEON GUNNELS FRANK LAvnoA M Bno- SARCHET N0WENS Z 19 = 20 21 22 23 24 ZC w w FRED E. RUSSELL JR& ce w = J. J. & ANNA E. EACHUS JR. DCRTHY K. 05 a w E- WARDELL 'J DENNy LAVADA a J F � CANADA M re Iiv tr • GURTLER 3 - =z �' v SARCHET r 2. MELVIN J. J"° HN fi. JOHN R ANN CAMP RAY.B.B C.J. 9MITX etal BRANDENBURGEn /ELLEN F. , in - ELLEN F. ROBERT E. Mr BILYB JILL A. MOSER• Z OU MOSER BULLARD C.J.NICHOLS , a DL Li 3CY `""T"T 29 // 28 27 26 t- 2 N O. D.& CANNON FA ING w H JOE R. G ° C FRANK H. / CO. / = F" NOVAK Z x Z PRESLEY AND CO. / 1- V Z VI v III Jy J w w N p D: E6 — / ao 3oS J ' WES MOSER ".—/ `� CHARLES E. TUTTLE INN. l FOSTER >:, a MELVIN J. CAMP = - N 'o & SONS g-x , INC. et al • CO., LTD. 36 etal LJ cg 31 == 321 > I �, E.eME 33 �a`N" 34 35 =y b0CNMLLE;., DELMER L. 81 CANNON m CANNON w LINDA M. WALTER 0 LAND W LAND wx,i JARRALOAp et al CO. W Co. -F Z B FAY E L. ■ .JAMISON laveR tea _ = 9 37 39 141 m JOINS MAP 39 45 47 4 n?/ --\\ o CO/ „Y.� 4900 fF/ ��.>.:' ,',"...._),,,A \/\AM �.` \ indmill \ \ \1 \ \,i) • C• 0 ,i a 0 p t k\�n \ \ , • 1 \ � 4. t 4859 481$ 1" M w UQ © p (! kt • N• © © ° 0 O O nn \ © Q 685 ° G»,, :• a , dm, \I / p o. Q © .)\--' C 4,,\'` r 22 p 21 -.5 492 d Q -•'�E • d a% I••1 • •• O a `�aC ' < \ © 4 l a © �. o � � .. a _ 4805 m 4 4 a 4884 4B • - 4831 u 4814 48 2�-�— P ©OO \•...4 ate �It _ `^U % ? j. -.f • na ,I 27 P 4820 p O o `� /y9� Ir �� BWindmill � Ij900 Nj / 907 Ara , 4843 i WindmilW sssg. r_ — 4867' 0 � \)68 !� �O 48301 . ___aao a°ssss 480 ys ss e a.c. P ® (,\ \ \ I A0 A M *, I \ 1 4 , 1 �' dmill \\�0 I, © O n AA 0 - ® 4890 \ G S 4 A44A 4880 1.17o y I ,�, 4indmill� © °e Well o ao ill 0 P 21 n C—149 M 4832 a a900 '00 Q m s°�+,8 j ' 1434 1 p O J`/ i \ j''''.- 4841 \\11`\ © a869 \\I d852 4843 =._a__.=a==4825 ___ 494!" 49 O a Iii 0 � © p eP �0 • r o \_ 0r Pun' Morwai Dairy, LLC Envirostock, Inc-Project 24034 Site Map The Site Map details the configuration of the dairy pens and alleys,waste management system and site drainage patterns. 1f '� -- 1l kon 1 `� Irl i at i \ E !i I !°° 9 1 r 9 I 1 III ill a �� i ft]oo !Pe II P II it �. q I 1 I I ; i; BI ; t 1 i, ill I ; +. h i .iii '' w 1 1; 611T T II o I 4 i I: �! *. I 1 a I }, ' : i 1i} y 1 IDl , i 611 lop hi II : � A I L _ 'Iiw�si I 1 I €�� kt` �i 27' it j i ! II ��! I i � � 36t i Pga £f I } 1 ' j It > y 1 - I m0% , 1 II le *ID I 3 mgr I ig5I' . ; . 1 IN 1 �■1, � I i[ (• iIIIIf I ,�E I 1 r i[ I gg '. k: irl�l 1 1= _ _ ��: _I ➢ i I �� > eE i i 21�� 1 l ± l' ® � . .lI �' II iii i 4i1: I 1 j i; II i i i I *".4 . I 'l n_. I-. 118 DAIRY FACIUTY DESIGN roi a- „, ..mains I.•..n awn .I�� Wu rai Cp'r/lV �.�r.��nn�.}I n.. YM1IE CoanlY.GlvWo a sea n lL a n wrr p It a s , Morwai Dairy, LLC Envirostock, Inc-Project 24034 Site Description (See Site Map on Page 6) The average annual working capacity of Morwai Dairy is 6000 head of dairy cattle or 8,400 animal units as defined by the Colorado Confined Animal Feeding Control Regulations. The dairy is bordered on the north and west by native rangeland. The use of this property is for a 125-acre dairy facility for milk production, associated structures and corrals for livestock husbandry, equipment storage and maintenance facilities,waste management and control structures and residences for employees. This plan is for a new dairy consisting of 6000 head of cattle, associated corrals, milking facilities and storage, management and support facilities. Irrigated farmground is located to the south and east; native rangeland pasture to the west and north. A small feedlot and cattle operation is located northeast of the proposed facility. Floodplains Morwai Dairy is not located within a mapped 100-year floodplain. National Flood Insurance Program, Federal Emergency Management Agency maps are in Appendix A. Management Controls Retention Facilities Calculations for the necessary retention capacity were based on the generation of process wastewater and the 25-year, 24-hour rainfall event for northeastern Colorado. 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 and flush water that enters the facility. Morwai Dairy is designed for 120 days of storage capacity for stormwater and process wastewater. The facility is designed using a three-stage treatment process. The first stage is a solids separation unit consisting of three earthen separation basins. The second stage is a 47.7 acre-foot anaerobic lagoon. The anaerobic lagoon is designed to reduce the nutrient content of the water and minimize odor potential. The final stage is a 101.7 acre-foot storage pond. Water will be pumped at agronomic rates from the storage pond onto farmground in the spring, summer and fall, as necessary. The primary application area consists of approximately 560 acres of irrigated farmground under center-pivot irrigation. A total of 2,640 acres are associated with this facility and are available for land application of manure and/or wastewater. Wastewater and stormwater generation calculations are in Appendix B. "Serving Environmental Needs of the Livestock Industry" 20 Morwai Dairy, LLC Envirostock, Inc-Project 24034 The retention facilities will be lined with a compacted earthen material to a thickness of at least 18" or more to a permeability not to exceed 1/32" per day as required by the Colorado Confined Animal Feeding Operations Control Regulation. The liner construction and permeability will be verified by a registered professional engineer. The results will be forwarded to the Weld County Health Department,the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, and incorporated within this plan. Manure and Wastewater Management Solid Manure Solid manure is managed through routine pen maintenance. Animal density per pen is controlled to optimize the surface area and feed bunk space while maintaining solid, dry footing for livestock. Pens are harrowed and leveled daily to allow proper stormwater drainage, eliminate low spots and ponding, and provide dry ground for livestock. No stockpiles of solid manure are located outside of the pen areas. Dairy pen surfaces are compacted by the livestock forming a 4"to 6" "hardpan" layer that easily sheds water and provides for minimal infiltration. This common practice virtually eliminates deep percolation of manure nutrients beneath the dairy pen area. Solid manure is analyzed for nutrient content, loaded, and directly applied to farmground at agronomically beneficial rates. Solid manure applied to farmground owned by Morwai Dairy will be sampled, analyzed and applied in an agronomic manner. Agronomic calculations and records will be recorded in the Waste Management forms in Appendix C of this Plan. Approximately 2,640 acres owned by one of the partners in the Morwai Dairy, LLC is adjacent to or located within 'A mile of the dairy facility. Additionally, solid manure is taken by, or sold to, area farmers to apply on their property. Morwai Dairy, LLC will sample and analyze solid manure annually and provide an average summary of the results to farmers who take solid manure. Records of the quantity of solid manure removed from Morwai Dairy to off-site locations not owned by Morwai Dairy will be recorded in the Manure Log forms included in the Appendix D of this plan. Table 1 lists the Typical manure production on an"as excreted" basis per 1,000 pounds for a mature dairy cow from the USDA Agriculture Waste Management Field Handbook, 1992. Table 1 Manure Production"As Excreted"per 1,000 lb Lactating Dairy Cow 87.5 %Moisture 80 lbs/day I 14.6 tons/yr Table 2 outlines the approximate nutrient composition of dairy manure from a solid waste handling system at the time of land application from the Colorado State University Cooperative Extension Bulletin 552A, Utilization of Animal Manure as Fertilizer, 1992. "Serving Environmental Needs of the Livestock Industry" 21 Morwai Dairy, LLC Envirostock, Inc-Project 24034 Table 2 Nutrient Composition of Dairy Manure as Applied Dry Matter Total N I NH4 P2O5 K2O lbs/ton 45 9 5 I 4 I 10 At maximum capacity, Morwai Dairy will contain approximately 6000 head of dairy cattle at various stages of maturity. The following calculation assumes mature and immature cattle averaging approximately 1000 lbs. Dairy cattle manure "As Excreted"from Table 1 indicates 80 lbs/day per 1000 lbs. 6000 head x 80 lbs/day x lton/2000 lbs = 240 tons/day Wet Weight (87.5%water) Adjusted moisture content from"As Excreted"to "As Applied"yields: 240 tons of manure x 12.5%dry matter (DM) content = 30 tons/day dry matter 30 tons DM+ [30 tons DMx (55%moisture/45%DM)J = 66.7 tons of manure "as applied" 66.7 tons/day x 365 days = 24,346 tons of manure "As Applied"per year. Assuming 9 pounds of Total N per ton of manure is applied to corn with an expected yield of 150 bushels per acre, the corn removes 1.35 lbs N per bushel and the manure mineralization rate is 0.50 in the first year of application, the following applies: 24,346 tons of manure x 9 lbs N/ton x 0.50 mineralization rate = 109,557 lbs available N 150 Bushel corn x 1.35 lbs N removed per acre = 202.5 lbs N needed per acre for Corn 109,557 lbs available N/202.5 lbs N per acre= 541 acres of corn required for land application of manure in the first year. Subsequent years of manure application would require soils analysis and a reduction in the N loading rate due to residual N in the soil. Morwai Dairy, LLC has approximately 2,640 acres available for application. The majority of solid manure will be sold or taken by area farmers to apply on their own farm ground. Note that the solid manure calculations include the total manure "As excreted". A portion of this manure is flushed as process wastewater or collected as stormwater runoff into the lagoon system. Total calculations from solid manure and wastewater are not cumulative. Approximately 75% of the 24,346 tons of manure generated will be assimilated in the wastewater system,reduced by anaerobic digestion, and subsequently land applied. The calculations above allow for a conservative estimation for solid manure management. The majority of the Morwai Dairy solids will be transported offsite. "Serving Environmental Needs of the Livestock Industry" 22 Morwai Dairy, LLC Envirostock, Inc-Project 24034 Wastewater Nutrient calculations for agronomic land application of lagoon water are outlined in the following examples. At maximum production,the facility will generate approximately 223,905 gallons per day of process wastewater or 0.68 acre-feet. Table 3 outlines anaerobic lagoon water nutrient content for dairies from the NRCS—Agricultural Waste Management Field Handbook. Table 3 Nutrient Content of Dairy Wastewater—Anaerobic Lagoon lbs/1000 gallons Dry Matter % Total N NH4 P K .25 1.67 1.00 0.48 4.17 Approximately 70%to 80% of N is lost in an anaerobic lagoon system. When wastewater is applied through a sprinkler irrigation system, 15%to 40% of additional NH4 losses occur. Total N includes the NH4 fraction. N "as applied" is calculated below: (1.67 Total N— 1.00 NH4 fraction)x 30%mineralization rate = 0.201 Organic N 1.00 NH4 x (100-28%avg. sprinkler irrigation losses) = 0.72 NH4 0.201 Organic N+ 0.72 NH4 = 0.921 lbs available N/1000 gallons The facility generates 258,900 gallons per day. The exposed surface areas from the separator system and anaerobic lagoon total 473,200 or 10.86 acres. Average monthly evaporation during summer months is 8.98 inches per month or 0.3 inches per day. 0.3"/day x 10.86 acres = 3.26 acre-inches/day = 0.27 acre-feet/day = 88,468 gallons/day Evaporative losses from the lagoon account for an estimated reduction in total volume of 34% during summer months. Total annual water production equals: (258,900 gal/day x 182.5 (6 months)) + ((258,900-88,468) x 182.5)) = 78.35 million gallons (240 acre-feet) The annual N concentrations for the facility are outlined below: 78.35 million gallons x 0.921 lbs N/1000 gal = 72,163 lbs Nper year (36 tons) 150-Bushel corn x 1.35 lbs N removed per acre = 202.5 lbs N needed per acre for Corn 72,163 lbs available N/202.5 lbs N per acre = 356 acres of corn required for land application of process wastewater and stormwater. "Serving Environmental Needs of the Livestock Industry" 23 Morwai Dairy, LLC Envirostock, Inc-Project 24034 Morwai Dairy's primary application area consists of approximately 560 acres of irrigated farmground under center-pivot irrigation located immediately adjacent to the facility. Wastewater, soil and crop sampling will be conducted, analyzed and recorded, and an agronomic crop balance used to land apply wastewater from the facility. Forms for land application are included in the appendices of this plan. 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 microorganisms 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 for fertilizers and soil amendments to produce crops. Generally, manure and lagoon effluent are applied to crops that are most responsive to nitrogen inputs. The primary objective of applying agricultural by-products to land is to recycle part of the plant nutrients contained in the by-product material into harvestable plant forage or dry matter. Another major objective in returning wastes to the land is enhancing the receiving soil's organic matter content. As soils are cultivated,the organic matter in the soil decreases. Throughout several years of continuous cultivation in which crop residue returns are low, organic matter content in most soil decreases dramatically. This greatly decreases the soils ability to hold essential plant nutrients. Land application of Morwai Dairy pond water for irrigation and to recycle valuable nutrients is a practical, commonly accepted best management practice given that fertilization rates are applicable and that deep soil leaching does not occur. "Serving Environmental Needs of the Livestock Industry" 24 Morwai Dairy, LLC Envirostock, Inc-Project 24034 Retention Facility Dewatering The retention facility is designed with a 120-day storage capacity. This allows dewatering to occur primarily during the spring and summer and coincides with normal crop growing seasons. The lagoon system will be maintained to contain a 25-year, 24-hour storm event. Should stormwater runoff elevate the lagoons beyond the 25-year, 24-hour event containment level,the system will be dewatered within 15 days to achieve the required retention capacity as outlined in the Colorado Confined Animal Feeding Operations Control Regulation. Wastewater will be land applied through sprinkler irrigation systems. Inspections The authorized person(s)will inspect the retention facilities, equipment and material handling areas for evidence of or potential for problems resulting in manure or wastewater entering -waters of the State. Appropriate corrective actions will be taken immediately and properly documented. Management controls will be inspected routinely for integrity and maintenance. Reports of these evaluations will be inserted into this MMP. Inspection Report Form Initials Item Notes "Serving Environmental Needs of the Livestock Industry" 25 RETENTION FACILITY INSPECTION REPORT (complete this form for each retention facility on a quarterly basis) • Retention facility: Year YES NO N/A Embankment free of visible seepage Embankment showing no signs of cracking Vegetation maintained on embankment as designed Riprap or erosion controls in place (if required) Exterior slope free of erosion Interior slope free of erosion Liner has not been disturbed Dewatering equipment is functional Minimum freeboard of 2 feet At least 50% of the design capacity is available • Trees excluded within root zone distance Water level measuring device in place and functional Rain gauge in place and functional Runoff from manure storage area is contained Runoff from land application site is contained Other: Other: Other: Comments: Signature: Date: Nutrient Management Pan PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE LOG (complete on a quarterly basis) Year: Motors of Dewatering Equipment----- YES NO N/A COMMENTS Electrical panel enclosed and free of trash All components are free of rodent nests Operational Valves- • -- — YES NO N/A COMMENTS Operational Flow Line----------- ---- YES NO N/A COMMENTS Drain before freezing temperatures Operational Dams, Dikes, Terraces & Diversions YES NO N/A COMMENTS Free of visible seepage Free of cracks in the embankment Exterior slope free of erosion Interior slope free of erosion Sediment removed from settling basins Other Preventive Maintenance YES NO N/A COMMENTS Signature: Date: Nutrient Management Pan Morwai Dairy, LLC Envirostock, Inc-Project 24034 Appendix A — Flood Maps "Serving Environmental Needs of the Livestock Industry" 26 • o dettrmfno If flood Insurance k avallable In tgls community, ontact your Insurance aaenr,or call the Naikryal Flood Imurance rogram at(600)6386620, a APPROXIMATE SCALE :000 0 Tow FEET [ NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM) j I�IllljlllljlU T1' FIRM FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP j 1 WELD I COUNTY, COLORADO UNINCORPORATED AREA PANEL 900 OF 1075 (SEE MAP INDEX FOR PANELS NOT PRINTED) I � COMMUNITY•PANEL NUMBER 080266 0900 C MAP REVISED: SEPTEMBER 28, 1982 federal emergency management agency A.G. 'UJ )u �7rv;,f .81i, '.JL.J. .vJ.,1tt.iuL Ji LiJ _. ___. — — —Lff Sae thched0MA•No06764- -. - - gRGCYANAGEMENT AGENCYmnas I Expires April 30.1998 STANDARD FI FLOOD HAZARD D) 'ERMIIVATION __ _�— ---~ -� SECTION h.LOAN INFORMATION FROPERTY ADDRESS I.LENDER NAME AND ADDRESS 2.COLLATERAL mu8dlastiMobile HomefFersonal Property) (Legal Description anoy be attached) Unknown Envi11990 StocL NW of Sec 28&E 114 of 29,T314. 1 Denver,COt St.,Suite 402 Weld County,CO C 80233 _ ----�5.AMOUNT OF pL�DO I 6N URANCE REQUIRED ` JT6A1bWVW1ER I 3.LENDER ID.NO. Elizabeth Haren __ 9E�'CIQ1Il.— — — -- NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM(NFIP)COMMUNITY JURISDICTION __-7_� NFIY Community NFUCommodity County( 1 Number r -- Weld fl Name — I CO 080266 Unincorporated ———.--- DATA AFFECTING I3UILDING(MOBILE HOME) _ .— — • So Nil? ➢.NATNEWMop Number er of CANCEYAOGRI N tuber(NSP — NFIPMap Panel Efketive — oM / MM 'nand Zone Map —NEW Mop Number at Community riael Number Revised Date —�—C I (Communty name,if not the mine se'A') 9ised Da - 080266.0900 •C Yes 82Daie - C.Mr—p 2AL FLOOD INSURANCE AVAIIA➢ILITY(Mack all that apply) Emergency Program of NEW X Fedttel Flood insurance Is available(community anticipates�x NPIP) X _ Regular Program 8 —Federal Flood Insurance Ls not available because community dries not participFlo d ate in Gtsurunec may not be available - Building/Mobile Home is a Coastal Barrier Rcsaurcce Arca(CBRA),F ^—� CURA designation dolt: _-- — i D.DETERMINATION YES X NO IS BUILDINO/MOBILE HOME IN THE SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD A _- (ZONES BEGINNING WITH LETTERS'A' OR'V')? iryes,flood intience i3 required by the Flood Dirustar Protcetlon Act of 1973 -- Eno,flood insurer=is not required M the Hood Disaster protection Al of 19 — k73 --_— .—-- i . _,_G COMMENTS(Optional) --- I Please see copy of the attached map. The do box with ot hesitate to theslashesin nit marks the approximate location of the property. If you have any questions,please I This determination is booed on examining the NED'map,sad Federal Emergency Monngemeat Agency revisions to it,end soy other Information needed to locate the balklinglmobile home on the NEW mop. _--- _ L P.Fs1PARER'S INFORMATION —---- PATE OF pETEAMINATION NAME.ADI3RnS 8, PH7'EI•E ONF•NUM➢ER Of other than lender) 8j3198 Frond Iruurd h A Services l.td. 1685 E.180th Avenue Broomfield CO 80020 — — — — — Trans 223721. Phone(303)452.1718 Fa%(303)452-1208 —. — — — — ..__ FEMA Foetn 81.93,Jun 95 N .. 19 \ 20 21 i ,----- ; 1 \-- 30 b 73 179 ilko------7:7/1 fd 77 l C \` i --- �. I% \\\ ____--• 4 32 31 I 33 i // I I i I I I / . II I II(r II ii\\ II II ,,`' 5 4 IIIV/ ZONE C I( I II I� I I 7e c... __- --= — 2 — Morwai Dairy, LLD Envirostock, Inc-Project 24034 Appendix B - Wastewater and Stormwater Calculations "Serving Environmental Needs of the Livestock Industry" 27 i MORWAI DAIRY LLC - SUMMER MONTHS • 2 EST. OF LIQUID WASTES INTO STORAGE 3 4 MILKING PARLOR WASTE WATER PRODUCTION PER DAY 5 PARLOR FLUSH VALVES 5 Capacity of flush valves: 4,000 GPM 7 No.of flush valves: 2 valves 8 Times flushed per shift: 8 flsh/shft 9 Duration of flush: 0.49 min/flsh/val 10 11 HOUSING BARN FLUSH VALVES(FRESH) 112 Capacity of flush valves: 0 GPM 13 No.of flush valves: 0 valves 14 Times flushed per shift: 0 flsh/shft 15 Duration of flush: 0.00 min/flsh/val 16 17 PARLOR UDDER WASHERS 18 No.wash sprinklers: 180 sprinklers 19 Sprinkler capacity: 5.50 GPM/head 20 Time of use per group: 4.00 min/group z1 No.of groups per shift: 8 grps/shft 22 23 COOLING SPRINKLERS(PARLOR AREA) 24 No. cooling sprinklers: 0 spklr.heads 25 Sprinkler capacity: 0.00 GPM/head 26 Time of use per group: 0.00 min/group 27 28 COOLING SPRINKLERS(FEEDING BARNS) 29 No. cooling sprinklers: 0 spklr.heads 30 Sprinkler capacity: 0.00 GPM/head 31 Time of use PER DAY: 0 min/day 32 33 PARLOR HOSE WASH 34 No. milking shifts/day: 3 shifts/day 35 Wash hose capacity: 15 GPM 36 Time hosed per shift: 120 min/shift 37 38 MISCELLANEOUS WATER USE 39 Misc.process water: 10,000 gal/day (4 gpd/cow) 40 Water trough spillage: 5,000 gal/day(2 gpd/cow) 41 42 MANURE PLACED INTO STORAGE POND 43 Manure production per day: 160 lb/day/cow(re: U.F. Circ. 1016- 1991) 44 Percent confinement per day: 40% of day 45 Number of lactating cows: 2,500 cows(annual average) 46 % manure to waste water storage: 75% into storage pond 47 MORWAT2.xls, Summer Prepared by Joseph G."Jake"Martin III,P.E.8/26/98 Page 1 of 2 m WATERSHED DRAINING INTO WASTE WATER STORAGE FACILITY 49 Exposed concrete surfaces: 217,064 square feet(incl.roofs) 50 Roofs guttered to system: 0 square feet 51 Earthen surfaces(to storage pond): 1,456,640 square feet 52 Earthen surfaces(to separators): 913,800 square feet 53 Exposed storage pond surface: 376,000 square feet 54 Exposed separator area surface: 277,200 square feet 55 Exposed anarchic pond surface: 196,000 square feet 56 Hi.Avg. mo. rainfall(Apr,May,Jun): 1.86 in/month(re: NRCS,CO) EaAvg.evap.for these months: 8.98 in/month(re:NRCS,CO) 58 24hr/25yr Storm Event: 3.80 in/24hr(re: NRCS,CO) 59 Runoff from 24hr/25yr Storm: 2.73 in/24hr(re:SCS TR-55 Determination) 60 Runoff from 1"rainfall: 0.32 in/24hr(re:SCS TR-55 Determination) 61 No.days of waste water storage: 120 days 62 63 SUMMARY OF PROCESS WASTE WATER INPUTS 64 Total wash hose usa e= 5,400 aVda = L29* L30" L31 65 Total Parlor Flush Valve usa e= 94,080 al/da = L6" L7* L.8* L9* L34 66 Total Barn Flush Valve usa e= 0 al/da = L12• L13* L14* L15" L34 67 Total Udder Wash usa e= 95,040 al/da = L18*L19* L20* L21 " L34 Total Parlor S rinkler use= 0 aVda .= L21 * L24" L25" L26* L34 68 0 aVda = L29" L30* L31 89 Total Bam S rinkler usa e= 70 Total Misc.Water usa e= 15,000 aVda = L39+ L40 83 8 galldlcow 71 Total Well Water Into System: 209,520 gal/day =( 28,011 cf/day) 72 Total Manure Collected= 14,385 allda = L43 2L 4 45* L * Ltidy) 12 89.6 galldlcow 0 Total Liquids Into Storage: 223,905 gal/day=( ESNo.of da s stora e desired: 120 da stora e .ft. 75 Total Process Water Storage Req'd_ 26,868,554 gallons =( 3,592,053 cu.ft. = 8Y,5 ac � 76 77 SUMMARY OF RUNOFF WASTE WATER INPUT 78 RUNOFF COLLECTION(into separation system): 79 Av .dail runoff into se arator= 17,413 al/da = L79+ L50+ L52+L54 *L56* L60" 0.21 80 Av . dail runoff to stora e and= 18,014 al/da = L51*L56 *L56* L60 *5 606"0 211 - L56+L55 "L57"0.21 S1 Total and add'nllosses incl. eva . 84,620 al/da = 82 No.of da stora e desired: - 120 da stora e L79+L80+L81 *L82 83 TOTAL RUNOFF: allons 84 Inflow from 24hr/25yr event= 6,229,744 gal/event = 85 (L49+L50+L51+L52+L54)"L59/12+(L53+L55)*L58/121`7.48 86 TOAL RUNOFF WATER: .Q.4,9141 gallons =( 832.853 cu. t. = 19.1 pan 87 TOTAL POND VOLUME REQUIRED 88 -- 89 90 Total Process Water Storage Req'd.: 26,868,554 gallons 91 TOAL RUNOFF WATER: 6,229,744 !allons .ft. 92 33,098,298 gallons =( 4 424.906 cu.ft. _ 101.6 ac-1 MORWAT2xls,Summer Prepared by Joseph G."Jake"Martin III, P.E.8/26/98 Page 2 of 2 1 MORWAI DAIRY LLC -WINTER MONTHS 2 EST. OF LIQUID WASTES INTO STORAGE 3 4 MILKING PARLOR WASTE WATER PRODUCTION PER DAY 5 PARLOR FLUSH VALVES 6 Capacity of flush valves: 4,000 GPM 7 No. of flush valves: 2 valves 8 Times flushed per shift: 8 flsh/shft 9 Duration of flush: 0.49 min/fish/vat 10 11 HOUSING BARN FLUSH VALVES (FRESH) 12 Capacity of flush valves: 0 GPM 13 No.of flush valves: 0 valves 14 Times flushed per shift: 0 flsh/shft 15 Duration of flush: 0.00 min/flsh/val 16 17 PARLOR UDDER WASHERS 18 No.wash sprinklers: 180 sprinklers 19 Sprinkler capacity: 5.50 GPM/head 20 Time of use per group: 4.00 min/group 21 No.of groups per shift: 8 grps/shft 22 23 COOLING SPRINKLERS (PARLOR AREA) 24 No.cooling sprinklers: 0 spklr.heads 25 Sprinkler capacity: 0.00 GPM/head 26 Time of use per group: 0.00 min/group 27 28 COOLING SPRINKLERS (FEEDING BARNS) 29 No. cooling sprinklers: 0 spklr.heads 30 Sprinkler capacity: 0.00 GPM/head 31 Time of use PER DAY: 0 min/day 32 33 PARLOR HOSE WASH 34 No. milking shifts/day: 3 shifts/day 35 Wash hose capacity: 15 GPM 36 Time hosed per shift: 120 min/shift 37 38 MISCELLANEOUS WATER USE 39 Misc. process water: 10,000 gal/day(4 gpd/cow) 40 Water trough spillage: 3,750 gal/day(1.5 gpd/cow) 41 42 MANURE PLACED INTO STORAGE POND 43 Manure production per day: 160 lb/day/cow(re: U.F.Circ. 1016- 1991) 44 Percent confinement per day: 40% of day 45 Number of lactating cows: 2,500 cows(annual average) 46 % manure to waste water storage: 75% into storage pond 47 MORWAT2.xls,Winter Prepared by Joseph G."Jake"Martin III, P.E. 8/26/98 Page 1 of 2 48 WATERSHED DRAINING INTO WASTE WATER STORAGE FACILITY 49 Exposed concrete surfaces: 217,064 square feet(incl.roofs) 50 Roofs guttered to system: 0 square feet 51 Earthen surfaces(to storage pond): 1,456,640 square feet 52 Earthen surfaces(to separators): 913,800 square feet 53 Exposed storage pond surface: 376,000 square feet 54 Exposed separator area surface: 277,200 square feet 55 Exposed anerobic pond surface: 196,000 square feet 56 Hi.Avg. mo.rainfall(Dec,Jan,Feb): 0.03 in/month(re: NRCS,CO) 57 Avg.evap.for these months: 0.00 in/month(re: NRCS,CO) 58 24hr/25yr Storm Event: 3.80 in/24hr(re: NRCS,CO) 59 Runoff from 24hr/25yr Storm: 2.73 in/24hr(re:SCS TR-55 Determination) 60 Runoff from 1"rainfall: 0.32 in/24hr(re:SCS TR-55 Determination) 61 No.days of waste water storage: 120 days 62 63 SUMMARY OF PROCESS WASTE WATER INPUTS 64 Total wash hose usage= 5,400 gal/day= (L29*L30*L31) 65 Total Parlor Flush Valve usage= 94,080 gaVday= (L6'L7' L8* L9* L34) 66 Total Barn Flush Valve usage= 0 gal/day= (L12*L13'L14* L15'L34) 67 Total Udder Wash usage= 95,040 gal/day= (L18 L19'L20'L21 'L34) 68 Total Parlor Sprinkler use= 0 gal/day= (121 *L24*L25* L26*L34) 69 Total Barn Sprinkler usage= 0 gal/day= (1.29*L30' L31) 70 Total Misc.Water usage= 13,750 gaVday= (L39+ L40) 71 Total Well Water Into System: 208,270 gal/day =( 27,844 cf/day) 83.3 gal/d/cow 72 Total Manure Collected= 14,385 gal/day = (L43'L44' L45* L47*0.12) 73 Total Liquids Into Storage: 222,655 gal/day=( 29,767 cu.ftidy) 89.1 gal/d/cow 74 No. of days storage desired: 120 days storage 75 Total Process Water Storage Req'd.: 26,718,554 gallons =( 3,571,999 cu.ft. = 82.0 ac.ft. 76 77 SUMMARY OF RUNOFF WASTE WATER INPUTS 78 RUNOFF COLLECTION (into separation system): 79 Avg. daily runoff into separator= 309 gaVday = [L79+L50+L52+L54]* L56' L60' 0.21 80 Avg. daily runoff to storage pond= 320 gaVday = L51*L56' L60 *0.21 81 Total pond add'n/losses(incl.evap.): 392 gal/day = [(L53+L55)'L56'0.21]-[(L56+L55)'L57"0.21] 82 No. of days storage desired: 120 days storage 83 TOTAL RUNOFF: 122,491 gallons = (L79+L80+L81)'L82 84 Inflow from 24hr/25yr event= 6,229,744 gaVevent = 85 [(L49+L50+L51+L52+L54)'L59/12]+[(L53+L55)*L58/12]*7.48 86 Total Runoff Water Storage Required: 6.352,235 gallons =( 849,229 cu.ft. = 19.5 'gill 87 88 TOTAL POND VOLUME REQUIRED 89 90 Total Process Water Storage Req'd.: 26,718,554 gallons 91 Total Runoff Water Storage Required: 6,352,235 gallons 92 33,070,789 gallons =( 4.421,228 cu.ft. = 101.5 ac,ft. MORWAT2.xls,Winter Prepared by Joseph G."Jake"Martin Ill, P.E. 8/26/98 Page 2 of 2 co o f, kk ,%fl * e. ce e .8e * t # x #ee EEEE =w2 ■ EEE7 Eea ; ® @ § \° ® ® § 2 k\\\° /® (§ \§k\ \ $ r0r r •§ ® t iii * a , 0o . . \ , , , + , , . + ; 0) ; $ d } � � O o . : t � ) { \ � L ` § C 0av 0 / / _ r m ) kkf \ ° f© / § vK ? » @2 § k § \( \ CO / » , . , w . w E < v, ' $ « \ ) § ) ) - ( 0 § § ui O , IV ] ) E ›§ § r a � ( _re / \ 'II \ / r _ oil- Ti a- 0 � o _ \ o 13 O {\\ \ oc 0 + k } } \ k # ( \ / ® S S > ! I\ ® 75 \ ° ° ` \\ N {\§ \ k § ! _! 0 kf ) ) /] // co f / , + a ta ; ` ka ) § e ; ; 2 � •j { k a = _ _ aalwEG , \a ° ` / K» 72Jq » § 2N )f (( 70in . . . e co a ni CC 2 - rrE ■ ® # ! $ % f ( | | cE -E—E E 'E cell _ ) = goo ) / \k •OP to a § k { � k k jfF § § 9 ; > 9 § : , , {$ - # O@e0. aO, s ` #® ° OO w § ) ` � � § ` \� k ) / } § 03 O 4 . r 0 co co 0 cn co r r d � (oov0tirn g 0 3 + 0 0 0 + + + + N N N N N N r 3 3 3 3 3 3 �3 CO 3 - r 333333 0 3 0 2 3 3 3 0 0 0 T V V -o :0 :O :O 'r T co N N @ 0 d N N 0 N . '00 '0 T m 0= C v 0 ' C . C EC 7 7 7 > > 7 p 0 U a U U U U U O U 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o N N n 0 0 0 0 0 0 CO 0 0 0 0. 0 0 o tip 0 o O (Op , CD tn o C N t0 CO O SN M CO NM (n (0N J N 0 0 — 0000000 0 0 o0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0000000 o co 0 O Cl. a I , COO N N M CO (Op COON 0 00 N W O c`.1 M co • 0 co • 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 co re o O O G O O O O O O C 7 0 0 0. 0 C7 0 0 m O po o i , V (ONO � o (O LLj O N N co r N M CO a Z r 0 c O — 000000 c o n 0 0 0 0 0 0 m co 0 O o 0 0 0 0 y 0 co c N , I N V CO N 0 0 N O - o N 0 co r r U Q o a — ict d U 3 3 3 3 o rn rn o o a o `m Z O Oo U U U U co co co CO CO (0 p- Q j j. p N o N 0 0 0 0 0 0 d CO U OS T W ` t, f 'p 'O in V N N N N ZO CO F' v o o C v -. 0 ° > > CO CO CO N N CO F- d 1] d s p -c U -- U 9 U o U U 'p 'O 'O "O 'O 'p Q (M') N r co o 0 - , in N r I M U O r O LL r O 0 0 mm v o. `- v v &" 'O 'Ouv cc - dEo 8 d 0 ca(o c o o o C v v c a F- E C .• IT n_ :t2 anon In �1 .c '0 al cu 09- Pt CO £ d c 'O 0 4O Vo.. N Nc V O CO -Np N C -6 9 V CO CO coC C U) 7 N O V O O 0) in N 07 0 CD "0 N 0 y O N {0 D o J > al 45 -a 0) O = _ E T o 0 CS > y N ofEEoE mmf � m cow cc � co fr .-2 m E O 0 (n (n W p c E o f O m CO in j ¢ E > o o -63y o 2 * o (0 a a j �o F O F- F- H > 00 F- 4\ r al 0 w g Iy 0 IHNIM V'IN o MOO °N `i`IM li Wi OO OIN N N CO N I--1 03 CO CCTO MI 2 WASTE STORAGE POND VOLUME CALCULATIONS (Resulting volumes in Cubic Feet) AVG.WATER STORAGE DEPTH (ft): 4.0 INSIDE SIDE SLOPE(run/rise): 3:1 DESIRED FREE BOARD: FT INTERVAL 30 FT DESIRED BOTTOM WIDTH ft 220 MN10 40 70 100 130 160 190 Vann" RESULTING WATER LINE WIDTH ft 94 124 154 184 �n BOTWl 34 64 130 160 190 220 250 40 70 100 110 PI 140 10,928 25,568 40,208 54,848 69,488 84,128 WEI � �. 113,408 140 En 170 13,568 31,808 50,048 68,288 86,528 104,768 123,008 169,088 _ MI 170 194 200 16,208 38,048 59,888 81,728 103,568 125,408" 200 224 230 1 ,848 44,288 69,728 95,168 ,608 146,048 171,488 196, 28 230 254 260 21,488 50,528 79,568 108,608 0 137,648 166,688 195,728 224,768 260 284 290 24,128 56,768 89,408 122,048 88 187,328 219,968 252,608 320 26,768 63,008 99,248 135,488 171,728 207,968 244,208 280,448 290Mil 320 344 350 29,408 69,248 109,088 148,928 188,768 228,608 268,448 308,288 350 374 380 32,048 75,488 118,928 162,368 205,808 249,248 22,688 336,128 380 �r4t0�4 410 34,688 81,728 128,768 175,808 222,848 269,888 316 928 363,968 410 f:c� 440 37,328 87,968 138,608 189,248 239,888 290,528 341,168 391,808 440 464 470 39,968 94,208 148,448 202,688 470 494 500 42,608 100,448 158,288 216,128 273,968 331,808 389,648 447,488 500 524 530 45,248 106,688 168,128 229,568 291,008 352,448 413,888 503,168 ® 530 554 560 47,888 112,928 177,968 243,008 308,048 373,088 560 ci 590 50,528 119,168 187,808 256,448 325,088 393,728 462,368 531,008 590 614 620 53,168 125,408 197,648 269,888 342,128 414,368 46,608 558,848 620 644 650 55,808 131,648 207,488 283,328 359,168 435,008 510,848 586,688 650 674 680 5 ,448 137,888 217,328 296,768 376,208 455,648 535,088 614,528 680 704 710 61,088 144,128 227,168 310,208 393,248 476,288 559,328 642,368 710 734 740 63,728 150,368 237,008 323,648 410,288 496,928 583,568 670,208 740 764 770 66,368 156,608 246,848 337,088 427,328 517,568 607,808 698,048 770 794 800 69,008 162,848 256,688 350,528 444,368 538,208 632,048 OM 800 ci 830 71,648 169,088 266,528 363,968 461,408 558,848 656,288 agMl 830 854 860 74,288 175,328 276,368 377,408 478,448 579,488 680,528 781,568 860 884 890 76,928 181,568 286,208 390,848 495,488 600,128 704,768 809,408 890 914 920 79,568 187,808 296,048 404,288 512,528 620,768 729,008 837,248 529,568 641,408 865,088 920 944 950 82,208 194,048 305,888 1MCI 431,16 950 974 980 84,848 200,288 315,728 8 546,608 662,048 777,488 892, 28 980 1004 1010 87,488 206,528 325,568 444,608 563,648 682,688 801,728 920,768 1010 1034 1040 90,128 212,768 335,408 458,048 580,688 703,328 825,968 948,608 1040 1064 1070 92,768 219,008 345,248 471,488 597,728 723,968 850,208 976,4CO 48 1070 1094 1100 95,408 225,248 355,088 484,928 614,768 744,608 1100 go 1130 98,048 231,488 364,928 498,368 631,808 765,248 898,688 1,032,128 1130 1154 1160 100,688 237,728 374,768 511,808 648,848 785,888 92228 1,059,968 1160 1184 1190 103,328 243,968 384,608 525,248 665,888 806,528 947168 1,087 808 1190 1214 1220 105,968 250,208 394,448 538,688 682,928 827,168 971,408 1,115,648 � � , , 1220 1244 1250 108,608 256,448 404,288 552,128 699,968 847,808 995,648 S 1250 1274 1280 111,248 262,688 414,128 565,568 717,008 868,448 1,019,888 1,171,328 1280 1304 1310 113,888 268,928 423,968 579,008 734,048 889,088 1,044,128 044,328 1,227,199,168 1310 1334 1340 116,528 275,168 433,808 592,448 751,088 909,728 1, 1340 1364 1370 119,168 281,408 443,648 605,888 768,128 930,368 1,092,608 1,2® 1370 1394 1400 121,808 287,648 453,488 619,328 785,168 951,008 1, 82,688 1400 1424 1430 124,448 293,888 463,328 632,768 802,208 971,648 1,141,088 1,310,5528e 1 MORPOND.xis, SEPARATION BASIN Prepared by Jake Martin 8126/98 Morwai Dairy, LLC Envirostock, Inc-Project 24034 Appendix C — Manure Management Record Form "Serving Environmental Needs of the Livestock Industry" 28 • MANURE MANAGEMENT RECORD SHEET field Description Previouop �� ! Yieid Manure tested b ,' Soil tested by Wa er teste ty Cro Season: Crop planted: ' N Requirement 1. Expected yield (Past year avera"LLg+a5%): bu/A 2. Total N needed to tachieve xpected yield: lbs/A (Expected yield x crop factor/Efficiency factor) r . N Credits 3. Residual soil NO3 : lbs N/A 4. Irrigation water NO3 credit: 3 —_ lbs N/A (ppm NO3 N x 2.7 = lbs/acre ft. water) ii �''" 5. Soil organic matter credit (credit 30 lbs N per % OM): 1 ``''`x' lbs N/A R 6. Nitrogen available from previous legume crop: lbs N/A 7. N available to crop (sum of lines 3, 4, 5, and 6): '4 lbs N/A ,m 8. Plant available N/ton manure # , _lbs/ton: 9. Maximum manure application rate: tons/A p F•Total Manure applied tonslA Acfual Meld. 6u/A i �, N Fertilizer applied: lbs/A Total irrigation water applied AF Notes: Morwai Dairy, LLC Envirostock, Inc-Project 24034 Appendix D — Record keeping Forms "Serving Environmental Needs of the Livestock Industry" 29 iT m — w n acc °Q 22 T C v v 'a a tv Q c , E o v C E fix .� - Q U + + + +, • a ama oc o a o . II c J LL # W u m cn r v W n ...� R N _ 'V x"`. Q ,-. 0 �. m D. m C CI— o F• Y._ m CO $ o V 0 b k Coto y 3 Q J @ 0 v ‘ O m 0 z. m a Wa ,,;eco o Q ,z CO <�s y co m m • " � s .s.�. Fes+ a W V �. £ ,_ a c bi C 1 a h z 2 'to J U U Z 1 o 0 C v . O CC 2 v o0 Q O sc a. a } U o 2 • W QLI „ Mm c . J y LL E. U v ... O US O e a � 3 v st € IL cat .0 O fir.._ ,n. m �, d , w m W m e . • c h E0 m m orm t.. m m g E a. . .4 m 0 > ° 6 .O w.P m -,. m bW m m 0E h a R `m co y m m o u o `o H m U a y E w S. 3 `m' w N L. m ` O C O m g Q H y .m., . m a ' m E -4) 0 >, m ea 0 0 CD Tx 62 E pi t °m le w C -�qq o 2t's m ti W C `C 10 O 3 07 O Y Q LO 2 y 04 CO v LO ICI 2 MANURE APPLICATION LOG (manure applied to feedyard property) • Field: • Year: DATE CROP TONS ACRES TON/ACRE Nutrient Management Pan MANURE REMOVAL LOG (manure taken off feedyard property) Year: DATE PERSON TAKING MANURE AMOUNT (tons) Nutrient Management Pan WASTEWATER APPLICATION LOG (wastewater applied to feedyard property) Field: Year Acre inches = gallons per minute X number of minutes per irrigation event 27,158 Inches per event = Acre inches Acres GALLONS NUMBER INCHES PER NUMBER OF ACRE OF PER DATE CROP MINUTE MINUTES INCHES ACRES EVENT Nutrient Management Pan RAINFALL LOG • Rain Gauge Location: Year BEGINNING ENDING RAINFALL • DATE TIME DATE TIME (inches) Nutrient Management Pan 11. Nutrient Management References 20 l„ .. . • \._--\ ) ....... . SOIL `� .K e. ;, ��u.1�+s. { C`aitiess- o tr r ion ,a'tes6ie nom`€Q /1 ..ill.-sue' \� tc-?figiv.tci, ,r`.-, .cPa 'l�sa;4`st.t : ..P�f-itCtr�'`-.x -'i�'.r'�j2.�.A. -f`kw..s.pwi:tt53'4.e K.U. Iversen andJ.G. Davis ' 1 Quick Facts... Nitrogen in Manure Manure contains nitrogen in several forms. Organic nitrogen is the most stable,tied up with carbon and other elements in many compounds such as The purpose of this fact sheet is to proteins. Organic nitrogen is released(mineralized)from these compounds by • help you determine the correct microorganisms.Some nitrogen(N)is available quickly. and some takes months or • manure application rate from a years to be available.The time involved depends on the types of compounds in manure analysis provided by which N is tied up and the soil environment. your manure supplier. Inorganic nitrogen includes NH4, NO3 and NO2. It is available to plants immediately and moves into plant roots with water. Total nitrogen is the mixture of Manure contains nitrogen in organic and inorganic forms of nitrogen in the manure.Some of the total nitrogen is several forms. available immediately, while most of it is available later. Although we typically project that 50 percent of total nitrogen in manure is crop available during the first -)rganic nitrogen is the most growing season,this is a crude estimate. If the manure is not mixed into the soil able, tied up with carbon and immediately, some of the inorganic nitrogen will be lost. elements in many Using This Table c. pounds such as proteins. Nitrogen Content of Manure. Use the actual total nitrogen content on a fresh-weight basis abs N/ton)from your manure analysis.If you have no analysis Inorganic nitrogen includes NH4, available, use the 23 lb/ton column for beef manure, or the 13 lb/ton column for NO3 and NO2 and is available to plants immediately and moves dairy manure, which represent typical analyses for each manure in Colorado. Desired N Application. Determine how much nitrogen you will need from into plant roots with water. the manure application. From the total nitrogen the crop will require, subtract any nitrogen contributed from fertilizers, irrigation water, herbicide carriers, previous Total nitrogen is the mixture of legume crops, soil organic matter, residual soil nitrate, and previous manure organic and inorganic forms of applications. nitrogen in the manure. Example. Assume for this example that a recommended nitrogen application for a corn field is 160 lb N/acre. After other sources of nitrogen are • considered, the amount to be supplied by beef manure is 100 lbs N/acre. The manure analysis was 23 lbs N/ton of manure. From the table, find the rate of 100 lbs N/acre in the left column and move across to the 23 lbs total N/ton column. The amount of manure to be applied to the field to achieve the desired application a is 9 tons per acre. CO1O ® Example: — — Total N required 160 lb N/acre lb N/acre lb N/acre §8, N from other sources - 60 lb N/acre Ib N/acre lb N/acre test,irrigation eater,etc.). — University N desired from manure 100 lb N,'acre 'b N/acre lb N/acre Cooperative Total N content of manure -3 lb N/ton lb N/ton lb N/ton Extension Manure rate for desired N 9 tons/acre tons/acre tons/acre application (from Table) C Colorado State University Cooperative Extension. 10/97. Table 1:Cattle manure application rates.s e table uses only the total nitrogen content of a n....iure,so it is an estimate of what will Iti available to the crop during the growing season. Use it to determine application rates until you can obtain more precise numbers.) Nitrogen Content of Manure (lbs of total N per ton manure(fresh weight)) 7 . 9 11 . :13?° 15 17 19 21 Ai 25 27 29 31 33 3. Desired N Application Tons of manure per acre to apply (lbs Wacre) for desired nitrogen application 50 ' 14 11 9 -.8x 7 6 5 5 41-164 4 3 3 3 3 :es 60 • 17 13 11 yro 8 7 6 6 .`&5„ 5 4 4 4 4 3 tlq70 20 16 13 11 9 - 8 Is6-21 6 5 5 5 4 4 80 23 18 15 12. 11 9 8 8 '`7y: 6 6 6 5 5 5 90 26 20 16 l4'' r`'S 12 11 9 9 8- 7 7 6 6 5 5 100 29 22 18 :\1Ks `9 1,5;: 13 12 11 104 8 7 7 6 6 6 110 31 24 20 17 15 13 12 10 .10.p 9 8 8 7 7 6 120 34 27 22 :it. 38' 16 14 13 11 ill ' 10 9 8 8 7 7 130 37 29 24 ,20 17 15 14 12 a 10 10 9 8 8 7 .,. 140 40 31 25 22d 19 16 15 13 2 11 10 10 9 8 .8 150 43 33 27 20 18 16 14 113 12 11 10 10 9 9 Va"160 46 36 29 25' 21 19 17 15 ;g_ 13 12 11 10 10 9 tkti 170 ,_ 49 38 31 :26.I 23 20 18 16 `tea 14 13 12 11 10 10 180 51 40 33 28': . 24 21 19 17 3 14 13 12 12 11 10 190 54 42 35 29' 25 22 20 18 15 14 13 12 12 11 200 57 44 36 8J 27 24 21 , 19 7 16 15 14 13 12 11 If the manure has not been tested and you have no other way of estimating its nitrogen content, use the column for 23 lbs N(for beef)or 13 lbs N(for dairy) per ton of manure. These are average contents for each type of manure in Colorado. Note: These numbers assume that the manure will be incorporated immediately after application. If incorporation will occur more than one week after application, increase the manure rate by 43 percent(multiply the manure rate by 1.43). • 'K.V. Iversen, Colorado State University soil Issued in furtherance of Cooperative Extension work, Acts of May 8 and June 30, 1914, in fertility research associate;J.C. Davis, cooperation with the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Milan A. Rewerts, Director of Cooperative Cooperative Extension soil specialist and Extension, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado. Cooperative Extension programs are associate professor, soil and crop sciences. available to all without discrimination. i Table 3.Nitrogen removed in the harvested part of selected Colorado crops ro Dry weight Typical %N in dry p lb/bu -yield/A harvested material Grain crops - �. Barley 48 80 bu 1.82 2 tons straw 0.75 Corn 56 150 bu 1.61 35 tons stover 1.11 • Oats 32 60 bu 1.95 1.5 tons straw 0.63 Rye 56 30 bu 2.08 1.5 tons straw 0.50 • Sorghum 56 60 bu 1.67 3 tons stover 1.08 Wheat 60 40 bu 2.08 1.5 tons straw 0.67 Oil crops Canola 50 35 bu 3.60 3 tons straw 4.48 Soybeans 60 , 35 bu 6.25 2 tons stover 2.25 Sunflower 25 1,100 lb 357 2 tons stover 1.50 Forage crops Alfalfa 4 tons 2.25 3 tons 0.99 Big bluestem 3 tons 2.49 Birdsfoot trefoil 3 tons 1.87 Bromegrass 187 Alfalfa-grass 4 tons Little bluestem 3 tons 1.10 I Orchardgrass 4 tons 1.47 Red clover 3 tons 2.00 Reed canarygrass 4 tons 1.35 Ryegrass 4 tons 1.67 Switchgrass 3 tons 1.15 4 tons 1.97 Tall fescue 197 Timothy 3 tons Wheatgrass , I ton 1.42 Continued on next page , Table 3.Nitrogen removed in the harvested part of selected Colorado crops(continued) Crop %dry matter Typical yield/A(tons) %N in dry harvested material Silage crops Alfalfa haylage 50 10 wet/5 dry 239 Com silage 35 20 wetfl dry 1.10 Forage sorghum • F30 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 Iltrf grass _ 3luegrass 2 2.91 3entgrass 2 3.10 Vegetable crops - Bell peppers 9 0.40 3eans,dry I / 3.13 :abbage 20 0.33 Car ' 13 0.19 Cele, 27 0.17 Cucumbers 10 0.20 ettuce(heads) 14 0.23 )nions 18 0.30 yeas 2 3.68 'otatoes 14 0.33 ;nap beans 3 0.88 ;weet corn 6 0.89 ;weer potatoes 7 0.30 ,dapted from USDA Agricultural Waste Management Field Handbook.1992. -- - Chapter 6 -. Role of Plants in waste 1lfanaSement part 651• 4gricultural Waste Management Meld Handbook w ,_r,.;_y. �.-• .• ' • not reached or nutrient imbalances do not occur.The total nutrient uptake continues to increase with yield,6rJ .®606 Nutrient removalbut the relation does not remain a constant linear by harvesting of crops relationship. The nutrient content of a plant depends on the amount Two important factors that affect nutrient uptake and of nutrients available to the plant and on the environ- removal by crop harvest are the percent nutrient mental growing condition.The critical level of nutrient composition in the plant tissue and the crop biomass concentration of the dry harvested material of the yield.In general,grasses contain their highest percent- plant leaf is about 2 percent nitrogen,0.25 percent age of nutrients,particularly nitrogen,during the rapid phosphorus,and 1 percent potassium.Where nutrients growth stage of stem elongation and leaf growth. are available in the soil in excess of plant sufficiency like corn(fig.6 5), fol- levels,the percentages can more than double. Nitrogen uptake in grasses, lows an S-shaped uptake curve with very low uptake In the first 30 days of growth,but rises sharply until can norage crops,the percent 2.8percent,composition for roue e2 flowering, then decreases with maturity range from 1.2 to 2.8 averaging around 2 percent of the dry harvested material of the plant.The concentrations can reach as high as 4.6 percent,how- Harvesting the forage before it flowers would capture ever,if the soil system has high levels of nitrogen the plant's highest percent nutrient concentration. atiaonn_ (Walsh and Beaton 1973). Multiple cuttings during the growing - mizes dry matter production.A system of two or three The total uptake of nutrients by crops from agricul- harvests per year at the time of grass heading would tural waste applications increases as the crop yields : optimize the dry matter yield and plant tissue concen- increase,and crop yields for the most part increase tration,thus maximizing nutrient uptake and removal. with increasing soil nutrients,provided toxic levels are Figure 6-5 Growth and nutrient uptake by coin(adapted from Hanaway 1962) • CO Uptake of nutrients in relation to tz 3 bG N dryweY` 7 iNN**t-------�` -I - -.---- -- r 80 --------- F I 2 I I e° 60 F T I y .I g. IS Ica 40 I 1 ll�II/ / /I/l�lll�l �lll�lll�llllll/ a I '! tI11IIli111II /stalk 11IIlI111li I 1 tj it 1. 11711�1L1}Il /it fl Il1111111111111I111I11t11 20 . .. .. - - —. . ill 11 11 I / I 1 I1, 11 11 11' / l •. • 1 1 V N leaves 7; 100 ila 0 25 50 Days after emergence 6-17 (210—AWMFH,4/92) Chapter 6 Role of Plants in Waste Management Part 651 Agricultural Waste Management Field Handbook (a) Nutrient uptake calculation corn silage: 22 tons/ac @ 2,000 lb/ton @ 35%dm = 15,400 lb Table 6-6 can be used to calculate the approximate nutrient removal by agricultural crops.Typical crop alfalfa hay: 6 tons/ac @ 2,000 lb/ton yields are given only as default values and should be = 12,000 lb selected only in lieu of local information. 4. Multiplying percent nutrients contained in the crop 1. Select the crop or crops that are to be grown in harvested by the dry matter yield: the cropping sequence. 2. Determine the plant nutrient percentage of the corn grain: crop to be harvested as a percentage of the dry 1.61%N x 7,280 lb = 117 lb N or wet weight depending on the crop value 0.28%P x 7,280 lb = 20 lb P given in table 6-6. 0.40%K x 7,280 lb = 29 lb K 3. Determine the crop yield in pounds per acre. Weight to volume conversion are given. corn silage: 4. Multiply the crop yield by the percentage of 1.10%N x 15,400 lb =169 lb N nutrient in the crop. 0.25%P x 15,400 lb = 39 lb P 1.09%K x 15,4001b = 168lb K The solution is pounds per acre of nutrients removed in the harvested crop. alfalfa: 2.25%N x 12,000 lb =270 lb N 0.22%P x 12,0001b = 26 lb P (b) Nutrient uptake example 1.87%K x 12,000 lb =224 lb K Ct and alfalfa are grown in rotation and harvested Nutrient values are given as elemental P and K.The as grain and silage corn and alfalfa hay.Follow the conversion factors for phosphates and potash are: above steps to calculate the nutrient taken up and removed in the harvested crop. IbPx2.3=1bP2Ob 1. Crops to be grown: corn and alfalfa Ib K x 1.2=1b K 20 2. Plant nutrient percentage in harvested crop Under alfalfa,nitrogen includes that fixed symbioti- (table 6-6): cally from the air by alfalfa corn grain: 1.61%nitrogen Table 6-6 shows the nutrient concentrations that are 0.28%phosphorus average values derived from plant tissue analysis 0.40%potassium values,which can have considerable range because of climatic conditions,varietal differences,soil condi- corn silage: 1.10%nitrogen tions,and soil fertility status.Where available,state- 0.25%phosphorus wide or local data should be used in lieu of the table 1.09%potassium values. alfalfa 2.25%nitrogen 0.22%phosphorus 1.87%potaassium 3. Crop yield taken from local data base: c--1 grain: 130 bu/ac @ 56 lb/bu = 7,280 lb. 3-18 (210-AWMFH,4/92) Chapter 6 Role of Plants in Waste Management Part 651 p '-ultural Waste Management 1 .Handbook Table 6-6 Plant nutrient uptake by specified crop and removed in the harvested part of the crop(Kilmer 1982;Morrison moscaca 1956;Sanchez 1976;USDA 1985) Dry wt Typical Average concentration of nutrients(%) lb/bu yield/acre N P K Ca Mg S Mn Zn Crop plant part Grain crops %of the dry harvested material Barley 48 50 bu. 1.82 0.34 0.43 0.05 0.10 0.16 i 0.0016 0.0016 0.0031 1 T.straw 0.75 0.11 1.25 0.40 0.10 0.20 0.0005 0.0160 0.0025 0.0009 0.0034 Buckwheat 48 30 bu. 1.65 0.31 0.45 0.09 •0.5 T.straw 0.78 0.05 2.26 1.40 0.01 Corn 56 120 bu. 1.61 0.28 0.40 0.02 0.10 0.12 0.0007 0.0011 0.0018 . 4.5 T.stover 1.11 0.20 134 0.29 0.22 0.16 0.0005 0.0166 0.0033 Oats 32 80 bu. 1.95 0.34 0.49 0.08 0.12 0.20 0.0012 0.0047 0.0020 2 T.straw 0.63 0.16 1.66 0.20 0.20 0.23 0.0008 0.0030 0.0072 Rice 45 5,500 lb. 1.39 0.24 0.23 0.08 0.11 0.08 0.0030 0.0022 0.0316 0.0019 2.6 T.straw 0.60 0.09 1.16 0.18 0.10 Rye 56 30 bu. 2.08 0.26 0.49 0.12 0.18 0.42 0.0012 0.0131 0.0018 1.5 T.straw • 0.60 0.12 0.69 0.27 0.07 0.10 0.0300 0.0047 0.0023 Sorghum 66 60 bu. 1.67 0.36 0.42 0.13 0.17 0.17 0.0003 00.001313 0.0013 3 T.stover 1.08 0.16 1.31' 0.48 0.30 0.13 Wheat 60 40 bu. 2.08 0.62 0.52 0.04 0.25 0.13 0.0013 0.0038 0.0058 1.6 T.straw 0.67 0.07 0.97 0.20 0.10 0.17 0.0003 0.0053 0.0017 Oil crops of the dry harvested material Flax 56 15 bu. 4.09 0.65 0.84 0.23 0.43 0.25 0.0061 1.75 T.straw 1.24 0.11 1.75 0.72 0.31 0.27 0.0043 0.0225 Oil palm 22,000 lb. 1.13 0.26 0.16 0.19 0.09 5 T.fronds, 0.36 stems 1.07 0.49 1.69 • Peanuts 22-30 2,800 lb. 3.60 0.17 0.50 0.04 0.12 0.24 0.0008 0.0040.0051 0 2.2 T.vines _ 2.33 0.24 1.75 1.00 0.38 3 0.36 Rapeseed 50 35 bu. 3.60 0.79 0.76 6 3 T.straw 4.48 0.43 3.37 1.47 0.06 0.68 0.0001 0.0008 Soybeans 60 35 bu. 6.25 0.64 1.90 0.29 0.29 0.17 0.0017 0.0021 0.0017 2 T.stover 2.25 0.22 1.04 1.00 0.45 0.25 0.0010 0.0115 0.0038 Sunflower 25 1,100 lb. 3.57 1.71 1.11 0.18 034 0.17 0.0022 4 T.stover 1.50 0.18 2.92 1.73 0.09 0.04 0.0241 a 6-19 (210-AWMFH,4/92) Chapter 11 Waste Utilization Part 651 Agricultural Waste Managerlent Field Handbook Nelson,Lewis B. 1975.Fertilizer for all-out food pro- 651.1.106 References duction.In Spec.Pub.No.23,p.24,Amer.Soc. Agron.,Madison,WI. • Alexander,E.L.,and GA Marghe'un. 1974.Personal Pratt,P.F.,S.Davis,and R.G.Sharpless.1976.A four- year field C.E.Fogg. year field trial with animal manure.J.Agric.Sci., CA.Agric.Exp.Sta.44(5),pp 113-125. Azevedo,J.,and P.R.Stout. 1974.Farm manure.An Shaffer,M.J.,A.D.Halvorson,and F.Pierce. 1991. overview of their role in the agricultural environ- ment, Nitrate leaching and economic analysis package: CA Agric.Exp.Sta.Man.44. Model description and application.In R.F. Bundy,L.G. 1985.Understanding plant nutrients:soil . Follett,DR Keeney,and R.M.Cruse(eds.).Manag- and applied nitrogen.Univ.WI Coop.Ext.Serv. ing nitrogen for ground water quality and farm Bull.No.A2519. profitability.Soil Sci.Soc.Amer.,Madison,WL Conn and Stumpf. 1972.Outlines of biochemistry,third Sobel,A.T. 1976.The high-rise of manure management. edition.John Wiley&Sons,Inc.New York. Dep.Agric.Eng.Rep.AWM 76-01,Cornell Univ., Ithaca,N.Y. Ghoshal,S. 1974.Fate fertilizer phosphorus under aerobic decomposition.Plant and Soil 40(3). Sweeten,John M. 1976.Dilution of feedlot runoff.MP- 1297,TX A&M Univ.,College Station,TX. Hayes,WA. 1977.Personal communication with R.A. Wagner,RE.,and M.B.Jones. 1968.Fertilization of Phillips.Based upon a number of SCS technical hig t yielding forage crops.Soil Sci.Soc.Amer. guides in central United States. Wafters,Steven P.,and Joseph P.Marak. 1984.208 Heidlage,Robert F.,and Lyle C.Shingleton. 1984.Soil Task 1401,animal waste study.Final report to potential for waste disposal.Soil Survey Hori- OK Pollution Control Coord.Board by OK State zons,vol.25,no. 1. Dep.Agric.,Plant Indus.Div. Horsfield,B.C.,R.Z.Wheaton,J.C.Nye,and J.V. Wafters,Steven P.,and Joseph P.Marak. 1985.Water of waste ID-88. Coop.Ext.Sew.,Purdue Mannering. 1973.Irrigation for land application quality impacts of animal waste management in a of animal northeastern Oklahoma watershed.Proceed Univ.,West Lafayette,IN. Fifth intl.symp.on agric.wastes,Chicago,IL. Larsen,S.,.D. Gunary,and C.D.Sutton. 1965.The rate Wilkinson,S.R. 1974.Poultry manure:Waste or re of immobilization soiliprope of appliedp Sci.vol. 16,e in Nola. source.Farmers and Consumer's Market Bulletin re- don to soil properties.J.Soil vol. No. 1. Mathers,A.C.,BA.Stewart,J.D.Thomas,and B.J. Williams,J.R.,and D.E.Kissel. 1991.Water percola- Blair. 1972.Effects of cattle feedlot manure on tion:An indicator of N leaching potential in managing nitrogen for groundwater quality and crop yields and soil condition.USDA SW Great farm profitability.Amer.Soc.Agron. Plains Res.Ctr.Tech.Report No. 11. Meisinger,J.J.,and G.W.Randall. 1991.Managing Willrich,R.L.,D.O.Turner,and V.V.Volk. 1974.Ma- nitrogen for ground-water quality and farm nun application guidelines for the Pacific North- profitability.In R.F.Follett, D.R. Keeney,and west.Amer.Assoc.Agric.Eng.Paper 74-4061,St. R.M. Cruse(eds.).Managing nitrogen for ground Joseph,MI. water quality and farm profitability.Soil Sci.Soc. Zall,R.R. 1972.Characteristics of milking center waste Amer.,Madison,WI. effluent from New York dairy farms.J.Milk and Moore,JA,and M.J.Gamroth. 1989.Calculating the Food Tech. fertilizer value of manure from livestock opera- tions.OR State Univ.Ext Sent.,EC1094/rev.1-89. 11-36 (210-A1131FH,4/92) Table 9 Drvtand 1'roso cart Millet(40 bWAI. Table T. Irrigated Feed Barley,Oats,and N_lst(1001w/A} ---�----- Fertilizer rate Relative Soil NO,-N• Soil organic matter(%) Soil NO,-N• 'ISN/A) level 0-1.0 11.1-2.0 I >2.0 0-Ift 0.2R —Fertilizer rate(lb N/A)— v low 40 0-3 0-6 ery 0-6 125 95 75 -t-6 6-11 low 20 7-12 105 75 SS 7-10 12-17 medium 10 f3-18 25 55 35 >10 >17 high 0 ' 19-24 65 35 15 •Concentration ofNO,-N in the top foot of soil or the sum of NO,-N concentrations in 1-foot sample depths to 2 feet (see 125-30 45 0 0 -The 01 lb N/A rate is suggested only when P and/or.K is being 31-36 25 0 0 applied >36 0 0 0 •Sum of ppm NO,-N in 1-fL sample depths to 2 feet(see Table 2) ' (for sample depths of 1-ft only,multiply the ppm value by 1.67 , • before using the table). ' -To adjust N rate for expected yields different from 100 built,add Table 10. Dryland Grain Sorghum(40 L WA} or subtract20 lb N/A for each 10 bu/A difference. SeilNOr N• Soil organic matter(%) 0-1.0 1.1-2.0 >2.0 Fertilizer rate(lb N/A)-- — 0-3 25 0 0 4.6 0 0 0 • T 9 0 0 0 ,-----.--.-------- Table& Irrigated Malting Barley(100 bu/A). >9 0 0 0 Soil NO,-N• Soil organic matter(%) •Average concentration(ppm)NO,-N in 0 to 2 ft soil layer(see ' Table 1). 0-1.0 I 1.1-2.0 I >2.0 -To adjust the t for other ld goals,add or subtract 12.51b N/A for each 10 bulA —Fertilizer rate QS N/A)— 0-6 115 85 65 7.12 95 65 45 13-18 75 45 25 Table 11. Irrl-sited Grain Sorghum(40 bu/A). 19-24 55 25 0 Soil NO,-N• Soil organic matter(%) 25-30 35 0 0 >2.0 0-1.0 I 1.1-2.0 I. >30 0 0 0 ._.Fertilizer rate(lb NIA)-- •Sum of ppm NO,-N in 1-ft.sample depths to 2 fed(see Table 2) (for sample depths of 1-ft only,multiply the ppm value by 1.67 ____L________________________--3 75 45 - 25 before using the table). -To adjust N rate for expected yields different from 100 bu/A,add 4.6 30 15 0 or subtract 10 lb N/A for each 10 bu/A difference on sand, loamy sand,and sandy soils,and 15 lb N/A for each 10 bulA on 7_9 Y$ 0 0 all other soils." 0 >9 0 0 •Average concentration(ppm)NO-N in 0 to 2 ft soil layer(see Table 2). -To adjust the N rate for other yield goals,add or subtract 12.5 lb N/A for each 10 bu/A difference. Chapter 11 Waste Utilization Part 651 Agricultural Waste Management • Field Handbook • • • An example of moisture gain is seen in waste manage- pound cow,the volume is increased by about 35 per- ment for dairy cows in the northern part of the coun- cent.Similarly,if the original moisture content is 89 try.Typically,the manure is placed in storage daily in percent,it is increased to almost 92 percent Conse- either a covered tank or an open storage pond.The quently,it is then necessary to haul more than 13 tons milking center wastewater is added,which amounts to of manure to the field for every 10 tons excreted if about 5 or 6 gal/cow/day(Zall 1972).If 5 gallons of •- there is no drying or further dilution. washwater are added daily to the manure from a 1,400- Table 11-11 Rule-of-thumb estimate of available.nutrients in manure from feeder swine by management system nempaannam Management system Final moisture Nutrients available first year .. N P2O5 R_O gy lb/ton 1. Fresh manure,collected and applied daily,no dilution or drying, 90 9 7 10 incorporated before drying 2. Covered storage tank,applied and incorporated before drying, 93 4 6 6 diluted with 50 percent additional water _. Ventilated storage pit beneath slotted floors,diluted 1:1, / 95 2.5 3 5 emptied every 3 months,incorporated before drying 4. Open lot storage,removed in spring;incorporated before drying; 80 6 10 12 warm,humid climate 5. Open lot storage,cleaned yearly and incorporated;hot,arid climate 40 9 28 52 Table 11-12 Rule-of-thumb estimate of available nutrients in manure from broilers and layers by management system Management system Final moisture Nutrients available first year N P205 102O 96 lb/ton 1. Fresh manure,collected and applied daily,incorporated before drying 75 27 21 15 2. Layer manure stored in shallow pit,cleaned every 3 months, 65 25 27 23 incorporated before drying* 3. Layer manure stored in fan ventilated deep pit; cleaned yearly and 50 23 45 42 incorporated;cool,humid climate** 3roiler manure on sawdust or shavings cleaned every 4 months and 25 36 35 40 incorporated;warm humid climate* * Wilkinson 1914. "Sobel 1916. 11-34 (210-AWMFlt,4/92) Part 1 Chapter 6 Ro :Plants in Waste Management P� m.Waste Management Field Handbook 1 .6-6 Plant nutrient uptake by specified crop and removed in the harvested part of the crop—Continued p Crop Dry wt. Typical Average concentration of nutrients(%) Mn lb/bu yield/acre N P K Ca Mg S Cu Zn plantpart Vegetable crops %of the fresh harvested material Bell peppers 9 tons 0.40 0.12 0.49 0.04 Beans,dry 0.5 ton 3.13 0.45 0.86 0.08 0.08 0.21 0.0008 0.0013 0.0025 Cabbage 20 tons 0.33 0.04 0.27 0.05 0.02 0.11 0.0001 0.0003 0.0002 Carrots 13 tons 0.19 0.04 0.25 0.05 0.02 0.02 0.0001 0.0004 Cassava 7 tons 0.40 0.13 0.63 0.26 0.13 Celery 27 tons 0.17 0.09 0.45 Cucumbers 10 tons 0.20 0.07 0.33 0.02 Lettuce(heads) 14 tons 0.23 0.08 0.46 ' Onions 18 tons 0.30 0.06 0.22 0.07 0.01 0.12 0.0002 0.0050 0.0021 Peas 1.5 tons 3.68 0.40 0.90 0.08 0.24 0.24 Potatoes 14.5 tons 0.33 0.06 0.52 0.01 0.03 0.03 0.0002 0.0004 0.0002 Snap beans 3 tons 0.88 . 0.26 0.96 0.05 0.10 0.11 0.0005 0.0009 Sweet corn 6.5 tons 0.89 0.24 0.58 0.07 0.06 Sweet potatoes 7 tons 0.30 0.04 0.42 0.03/ 0.06 0.04 0.0002 0.0004 0.0002 ble beets 15 tons 0.26 0.04 0.28 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.0001 0.0007 . :land plants %of the dry harvested material Cattails 8 tons 1.02 0.18 Rushes 1 ton 1.67 Saltgrass 1 ton 1.44 0.27 0.62 Sedges 0.8 ton 1.79 0.26 0.66 Water hyacinth 3.65 0.87 3.12 Duckweed 3.36 1.00 2.13 Arrowweed 2.74 Phragmites 1.83 0.10 • 0.52 a 6-22 (210.-AWHFH,4/92) Chapter 11 Waste Utiti,ation Part 651 Agricultural Waste Management Field Handbook • Phosphorus application: Depth affects the thickness of the root zone,plant For crop growth,46 pounds per acre P206 are needed, growth potential.and nutrient storage. but 193 pounds per acre will be applied,which is about 4 times the amount needed.A continual applica- Drainage affects plant growth potential,the ease of lion of phosphorus at this excessive rate may result in travel or trafficability,tillage,nutrient conversion,and very high soil phosphorus availability.Phosphorus - runoff potential. losses by runoff,erosion,and,in certain soil condi- tions,leaching can present a serious water quality Yield potential was an expression of the soil's ability concern.To limit irrigation application to the phos- to produce forage and,consequently,nutrient uptake. phorous requirement,the application quantity would need to be reduced to a fourth of 1.64 inches,or about In the Oklahoma procedure,a predominant or limiting 0.41 inches. soil is selected as being representative of the waste application site.Soil properties and site conditions are The answer to the second part of question 7 is 0.41 given a numerical rating,and these ratings are summed inches. for the site.Heidlage weighted the numerical rating system so that those items,in his judgment,that could most contribute to potential surface water pollution (f) Adjustments for site character- were given more prominence. 'sties The rating values were scaled so that the least degree Land slope,soil surface texture,flooding potential, of limitation imposed by the property or characteristic nermeability,salinity,and soil depth all play a role in provides the highest value.The Oklahoma researchers isessing pollution potential.This is particularly true recommended reducing or eliminating waste applica- where the preceding procedures are used to calculate Lion on sites where the sum of the ratings fell below the minimum area required to recycle nutrients based established levels.Where management or structural on nitrogen. solutions are implemented to overcome the limiting factor(s),the limitation of the site is eliminated. A procedure was developed in Oklahoma to consider site characteristics in assigning a pollution potential to Similar reasoning to that done by Heidlage in Okla- any given field(Heidlage 1984).The procedure was homa can be used to factor soil and other site limita- used in one watershed,and after 4 years monitoring, tions into waste application strategies.Table 5-3 in no pollution from any of the farms studied was indi- chapter 5 lists several soil characteristics,degrees of cated(Watters 1984 and 1985). limitation,and recommendations for overcoming limitations.This understanding of soil limitations at The following soil properties and features were con- application sites and methodology for overcoming the sidered in selecting suitable sites for land application limitations provide a tool for identifying components of wastes: of a waste application plan and, in some cases,further planning needs. Flooding was considered the most important feature in Oklahoma because waste applied to flood prone For example,if the field(s)to receive manure is sub- soils can be readily transported into a watercourse. ject to frequent flooding,table 5-3 shows a severe site limitation and recommends wastes be applied during Rock fragments greater than 3 inches affect the periods when flooding is unlikely.A waste application ease of tillage potential for waste incorporation and strategy would need to include a recognition of the trafficability. periods when waste can be applied,and the waste storage component of the system would have to be Texture primarily affects the trafficability of the soil adequately sized to provide storage between applica- .td plant growth potential. Lion opportunities.Other potential remedial actions might include waste injection to reduce opportunity Slope affects the potential for runoff from the site. for runoff of the manure during flood event and some form of structural measure to reduce flooding. 11-32 (210-AWMFH,4192) • > if' Crop Nitrogen Requirement Tables . Table 3. Irrigated Corn Table 12. Dryland Forage Crops for Silage Table 4. Dryland Corn Table 13. Irrigated Forage Crops for Silage Table 5. Dryland Winter Wheat Table 14. Irrigated Sunflowers Table 6. Irrigated Winter Wheat Table 15. Dryland Sunflowers Table 7. Irrigated Feed Barley,Oats,and Wheat Table 16. Irrigated Grasses Table 8. Irrigated Malting Barley Table 17. New Seedlings of Irrigated Alfalfa Table 9. Dryland Prow and Pearl Millet Table 18. Irrigated Dry Beans Table 10. Dryland Grain Sorghum Table 19. Irrigated Potatoes Table 11. Irrigated Grain Sorghum • • Table 3. Irrigated Corn(175 bn/A). Table S. Dryland Winter What(50 bu/A). Soil NO,-N• Soil organic matter(%) Soil NO,-N* Soil organic matter(%) 0-1.0 1.1-2.0 >2.0 0-1ft 0-21t 0-1.0 1.1-2.0 >2.0 —Fertilizer rate(lb N/A)— —Fertilizer rite(lb N/A)— 0.6 210 185 165 0.3 0-5 75 75 75 7-12 160 135 115 4.6 6-9 75 70 50 13-18 110 85 65 7-9 10-12 75 45 25 19-24 - 60 35 15 10.12 13.15 . 50 20 0 >24 10 0 0 13-15 15.18 25 0 0 •Average concentration(ppm)NOr N in 0 to 2 ft soil layer 1 t5 >18 0 0 0 (see Table l} For grain yields other than 175 bu/A,use the equation: •Concentration of N0,N in the top foot of soil or sum of NO.-N N rate. 35+[1.2 xyield goal(bu/A)]-[8x soil NOr-N]-(0.14 x concentrations in 1-foot sample depths to 2 feet(see Table 2). yield goal x 340.M]. -To adjust N rate for expected yields diffeerent from 50 bu/A,add For silage,use the equation: or subtract 25 lb N/A for each 10 bu/A difference(maximum N rate a 35+(7.5 x yield goal(tons/A)]-[8 x soil NO,-N]- N rate is 75 lb/A). [0.85 x yield goal x%O.M]. Table 6. Irrigated Whiter Wheat(100 bu/A). Soil NO3-N• Soil organic matter(%) 0.2 ft 0.1.0 1.1.2.0 >2.0 —FMilizer rate(lb N/A)— Table 4. Dryland Corn(80 bu/A) . Soil NO.,-N• Soil organic matter(%) 0.6 125 95 75 0-1.0 1.1-2.0 >2.0 7.12 105 75 55 —Fertilizer rate(lb N/A)— 13-18 85 55 35 0.6 100 90 80 19-24 65 35 ' 15 7.12 50 40 30 25.30 45 15 0 >12 0 0 0 31-36 25 0 0 •Average concentration(ppm)NO-N in 0 to 2 ft soil layer >36 0 0 0 (see Table 1). For grain yields other than 175 bu/A,use the equation: •Sum of ppm NO,-N in 1-ft-sample depths to 2 feet(see Table 2) N rate i•35+11.2 x yield goal(bu/A)1-[8 x soil NO3-N]-[0.14 x (for sample depths of 1-R only,multiply the ppm value by 1.67 yield goal x%O.M]. before using the table). For silage,use the equation:N rate••35+[7.5 x yield goal -To adjust N rate for expected yields different from 100 bu/A,add or (tons/A)]-[S x soil NOr N]-[0.85 x yield goal x%O M]. subtract 20 lb N/A for each 10 bu/A difference. NOTE:Increase above rates by 40 lb N/A for the following counties: Alamosa,Conejos,Costilla,Rio Grande,and Saguache. Chapter 11 ' Waste Uriliration Part 651 Agricultural Waste Management • Field Handbook Total wastewater volume per year. tion.Application rate is calculated by dividing tons applied by the acres covered. 200x5x365=48,670 ft3 • 7.5 Tons applied =Application rate(tons/acre) • Application area Volume of precipitation=Average annual rainfall— Average annual evaporation N accounting: • 32-12=20 in. precipitation storage 6,216 tons• = 81 tons/ac 77 ac The 20 inches of precipitation translates to about 44,640 cubic feet.A waste storage pond with bottom Maximum utilization: dimensions of 60 by 200 feet,2:1 side slopes,and 12 feet deep would have a maximum surface area of 6,216 tons = 10 tons/ac 26,784 square feet.The annual precipitation storage is: 608 ac 20 in x 26,784 ft2=44,640 ft3 This is the answer to question 5. Total volume stored is: These application rates are almost equal to seven 3,000-gallon tank wagon loads(81 tons/acre)or less 113,880+48,670+44,640=207,190 ft3 than one 3,000-gallon tank wagon loads(10 tons/acre) per acre.The application rate of 81 tons per acre is higher than normally encountered,but the waste is Volume in acre-inches: fairly dilute.Salinity and ground water effects should be monitored. 207,190 ft3 x 12 in/ft x 1 ac = 57 ac—in 43,560 ft2 The following calculations demonstrate a method for adjusting waste applications to consider site charac- teristics. Volume of water that has been added per cubic foot of manure is: Application by tank wagon: Calculate the number of passes over the same ground (48,670 ft3+44,640 ft3)x 7.5 by the 3,000-gallon tank wagon to distribute the waste =6 gal/ft3 material. 113,880 Travel distance of one pass is determined by field Total solids(TS)of manure as produced equals 12.5 observation and verified by the producer to be 3,500 percent(table 4-5).Resultant TS with wastewater and feet.Average width of application is determined to be precipitation added equals 7 percent(fig. 11-2). 15 feet(outflow from tank is by gravity and varies with .0 head in tank).Area of application in acres: Calculate weight of stored material: 3,500x15= 52,500 ft2 =1.21 ac 207,190 ft3 x 601b/ft3 43,560 ft2/ac =6,216 tons 2,000 rrom step 8,use application area of 77 acres for N utilization and 608 acres for maximum waste uriliza- 11-30 (210-AWMFH,4/92) Table18. In-Iated r Deans 001b/A _COTES • Soil NO3-N Fertilizer me lb N/A • 0-10 50 11-20 30 • 21-30 10 >30 0 •Average concentration(ppm)NOS N in 0 to 1 ft soil layer. • Table 19. Irrigated Potatoes(400 cvrt/A). - Soil NOyN Fertilizer rate lb N/A 0-18 180 19-24 170 25.30 160 • - 31-36 150 >37 140 •Average concentration(ppm)NOr N in 0 to 1 ft soil layer. -Subtract 30 lb orN/A for each%soil organic matter above 1.0%. -For expected yields from 300 to 400 ewt/A,subtract 30 lb of N/A for each 50 cwt/A. Chapter 11 Waste Utilization Part 651 Agricultural Waste Management • Field Handbook Nutrients after storage losses=Total nutrients pro- Converting to fertilizer form: duced x fraction retained=Amount available for land application. N=1171b/ac • P2O5 =20x2.29=46 N=40,030x 0.65=26,020 lb K2O=29x1.21=35 P2O5=14,725x 0.80=11,780 K2O=28,604 x 0.80=22,883 Step 5a(2).Add to the plant requirements addi- tional nitrogen to replace anticipated denitrifica- Step 4. Determine the plant available nutrients. tion losses. Using table 11-9,estimate the amount of nutrients that From table 11-8 for a moderately well drained soil that will be available each year after the third consecutive has an organic matter content of 3 percent,the table year of application. gives a value of 26 percent denitrified..(Estimating 13 percent and doubling for manure give's 26 percent) Plant available nutrients=Amount applied x fraction available Nitrogen needed considering denitrification=Plant requirements from Step 5a(1)divided by the percent retained as a decimal after denitrification,which is 100 N=26,020 lb x 0.55 (est)=14,311 lb percent less the percent lost(from table 11-7).. P2O5=11,780x 0.90=10,602 K2O=22,883x0.93=21,281 N= 117 =1581b 0.74 This is the answer to question 1. An additional 41 pounds of nitrogen is needed to Note: 0.55 was used for nitrogen because in table 11-9 compensate for the anticipated denitrification losses. it fell between 0.68 for an open pond condition and 0.49 for a diluted waste storage pond. Step 5a(3).Add to the plant requirements addi- tional nitrogen to replace anticipated leaching Step 5. Determine the nutrients required by the losses. crop and soil to produce the yield goal. From table 11-7,for a leaching index of 6(6 inches of Generally,a soil analysis would be taken and the State annual percolation below the root zone),the estimated Cooperative Extension Service recommendation loss is 10 percent.This means 90 percent of the nitro- would be used,but for illustrative purposes the gen would be retained.Divide the amount of nitrogen method to estimate nutrient requirements given in required from step 5a(2)by the percent retained chapter 6 will be used. An example in chapter 6 pro- (0.90)to increase the nitrogen to provide adequate vides the nutrients removed by the harvest of 130 nitrogen for the plant after losses anticipated from bushels of corn. leaching. Step 5a(1).Estimate the amount of nutrients Nitrogen=Nitrogen required anticipating denitrifica- removed by the crop using table 6-6. tion losses divided by the percent retained(as a deci- mal)after leaching losses. (See section 651.0606(b),Nutrient uptake example.) N=1171b/ac N= 09=1761b P=20 K =29 An additional 18 pounds of nitrogen is needed to compensate for the anticipated leaching losses. 11-28 (210-AWMFH,4/92) Haste Utilization Part 651 Chapter 11 >'icultural Waste Management <.eld Handbook The optimum time for nutrient application based on (a) Nutrient losses figure 11-10 would be late in winter or early in spring. so the nutrients will be readily available to plants.If Nutrient losses can be grouped into two general catego- the nutrients in a waste material are less available, ries—those from the manure before it is incorporated such as with manure solids mixed with bedding giving into the soil and those within the soil after incorporation. a higher C:N ratio,incorporating the waste late in fall or early in winter allows additional time for the waste To ac amount c the g rately deterriine the,samples collected nt the soil to mineralize,releasing nutrients as the plants begin growing in the spring.The objective is to match the surface y is nt be t analyzed. n done, the Because this can procedure esti- the timing of the nutrients nutrient uptake requirement with generalmated using procedures that follow.Tabular values release of nutrients from the manure. and calculations are included to demonstrate account- ing for the major nutrients in manure. • Figure 11-40 Example of a water budget for winter wheat Annual • Average i (inches) 6.0I t'� precipitation it 4.0 .4.,,„,,„ „,,,,..„ . "f„ t1 A rr 4.>? S �> ..,,,,.....,,::, ® T .,..„).„,:ty,,,„,,,,„:„.„:,„,,,,_,;,.,... {F�v.�!C ,� 3i YiYL� �.® • 2.0 ' '( l .S,---.,.... ,.x ! .:1 Yom. l trati .4 f:® ' evapotransplratton 4 - Sloz Akt,ro' ST r r '`;t. : °3°i� „ 17x,12 S 1O i. J , - y 1y l.0 i L Y rf'e :Si:tit:::. �. p. .�y X•' }+M » 17 t . - e. ,tit .v rCiff:ap 4.;`/A:-..... ;-4.2-';. ti. r t< � +f,Stl' i t Y v es 't •c • ' 7 ��;.;}'l .. .rzt'3[t^ .... . • . . P .' r:.. +i a4; le yp ` v 4 '4r ' ❑ la qt 3 fc " KRY.4h �q t M K } 2.0 y,>•61y tt a •'tS 4>ni 44 41 S'>' 3 t '.fa `.4 i' 4.0 ....eat f.• .. .t 4Y ��L '�4wSS S r �C� r`) -, -7.,.;:c44-4,*et Y •i 'c Yt.-r 6.0 I Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Month 11-17 (210-AWMFH,4/92) Chapter 11 Waste Utilization Part 651 Agricultural Waste Management Field Handbook • Step 7. Select nutrient for calculation of manure Nitrogen applications in excess of plant requirements application rates. should not be practiced because of the environmental and health problems that can occur.In some situations Consider the soil test levels,crop requirements,'and the amount of land available is not adequate to use the environmental vulnerability in selecting the critical total quantities of nutrients in the waste.Alternatives nutrient for calculating application rates of manure. - should be explored to use the excess manure pro- The ratio of the nutrients(N,P2O6,ICZO)in the ma- duced.Some possibilities are additional land acquisi- nure can be compared with the ratio of plant nutrients tion,agreement to apply on neighboring farms,de- required.If ratio imbalance is present,every effort crease in animal numbers,composting and off-farm should be made to minimize applications that exceed sales,refeeding of waste,mechanical separation and soil test limits or crop requirements. reuse of solids as bedding,and treatment to increase the nutrient losses in environmentally safe ways.It Step 8. Compute the acres on which manure can also may be possible to change the cropping rotation be applied to use the nutrients available. for greater utilization of the nutrients. • Using the critical nutrient selected(step 7),divide the If no solution is apparent,a more detailed planning amount of plant available nutrients in the manure effort should be considered to formulate another (step 4)by the amount of nutrients required per acre alternative for the agricultural waste management for production of the-crop(step 6).This is the number system.(See chapter 2.)State and local laws,rules, of acres that will be supplied by the selected nutrients and regulations regarding land application of organic for crop production.Supplemental nutrients may have materials must be met. to be supplied from other sources(for example,com- 3rcial fertilizer)to complete the total crop and soil Example 11-6: requirements for the selected yield goal. Given: 200 lactating dairy cows in central Wisconsin, average weight 1,200 pounds,are confined all year.All Step 9.Determine application rate of manure. manure and milking parlor/milkhouse wastewater are pumped into an uncovered waste storage pond(SCS Solid,semi-solid,and slurry manure—Determine the Practice Code 425). The bottom of the pond is 60 by application rate.Divide the weight of manure to be 200 feet,and the maximum operating depth is 12 feet applied in tons by the acres required(step 8)to give Side slopes are 2:1.Milking parlor plus milk-house tons per acre. wastewater amount equals 5 gal/cow/day. Manure is applied every spring and plowed down within 1 day. Liquid manure—These computations assume that the No runoff from holding areas or adjoining fields is manure has been diluted enough to act as a liquid. allowed to flow into the pond.Land is used for grain Field application is normally by pipelines and sprin- corn and has received manure for a number of years. klers,but the manure can be hauled and applied.To Mean annual precipitation is 32 inches,evaporation determine the application rate, divide the volume of from the pond surface is 12 inches,and the 25-year, manure and liquids to be applied in acre-inches by the 24-hour storm is 6 inches. acres required(step 8)to give acre-inches per acre. Soils on the sites for waste application are moderately Step 10.Further considerations. well drained silt loam and have a leaching index of 6(6 inches percolates below the root zone)and an organic Where the application rates solely based on one nutri- matter content of 3 percent.The yield goal for grain ent result in excessive amounts of other nutrients,the corn is 130 bushels per acre.The soils are subject to long-term impact must be considered. Continual frequent flooding and have 10 percent,by volume, overapplication of phosphorus or potassium may not rock fractions that are greater than 3 inches in diam- ho detrimental in soils that have a high affinity to eter.Slopes range up to 10 percent A 3,000 gallon tank sorb and hold these nutrients from erosion and wagon is available for spreading the liquid manure. leaching. Yet in soils that do not have these holding characteristics,the contamination of water bodies is a potential hazard. 11-26 (210-AWMFH.4' 2) Waste Utilization Part 651 Chapter 11 'cultural Waste Management s-.=id Handbook Table 11-5 shows nutrients remaining for manure that ization process does take place.Mineralization is has been stored or treated.It includes the consider- discussed in this chapter. ation of losses during the collection process. (i)Leaching—As discussed earlier,nitrogen in the Losses in the application process can be estimated nitrate form is soluble and can pass through the root using the information in table 11-6.These losses are in zone with percolating water.Water moving into the addition to those considered in forming table 11-5. soil profile from rainfall,snow memeltP profile.Losses n are drive soluble nutrients through Timing of waste incorporation is critical to conserving to be minimized by applying organic materials in the nitrogen in the manure.Volatilization loses in- amounts that the plants can use.The applications crease with time,higher temperature,wind,and low should be before or at the time of plant uptake and in humidity.To minimize volatilization losses,manure harmony with the water budget. . should be incorporated before it dries.The allowable In irrigated areas,good water management is needed time climate.e Manure a a re appliedficant loss occurs cool,wet varies doesw the to prevent excessive leaching of soluble nutrients. edilynd thus does not to o aril zf soils ral not dry will occur,however,if excess irrigation readily and thus does volatilize for several days. Some leaching Manure applied to hot, dry soil dries quickly and loses water is used to flush salts below the root zone. most of the ammonia fraction within 24 hours,particu- larly if there is a hot,dry wind. The nutrient management plan must be developed with considerations to minimize leaching losses.In If the manure has been stored under anaerobic condi- - addition to the water dbudget,op pike te of manure eappli- tions,more than 50 percent of the total nitrogen is in cation,its timing, nt the ammonium form,which readily volatilises on I must be considered.The Soil Leaching Index referred drying and is lost.Dried manure,such as that from a from section II of the Field Office Technical Guide feedlOTG)is to be used in developing the manure utili7a- much in an and n u nitrogen climate,has already lost ti ro to estimate nitrate leaching.Table 11-7 much of its ammonium nitrogen through formation of lion p �l ammonia gas.There is little additional loss with time. should oan dnonly bg,as shown eused tin o provide e general guidance in (2 i After incorporation is a weighted SO:::e nitrogen losses occur within the soil after ma- The Leaching Index(LI) seasonably onaal.The hued nure has been incorporated.Nitrogen is lost from the estimate of nitrogen leaching p otrobabil- soil primarily by leaching and denitrification;however, ity of onents I.I. leaching ch obeotw the 2 inches zone is e - dent organic nitrogen must be transformed or mineralizedn 2 to LI ofless a10 inches is a unlikely o for this to happen.Losses of phosphorus and potas- contributeont to a problem, slum are minimal after incorporation,but the mineral- contributor, and more than 10 inches is a likely con- tributor(Williams&Kissel 1991). Table 11-6 Percentage of nitrogen of that in the applied manure still potentially available to the soil(Ammonia volatilization ® causes the predicted losses)(Willrich,et_al. 1974) Application method Percentage remaining/delivered Injection "' 95 Sprinkling 75 Broadcast(fresh solids) Soil conditions Days between application warm dry warm wet cool wet and incorporation 1 70 90 4 60 SO 06 7 or more 50 70 90 11-19 (210-AWMFH.4/92) Chapter 11 Waste Utilization Part 651 Agricultural Waste Management Field Handbook • total available nutrients for a year from applications Step 5 should be used when waste analysis,soil tests, • made in previous years.Use the value of year 3 for and State Cooperative Extension Service recommenda- each subsequent year past year 3 that manure is am tions are available.This is the best basis for managing plied.Multiply the mineralization factor for each of the nutrients.Proceed to step 5a if needed data are not nutrients by the total nutrients ready for land applica- available.The use of step 5a is not recommended for lion(from step 3). calculating a nutrient budget for a nutrient management plan,but may be used for general planning and estimat- Step 5.Determine the nutrients required by the ing land application area requirements.The variation in crop and soil to produce the yield goal. nitrogen availability would cause discrepancies(either deficits or excess)in nitrogen recommendations. Figure 11-11 Nitrogen transformation in the accounting procedure Nutrients -available for crop Nutrients(N)needed production for crop production Step 1 4 Manure generated r I Step 5a(1) Plant harvest step Plant p Ste 2 Step 64(2) N Wastewater and Step 5 Denitrificatlon step 1 feed added Cooperative Step 5a(3) NO3_- NZ State Extension Leaching losses step Volatilization NH Service Step 6a(4) NO3 a Ste p 3 recommendation Additions from Denitrification N2'` Nutrients(N)loss other sources • L in storage or treatment 4 j Volatilization NH3 Step 4 Step 6 / Mineralization of Nutrients(N)compensated manure to for application losses Plant available Total nutrient required nutrients to produce crop • • Step 7 Controlling nutrient selection j Step S Acres required to utilize nutrients(N) (step 4/step 6) Step 9 Determine • application rate Recommendation to land Step 10 Further manager or make adjustments considerations and go through the accounting procedure again 11-24 (210-AWMFH,4/92) Waste Utilization Part 651 Chapter 11 '•g icuhural Waste Management ,eld Handbook A higher percentage of the total nitrogen in manure Although not as well documented as the nitrogen hips exist r phosphorus incorporated into the soil is converted to inorganic cycle,and,to some extent,foar cyclic r potassium.si ml.Theominelahzation nitrogen in the first year than in the second.More is for phosphorus converted in the second year than in the third year.. rat than that for arilnitro potassium reflectingea generally more - This occurs because the easily biodegradable part is rapid n of the nutrients in available form as excreted. mineralized quickly and the residue is mineralized slowly.Soil micro-organisms use the part of the waste that gives them the most energy first and the.part that Table 11-9 displays the rate of mineralization of nitro- yields the least energy last.Again,the urine fraction is gen,phosphorus,and potassium for some typical used first and the feces part last manures and management conditions.As has been previously discussed,the rate of mineralization for Research data on mineralization are limited.Pratt nitrogen is proportional to the amount of the nutrient (1976)found the'decay series for fresh bovine manure application.conserved in waste collection,storage,treatment,and • . incorporated daily to be 0.75;0.15;0.10;0.05.This means that 75 percent of the incorporated nitrogen becomes available the first year, 15 percent of the Microbial activity necessary for nitrogen mineraliza- remaining nitrogen becomes available in the second lion is dependent on soil moisture.The mineralization year, 10 percent of the remainder in the third year,and is soil where ccelera the profile is dry s coe ed in moist soils as par d to the fsame r so on.Theoretically,with enough time almost 1000 percent of the incorporated nitrogen will be converted nseitrogen nd oul be rewherduced irrigation 1s not cent i and and to the inorganic form. mineralization rates should be used if data are available. For example,if fresh cattle manure is applied every year at the rate of 100 pounds of total nitrogen per acre,75 pounds(75 percent)will be available the first (c) Nutrient requirements year. In year 2, 15 percent of the remaining 25 pounds becomes available,or 4 pounds(rounded from 3.75). Manure can provide part,all,or even excessive amounts of the nutrients required for plant production.The amount of nutrients required by plants must be deter- available In the second year,second c manure,7 pounds will also.Thus, mined as part of the nutrient management program. from the application. 79 pounds are available in year 2.The nitrogen avail- able in the third year would be the sum of that avail- able from year 3,year 2,and year 1. • Table 11-S Approximate N denitrification estimates for various soils—See footnote e Randall adjustments 9 ents because of tillage, manure N,irrigation,drainage,and special soil conditions(Meisinger' g drained Soil drainage classification Somewhat Poorly Soil organic Well Moderately matter content Excessively drained well drained poorly drained drained well % %of inorganic N(fert.,precip.)denitrified* a 6-20 10-30 <2 2-4 3-- 6 4-14 6-20 10-25 15-45 2-5 3-g 4-116 25--55 >5 4-12 6-20 10-25 15-35 use one class wetter drainage;for manure N,double all poorly ationorhumldVery «values;for t d,manure,irrigation,use class a special soils a e;follows:p: For no-tilla use ge,u, for soils with compacted,cli- mates,values;for tile drained u soils,n o one g better drainage;for paddyced culture, use values lalues at lower end of�rangefor irrigation perveablalupperlaw plow l depth,buariabrse 4 semi-arid e p use permeable layer below depth,but above 4 feet deep,use one class wetter drainage. 11-21 (210-AWMFH,4/92) • • Chapter 11 Waste Urn 7ation Part 651 Agricultural Waste Management Field Handbook The most effective way to determine the crops'needs Srategy 1—Management for maximum nutrient is to develop a nutrient management plan based on the efficiency.The rate of application is based on the Nutrient Management conservation practice standard nutrient available at the highest level to meet the (590).The standard uses the components of a nutrient crop's needs.For most animal waste,this element is balance program starting with setting yield goals,soil phosphorus.The manure rate is calculated to meet the and manure analysis,and plant nutrient availability for- requirement of phosphorus,and additional amounts of the growing season.A nutrient budget worksheet can nitrogen and potassium are added from other sources be used to collect and calculate the information (generally commercial fertilizers).This rate is most needed for a nutrient management plan.The local conservative and requires the greater supplement of State Cooperative Extension Service values for crop fertilizer,but applies nutrients in the quantities that do recommendations,yield productions,manure nutrient not exceed the recommended rates for the crop. mineralization rates,and soil test results can be used on the worksheet. Strategy 2—Management for maximum applica- tion rate of manure.The most abundant element in Two strategies can be used for manure utilization: 1) the manure,generally nitrogen,is used to the greatest management for maximum nutrient efficiency,and 2) extent possible.The manure rate is calculated to meet management for maximum application rate of manure. the nitrogen need of the crop.This maximizes the Table 11-9 General mineralization rates for nitrogen,phosphorus,and potassium* \ e and management Years after initial application 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 Nitrogen Phosphorus Potassium Percent available(accumulative) Fresh poultry manure 90 92 93 80 88 93 85 93 98 Fresh swine or cattle manure 75 79 81 80 88 93 85 93 98 Layer manure from pit storage 80 82 83 80 88 93 85 93 98 Swine or cattle manure stored 65 70 73 75 85 90 80 88 93 in covered storage Swine or cattle manure stored 60 66 68 75 85 90 80 88 93 in open structure or pond (undiluted) Cattle manure with bedding 60 66 68 75 85 90 80 88 93 stored in roofed area affluent from lagoon or diluted 40 46 49 75 85 90 80 88 93 waste storage pond "` \lanure stored on open lot, 50 55 57 80 8S 93 85 93 98 cool-humid \lanure stored on open lot, 45 50 53 75 85 90 80 88 93 hot-arid Table assumes annual applications on the same site.If a one time application,the decay series can be estimated by subtracting year I from year 2 and year 2 from year 3.For example,the decay series for nitrogen from fresh poultry manure would be 0.90,0.02,0.01;the decay series for phosphorus from manure stored in open lot,cool-humid,would be 0.80,0.08 and 0.05.The decay rate becomes essentially constant after 3 years. 1-22 (210-AWMFH,4/92) Chapter 11 waste Utilization Agricultural Waste,•,anagemen[ Field Handbook hos- Step 2. Add nutrients in wastewater, dropped application rate of manure,but will over apply p d added bedding. phorus and potassium for the crop's requirement.Over feed, an the long term this will lead to an undesirable accumw Wastewater,such as feedlot runoff,mincing center lation of plant nutrients in the soil. waste,and other process water,may also be applied to the soil for recycling of the contained nutrients(see the worksheets in chapter 10).As a general rule, (d) Nutrient aecouniing nitrogen tends to be more a part of the liquid compo- The nutrients available for plant growth can be deter- nent of waste,while phosphorus and potassium are procedure.A procedure for part of the solids.See appropriate tables in chapter 4 mined byin an accounting for the nutrient content of wastewater.Because of the determining acre for r solids application in wet tons(actual variability caused by dilution,feeding,and climate,winches per liquids is n slurries and in acre- wastewater samples should be analyzed to determine inches per reasonable for included.The , the nutrient content. Convert the elemental nutrients. is res needed for estimating ppicai the available applicationnut at . given in the tables in chapter 4 to fertilizer equivalents acres needed for application,and rates. P2O5,IC2O). Variability of manure,differences in site and climate 3. Subtract nutrients lost during storage. conditions, and the lack of localized research data are Step factors that influence accuracy of estimates.However, Account for all losses of nutrients in the manure d m to minimize-influences of manure throughout the and process roi will help the time excreteds until it s in be app Bence i in the accounting of methods provide confi- the field.Table 11-5 gives a range of nutrients retained dente the method. , in the manure that has been stored or treated by various methods.Multiply the percent retained(table The ions applications series and the accounting of for v 11-5)by the total nutrients from step 2 to obtain the previous the farm twne /o manure kemep adequate of no value unless farm owner/operator keeps adequate nutrient value after storage and at the time of field records over the years so the history of each field is application. known.If the owner/operator does not have records, 4.Determine the plant available nutrients the soil should be tested or the application should be Step adjusted on the basis of experience or crop yie lds. contained in the manure. Use State Cooperative Extension Service information, if available,to determine the fraction of the plant (e) Accountia<g procedure available nutrients that will be released by the manure Figure 11-11 displays the following steps for nitrogen over the first crop growing season.A manure analysis that gives results as plant available nutrients(PAN)is preferred.A large fraction of the inorganic nitrogand en Step 1. Estimate nutrients in the excreted ma- (the ammonium and nitrate),phosphorus, epee. potas- sium are plant available the first year.Only a part of The starting point for all calculations is to estimate the the organic nitrogen(the total nitrogen minus the total nutrient content of the manure as excreted.Use inorganic nitrogen)is broken down by micro-organ- State Cooperative Extension Service research or local isms each year and made available to the plants.If information to derive the nutrient concentration(N, localized data are not available,use table11-9.It give: P2Oin the manure.If manure tests or local values for mineralization rates of nitrogen,oho for infoatiorus,and potassium following land app informaton is not available,use tables du in chapter 4 several wastes and management options.The values i that animals.s the he wori nutrient chapter 10 for various the columns represent the mineralization rate(plant availability)of one year's manure application over a Use the worksheets in chapter 10 to compute ,with manure production. three consecutive year period of cropping ear e addi- tional manure application occurring each ygar e the values in table 11-9 are accumulative, i - (21PAWMFH,4/92) Chapter 11 Waste Utilization Part 651 Agricultural Waste Management • Field Handbook • Nutrient management practices and techniques must from the organic state.The inorganic forms are solu- be applied on soils that have a high leaching index.See ble and available for plant uptake.The rate of conver- the FOTG for guidance. sion is called the mineralization or decay rate and is generally expressed as a decay series in terms of (ii)Denitrlcation—Nitrogen can also be lost from percent change of the original amount the root zone through denitrification.This occurs when nitrogen in the nitrate form is subject to anaero- The rate for nitrogen mineralization depends on the bic activity.If an energy source is available in the form of carbon(and it generally is within the root zone)and • concentration of total nitrogen in the manure, • if other conditions favor the growth of anaerobic • amount in the urea or uric acid form(organic bacteria,the bacteria will convert the nitrates to the nitrogen in the urine fraction), gaseous form as nitrous oxide or nitrogen gas,which • temperature and moisture conditions, then escapes into the atmosphere.Because manure is • amount of organic N(or mineralizable N) more carbonaceous than commercial fertilizer and already in the soil,and carbon is a common energy source,some denitrifica- • C:N ratio. lion will most likely occur. Nitrogen is excreted in various forms,depending on Anaerobic conditions in the soil generally are con- the animal(Conn&Stumpf 1972).Fish excrete sub- trolled by soil watertontent(reflected in soil drainage stantial amounts of nitrogen as ammonia(NI)).Birds, classes)and available soil carbon(reflected in soil . including poultry,excrete a high percentage as uric organic matter levels).Table 11—8 gives a gross esti- acid.Mammals excrete about half of their nitrogen in mate of the percent denitrification from all inorganic urine as urea and the rest in the feces as undigested •ogen in soils related to various drainage classes organic matter and synthesized microbial cells a-a organic matter content.This table assumes that (Azevedo&Stout 1974).Uric acid and urea are un- nitrate concentrations are not limited,denitrifying stable and are rapidly metabolized by micro-organisms microbes are present,and temperature is suitable for and converted to the inorganic form,ammonium.The denitrification. feces,however,is mineralized much more slowly. Poultry manure has a faster mineralization rate than (b) Nutrient mineralli ration cattle or swine manure because it has a higher concen- tration of nitrogen,mostly in the form of uric add. Once manure is in the soil,the nutrients available to a Fresh manure has a faster mineralization rate than that plant depend on the rate of mineralization(converted of old manure because it contains a higher percentage to the inorganic form)and from the amount remaining of the nitrogen in the urea form.Urea is easily trans- after losses through leaching and denitrification. formed to ammonia Generally manure that has a Organic and inorganic manure nutrients are in the soil. higher concentration of nitrogen mineralizes faster The amount of inorganic nutrients available from than that with a low concentration. manure depends on the rate of biological conversion The mineralization rate can also be affected by the C:N ratio.See chapter 4 for some selected C:N values of Table 11-7 An estimate of inorganic nitrogen losses to manure.The common C:N ratio of excreted manure is leaching related to the soil Leaching Index* below 20:1.If straw,sawdust, or other high carbon to nitrogen materials are used for bedding,the C:N ratio Leaching index Inorganic N >losses by leaching of the resulting material becomes higher and more of the nitrogen becomes immobilized by the micro- organism into the organic component.This nitrogen <9 5 tied up by the microbes becomes less available for .0 10 plant uptake during this interval. Consideration should >10 15 be given to compensate for this temporary lag in nitrogen mineralization from the manure when devel- •This table should be used to provide general guidance in planning. oping the nutrient management plan. 11-20 (210-AWMFH,4/92) Chapter 11 Waste Utnization Part 651 'ricultural Waste Management -.eld Handbook State Cooperative Extension Service guidelines for Leaching losses are difficult to estimate on a nutrient requirements are based on soil tests, crop site specific basis because it is dependent on yields, and local field trials.Soil fertility recommenda- local information,such as rainfall and nutrient tions are given in Extension bulletins and on soil test additions.Local data maybe available from reports. field trial and nitrogen prediction models,such - as NLEAP(Nitrate Leaching and Economic Step 5a.In lieu of a soil test or local State Coopera- Analysis Package)(Shaffer et al. 1991).Leach- live Extension Service crop nutrient recommendation, ing losses may range from 5 to 40 percent of an estimate can be made of the nutrient requirements the inorganic nitrogen available in the soil to produce the crop at the yield goal set.The estimate profile. accounts for the removal of the nutrients in the har- vested crop and the anticipated loss because of deni- 4. Because additions to the nitrogen pool occur, trification and leaching in the soil,but nutrient addi- they must be considered so that nutrients are • tions can also occur.No attempt is made to account not over applied.The sources of additional for losses caused by erosion,volatilization,or immobi- ' nitrogen are: lization. • Mineralisation of soil organic matter 1. Estimate the amount of nutrient removed by • Atmospheric deposition the harvested plant materials.Table 6-6 in • Residue mineralization chapter 6 provides an estimate of the nutrients • Irrigation water concentration in the harvested part of the crop. • Credits from legumes Multiply the yield goal by the volume weight(in pounds per unit measure)and the fraction of / No adjustment for any of these additions are in the nutrient concentration.The values for the example,but they can be substantial.These phosphorus and potassium are expressed in the additions need to be subtracted from the esti- elemental form and must be converted to P2O5 mated nitrogen needed.General values for and IC2O. nitrogen mineralized per acre from soil organic matter(SOM)are 40 pounds per year for each 1 2. Add to the plant material requirement the soil percent of SOLI.Nitrogen from atmospheric potential for denitrification.Table 11—8 pro- deposition ranges up to 26 pounds per acre per vides a rough estimate of potential denitrifica- year. (Local data must be available before tion losses that can be expected for a specific adding this value).Legumes can result in an- field condition.This estimate is for the inor- other 30 to 150 pounds of nitrogen per acre per ganic fraction of the nitrogen available from year.Irrigation additions can be estimated by the manure during the growing season and multiplying the nitrogen concentration in parts dependent on the soil drainage class and soil per million by the quantity of water applied in organic matter content.It is also dependent on acre-inches by 0.227.Additions of nutrients the conditions in the soil being present for form crop residue may be calculated using denitrification to take place.Only nitrogen will information in table 6-6,and manure residual undergo this process. release of nutrients is given in table 11-9. 3. Add to the plant material requirement and Step 6. Compute increased nitrogen to compen- denitrification potential loss the potential loss sate for application losses. that could occur when nitrate nitrogen leaches below the root zone.Table 11-7 provides Table 11-6 is used to estimate the volatilization of estimates of the percent of the inorganic nitro- ammonium nitrogen that can occur when manure is gen applied that can be lost by leaching based applied to the soil. on the Leaching Index.Adding steps 5a 1,2, and 3 gives an estimate of the nitrogen balance in the system.Again,phosphorus and potas- sium are not considered. (2taAW vtFH,4/92) 1t-25 f the ot Calcium sulfate reduces nitrogen loss from ma- sampling oRestore dl otrfa suce to anticipate re- and ate re- nure. Calcium nitrate «ill increase nitrogen content q in manure. Other chemicals. such as calcium chloride ment to peak working effectiveness as the dust season and waste oils, hinder the resale value of manure. approaches. then maintain it in good repair through- Chemicals provided little or no dust control in out the period of use. Keep backup equipment availa- Arizona research. In California research, calcium sul- ble. Repair service capabilities should be no longer fate(gypsum)applied to a feedlot surface at the rate of than two days. r 0.36 pounds per square yard showed some potential Thet ion. EitherC means of edlottdust control is water obil for dust control. However. the cost was 50 to 50 appiTh mint can be effective. percent more than for treatment with water. e4 P Chemicals may be more effective and practical in Fyards most s control isis t periodic Plains lai st feed- controlling dust from feed alleys. roads and loading. .adwere dust consbile equipmentf is ariofic ather than a unloading areas around the feedlot, rather than the perennial feedlot surface itself. Other materials commonly used itv' with well-planned water loading facilities viill be for roadways include waste petroleum oils, coarse effThv op erating cost of dust control equipment is gravel and asphalt. A mixture of 240 pounds of cal- P cium nitrate, 3 gallons of glycerine and 47 gallons of not appreciably different for either mobile equipment water has also been recommended for this purpose: or permanent considered, sprinklerlers,systemst when cost threetimestmore. Summary Both methods cost substantially less than calcium sulfate, the most effective chemical. Dust from cattle feeding operations can be reason- Recommendations ably controlled by conventional methods. These Fmmow these steps to control feedlot dust: methods require dedicated management, skilled op- 1. Remove excess manure from the feedlot surface as eratiori and adequate financing. The most important steps in dust control are dry weather approaches. Keep loose manure pad attacking the problem early and maintaining steady less than 2 inches deep. control. This requires periodic inspection or moisture 2. plan water distribution system to insure uniform coverage of at least 75 percent of the unshaded pen area. i. csc- -* a0Lc y.'r ' •ccu „c- •,...--- 3. Apply water to the feedlot surface at the rate of "•` c one-half gallon per day per square yard (or 0.09 ,- '"" inches per day) using mobile or stationary equip- ment. Begin water treatment before dust actually reaches the problem stage. Initial applications on a dry feedlot surface may require mice this amount :- until manure moisture levels reach 25 percent. 4. Control dust on roads and alleyways usingFoarse g gravel, waste oils, chemicals or water. 5. To control fly breeding, avoid watering vacant pens or ovenvatering beneath fencelines or feed- ; ,, _ bunks. Correct improper pen drainage to avoid wet spots where odors and fly breeding also occur. 6. When necessary and feasible, temporarily de- o-- o x a a is n n u x° xx x• x• r . cattle m nsurates with increase anure constraints is- nut /°Ll°w1•E +a rst.L 1o•+xi cure. commensurate r tion r Typical daily wet- removal by ecapo- and animal health considerations. Installation of ration from surface of-wet- and "dry" soil (Olton portable may facilitate animal density ad- clay loam). ustme • October 1979 • General Guidelines for Design of Sprinkler System for Feedlot Dust Control By John M. Sweeten, Ph.D. , P.E. " Extension Agricultural Engineer- Waste Management Texas Agricultural Extension Service General Recommendations for Dust Control 1 . Provide 80-1005 sprinkler coverage of surface of feedpens, cattle alleys and working pens. . 2. Sprinkle once or twice daily in dry season as needed. 3. Start dry season by removing loose, powdery surface manure. 4. Apply water at 1/4 to 1 .0 gal/sq yds/day as needed (400-1600 gal/ acre/day) . This amounts to 0.05 to 0. 19 inches/day. With daily manure moisture, this should match evaporation rate of 0.25 to 0.35 inches/ • day. 5. Select moderate to high operating pressure (50-60 PSI) , small diameter nozzles (1/8-3/16") and close spacings (45 x 45 ft. grid) to give small droplet sizes and uniform coverage. 6. Provide water supply and distribution system to provide at least 27 gpm/acre of feedlot surface. This is same as applying 1 gal/sq. yd/day at 60 min/day operating time. For instance, to sprinkle 25 acre section of the feedlot in 60 min per day, a pump output of 675 gpm will be needed. To reduce the pumping rate and pipe sizes , the feedlot can be divided into sections, with automatic valves used to cycle from one section of the feedlot to the next. 7 . Select pipe sizes from hydraulic engineering tab a 25 acre feedlot an 8" main line should be used to supply 675 gpm section. Lateral lines can be smaller and reduced in size downstream as water is dispersed through the system. Design steps: 1 . Select water application rates (gal/day/acre) and schedules (min/day) . 2. Select sprinkler nozzle sizes, spacings , and pressures. 3. Select riser pipe sizes. Design guards to protect sprinkler nozzles and riser pipes from cattle damage. 4. Determine optimum layout, sizes and materials for lateral lines (tradeoff between head loss vs. cost) . 5. Determine size, materials and location for main water supply pipes. 6. Select pump that provides pressure & flow rate established from above steps. 7 . Repeat, if necessary steps 1-6, working from downstream to upstream end of the system. • • Chapter 11 - Waste Utilization Part 651 Agricultural Waste Management Field Handbook (1) Before incorporation increase with the length of storage or treatment. Nutrient losses from manure before incorporation into Microbial activity almost ceases when the temperature the soil vary widely,depending on the method of falls below 41°F(5°C).Thus most volatilization collection,storage,treatment,and application.These losses cease in the fall and do not resume again until losses must be considered when calculating the • spring.This is a natural conservation phenomenon. amount of nutrients available for plant uptake. Climate- and management have the greatest effect on the Local information should be used if available.In the losses.Volatilization losses are more rapid during • absence of local data,tables 11-5 and 11-6 give esti- warm weather and as the wind increases.They also mates that may be used. Table 11-5 Percent of original nutrient content of manure retained by various management systems orsnoraior Management system Beef ----Dairy Poultry---- Swine N P K NPK N P K N P K Percent Manure stored in open lot, 55-70 70-8055-70 70-8585-95 85-95 55-70 65-80 55-70 cool,humid region i nure stored in open lot, 40-60 70-8055-70 55-7085-95 85-95 hot,and region Manure liquids and solids stored 70-85 85-9585-95 70-8585-95 85-95 75-85 85-95 8595 in a covered,essentially watertight structure Manure liquids and solids stored 60-75 80-9080-90 65-75 80-90 80-90 70-75 80-90 80-90 in an uncovered,essentially watertight structure Manure liquids and solids 65-80 80-95 80.95 • (diluted less than 50%) held in waste storage pond Manure and bedding held in 65-8080-95 80-95 55-70 80-95 80-95 roofed storage Manure and bedding heltLin 55-75 7585 75-85 unroofed storage,leachate lost Manure stored in pits beneath 70-85 85-9585-95 70-8590-95 90-95 80-90 90-95 90-95 70-85 90-95 90-95 slatted floor Manure treated in anaerobic 20-35 35-50 50-65 20-3535-50 50-65 20-30 35-50 50-60 2020 35-50 50-60 L _ ,on or stored in waste storage pond after being diluted more than 50% - 11-18 (210-AWMFH,4/92) Waste Utilization n.j- 651 Chapter 11 icultural Waste Management Field Handbook • Questions: Estimate the nitrogen,phosphorus,and potassium 1. What is the amount of nutrients available after involved to be equal to the values provided in table 4-6 mineralization(assume 3 consecutive years of of.67 , and 2.5I0OIlbflnt 0o00 ga to acc of ountater.ing d application)? be- 2. What are the net n,and nutrients after leach- cahour ,ever,the answer will e some manure still be reasonable and ing,denitrification,and other losses? •3. Estimate the area required,based on nitrogen slightly conservative. . being the critical nutrient. 4. What area would be required to use the maxi- Nutrients in the wastewater=Number doer of animals x)x daily mum amount of nutrients? daily wastewater production(g 5. What is the application rate in tons per acre for nutrient production(lb. of nutrient/1,000 gal.)x no.of the area that would provide maximum nutrient days. utilization? 6. What number of passes per day with the tank N 200 x 5 x 1.67 x 365 6101b wagon would be required to apply the manure? 1,0�—_ 7. For an irrigation system design,determine the 200x 5x 0.ga x 365_ total depth of wastewater application for P= 3001b nutrients that have nitrogen control,and assess 1,000 gal adjustments needed for phosphorus control. K_ 200x 5 365=9101b • 1,000 gal Solution: Step 1.Estimate the total nutrients (NPK)in the Total nutrients produced: excreted manure. Nutrients per storage period=Number of animals x Total N =39,420+610=40,030 lb weight(lb)x daily nutrient production(lb/day/1,000 Total P =6,130+300=6,430 lb lb)x storage period(days). Total K =22,780+910=23,690 lb Nutrient values for as excreted dairy cow manure are Converting to fertilizer form: obtained from table 4-5,chapter 4. Total N =40,030 lb N_200 x 1,200 x 0.45x 365=39,420 lb Total P2O5=6,430x 2.29=14,725 1,000 Total K2O=23,640x1.21=28,604 200x 1,200 x 0.07x 365=6,130 lb P= 1,000 200 x 1,200 x 0.26x 365=22 Step 3. Subtract nutrients lost during storage. K= 7801b 1,000 From table 11-5,estimate values using entry for"ma- nure liquids and solids held in waste storage pond Step 2. Add nutrients contained in wastewater. (diluted less than 50 percent)."The lower values should be used because dilution is about equal to 50 ot No field runoff enters the waste storage pond.Nutri- percent.Multiply the percent retained(from table 11-5) ents in the parlor/milkhouse wastewater are calculated by the total nutrients from step 2 to compute the amount of nutrients remaining after the storage losses. as follows: Based on observations and using table 4-6 as a guide, 5 gal/cow/day was estimated to be representative. L1-27 (216.AWMFH,4192) • MANURE NUTRIENT CONTENT AND AVAILABILITY • Table A. Nutrient content of solid manures in Colorado (based on 1996 manure survey). _ Manure Source Total N P2O5 K2O lb/ton (fresh wt.) -- Beef • 23 24 41 Dairy • 13 16 34 Sheep • 29 26 38 Horse 19 14 36 Chicken 30 64 39 Llama 31 27 44 Turkey compost 38 80 46 Dairy compost 16 18 37 Table B. Approximate fraction of total N available to plants in the first year after solid manure application (assuming incorporation within 24 hours). Manure Source Fraction of total N available in the first year Beef .40 Dairy .40 Sheep .30 Horse (with bedding) .20 Chicken .50 This table was developed using data from a survey of Colorado manures done in 1996 and CSU's Best Management Practices for Manure Utilization (Table 2. Approximate fraction of di-ganic N mineralized in the first year after application). The data is still preliminary. As we increase the sample number in our database of Colorado manures, the table will continually be updated. For manure types not included in the table above, use the tables in NRCS Handbook Chapter 11. Chapter 11 , ,, Waste Utilization part 651 - ' 'cultural Waste Management i• 1.teal Handbook Step 6.Add additional nitrogen to compensate To answer question 4,"What area would be required to for application losses. use the maximum nutrient utilization?"we must return to step 7. From table 11-6 determine the nitrogen anticipated to be retained after application losses in the form of Step 7. Select nutrient for calculation of manure ammonia by volatilization.For broadcast manure, application rates. plowed down within one day,use a delivered percent- age of 95(estimate for a wet soil in spring,between In this example potassium is both the nutrient that is warm and cool temperatures). used least by the crop and also produced in most abundance,so it will control if maximum utilization of Nitrogen to apply=Nitrogen anticipated from Step 5a nutrients is desired.In less obvious cases it may be (3)divided by the percent delivered in decimal form necessary to go through step 8 to see which nutrient • (from table 11-6): requires the most acres. 176 N= 0.95=185 lb Step 8. Compute the acres on which manure can be applied to use the nutrients available. An additional 9 pounds of nitrogen is needed to com- Required acres=Amount of PAN(step 4)divided by pensate for application losses(volatilization). the amount of selected nutrient for crop production. The answer to question 2 would be: K2O=21,2811b (PAN) N=1851b/ac / K2O=351b/ac P2O5=46 K2O=35 Required acres: 21,281 lb =608 ac Note:Estimates for nitrogen additions to the field 351b/ac from soil organic matter,crop residue,atmospheric deposition,or legumes were not made.) This is the answer to question 4. Step 7.Select nutrient for calculation of manure application rates. Only 77 acres are needed to fully utilize the nitrogen, but 60S acres are required so that the potassium is not To answer question 3,"How many acres are required over applied. to recycle nitrogen?"in this example,nitrogen is Step 9.Estimate application rate. selected as the controlling nutrient. Step 8. Compute the acres on which manure can The waste storage pond contains the manure produced be applied to use the nutrients available. by the 200 cows plus the milk parlor wastewater.Pre- cipitation and evaporation must be considered to obtain Required acres=Amount of PAN(from step 4)divided the total volume of stored material.Chapter 10 discusses by the amount of selected nutrient for crop production procedures to account for climatic conditions. (step 6) a, Manure excreted per day= 1.30 ft3/da/1,000 lb cow Required acres: (table 4-5). 14,311 lb N =77 ac Total manure volume per year. 185lbN /ac 200x1,200x1.3x365=113,880ft3 This is the answer to question 3. 1,000 11-29 (210-AWMFH,4/92) Determining Crop Nitrogen Needs from Soil Analyses and Crop Nitrogen Requirements • Use a soil analysis to determine the NO,-N concentration of your soil. • Crops needing 2-ft.samples • Use the weighted average nitrate content from 0-2 ft for the following crops(see Table 1): • Corn • Sorghum - • Sudan • Sunflowers . • Sum the nitrate contents from the 0-1 it and 1-2 ft samples for the following crops(see Table 2): • Winter wheat • Spring-seeded small grains(barley,oats,wheat,millet) • • Crops needing 1-ft samples • Alfalfa • Dry Beans • Potatoes • Grasses • Proso and Pearl Millet(can also use 2-ft samples) • Sunflowers(can also use 2-ft samples) Use Tables 3 -19 to determine the nitrogen requirement for your crop. Soil nitrate concentration(top ft.) ppm(from soil analysis) Soil nitrate concentration(raft.) _ppm(from soil analysis) Average or sum of nitrate content ppm(from analysis or Table 1 or 2) Soil organic matter _%(from soil analysis) (For corn,sorghum,spring-seeded small grains,winter wheat,sunflowers) Nitrogen requirement _lb N/acre(from Tables 3-19) Table 1. Calculating 14O,-N content In a son(weighted avg.). Table 2. Calcdating NO,-N to s soli(stun or two,1-ft.samples). Soil layer Thickness NO,-N Calculations Soil layer 74O,-N —inches— ppm fat ppm 0.8 8 20 8 x20 160 0-1 10 8-24 16 8 16x8•]28 1.2 4 total.•288 10+4au 14¢p 288/24 .•12 vom 1 - —__ Chapter 11 Waste UMt�ation P cultural Waste Management Field Handbook - Application rate in one pass: be added at the rate given in figure 11-2.Compute mathematically as follows: 3,000 gal x 8.341b/gal =10.3 tons/ac - / 1 2,0001b/ ton x1.21 ac 7x 7=41 =5.6 gal/ft-,of waste application rate (total) • 4 # passes = 1 p =10.3 tons/ac Note:The quantity of water added to the manure causes the waste material to act essentially like water. 81 It has in fact become wastewater. 10.3 =7.9 passes (8 tank loads /3,500 ft run) Determine the total depth of application for nitrogen: The answer to question 6 is 8 passes per acre. 6.6 gal/ft3 x 207,190 ft.Volume =57 ac in+• 27,154 gal/ac-in Application by sprinkler: =57+43 =5 70 43 Starting at step 3,recompute the additional nitrogen required for sprinkler application losses.Nitrogen to ac-in apply=Nitrogen anticipated from Step 5a(3)divided 100 ac-inDepth = by the percent delivered(from table 11-6): 61 ac =1.64 in N----- ac=235 lbs/ac , 0.76 This is the answer to the first part of question 7. P2O6=46 (no change For ground water protection in sensitive aquifer areas, K2O=35 (no change the 1.64 inches of wastewater application should be Note:Increased soil moisture from irrigation may stored in the upper half of the root zone where most of increase g soil losses by leaching and denitrification of the plant uptake occurs.Known from the example problem statement,the soils used to grow corn have nitrogen. an available water capacity of 5 inches in the top 60 Returning to step 8, compute the acres required: inches of soil. Required acres=Amount of PAN(from step 4)divided Normal irrigation design operation techniques set 50 by the Amount of nutrient per acre(step 6).Required percent soil moisture depletion as the point at which acres: irrigation operations are initiated. 14,3111b =61 ac 2351b/ac 5.0 in x 0.50=2.5 in Using the 61 acres of corn that has been established Sprinkler irrigation efficiencies can be as low as 65 for application of waste materials,determine the percent;therefore,the gross irrigation application application quantities for nitrogen control and assess would need to be increased to result in the soil receiv- adjustments needed for a phosphorus control design. 5ig 1.64 inches of wastewater. At design depth,a waste storage pond contains 57 To assure that the leaching potential is minimized,the acre-inches of waste material at about 7 percent of quantity(1.64 inches) can be split between two or p aplications.Application rates in inches total solids(TS)(previously determined).To success- three separate to the intake rates fully irrigate material of this consistency through per hour must be set according "ordinary"irrigation equipment.the TS should be no established in local irrigation guides and adjusted for higher than 5 percent,preferably 4 percent(use 4%). the soil texture and TS of the wastewater(tables 11-2 To lower TS from 7 percent to 4 percent,water must g 11-3). 11-31 (210.AWMFH,4/92) s Chapter 6 Role of Plants In Waste Management Part 651 Agricultural Waste Management Field Handbook Table 6-6 Plant nutrient uptake by specified crop and removed in the harvested part of the crop—Continued • Crop Dry wt. Typical Average concentration of nutrients(96) lb/bu yield/acre N P K - Ca Mg S Cu - Mn Zn plant part Fruit crops %of the fresh harvested material Apples ' 12 tons 0.13 0.02 0.16 0.03 0.02 0.04 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 Bananas 9,900 lb. 0.19 0.02 0.54 0.23 0.30 Cantaloupe 17,500 lb. 0.22 0.09 0.46. 0.34 Coconuts 0.5 tons-dry • copra 6.00 0.60 3.33 0.21 0.36 0.34 0.0010 0.0076 Grapes 12 tons 0.28 0.10 0.50 0.04 Oranges 54,000 lb. 0.20 0.02 0.21 0.06 0.02 0.02 0.0004 0.0001 0.0040 Peaches 15 tons 0.12 0.03 0.19 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.0010 Pineapple 17 tons 0.43 0.35 1.68 0.02 0.18 0.04 Tomatoes 22 tons 0.30 0.04 0.33 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.0002 0.0003 0.0001 Silage crops 96 of the dry harvested material Alfalfa haylage(50%dm) 10 wet/5 dry 2.79 0.33 2.32' 0.97 0.33 0.36 0.0009 0.0052 Corn silage(35%dm) 20 wet/7 dry 1.10 0.25 1.09 0.36 0.18 0.15 0.0005 0.0070 Forage sorghum(30%dm) 20 wet/6 dry 1.44 0.19 1.02 0.37 0.31 Oil 0.0032 0.0045 Oat haylage(40%dm) 10 wet/4 dry 1.60 0.28 0.94 0.31 0.24 0.18 Sorghum-sudan(50%dm) 10 wed dry 1.36 0.16 1.45 0.43 0.34 0.04 0.0091 Sugar crops %of the fresh harvested material Sugarcane 37 tons 0.16 0.04 0.37 0.05 0.04 0.04 Sugar beets 20 tons 0.20 0.03 0.14 0.11 0.08 0.03 0.0001 0.0025 tops 0.43 0.04 1.03 0.18 0.19 0.10 0.0002 0.0010 Tobacco 96 of the dry harvested material All types 2,100 lb. 3.75 0.33 4.98 3.75 0.90 0.70 0.0015 0.0275 0.0035 Turf grass .%of the dry harvested material Bluegrass 2 tons 2.91 0.43 1.95 0.53 0.23 0.66 0.0014 0.0075 0.0020 Bentgrass - 2.5 tons 3.10 0.41 2.21 0.65 0.27 0.21 Bermudagrass 4 tons 1.88 0.19 1.40 0.37 0.15 0.22 0.0013 (216-AMIFH,4/92) 6-21 Chapter 11 Waste Utilization Part 651 A' 4ultura1 Waste Management F. Handbook (g) Rule-of-thumb estimates vary considerably according to the climate and waste management system. (Refer to table 11-9 for nutrient Tables 11-10, 11-11, 11-12,and 11-13 can be used for mineralization rates.)The tables also show the esti- rule-of-thumb estimates of available nutrients in differ- mated moisture content,which can be used as a guide. ent manure for the common methods of manure man- The tons are the actual weight of the manure as it is agement.Field offices can develop additional tables applied,which includes moisture and bedding.Use for other livestock handling methods that are custom- reliable local data if they are available.In most cases, my in their areas.Tables 11-10, 11-11, 11-12,and 11— manure changes weight during storage and treatment 13 are limited to: because it almost always gains or loses moisture. • Solid and slurry manure applied in tons The manure from beef cattle on the Texas High Plains • Available nutrients,first year only provides an example of moisture loss.Mathers(1972) • Situations where there is little carryover of found that the manure on 23 feedlots ranged from 20 nutrients from previous manure applications to 54 percent moisture content, averaging 34 percent. • Common methods of manure management This compares to fresh manure that has 86 percent moisture content and 14 percent TS.The lot manure Manure liquids are not included because manure of has an average TS content of 66 percent.The manure this type will be diluted 4 to 10 times so that it can be had to dry considerably for the TS content to increase flushed into storage or treatment facilities.With this from 14 percent to 66 percent If no loss of volatile method of waste management,a large loss of nitrogen solids occurred,the manure would have shrunk about can occur during storage,and tests should be made to five times.Because some loss of solids always occurs, determine the nitrogen concentration. the shrinkage is even greater.Stated another way—of 5 tons of manure excreted,only 1 ton remains on the lot, although most of the constituents,such as salt,are The amounts shown in the tables are in pounds of available nutrients per ton.The estimated nutrients retained. Table 11-10 Rule-of-thumb estimate of available nutrients in manure from dairy cows by management system Management system Final moisture Nutrients available first year N P±O; K,0 lb/ton 1. Fresh manure,collected and applied daily, incorporated before drying 89 7 3 5 2. Manure collected daily,50%processing water added,stored in covered 92 3 3 5 tank,applied semi-annually,incorporated before drying 3. Manure placed daily in open storage pond;30%processing water 92 3 3 4 added;liquids retained;spread annually in fall;incorporated before drying;cool,humid climate; evap. =precip 4. Bedded manure,unroofed stacking facility (bedding is 10% 82 3 2 4 by weight);spread in spring before drying;cool,humid climate; evap. =precip 5. Manure, no bedding,stored outside; leachate lost;spread in spring 87 3 2.5 4 before drying; cool, humid climate 6. Open lot storage—see beef cattle (210-AWMFH,4/92) 11-33 Table 12. Drytand Forage Crops for Silage(15 tons/A). Table 15. Drytand Sunflowers(1,500 WA). Soil NO,-N• Soil organic matter(°/.) Soil NO,-N* Sail organic nutter(%) , 0-1.0 1.1.2.0 >2.0 0-1.0 1.1-2.0 >2.0 —Fertilizer rate(lb N/A)— —Fertilizer rate(lb N/A)— 0-3 90 60 40 0-6 75 55 35 4-6 65 35 15 7-12 55 35 15 7-9 40 10 .0 13-18 35 15 0 10-12 15 0 0 19-24 15 0 0 >12 0 0 0 25-30 0 0 0 •Average concentration(ppm)NO,-N in 0 to 2 ft soil layer(see •Avenge concentration(ppm)NO,N in 0 to 1 ft soil layer. Table 1). -To adjust the N rate for otherytcld goals,add or subtract 6 lb N/A -To adjust the N rate for other yield goals,add or subtract 8 lb N/A for each cwt/A difference. for each ton/A difference. • Table 13. Irrigaated Forage Crops for Silage(30 tons/A). ' ' Table 16. Irrigated Grasses. Soil NOr-N• Soil organic matter(%) Soil NOr-N Fertilizer rate 0-1.0 1.1-2.0 >2.0 lb N/A —Fertilizer rue(lb N/A)— 0.6 185 0-6 - 230 200 180 7-12 160 7-12 190 160 140 13.18 135 13-18 150 120 100 19-24 110 r 19-24 110 80 60 25-30 85 25-30 70 40 20 >30 0 31-36 30 0 0 •Average concentration(ppm)NOs-N in 0 to 1 ft soil layer. Use the same N rates for grass-legume mixtures containing les than >36 0 0 0 25%legumes. •Average concentration(ppm)NO,-N in 0 to 211 soil layer (see Table I). -To adjust the N rate for other yield goals,add or subtract 9 lb N/A for each ton/A difference. Table 14. Irrigated Sunflowers(2,400 lb/A). Table 17. New Seedlings of Irrigated Alfalfa. Soil NO,-N• Soil organic matter(%) New seedling with New seedling without Soil NO,-N companion crop companion crop 0-1.0 1.1-2.0 >2.0 —Fertilizer rate(lb N/A)- -Fertilizer rate(lb N/A)— 0.3 60 20 0.6 130 110 100 4-6 30 10 7-12 ai 110 95 85 >10 0 0 13-18 95 80 70 a Avenge concentration(ppm)NOgN in 0 to 1 ft soil layer. 19-24 80 60 50 New seedlings of dryland alfalfa generally do not benefit from preplant N. 25-30 60 45 35 •Average concentration(ppm)NOa-N in 0 to 1 ft soil layer. -To adjust the N rate for other yield goals,add or subtract 6 lb N/A for each cwt/A difference. • 1 Chapter 11 Waste Utilization part 651 •ricaltura]Waste Management .eld Handbook Example 11-7: 60.51b/da Given:Manure from a 50,000 layer operation in Geor- Manure = 05 lb I gia is stored in a shallow pit.The manure is spread 1. lb every 6 months and plowed down.The land is used for Weight— 200x 60.5x 365 da/yr silage corn.The recommended nutrient application 2,000 lb/ton rate is 150 pounds nitrogen per acre per year. =2,210 ton/yr Questions: 1. What is the application rate using the rule-of- 2.Calculate weight of manure applied since manure thumb tables? losses weight while in storage.From table 11-12, 2. What is needed to recycle the manure at this management systems 1 and 2,moisture content can be rate? . estimated as 75 percent(fresh)and 65 percent(ap- ' plied).Thus,total solids content is 25 percent(fresh) • Solution,question 1: and 35 percent(applied). From table 11-12,management system 2,about 25 pounds of nitrogen per ton of manure are available the 25% first year per ton of manure applied. Applied wt = 35% =0.71 of wt produced 0.71x 2,210 ton 150 lb N (State nutrient guide rate) =1,570 ton/yr Rate W. 25 lb N /ton - =6 tons/ac / 3.Calculate area required: 1,570 ton/yr Solution, question 2: Area = 1. Calculate weight of manure produced(see table 4- 6 ton/ac (from question 1 14).Weight of layers=50,000 birds x 4 pounds average =262 acres required weight=200,000 pounds,or 200 1,000 pound units. Table 11-13 Rule-of-thumb estimate of available nutrients in manure from feeder beef by management system imemcmit Management system Final moisture Nutrients available frsttyear N xa % lb/ton 1. Fresh manure,collected and applied daily,incorporated before drying 86 9 5 8 2. Manure collected daily,stored in covered tank, no dilution or drying, 86 7 6 8 applied semi-annually,incorporated before drying 3. Bedded manure pack under roof, cleaned in spring,incorporated 80 5 5 7 before drying(bedding=7.5%by wt) 4. Open lot storage,cleaned in spring,incorporated before drying, 70 7 9 14 cold humid climate 5. Open lot storage, cleaned semi-annually and incorporated; 30 11 16 3 warm semi-arid climate 6. Open lot storage,cleaned bi-annually and incorporated;hot and climate 20 6 15 36 (210-AWMFH,4/92) 1145 • /� , Chapter 6 Role of Plants in Waste Management Part 651 Agricultural Waste Management Field Handbook Table 6-6 Plant nutrient uptake by specified crop and removed in the harvested part of the crop—Continued ma Crop Dry wt. Typical Average concentration of nutrients(96) lb/bu yield/acre N P K Ca Mg S Cu Mn Zn plant part Fiber crops . %of the dry harvested material Cotton 600 lb.lint 2.67 0.58 0.83 0.13 0.27 0.20 0.0040 0.0073 0.0213 &1,000 lb. seed stalks 1.75 0.22 1.45 1.40 0.40 0.75 Pulpwood 98 cords 0.12 0.02 0.06 0.02 bark,branches 0.12 0.02 0.06 0.02 Forage crops %of the dry harvested material Alfalfa 4 tons 2.25 0.22 1.87 1.40 0.26 0.24 0.0008 0.0055 0.0053 Bahiagrass 3 tons 1.27 0.13 1.73 0.43 0.25 0.19 - Big bluestem - 3 tons 0.99 0.85 1.75 0.20 - Birdsfoot trefoil 3 tons 2.49 0.22 1.82 1.75 0.40 Bluegrass-pastd. 2 tons 2.91 0.43 1.95 0.53 0.23 0.66 0.0014 0.0075 0.0020 P--megrass 5 tons 1.87 0.21 2.55 0.47' 0.19 0.19 0.0008 0.0052 C. ter-grass 6 tons 1.52 0.27 1.69 0.92 0.28 0.15 0.0008 0.0106 Dallisgrass 3 tons 1.92 0.20 1.72 0.56 0.40 Guineagrass 10 tons 1.25 0.44 1.89 0.43 0.20 Bermudagrass 8 tons 1.88 0.19 1.40 0.37 0.15 0.22 0.0013 Indiangrass 3 tons 1.00 0.85 1.20 0.15 Lespedeza 3 tons 2.33 0.21 1.06 1.12 0.21 0.33 0.0152 Little bluestem 3 tons 1.10 0.85 1.45 0.20 Orchardgrass 6 tons 1.47 0.20 2.16 0.30 0.24 0.26 0.0017 0.0078 Pangolagrass 10 tons 1.30 0.47 1.87 0.29 0.20 Paragrass 10.5 tons 0.82 0.39 1.59 0.39 0.33 0.17 Red clover 2.5 tons 2.00 0.22 1.66 1.38 0.34 0.14 0.0008 0.0108 0.0072 Reed canarygrass 6.5 tons 1.35 0.18 0.36 Ryegrass 5 tons 1.67 0.27 1.42 0.65 0.35 Switchgrass 3 tons 1.15 0.10 1.90 0.28 0.25 Tall fescue 3.5 tons 1.97 0.20 2.00 0.30 0.19 Timothy 2.5 tons 1.20 0.22 1.58 0.36 0.12 0.10 0.0006 0.0062 0.0040 Wheatgrass 1 ton 1.42 0.27 2.68 0.36 0.24 0.11 Forest %of the dry harvested material Leaves 0.75 0.06 0.46 Northern hardwoods 50 tons 0.20 0.02 0.10 0.29 Douglas fir 76 tons 0.16 fi-20 (216-AWMFH,4/92) L-12 FEEDLOT DUST CONTROL - John M. Sweeten . Dust from cattle feedlots can be a nuisance during Strategy Water treatment should begin before dust prolonged dry periods. Depending upon feedlot loca- becomes a problem. When water is applied to feedlot tion. dust can be a sanitation problem to neighbors surfaces. a balance between effective dust control and and create a traffic hazard. In sufficient concentra- the control of odors and flies is necessary. Maintain tions. feedlot dust can also impair cattle performance moisture content of the surface manure at 25 to 35 and irritate feedlot employees. percent. California research showed that peak dust genera- During dry weather, surface manure may contain tion occurs between 7 and 8 p.m., which coincides only 7 to 10 percent moisture, causing severe dust with experience in Texas. This is because cattle be- problems.The moisture can be raised to the desirable come more active at dusk, when temperature and level by an initially heavy water application. by ani- wind velocity decrease. mal crowding, or by both, followed by a daily water sprinkled treatment program. The sprinkler water Techniques can provide moisture for aerobic stabilization of the • manure. A moisture content of between 25 and 40 Dust control techniques for feedlots should pre- percent is required for rapid aerobic bacterial activi- vent dust from becoming a problem, since it is not h•, which produces little unpleasant odor. feasible to remove suspended dust from the air. Avoid ovenvatering. Excessively wet spots sup- There are several aproaches: port anaerobic decomposition, the primary source of Feed Pens Roads and Service Areas feedlot odor. Manure with 25 to 85 percent moisture Removal of excess manure Water sprinkling also provides a good environment for fly breeding, Increases ca;le stocking Oiling especially under fence lines, and other locations rate v where there is little cattle traffic. Water application Chemica! application Chemical application Water application is the most effective, economical Bates and timing Adjust water application rates and reliable means of controlling dust from feedpens. according to weather conditions, animal size and ma- However, the other methods can be of supplemental nure depth. Recommended initial application rates benefit. should be at least 1 gallon per square yard per day (0.18 inches per day)until a 25 to 35 percent moisture Manure Removal level is reached in the loose manure near the surface. An important step in reducing manure dust is Thereafter, water should be applied at one-half to removal of excess manure from corrals. Although the three-fourths gallon per square yard per day (0.09 to manure pack may contain stored moisture, dry. pul- 0.13 inches per day) while the weather remains dry. verized manure hampers dust control. Thus, For recently scraped feed pens, one-fourth gallon per minimizing manure accumulation increases dust con- square yard per day is recommended. trol effectiveness. A maximum depth of 1 inch of loose California research showed that daily watering manure is recommended. gave significantly better dust control than alternate Water day watering. Watering frequency has proved to be a more critical factor than depth of loose manure on the The most common and effective method of dust feedlot surface. control is application of water to the feedlot surface. Water treatment for dust control within the feed- In California research, properly sprinkled feedlots yard will increase the relative humidity, which in generated up to 18 times less 'dust than untreated humid weather, can impair the animals'ability to lose lots. Dust levels rose more than 850 percent whenev- body heat by evaporation during the hottest part of er water treatment was discontinued for 7 days. the day. In humid climates, apply water treatments •cxtension agricuitural engineer — waste management. The during the early evening hours. This coincides with Texas AMM University System. the period of heaviest dust activity. Texas Agrloutturai Extension Service •The Texas AAM University System•Daniel C.Plannatiei,Director•College Station.Texas Morwai Dairy, LLC Envirostock, Inc-Project 24034 Management Plan for Nuisance Control A Supplement to the Manure & Process Wastewater Management Plan for Morwai Dairy, LLC 12954 Weld County Road 43 Hudson, Colorado 80642 Developed in accordance with Generally Accepted Agricultural Best Management Practices Prepared By NVIRO TOCK,L. 11990 Grant Street, Suite 402 Denver, Colorado 80233 September, 1998 "Serving Environmental Needs of the Livestock Industry" Morwai Dairy, LLC Envirostock, Inc-Project 24034 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" 31 Morwai Dairy, LLC Envirostock, Inc-Project 24034 Introduction This supplemental Management Plan for Nuisance Control has been developed and implemented to identify methods Morwai Dairy, LLC. will use to minimize the inherent conditions that exist in confinement feeding operations. This supplement outlines management practices generally acceptable and proven effective at minimizing nuisance conditions. Neither nuisance management nor this supplemental plan is required by Colorado State statute or specifically outlined in the Colorado Confined Animal Feeding Operations Control Regulations. This is a proactive measure to assist integration into local communities as required by Weld County Zoning Ordinance, Section 47 -Livestock Feeding Performance Standards. These management and control practices,to their best and practical extent, will be used by Morwai Dairy, LLC. Legal Owner, Contacts and Authorized Persons The legal owner of Morwai Dairy is the Morwai Dairy Limited Liability Corp. (LLC) Correspondence and Contacts should be made to: Mr. John Moser 12954 WCR 43 Hudson, CO 80642 (970) 536-4801 The individual(s) at this facility who is (are) responsible for developing the implementation, maintenance and revision of this supplemental plan are listed below: John Moser Partner (Name) (Title) (Name) (Title) Legal Description The confined animal feeding facility described in this NMP is located at: The east '''/ of Section 29 and the west % of the northwest 1/4 of section 28, township 3 north, range 65 west of the 6th principal meridian, Weld County, Colorado. "Serving Environmental Needs of the Livestock Industry" 32 Morwai Dairy, LLC Envirostock, Inc-Project 24034 Air Quality Air quality at and around confined animal feeding operations is affected primarily from the relationship of soiUmanure 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 Morwai Dairy, LLC 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 Morwai Dairy, LLC shall use to control dust are: 1. Pen density Moisture will be managed by varying stocking rates and pen densities. The animals wet manure and urine keep the surface moist and control dust emissions. Stocking rates in new portions of the facility will be managed to minimize dust. 2. Regular manure removal Morwai Dairy 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. Morwai Dairy is not planning a sprinkler dust control system for this facility. 4. Water Trucks Should nuisance dust conditions arise, water tanker trucks or portable sprinkling systems will be used for moisture control on pens and roadways to minimize nuisance dust conditions. "Serving Environmental Needs of the Livestock Industry" 33 Morwai Dairy, LLC Envirostock, Inc-Project 24034 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. Morwai Dairy 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 Morwai Dairy. No chemical additives or treatment of the stormwater ponds for odor control are planned. Research to date indicates poor efficacy, if any, of these products. 4. Land application timing Typically air rises in the morning and sinks in the evening. Morwai Dairy 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, Morwai Dairy, LLC. will increase the frequency of the respective management practices previously outlined such as pen cleaning, surface grading and pen maintenance. Additionally, if nuisance conditions continue to persist beyond increased maintenance interval controls, Morwai Dairy, LLC. 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" 34 LIVESTOCK I ! D7f SERIES -7 .fi ), \ r �i�� VANAGEVENT ANAGEVE \T . ` 1 � ,• < ;l.a.,,`r. V r cx.i it.!`. l F' ✓ .�:r�- t,i n.V c 9''a , . t ' ; Feedlot manure management w� ` 'K; V no fit 220"' 4 a7 Y .'<Y�� r. .. err'bad .., by J.G. Davis, T.L. Stanton, and T. Haren ' • Quick Facts... Many concerns at feedlot operations are directly linked to pen maintenance and manure management. Odors and dust problems, animal health and performance, water runoff, and protection of groundwater and surface water . . Under prolonged muddy are all interconnected in confined feeding operations. Studies have shown animal conditions, animal performance performance to be reduced by as much as 25 percent under prolonged muddy can be reduced as much as 25 conditions. Respiratory problems occur, and treatment costs dramatically increase, percent. _ if pens are constantly dusty. Improper pen cleaning can result in low areas that collect water or a rough surface that impedes effective and efficient runoff control. The nutrients excreted in cattle Aggressive pen cleaning can damage the underlying compacted "hard pan" and manure in Colorado have a contribute to groundwater contamination. fertilizer value of $34.7 million Therefore, it is vital and necessary to take an integrated approach to every year. feedlot pen maintenance and manure management. Encompassing so many variables will, however, result in compromises between opposing performance Aim for pen moisture of 25 to 35 objectives. For example, low initial construction costs might equate to higher percent to control odor, fl and maintenance costs. Another common compromise is between dust and odor y control. If the feedlot surface is too dry, dust will become a problem. If it remains dust problems. too wet, odor is a great concern. Compromises often are needed in an integrated Pens with light-weight feeder approach if the overall feedlot goals are to be met. Typically, there are about 1,000,000 cattle on feed at any one time in cattle, high winds, and low Colorado. Each 1,000-pound animal produces between 50 and 60 pounds of precipitation are at greatest risk manure and urine per day with a moisture content of about 90 percent. By the for dust problems. time the manure is removed from the feedlot, its moisture content has dropped to about 30 percent.The nutrients excreted in the manure from these cattle have a Pens designed with a minimum fertilizer value of $34.7 million every year(Table 1). How these nutrients are of 3 percent slope are best for managed determines whether they are an economic benefit or an environmental managing excess moisture and liability to the feedlot operator. Nitrates from manure can be leached to collecting runoff. groundwater, and excessive nutrients in surface water can lead to overgrowth of aquatic plants, which use up all the oxygen and suffocate fish. Nutrients can be los Seepage from runoff holding or conserved for future crop use at every stage: in the production units, in storage. ponds is required by law to be and after the manure is applied back to the land. less than 1/4-inch per day. • Table 1:Fertilizer value of manure from feeder cattle in Colorado. Fertilizer Nutrients in Cattle Total Fertilizer Nutrients in Fertilizer value(5/y Manure(lb/ton on an as- Colorado Feeder Cattle \rO O 21 lb d basis) 42 „li lb/year) N `�Jl 21 N 42 million lbs N S9.5 million 26 lb P:O D'million lbs P.O, $16.5 million o University 36 lb K2O 72 72 million lbs K2O 58.7 million Cooperative Extension To calculate fertilizer value,the following prices were used:mono-ammonium phosphate 5305/ton;u 5290/ton;muriate of potash 5,45/ton.These figures do not include the manure produced by sheep an ©Colorado State University dairy cattle housed in feedlots. Morwai Dairy, LLC Envirostock, Inc-Project 24034 References These references are provided as a resource to Weld County Health Department and Morwai Dairy for making nuisance control decisions for the facility. These references represent the latest and most modem management and scientific information to date for control of nuisance conditions for the livestock feeding industry. "Serving Environmental Needs of the Livestock Industry" 36 Paront of opeiatIons Dust Control 1°° Dust can threaten not only the health of cattle 80 72:° ❖:1302 Dust (Franzen, 1984)and people, but can also compromise a •:$X.C•):.. :` 4.:4•:; feedyard's ability to continue to operate.The major source of E.0 .. a6.a ?.wo, dust in the feedyard comes from the pens;however, dust also 40 ..,,, -r•:;:;: .:..x : can come from roads, service areas, and feed processing. ? : ::::$ 20 • Generally, the peak time for dust occurs around sunset, when r. 4.sm'ssetneZ?': -__. _._. .., ='"f the temperature starts to cool and cattle become more active. ° "e •�� •i`� 0 The best way to control dust is through proper pen cocci. ae`o� �s` ��s• design and maintenance of surface moisture levels. Routine des` !s 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 head. 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. For Fenceline vs.Mobile Sprinklers example, large, deep pens probably require fence-line sprinkling systems, while shallow pens may favor mobile equipment. Selecting a sprinkling system assumes The decision to install fenceline that the feedyard has adequate amounts of water beyond drinking water needs. sprinklers versus acquiring mobile Wind breaks also may be used to control or capture fugitive dust. Fast- equipment is a tradeoff between initial growing poplar trees planted along the perimeter of the feedyard will provide cost, maintenance, depreciation,and shelter from the wind and may largely contain any fugitive dust. system as The permanent may approach fenceline h$1,000ng There are numerous surface amendments and chemical agents being initially. e approach 51,000 per pen initially. However, continued evaluated for dust control. Fly ash looks promising, and other compounds that have labor expense is minimal once the system been considered include sawdust, apple pumice, ligno sulfate, and gypsum. is operational. Drain the system in the fall v./prevent freezing, although dust can still Stocking Rate be a problem in the winter. Surface moisture can be manipulated through stocking rate changes. Mobile 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 the number of and operating expenses. For a medium- head per pen or by reducing pen square footage using panels or electric fence. to large-sized feedyard, there may not be Temporary fencing also gives flexibility during periods of above-average enough time to haul water to raise the precipitation. pen moisture. Manipulating the stocking rate of feedyard pens to control the amount of feces and urine produced per pen is an 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 from feedlots are Table 2:Manure moisture production in cattle feedlots(Sweeten,No.7045) intimately related to manure Average Animal Spacing(sq ft/hd) management. If you are siting a new 75 100 125 150 17' feedlot, select an isolated location Animal size(avg Ibs/hd) Moisture(in/day) downwind from neighbors with an .05 04 .03 .03 '02 adequate and well-drained land base. 400 05 .04 .03 .04 .03 Design the feedlot to accommodate 600800 .05 .04 .11 .08 .06 .07 .06 frequent scraping, and keep manure 1000 .13 .10 .08 .08 .07 stockpiles dry and covered. When 1200 .16 .12 .09 manure is applied to land, the timing and placementStocking density has a significant influence on the animal and manure can be n managed to reduce the odor concerns. environmental performance of a feedlot. Stocking density partly determines the Apply manure when the wind is calm, average moisture content of the pen surface. Cattle add moisture through feces preferably in the morning, and and urine to the pens each day. Determining how much moisture is desirable 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 cot,uitions. Cattle size and rations also Two of the most common methods of will influence moisture balance and the corresponding appropriate stocking rate. manure removal are the wheeled front- :Typical pen stocking densities in Colorado are between 150 ft2 and 300 ft2 per --id loader and the box scraper. Both animal. Increase stocking density during warmer,dry periods,and reduce density r effective. The box scraper or other during wet or cool seasons. For both odor and dust control,the choice of stocking scraping devices, such as a paddle density should achieve a balance between a pen surface that is too dry versus one scraper or road grader, are more that is too wet. If this management goal is not achieved, more elaborate and effective at(1)providing a smooth pen expensive methods,such as sprinkling systems for dust control or frequent manure surface that facilitates proper drainage removal for odor control,will be necessary. . •and(2)maintaining the integrity of the A combination of cattle density, sprinkling, spraying, and precipitation . compacted protective seal or "hard pan" may need to be used, since cattle density alone may not be enough to control under feedlot pens. • dust, especially in areas with high evaporation rates. Pens with light-weight feeder A wheeled front-end loader requires an cattle, high winds(high evaporation), and low precipitation are at greatest risk for experienced operator. For each bucket dust problems. of manure accumulated with a wheel There are numerous options to consider when attacking dust problems. loader, the operator must shift gears four Each has advantages and disadvantages. It is important to have a plah in place times while manipulating the bucket. • and start prior to the time dust is a serious problem. Remember, water application This is most likely to result in an is minimized by removing loose manure and dust from pens in a timely manner. irregular pen surface at best or damage to the protective"hard pan."A Manure Removal combination of a wheeled front-end loader for major manure removal and a The removal of accumulated manure reduces odors, controls fly larvae, and scraper for final cleaning and grading minimizes the potential for surface and groundwater contamination.Maintaining a would be an effective compromise. firm, dry feedlot surface is an important factor in good animal health and a healthy environment. Frequency of manure removal also varies widely depending on size of lot and pen stocking rate. However, a thorough pen cleaning once per year is an absolute minimum. Most feedyards clean and prepare a pen prior to receiving new or "fresh" cattle. A feedyard operated year round typically replaces cattle or "turns a pen" 2.5 times per year and conducts pen maintenance as frequently, . weather permitting. Dairies also are concerned with animal health, comfort, and cleanliness. Some dairies harrow their pens daily with good results in both• environmental and animal health benefits. While this is labor intensive for feedlots, it does indicate that pen cleaning as frequently as feasible for your specific operation is good management. Stockpile Location and Management Having adequate storage area to handle the quantity of manure production has many benefits. Primarily, adequate storage area provides the producer with flexibility in land application so that land application timing can be Stockpile Management determined by labor availability, weather and field conditions, and crop nutrient Locate stockpile areas away from needs rather than by lack of storage space. Use the information in Table 3 to watercourses and above the 100-year calculate how much manure you expect your livestock to produce, and be sure flood plain. that your storage capacity is adequate. Use grassed filter strips below stockpiles to reduce runoff volume by settling Table 3.Manure production per 1,000-pound animal. As Excreted Dry Matter Basis Solids and removing nutrients. 11.5 tons/yr(88%water) 1.38 ton≤tyr Beef Cattle tons/yr sample downhill from stockpiles to Dairy Cattle 15.0 tons/yr(88°/water) 1.80 tons/ r monitor nitrate buildup. 5iiccy 7.3 tons/yr(75%water) 1.82 tons/yr Locate manure stockpiles at least 150 The more control a feedlot manager has over the facility's manure feet downstream from any well. handling, the more likely nutrients will be conserved and beneficially used. Protect wellheads with grassed buffer Composting manure requires additional land and equipment, but may be areas. advantageous where markets are available (see Spencer and Tepfer, 1993). Insect Control Land-base Calculation Feedlot pen maintenance and manure Feedlot operators should have an adequate land base to spread their management also play an important role ' manure. If land base is inadequate, arrange to apply manure to other cropland or in insect control. Insect pest stress prepare to market it for composting or garden use. Sample the manure and 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(Table 3) to around waterers and feedbunks. One determine how much manure is produced. Multiply the tonnage by the lb N/ton in area commonly overlooked in pen that manure(Table 1)to calculate how many pounds N are available for land maintenance is manure build-up directly application. Next, calculate how much crop removal there will be per acre. Multiply under fence rows and adjacent to the expected yield by the average N content of the harvested crop to determine N structures like waterers and feed bunks. removal by the crop. Finally, divide the pounds N produced in the manure by the These avy are not m nt and accessible qirsmallpounds N used by the crop per acre.The result is the acreage required as a land with heavy equipment and require 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 apron enhance performance, and minimize a to back of pen with adequate mounds)help manage excess moisture.The primary feedlot's reliance on chemicals and goals of runoff management are to divert water from flowing across the feedlot or other costly insect-control methods. storage area and prevent direct runoff from the feedlot or the stock-piled manure • into.waterways. Runoff can be diverted by digging ditches and building berms. One of the primary principles of runoff management is to keep clean water clean. In other words, direct clean water away from manure, whether manure is already Resources stockpiled or still in the feedlot. Decreasing the volume of water used reduces the Follett, R.H.,and R.L. Croissant. 1990. potential for runoff, so minimizing water waste from inefficient waterers and Use of manure in crop production. Fact sprinklers not only saves money,but reduces runoff hazard. Sheet no. 0.549. Colorado State Collect and store all wastewater and storm water runoff from pens. It can University Cooperative Extension. be treated and discharged, or it can be applied to cropland as a source of water Franzen, D. 1984.Airborne Particle and nutrients. If it is applied to cropland, the irrigation application rate must be les 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. ii vi. Colorado State University;Fort waterwayunoff s or byds can be using a sediment basin ofhe settle thef through solids out rlter strips or Removing solids Collins, CO. with solids. NAHMS. 1995. Environmental from the runoff will reduce odors and prevent the pond from filling up Monitoring by Feedlots. Centers for Management of Runoff Holding Ponds Epidemiology and Animal Health. g USDA:APHIS: VS. N167. 1194. Seal storage ponds and lagoons to prevent seepage. Seepage is required Spencer, W, om os ing fee lo93. by law to be less than 1/4 inch per day if the pond contains stormwater runoff and D. Te r.Economics of composting feedlot only, but the seepage requirement i=le=e than 1/32 inch per day if the pond stor manure. Fact sheet no. 3.762. Colorado processing wastewater(for example, manure flushed from a milking parlor) in . State University Cooperative Extension. addition to stormwater runoff. Seepage can be reduced by several methods, and manure itself has an ability to seal soil surfaces over time. Compact soil to a Sweeten,J.M. Feedlot dust control. minimum 12-inch thickness. Take soil type into consideration during site selectio 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 feu the ways to reduce seepage from runoff holding ponds. Prohibit access of livestc to pond banks in order to maintain the seal. Wastewater holding ponds must be sited a safe distance from wells, a minimum of 150 feet downstream. '1.G. Davis. Colorado State University Cooperative Extension soil specialist and star associate professor,soil and crop sciences; in coop T.L.Stanton,Cooperative Extension feedlot Issued in furtherance of Cooperative Extension work,Acts of May 8 and June 30, 1914, Colt specialist and professor,animal sciences;and with the U.S.Department of Agriculture,Milan A.Rewerts,director of Cooperative Extension, T. Haren, Director of Natural Resources, State University, Fort Collins,Colorado.Cooperative Extension programs are available to all withot Colorado Cattle Feeders Association. discrimination. • B-5011 Texas Agricultural Extension Service Odor and Dust From Livestock Feedlots John M. Sweeten' This report discusses the relationship of livestock animal density,but essentially integrates these production to air pollution and assesses the technol- factors(along with climate and soils)intoich a single ogy and management practices which can reduce critwherion -the absence of v production v and/or aniegetation- mal trocic curs pollution from livestock and poultry operations. are high. Van Dyne and Gilbertson(1978)estimated the total collectable (economically recoverable) manure Intensive Animal collectable 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. lion facilities, their design and the manure manage- percent. ment systems associated with them are described These manure production estimates are based on in several reports (MWPS,1987;U.S.EPA, 1973; an engineering standard adopted by the American White and Forster,1978;Foster and Mayrose, Society of Agricultural Engineers (ASAE, 1976) 1987).Roofed or total confinement facilities are which defines constituent production per unit common for poultry and swine and to a lesser weight of live animal.These standard values were extent, dairy and beef production (National Re- recently updated to reflect current research data search Council, 1979).However,open feedlots (ASAE,1988).In most cases,average a d y per 1,000 values of (non-roofed) are most commonly used for beef manure and nutrients(pounds P cattle production.They are also widely used for pounds liveweight)were revised upward. dairy,swine and sheep production in the south- western United States. Cattle feedlots Intensive livestock production systems are re- garded as"animal feeding operations?The U.S. The United States has 9.4 million beef cattle in fee EPA defines such operations(for purposes of lots,avenging 850 pounds per head liveweight. water pollution control) as areas where animals are Each animal that is fed in a normal 130-to 150-da "stabled or confined and fed or maintained for a fattening period produces about 1 dry ton of col- total of 45 days or more in any 12-month period, lectable manure solids.This equals about 2 dry and.. .crops,vegetation, forage growth or post- tons of collected manure per year per head of fee harvest residues are not sustained in the normal lot capacity.The animal spacing per head varies growing season over any portion of the lot or facil- cording to rainfall and temperature,slope and ity" (U.S.EPA, 1976).The definition is not specific other factors.For example, there are 100 to 125 as to animal species, type of confinement facility or there isuarefleseetsthan 10 inches of a nn rainfall;17er head in the desert southwest ` 200 square feet per head in the southern and cen ' Sy tral Ag:icultural Engineer,The Texas Ak.�l University tral Great Plains where there is 15 to 25 inches of System ASV Univers^ System•Cori ego Sta'ion.Tex' ----- ._._..—,_1c..,_r.__ c.,:_" . 7_'_! C=•-- ^'e' C��ra_rr•The 7exs 3 1 beneath rain per year,and 300 to 400 square feet per head manure storae tanks tn eb for manure slotted floors oo and in the eastern and northern Great Plains wherelagoons there is 25 to 35 inches per year.Most cattle feed- treatment are important odor sources. lots are concentrated in the southern and central When open feedlot surfaces become wet,particu- Great Plains. larly in warm weather,anaerobic decomposition Most of the manure deposited on the feedlot sur- occurs over a large surface area for the evolution of face is compacted by cattle into a manure pack of odorous gases(National Research Council, 1979). 35 to 50 percent moisture content (wet basis).At Feedlot odor problems are most frequent in warm, higher moisture contents odors can develop, espe- humid areas and in feedlots constructed where dally in warm weather.Such odors may be a nui- there is inadequate drainage or poor drying condi- sance to employees and downwind neighbors. lions. Cattle hooves may pulverize surface manure dur- Animal manure odor is comprised of gaseous com- ing prolonged dry weather to only 10 to 25 percent pounds that are the intermediate and final prod- moisture.When surfaces are excessively dry,as is • ucts of biodegradation, and includes these groups: often the case in arid areas of Arizona,California ammonia 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 Amines Blackwood,1977). Alcoholsm eylamine Ethylamine Odors from livestock feeding Adds Trimethylamine Butyric Diethylanine operations Acetic propionic Esters lsobutvric Although odors from livestock feeding facilities isovaletic are sometimes an annoyance,odorous gases are Fred Gases not toxic at concentrations found downwind.How- Carbonyls Carbon Dioxide(odorless) ever,nuisance lawsuits can threaten the survival of Methane(odorless) an o eration Geor e et a1.,1985 , and livestock Ammonia p ( $ ) Sulphur compounds producers need to control the evolution of odorous Hydrogen Sulfide compounds (Miner, 1975;National Research Coun- Dimethyl Sulfide Nitrogen Heterocycles cil, 1979). Diethyl Sulfide Indole Methylenercap�n Odorous gases arise from feed materials (food-pro- Disulfides skatole cessing wastes and fermented feeds),fresh manure and stored or decomposing manure (National Re- search Coundl,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 panelists, stru- function of the material as excreted, the biologic re- menu and techniques used in sensory odor meas- actions occurring in the material and the configura- urement may vary.Odor measurement techno- tion of the storage or treatment unit. logy applicable to livestock operations includes Roofed confinement facilities usually have signifi- determining: cant odor potential because of the high animal den- II 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 (1•1a- acids,etc); tional Research Council, 1979).Manure-covered surfaces (e.g.,building floors and animals), ✓ Dilutions to threshold with a dynamic forced- Elam et at(1971)collected feedlot dust samples in- choice olfactometer or scentometer,and side 65 pens at 10 California feedlots, ee andusing Sta- Alex high-volume air samplern operating r sampling in ■ Equivalent concentration of butanol vapor 1-to 3-hour increments tale con during 24-hoops,which u(using a butanol olfactometer)that matches periods.Peak p the ambient odor intensity. were collected between 7:0O3 d 1 :000 ranged 0 from 1,946 to 35,536 µg paveraged l e dlodor states ar s based on these e have property- per m3.Lowest concentrations occurred in early morning and were only 130 to 250 mg per m3 in line standards based and other meas- µg urement methods(Sweeten,1988). some feedlots. The odor caused by anaerobic decomposition of Algeo et al.(1972)measured sobotsuspended upe nd and swine manure was measured by Meyer and Con- ticulates in 24-hour sampling able 2).Net ammoniaverse (n who found that hydrogen sulfide and downwind in 25 California feedlots o (Taind ble minus Net percent and 1percent concentrations were, at 73 respectively,218 articulate concentrations wind)for a 24-hour period ranged from 54 to 1,268 up- percent 118 percent higher at research degrees F µS per or The average value for all 25 feedlots beek,than 1985), the F. emission European e r (IQaren- housesithe odor yto edtmanu swine increased was 654+376 µg per m3.Upwind concentrations houses with each 18 degree stored manure increased averaged 25 percent of the downwind concentra- ture and,i c ui8 ventilation rise in manure tempera- lions Both upwind and downwind particulate lev- morethanincluding ventilation summer than was els usually exceeded the U.S.EPA ambient ' wore .Emissions ines were 73 tp in than in air-quality standards for TSP. winter. with percent greater with Table 2. Summary of 24-Hour Particulate fully slotted floors than partially slotted floors. California In the same study,odor intensity observations Cattle(TSP) ConcentrationsFnc is (Alger at 25 1972). were made with scentometers both upwind and Upwind Net,Downwind . downwind of feedlots.Upwind odor intensities Downwind Upwind were usually in the range of 0 to 2 dilutions to wi (p=in) minus Downwind threshold,while downwind concentrations aver- (n=24) sU aged 13 to 49 dilutions to threshold. 836 206 654 Mean +116 =376 Dust emissions from livestock a dDevia- 7 feeding operations on Range: 54 Minimum 100 1,268 In 1971, the U.S.EPA (1987) defined primary and Maximum 1,599 44 460 secondary ambient air-quality standards for total 197 aced major limita- suspended particulate matter(TSP).The primary peters and Blackwood( 7) standards were set at 260 µg pore for a 24 per r dons in these results: average,not to be exceeded more than once per was performed in the ctrl'yeaz,with an annual geometric mean of 75 µg per ■ All sampling sea- m3.Secondary standards were set at 150 µg perm son;and cattle number, dis- tances for a 24-hour sampling period,not to be exceeded Details such as feedlot size, more than once per year. from samplers to feedpens and climate Effective July 31,1987,the U.S.EPA replaced TSP conditions were not reported. as the indicator(PM-10) for the ambient standards Nevertheless, the California data from in favor of a new indicator that includes only those Nevertheless, o et al. s,using Peters and Blackwood(1977) developed they considered to be worst-case less than or with ton a nominal 10 particle .diameter, eo loped( for what According worst-case their less thane equal t to a nominal mreplaced (U.S.2 h u, ro ections fr ca le feedlots.with more than 5g to head, prim The new standard standard: with PM-1 the standard 24-hour P ) primary TSP m3; 2) replaced a annual-10 standard is at 140 square feet per head,would emit more me µg per an r hm a icd the M- standard than 100 tons of particulates per year,not includ- meznwith an arithmetic mean PM-10 standard of in the feedmill. 50µg per m3;and 3)replaced the secondary TSP Based ed on Peters and Blackwood'( (1977) treatment standard with 24-hour and annual PM-10 stand- ards that are identical to the primary standards. of the California data, e U.S.e EPA publts as ished being These standards,of course,apply to livestock sion factors (AP-42) for feeding operations. crude estimates at best(U.S.EPA,1986). These emission factors were based on the assump- 100 I I I I I I I Lion that feedlots would generate 280 pounds of particulatesper clay per 1,000 head,and 27 tons of HNd Pm10 T wv0.Z11 DPn particulates per 1,000 head fed.Other emissions cso.z11 a.,. z. factors were similarly written for ammonia,amines ao T - and total sulfur compounds. The U.S.EPA emission factors ignored the major climatic differences among cattle feeding regions t' of California,the Great Plains and the Midwest. 5 60 `4 Both total rainfall and seasonality of rainfall are e s 1 different.'Also,California has less than 4 percent e e i t of the United States cattle on feed,as compared to c. a o t Texas and Nebraska which combined have 40 .E i percent. u t To obtain a broader data base,dust emissions were i measured at three cattle feedlots in Texas,ranging 20 et T in size from 17,000 to 45,000 head.Measurements a were made on 15 occasions in 1987 to determine t both the total suspended particulates(IS?) and the 0 I I I I I I I I I I I S particulates below 10µm aerodynamic particle size o VI 0 o H y a (PM-10)(Sweeten et al.,1988).Net feedlot dust con- o " ' n .- n n (� n •i „ u m N H n centrations(downwind minus upwind)ranged Aancdynamic demeter tpm) 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. CurrvAative volume fad n of I eedC4 dts particles a given size ca, California data).Dust concentrations were genes- a films a High vu n a and P1,110 samplers;downvrind as v ers IeedbLs A.C and B(Elpernents 11.14 and 16). ally highest in early evening and lowest in early (Sweeten and Panel,1989.) morning,and upwind concentrations averaged 22 percent of downwind concentrations. • Using iwo 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 2.0to4.4 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 Controlling dust with the expected early evening peaks caused by 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 Earn et al. (1971)reported that feedlot manure than 10µm and 66 percent were small=than 10µm. moisture content of 20 to 30 percent was needed Mass median diameters (MMD) of dust particles for dust control. Particulate concentrations • Frequent manure collection by flushing,cable (24-hour ig m3 when daily increased pfrom 3,150 g to term, � in or pit drainage recharge helps absorb µa per forwhen water sprinkling was term,- odorous gases and elimate anaerobic storage condi- tions nated 7 days. 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 masking content in the top 1 inch of feedlot surface,al- agents, for odor ontroti include deodorants, though odor intensity(dilutions to threshold)in- agents,cmical e and deodorants, creased.Regression equations indicated that the fives(Ritter,1980).deodorants,Digestive adsorbents an feed e are the addi- manure moisture needs to 6 tomanure 1 percent most widely used.They must be added frequently 41 percent a in the loose surface hin der and 35 to to allow selected bacteria to become predominant. feedlot dust t a allowable o depth T in order of control to TSP limits 150 and Potassium permanganate(100-500 ppm),hydrogen 260 µg per m3. • peroxide (100-125 ppm) and chlorine are oxidizing chemicals capable of controlling hydrogen sulfide emissions. Controlling odor Warburton et al. (1981)significantly reduced odors Odor control methods for livestock facilities in- from anaerobic swine manure slurry with four dude: (1)manure treatment-aeration,anaerobic treatments-aeration,chlorination and two bio- digestion or biochemical treatment; (2) capture and chemical formulations.Lindvall et al. (1974)re- treatment of odorous gases using covered storage duced odors from liquid swine manure with pits or lagoons, soil incorporation,soil absorption ammonia persulfate,and Miner and Stroh(1976) Weds or filter fields,or packed beds;and(3)odor determined that zeolites(dinoptilolite 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 emir- duced the odor emission rate by 90 percent as sion.However,rigid covers are expensive,and flex- compared to pit-stored slurry(Klarenbeek,1985). ible membrane covers over large surfaces are Anaerobic digestion also reduced the time for odor subject to photodegradation and wind damage. dissipation from 72 hours to 24 hours. Wet scrubbers that involve spraying exhaust air Anaerobic lagoons must have adequate capacity with water or oxidizing chemicals are widely used (i.e.,low loading rate) to produce relatively little for industrial and food processing plant odors,and odor.Design criteria have been developed based some researchers have adapted them to livestock on the volatile solids loading rate,which is propor- confinement buildings.Van Geelen and Van Der tional to the volume per pound of liveweight Hoek(1977)obtained an 88 percent reduction in (Barth,1985; Humenik and Overcash,1976; odor concentration with wet scrubbing of exhaust Sweeten et al.,1979; ASAE,1990). frormn a swine sludge house, alth hough it difficultdust recircu' Mechanicalts orlagoonsaeration an liquid manure c toloxidation late the scrubbing water.Schirz(1977)cited prob- method hs (Humenik is 1975;, 7 Jones odor al.,19l lems with the dogging of spray nozzles when Aerating oly e et third hlfof swinet1l go ebbing with recycled water,and biological trea! Aerating rev the top third aor nd reuedolagoon ment was required.Licht and Miner(1978)built a contents proved successful and reduced power re- horizontal cross-flow,packed-bed wet scrubber fo quire ments as compared with complete mixing a swine confinement building and achieved 50 ant (Humenik et al.,on of liquid C swine ee et manureal. without 90 percent removal of particulates larger than 1 limited aeration of o al a and 5 microns, respectively; and ammonia reduc- tion of 8 to 38 percent; and an 82 percent reductiol duced odor as compared to non-aerated storage. odor intensity. Phillips et al. (1979)rapidly reduced hydrogen sul- of dornt dry scrubber filled with a zeolite fide and methanol emissions from swine manure Al n packed-bed ee)reduced ammonia from by aeration,but less volatile and less offensive corn- poultry house by percent initially,emissionsbut efficienc pounds such as phenols persisted. Aeration just P try 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 cally biodegrades organic gases(Bohn,1972). livestock odors. Lindvall et al. (1974)determined that soil injection reduced odor emissions(measured as dilutions to ' threshold)from liquid swine manure by 90 to 99 percent as compared to surface spreading.Odor References from a soil-injected manure site was about the same as from a nonmanured soil surface.Disk har- rowing or plowing of surface spread manure re- duced odor by 67 to 95 percent. ASAE.1976.Manure Production and Characteristic. ASAE Data 0384,American Society of Agricultural Soil filters with perforated pipe in a shallow soil Engineers,St.Joseph,MI,1 p. bed have proved effective for scrubbing odors ASAE.1988.Manure Production and Characteristics. from exhaust air.Kowalewsky(1981)removed 52 ASAE Data 0384.1,American Society of Agricul- to 78 percent of the ammonia and 46 percent of the tuna]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.Dam,A.Martinez and T.Westing.1972. tem.Prokop and Bohn(1985)reported 99.9percent Feedlot Air,Water and Soil Analysis:Bulletin D, P How to Control Feedlot Pollution.California 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 Society of Agricultural Engineers.1987.Con- trol of Manure Odors.ASAE EP-379,Agricultural textured soil,sufficient moisture and a pH of 7 to required is 2,500 to 4,600 square Engineers Yearbook of Standards,American Society 8.5.The land area q of Agricultural Engineers,St.Joseph,MI,pp.405-06. feet per 1,000 cEm,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 pool- Annual Meeting of Air Pollution Control Associa- • try manure composting operation. lion,Pittsburgh,PA Barth,CL.1985.A Rat oval Design Standard for Anaero- Odor dispersion.The farther odorous gases travel bic Livestock Waste Lagoons,In:Agricultural downwind from their source the more the are di- . Waste:Utilization and Management,Proceedings of lured, depending on atmospheric turbulence and the 5th International Symposium on Agricultural odorant reactions.An odor panel observed a 90 Wastes,American Society of Agricultural Engineers, percent reduction in odor intensity, as determined St.Joseph,MI,pp.638-647. by a matching butanol olfactometer(Sorel et al., Barth,C.L,L.P.Elliot and S.W.Melvin.1984.Using 1983),over a distance of half a mile downwind Odor Control Technology to Support Animal Agri- from a cattle feedlot in Texas (Sweeten et aL,1983). culture.Trans.ASAE,27:859.864. Atmospheric dispersion models are sometimes Bohn,H.1972-Soil Absorption of Air Pollutants.J.Enni- used to predict the travel of odor emissions Qanni, ron.Quality,1:372-377. 1982)and the impact on communities.However, Carroll J.J.,Dunbar,J.R.,Givens,Rt.,et al.1984.Spzin- the use of dispersion models is limited to short dis- klieg for dust suppression in a cattle feedlot.r'ahfor- tances and to nonreactive odorous gases (National Ma Agriculture(March):12-13. Research Council,1979).One or more versions of the Gaussian diffusion model are used in most Converse,J.C.,D.L.Day,J.T.Pfeffer and B.A.Jones.1971 regulatory applications.The are used models re- Aeration with ORP Control to Suppress Odors Emit g� ry pP prediction 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 Eng' Based in part on dispersion model results,required veers,St.Joseph MI,pp.267-_71. minimum separation distances for livestock feed- ing operations (based on number of head)have Earn,C.J.,Alego,J.W.,Westing,T.,et al.1971.Measure- been developed for swine facilities in the Nether- merit and control of feedlot particulate matte:.Bulle lands ( larenbeelc 1985)and for cattle feedlots in tin C How to Contol Feedlot Pollution.California a Cattle Feeders Association,Bak rsville,CA,Januar) Australia (QDPI,1989).These relationships are being used to determine the size of operation that Foster,J.and W.May-rose.1987.Pork Industry Hand- should be allowed in a particular location.The book Cooperative Extension.Service,Purdue Uni- versity,West Lafayette,IN Noren L.Thyselius. 4.Odor George,J.A.,C.D.Fulhage and S.W.Melvin.1985.A Lindvall,T.,O. and Manure Systems.Trans. of Midwest Livestock Odor Court Ac- duction or Liquid tions.In:Agriculture Waste:Utilization and Manage- 17:508-512. ment,Proceedings of the 5th International M1ypS•1987.Beef housing and Equipment Handbook. Symposium on Agricultural Wastes,American Sod- MWPA-6,Midwest Plan Service,Iowa State ety of Agricultural Engineers,St.Joseph,MI, University,Ames,IA pp.431-438. Meyer,D.J.and J.C.Converse.1981.Gas Production vs. Gray,A.S.1984.Feedlot sprinkling.Western Feed(June). Storage Time on Swine Nursery Manure.Paper No. 81-4512,American Society of Agricultural Heber,D.J., umeai Comparison u ofto and Engineers,St.Joseph,MI high-volume air samplers using a Coulter counter � particle size analyzer.Paper No.SWR 88-109.Pr& Mint.,J.R.1975.Management of Odors'Associated With sented at 1988 Southwest Region Meeting of ASAE, Livestock Production.In:Managing Livestock Lubbock,TX Wastes,Proceedings of the 3rd International Sympo- Hill,D.T.and C.L.Barth.1976.Quantitative Prediction of slum on Livestock Wastes,American Society of Agri- cultural Engineers,St.Joseph,?II,pp.378-380. Odor Intensity Transactions of the ASAE.19:939-944. - Humenik,F.J.and M.R.Overcash.1976.Design Criteria Miner,J.R.and RC.Stroh.1976.Controlling Feedlot for Swine Waste Treatment Systems.EPA-600/2-76- Surface Odor Emission Rates by Application of • 233.USEPA,Ada,OK.291 p. Commercial Products.Trans.ASAE,19:533-538. Humenik F.J.,RE.Sneed,M.R.Overcash,J.C.Barker National Research Council.1979.Odors from Stationary and G.D.Weatherhill.1975.Total Waste Manage- and Mobile Sources,National Academy of Sciences, went for a T arge Swine Production Facility.In:Man- Washington,DC aging Livestock Wastes,Proceedings of Third Peters,J.A.and T.R.Blackwood.1977.Source Assess- International Symposium on Livestock Wastes, men:Beef Cattle Feedlots.Montsanto Research American Society of Agricultural Engineers,St. CorporationEPA-600/2-77-107,USEPA,Industrial Joseph,MI,pp.168-171. Environmental Research Laboratory,Research Janni,KA.1982.Modeling Dispersion of Odorous Triangle Park,NC Gases from Agricultural Sources.Trans.ASAE. Phillips,D.,M.Fattori and N.R.Bulley,1979.Swine Ma- 25-1721-1723. nure Odors:Sensory and Physico-Chemical Analy- Jones,D.D.,D.L.Day and A.C.Dale.1972.Aerobic Treat- A S.Pa Engineers, merican Society of MI,19 p• ment of Livestock Wastes.Final Report SW-16 rg, Agricultural USEPA,Washington,DC,55 p. Prokop,W.H.and H.L.Bohn.1985.Soil Bed System for IIIartur ee J.V. icult r Odour Emissions of Dutch Manage- cul- Control of Rendering Plant Odors.Paper No.85-79.6 In:ture. Agricultural Waste L'htiration and Manage• (Presented at the 78th Annual Meeting,Detroit,MI), ment,Proceedings of the 5th International Air Pollution Control Association,Pittsburgh,PA, Symposium on Agricultural Wastes,American Sod- 17 p. ety of Agricultural Engineers,St.Joseph,ML Raabe,S.J.,TM.Sweeten,B.R.Stewart and D.L.Reddell. pp.439-4-45. 1984.Evaluation of Manure Flush Systems at Caged Koeiliker,J.K,J.R.Miner,M.L.Hellickson and H.S. Layer Operations,Tans.ASAE,27:852-858. Nakave.1980.A Zeolite Packed Air Scrubber to Ritter,µ••F.1980.Chemical Odor Control of Livestock Improve Poultry House Environments.Trans. Wastes,Paper No.80-4059,American Society of Ag- ASAE 23:157-161. ricultural Engineers,St.Joseph,MI,16 p.• Korsmeyer,W.,M.D.Hall and T.H.Chen.1981.Odor Schirz,5.1977.Odour Removal from the Exhaust of Ani control for a Farrow-to-Finish Swine Farm--A Case mal Shelters.Agriculture and Environment,3:223- Study.In:Livestock Waste:A Renewable Resource, 228. Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Agricultural Wastes,American Society of Agricul- Simpson FM.1970.The CCFA control of feedlot pollu- tural Engineers,St.Joseph,MI,pp.193-197,200. tion plan.Bulletin A.How to Control Feedlot Pollu tion,California Cattle Feeders Assnr+ation, Kow•alewsky,H.H.1981.Odor Abatement Through Bakersville,CA,May 28. earth Filters,Landtechnik•36(1):8-10. ,H.H.,R.Scheu and H.Vetter.1979. `Sorel,J.E.,RO.Gauntt,TM.Sweeten,D.L.Reddell and Kowalewsk yA.R.McFarland.1983.Design of a 1-Butanol Sale Measurement of Odor Emissions and Imissions.In Dynamic Olfactometer for Ambient Odor Measure Effluents from Livestock Q.K.R.Gasses,Editor). ments.Trans.ASAE.26:1201-1206. Applied Science Publishers,London,U.K Sweeten,J.M.1982.Feedlot Dust Control.L-1340,Texas PP 609-625. Agricultural Extension Sevice,The Texas At.-_,M U Licht,L.A.and J.R.Miner.1978.P.Scrubber to Reduce versity System,College Station,TX Livestock Confinement Building Odors.Paper No. PN-78-203,American Society of Agricultural Engineers,St.Joseph,MI,12 p. • • • Sweeten,J.M.1988.Odor Measurement and Control for U.S.EPA.1986.Supplement A to Compilation of Air the Swine Industry.Journal of Environmental Health, Pollution Emission Factors,Section 6.15 Beef Cattle VoL 50,No.5,pp.286. Feedlots (Stationary Point and Area Sources,Vol 1). AP-42,Office of Air Quality Planning and Stand- Sweeten,J.M.and C.B.Parnell 1989.Particle Size Dis- arch,Research Triangle Park NC tnbution of Cattle Feedlot Dust Emissions.ASAE Paper No.89-4076,International Summer Meeting U.S.EPA.1987.40CFR50,Revisions to the National of American Society of Agricultural Engineers,Que- Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate , bec,Canada,June 25-28.20 p. Matter and Appendix J—Reference Method for the C.B.Parnell,RS.Etheredge and D. Determination of Particulate Matter as PM-10 Sweeten, J.M., g the Atmosphere.Federal Register 52(126):24634- Osborne.1988.Dust Emissions in Cattle Feedlots. 24669. Veterinary Clinics in North America:Food Animal Practice,VoL 4,No.3,Nov.,pp.557-578. Van Dyne,D.L.and C.B.Gilbertson.1978.Estimating U.S.livestock and Poultry Manure and Nutrient Sweeten,J.M.,C.L.Barth,RE.Hermanson and T.Lou- Production.ESCS-12,Economics,Statistics and Co- don.1979.Lagoon Systems for Swine Waste Treat- operative Services,U.S.Department of Agriculture, ment,PLH-62,National Pork Industry Handbook, Washington,DC,150 p. Cooperative Extension Service,Purdue University, West Lafayette,IN,6 p. Van Geelen,M.A.and KW.Van Der Hoek.1977.Odor Control with Biological Air Washers.Agriculture Sweeten,J.M.,D.L.Reddell,A.R.McFarland,RO. and Environment,3:217-222. Gauntt and J.E.Sorel.1983.Field Measurement of Ambient Odors with a Butanol Olfactometer.Trans. Warburton,D.J.,J.M.Scarbrough,D.L.Day and A.J. ASAE,26:1206-1216. Muehling.1981.Evaluation of Commercial Products for Odor Control and Solids Reduction of Liquid Sweeten,J.M.,RE.Childs and J.S.Cochran.1988.Odor Swine Manure.In:Livestock Waste:A Renewable Control from Poultry Manure Composting Plant Resource,Proceedings of the 4th International Using a Soil Filter.ASAE Paper No.88-4050,Intern- Symposium on Livestock Wastes,American Society tional Summer Meeting,American Society of Agri- of Agricultural Engineers,St.Joseph,MI, cultural Engineers,Rapid City,SD,June 26-29,1988. pp.309-313. 40 p. }N'nite,R.K and D.L.Forster.1978.A Manual on Evalu- . U.S.EPA.1973.Development Document for Proposed ation and Economic Analysis of Livestock Waste Effluent Limitations Guidelines and New Source Management Systems.EPA 600/2-78-102,USEPA, Performance Standards for the Feedlots Point Robert S.Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory, Source Category.EPA-440/1-73/004,Washington, Ada,OK,302 p. DC,pp.59-64. U.S.EPA.1976.State Program Elements Necessary for Participation in the National Pollutant Discharge • Elimination System—Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations,40 CFR 124.82.Federal Register,March 18,1976.p.11460.(See also 40 U-K 177 71 including Appendix B thereof.) Educational programs conducted by the Texas Agricultural Extension Service serve people of all ages regardless c socioeconomic level,race, color,sex,religion, handicap or national origin. Issued in furtherance of Cooperative Extension Work in Agriculture and Home Economics,Acts of Congress of May 6,1914 as amended,and June 30,1914,in cooperationwiththe United States Departmentof Agriculture.Zerle L Carpenter,Director Texas Agricultural Extension Service,The Texas A&M University System. 2M-6.91, New ENG, E&NR r. Equipment The following types of water applica- Solid set sprinkler systems require a constant tion systems have been used for feedlot dust control: supply of clean water. These systems need to be Irrigation Equipment carefully engineered with respect to sizes and place- ment of pumps, pipes and nozzles. Many system Permanent sprinklers configurations have been used successfully. Water Fence line sprinklers droplet size is related to spray nozzle design and Shade-mounted sprinklers hydraulic pressure. Protected risers (inside pen) Portable big gun sprinklers High capacity systems(sprinkler irrigation or mobile equipment)with large droplet sizes and low pressures Mobile Equipment can be operated less frequently and for short periods. Water tankers They require fewer spray nozzles, lateral lines and. Water trucks risers. However, they are more likely to lead to If designed to provide adequate coverage of the feed- ponding of water on the feedlot surface unless spray r pen and proper application rates, these systems are pattern and duration of water application are carefully • • about equal in controlling dust. Pen size and shape controlled. are a major factor in equipment selection. For exam- Low capacity sprinklers are characterized by high ple, deep pens are difficult to 'cover with mobile pressure (50 to 60 pounds per square inch), small equipment and may require supplemental sprinklers. nozzle size (5/64 inch to 3/32 inch), small droplet Large or irregularly shaped pens may also require diameters and narrow sprinkler spacing(40 to 50 feet special equipment or extra sprinklers. Pens with apart). These high pressure systems reduce the likeli- shades may require mobile sprinkling from both feed hood of surface ponding, and can sometimes be and cattle alleys to obtain good coverage without creating a mud problem under the shades. The shaded area is kept moist by the cattle and should receive little or no water. Feed bunks should also be 4 rte.» kept free from sprinkling ater. .w _ ` r Permanent sprinkler systems tr Nirritr�+i} 1{ x • Permanent sprinkler systems (Figure 1) can treat 1 I • large sections of a feedlot surface simultaneously. fl a. ....... Sprinkler systems require little labor and can be fully ' ' .,,.,�� -.. automated to apply water at the correct time every "�—Y' Major disadvantages to permanent sprinklers are �—• s�zt�"� ''�I �e, :. high initial cost, frequent maintenance and de en- ry• Y' ' 7 i c0 ; z • ' . dence on relatively calm weather for uniform dis- tyr • x ...j =. -r.._ 5 C tribution. Routine inspection of the entire system will '_ • :'` � sr:; r".' ;; prevent or minimize poor distribution or oyencater- -' ".tet•':=""`` - ' %: in Sprinkler heads placed inside feed ens can ham- re >>. •" --...•':•.- per pen cleaning. Sprinkler systems can be damaged sy:+ j.. . .. ?' -=;' tr X .�' - i'1 ::::--S.-...„;-.•..:-e-,-; from freezing or impact during idle seasons. Perms-. +c. �-::':,.••. Went sprinkler systems are inflexible because they rz ,;. ' •^• .•._. • must be designed. installed and operated for a par- 4 a- `'% r.� _2_:_:• - . titular feedlot configuration. The system may not ."- , ..- --1�_� :,1` • . .' .•_.- function properly if the feedlot is expanded or the ss��,.,. -,,,7, . c^;;"_�--."� .' water pumping rate is altered. Vacant pens will re- ceive water. Stationary sprinkler systems installed after a feedlot is built may not be optimally designed Figure 1. Permanent sprinkler systems can be fully and may be expensive. If such sprinkler systems automated to treat Large areas of the feedlot at once. prove ineffective initially, they cannot be rendered Uniform coverages achieved under ideal conditions completely effective, and have little salvage value. of operation. • feedlot. even corners, can be treated. Dusty trouble spots in a feedyard can be treated heavily without - sprinkling the entire lot. Mobile equipment for dust control can be readily adapted to changes in feedlot • configuration and for dust control in alleyways.•$ . rt r _ — t Major disadvantages of tank trucks include high �* ' labor costs. high operating expense. di tnculty in gain- N �x r ate" / s-'ai ing quick control over dust and the need for backup :_4 _ r., i2 equipment. =` F- f '—• - Mobile units used for feedlot dust control van' � —. — from standard two and one-half ton trucks outfitted :r ,., with 4.000 to 6,000 gallon tanks, up to large tankers irS2,'n rSz_Y }`f with a 6.000 to 9,000 gallon capacity. The tanker `, s .2 rt' capacity recommended for a particular feedlot can be 3sc-S A ` estimated from Figure 4. Hi Y ..�r '- Mobile units should be outfitted with 40- to 120- it'"4-et% 3,G ` a s 000gallon per horsepower pumps supplying 600 to?, `_ t. ,rte µ_ minute discharge rate. As many as six nozzles con- '1 s - r trolled by air vanes may be installed. An elevated •'.! a, •„_ " : - main nozzle with S0- to 120- foot trajectory is re- :� .S-` l � quired, with at least one lower nozzle for uniform ' F3 " distribution within 6 to 80 feet of the water tanker or , , , , `==�`` Er.. _: r -»-!•' :�� .x truck. A typical custom-built elevated nozzle with f. • 3/8- inch by inch opening tilted from the vertical in Figure 2. Dust control sprinklers need to be well two dimensions is shown in Figure 5. protected from possible damage by manure collection The operating efficiency of mobile units is highly machinery and cattle. dependent upon time required to load the unit, travel to and return from the feedpens being watered. Op- • timum turn-around time for fillup, hauling, water operated frequently throughout the day to relieve application and dead haul is 15 minutes per load. In heat stress. However, water distribution patterns are large feedlots, provide more than one water loading adversely affected by high winds. and there is more station. These loading stations can be either overhead evaporation loss from small droplets. (elevate& tanks or earthen ponds. If ponds are used, a Sprinkler heads can be implanted inside the pens tractor PTO driven, long-shaft. centrifugal pump with and encased for protection (Figures 1 and 2). They 2,000 to 4.000 gallons per minute capacity can be can be mounted on fences in cattle alleys or mounted used to load the ed watfilleer tttanks nk s or t cal should have a atop har esun a shades. Nozzle us dre interrelated. dis- An 5 000- to 10,000-gallon capacity and be supplied charge rates and operating pressures are interrelated, and should be selected for each precise application. either osier pmond or well llto ateraath the re f4,000 000 Small nozzles (1/8 inch diameter), closely spaced to gallons s per bottom can -fill the truck gravityor tanker discharge rge provide considerable overlap, will provide the most pipe uniform distribution pattern available. rate of 1,000 to 2.000 gallons per minute. Mobile equipment Mobile tankers or tank trucks (Figure 3) cost less initially than permanent sprinkler Increasing Cattle Stocking Rate systems and are more versatile. With skilled operators. equal or better watering uniformity can be The quantity of moisture added to the feedlot achieved. Spray patterns from mobile equipment can surface in the form of feces and urine is controlled by be more easily adjusted to compensate for high animal spacing (area per animal) and body size. The winds. Evaporation loss is probably lower. With amount of manure moisture generated is shown in properly designed discharge nozzles, all areas of the Table 1. A 1,000 pound steer at a spacing of 125 • • Average animal spacing. tzmd sprinkling or chemical treatment. It could also lower animal solid waste management costs, since the manure pack size 75 100 125 150 175 would be concentrated over a smaller area and easier (average los. per head) moisture.inches day . to collect. However, the California experiments sug- gest that excessive moisture could eventually result. 400 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.02 600 0.8 .06 .05 .04 .03 Research in Arizona indicates that a space alloca- 800 .11 .08 .06 .05 .04 tion of about 0.1 square feet per pound of live weight 1000 .13 .10 .09 .07 .06 controls dust in moderate weather. On hotter days, 1200 .16 .12 .09 .08 .07 the cattle concentrate in shaded areas, reducing the moisture .production in much of the open corral. Table 1. Manure Moisture Production in Cane Peas:vs Shade space per head limits animal spacing in hot weather. Crowding cattle together during hot weath- square feet per head produces about 28 inches of er when dust conditions are worst, without compen- moisture per year or 0.08 inches per day. Light sating for body heat loss, can affect performance and replacement cattle may produce only half as much health. manure moisture as slaughter-weight cattle. This Feedlots with good drainage (3 to 6 percent moisture, together with precipitation and water re- slopes) may be able to use this control method. The leased through digestion of organic matter and pre- stocking rate would need to be reduced during high cipitation, may not be enough to offset evaporation moisture periods. For instance, the stocking rate from the feedlot surface in some years. could be doubled during extremely dry weather, then Average daily evaporation from a feedlot surface decreased if rain falls. Portable fences may facilitate has not been measured directly,but can be estimated stocking rate adjustments. unpredictability of rainfall from soil evaporation data (Figure 6). For S or 9 days may make high stocking rates risky, since cattle per- after a heavy rainfall the soil surface is wet. Rapid formance is measurably lowered by muddy condi- • drying occurs at rates of 0.2 inches per day or more tions. and almost equals evaporation from standing water. When the soil or manure surface is no longer saturated, the drying rate drops sharply to approxi- mately one-tenth the peak rate. Such a low rate is probably never reached in a feedlot because wet manure is continually added and the surface is mixed by cattle hoof action. Also, drying rates increase with wind speed. with 15 miles per hour winds causing up to 2.4 times greater evaporation than the constant rate of 0.018 inches per day depicted in Figure 6. . • Whenever moisture produced by the cattle and by -- precipitation is consistently less than daily ecapora- „ _ tion rate, dust will become a problem. The number of ^ ``�� ^' - _ days until dust problems arise cannot be estimated ts.-x." i . from available data. In dry weather, dust problems j are often noticed first in pens with light replacement - t� _ �: 'T cattle and where the moist manure pack has been ` -- —z _ �`4. • I li` removed recently. r, `r a `- Stocking rates in Texas and the Southwest range t= '- •: i• typically from 100 to 150 square feet per head. Re- .t. <x !! .L. S: search in California showed that when stocking rates -- -_ '_-�Y '— -- were increased to 70 to 80 souare feet per head no detrimental effects on daily gain were observed and Figure 3. The cost effectiveness of mobile equipment feed conversion was slightly lower. Under carefully such as this water tanker depends upon proper equip- managed conditions, crow•dinc can be a more eco- merit sizing. placement of loading facilities. equip- nomical method of dust control than either water merit reliability and operator skill. • r. (Pivot) REQUIRED TANKER, FEEDLOT DAILY WATER WATER (GAL REQUIREMENTS LOADS CAPACITY AREA AP . O. RATE (1000 GAL.:DAY) PER DAY (1000 GAL) (ACRES) • GAL.SO YD.) 0 J , 20 400 - - 0:25 25 30 -- 27 5 - 350 075 - 1 0 - 25 300 - 02 - 33 i _ t p _ 22 5 - 275 - 025 35 2.0 - 20 250 - 03 - - 17.5 - 225 - .04 45 30 - - 25 - 75 200 - 03 - 50 — a 0 - - 175 07 = 06 _ - 60 - - 12 5 150 - _ 09 • - 6.0 10 70 - 7.0 10 0 125 - 125 - 80 70 0 t5 — AS '— 8 too _�. 106 20 - 10O - 15 _ ��/ - 7 _ "ct�.` 20 _ 20 �K� // 6 - 80 - 70 �� 30 - 125 25 - �i / - 5.5 _ 70 \. 40 .50 •50 - 32 —�''', ,A 5 — 4.s 60 - 55 \\ 60 - --Ng._ _ 175 �.�� _ ./ .. - 50 - \N - 60 A� 230 - Yr -� 60 64. - 35 . _ 45 1 0\+...` 1.0 `�--� i22i /% 70 — • a0 - \ 250 - �00 - 2 5 _ 15, - 275 35 N.-30 - 20 - 300 - //� _ 150 2 - 27.5 - 2 5 \\ - 350 / 200 - - 1 75 25 - '0 -'_ N. - i - 250 20 22.5 ,I,- 4 0 `N. r 513 in 300 - _ t 5 0 _ r - 350 ,- - 17.5 - 6 0 - 553 - 500 7 0 _ 15 600 - 600 _ 7 0 - 15 - 10 0 —.� c 0 _ 700 _- 700 - 12.5 150 -- 120 600 1000 - . _ ,75 I- 900 70 _ 200 - 1000 • -I Figure 4. Nomograph for estimating the optimum size of water tankers or trucks for feedlot dust control. Example Problem • Computing Water Requirements and ground speed of 5 mph loaded. A 2.000 gallons pe: Tanker Capacity for Dust Control minute gravity loading station will be located at one end of the feedlot. Given: A 33,000 head cattle feedlot operating at To determine:Will this tanker provide adequate dus almost full capacity is developing a dust problem. control? Cattle spacing is 1.40 square feet per head. The mana- Solution: (Use Nomograph — Figure 3.? ger has located a new water tanker with &.000 gallon capacity, 800 gallons per minute discharge pump and Step 1. Calculate the feedlot surface area: • • • Feedlot surface area = 33.000 hd x 140 sq ft/hd = 106 acres 43,560 sq ft/acre Step 2. Draw a straight line between the feedlot area Chemical Application of 106 acres and the water application rate of 1.0 Chemical agents with demonstrated potential for gallons per square yard per day. Continue this dust control in construction and aviation applications straight line over to the axis labeled Water Require- have shown little effectiveness in feedlots. These ments, and read 513.000 gallons per day of water chemicals and their modes of action include: needed for a complete feedpen cover. • Lignosulfonate—.particle binding Step 3. Draw a straight line from the water re- • Sodium carbonate — dispersion and moisture ab- quirement of 513,000 gallons per day to the given sorption from the atmosphere tanker capacity of 8,000 gallons. Where this line • Calcium sulfate—water penetration improvement intersects the loads per day axis, read 64 loads per day. • Calcium nitrate and glycerol — moisture absorp- tion from the atmosphere Step 4. Estimate the round trip time requirement for The first three chemicals listed need sufficient each load as follows: a. Loading time = 8,000 gal i- 2,000 gpm = 4 water to be effective. The fourth is least effective at low humidities, when it is needed most. All are minutes b. Discharge time = 8,000 gal 4- 800 gpm = b relatively expensive and require reapplication after pens have been cleaned. minutes c. Travel to discharge'point = (0.25 mi _ 5 mph) x 60 min/hr = 3 minutes (average) d. Deadhead to fill station = (0.5 mi = 5 mph) x 60 min/hr = 6 minutes (average) . e. Total time per load = 21 minutes Step 5. Estimate the maximum daily productivity as follows: (8 hrs/day x 50 min/hr) -= 21 min/ `1 load = 19 loads per day. F •e.. Step 6. Compare the 64 loads per day needed with I. " .: • the 19 loads per day achievable at 83 percent opera- `°. c, k." ting efficiency. • . • 1 Answer: No, the 5,000 gallon tanker will not -- 3 be adequate for peak application rates of 1.0 = _ gallons per day per square yard. It would be • _ �. adequate for the maintenance application rate of _ - ' 0.5 gallons per day per square yard when operated at 13.5 hours per day(32 loads per day) during the dust season, or when supplying only r# 60 percent pen surface coverage at the mainte- • _ nance application rate with 5 hours per day. Figure 5. Typical custom-designed pressure nozzle for uniform distribution of water from a mobile tank- er or water truck onto the feedlot surface. Hello