The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About991810.tiff 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 5� �� JC Application Fee Paidr)/� • (1.1) Receipt# 343/51Date I Recording Fee Paid Receipt# Date /,. Application Reviewed by: Weld Comely Plaunuig ept. TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT: (Please print or type, except for necessary signature) „APR pi 1999 LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT AREA: LUtlao; 5E y4 +^6 IzAW AI C PARCEL NUMBER:11L.l Q a 1. Q 0 Lt y(1 digit number-fouR0E1C1E.I V E D Information or obtained at the Assessor's Office. A Section a1 ,T a N, R 61 W-Total Acreage Ile O Zone District A Overlay Zone Uk Ali y� oca. \(o , Pr ` _'( A-on GO Property Address (ifavailable) cT Proposed Use a.“- .,ma \ F ; © Q't 3 ' D is SURFACE FEE(PROPERTY OWNERS) OF AREA PROPOSED FOR THE SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT Name: c\r• taCla-1\ -bILAIteSorN Address: q11-k3 L e.. \(- _" City/State/Zip:rkL ' srorsC-0 '°(, Home Telephone: Business Telephonefjo3'951-53 3 Name: Address: City/State/ZIP: Home Telephone: Business Telephone APPLICANT OR AUTHORIZED AGENT Of different than above) C/ 1Roma..s V\a(Q-'n Name: FnxtrOS•k•oc\C. �nG• c' Address: \1°l°1/40 Gtbc.Ic caic W A0 Q— City/State/Zip: 1�2rWt14-, Co Xoa33 • Home Telephone: Business Telephone:(303} L.f 5.1-. Lisa? DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES USE ONLY I Case# Floodplain: to Yes ❑ No Geologic Hazard: ❑ Yes ❑ No I hereby state that all statements and plans submitted with the application are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. a.n.tu_t_c a-- ..4Q-rzoLCA.rr o Signature: Owner or Authorized Agent Rev: 1-27-97 Road File# RE: 5 991810 Bearson Dairy, LLC `/p Mr. Darrell Bearson 9743 WCR 16 Fort Lupton, Colorado 80621 Special Use Permit Application Submitted to Weld County Spring 1999 Application Prepared By: EnviroStock, Inc. 11990 Grant Street, Suite 402 Denver, Colorado 80233 (303) 457-4322 991.81_ i ; RIGHT TO FARM COVENANT Weld County is one of the most productive agricultural counties in the United States. The rural areas of Weld County may be open and spacious,but they are intensively used for agriculture. Persons moving into a rural area must recognize there are drawbacks, including conflicts with longstanding agricultural practices and a lower level of services than in town. Agricultural users of the land should not be expected to change their long-established agricultural practices to accommodate the intrusions of urban users into a rural area. Well run agricultural activities will generate off-site impacts, including noise from tractors and equipment;dust from animal pens,field work,harvest, and gravel roads; odor from animal confinement,silage, and manure; smoke from ditch burning; flies and mosquitoes; the use of pesticides and fertilizers in the fields, including the use of aerial spraying. Ditches and reservoirs cannot simply be moved"out of the way"of residential development without threatening the efficient delivery of irrigation to fields which is essential to farm production. Weld County covers a land area of over 4,000 square miles in size(twice the State of Delaware)with more than 3,700 miles of state and county roads outside of municipalities. The sheer magnitude of the area to be served stretches available resources. Law enforcement is based on responses to complaints more than on patrols of the county and the distances which must be traveled may delay all emergency responses,including law enforcement, ambulance, and fire. Fire protection is usually provided by volunteers who must leave their jobs and families to respond to emergencies. County gravel roads,no matter how often they are bladed, will not provide the same kind of surface expected from a paved road. Snow removal priorities mean that roads from subdivisions to arterials may not be cleared for several days after a major snowstorm. Snow removal for roads within subdivisions are of the lowest priority for public works or may be the private responsibility of the homeowners. Services in rural areas, in many cases,will not be equivalent to municipal services. Children are exposed to different hazards in the county than in an urban or suburban setting. Farm equipment and oil field equipment,ponds and irrigation ditches,electrical power for pumps and center pivot operations, high speed traffic, sand burs, puncture vines, territorial farm dogs, and livestock present real threats to children. Controlling children's activities is important, not only for their safety, but also for the protection of the farmer's livelihood. 991810 Beason Dairy, LLC Envirostock, Inc-Project 22967-001 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 an expansion and allowance for 2,500 head of cattle, associated corrals, milking facilities and storage, management and support facilities on approximately 160 acres. Additionally, this proposal includes addition of seven mobile/modular accessory employee housing units (See question 7). 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. 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. 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 prime-if-irrigated and non-prime farmland. This proposal is compatible with surrounding areas, agricultural uses and the Weld County Comprehensive Plan. Dryland farmground and native rangeland pasture predominantly surround. There are no rural residences located within 500 feet of the physical dairy facilities or the parcel boundary. 991810 "Serving Environmental Needs of the Livestock Industry" Beaman Dairy, LLC Envirostock, Inc-Project 22967-001 S. Describe, in detail, the following: a) How many people will use this site? The number of people using this site will be variable. 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. Up to 25 employees will be working at the site. b) How many employees are proposed to be employed at this site? Bearson Dairy will employ approximately 25 people at this site. This number may increase 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. 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 structures on this site will be the addition of cattle pens, seven mobile/modular employee accessory dwellings, and one stormwater retention structure. e) What type and how many animals, if any, will be on this site? The site will contain approximately 2,500 head of dairy cattle. Of the 2,500 head, approximately 1,100 will be milked twice daily. The balance will be dry cows, calves, steers and replacement heifers. The table below outlines the animal types at Bearson Dairy, LLC. Bearson Dairy, LLC - Animal Unit Table Animal Type Totals Milking Cows 1100 Dry Cows/Close-ups 300 Heifers/Steers* (500 lbs. Avg.) 850 Calves 250 TOTAL 2,500 991810 "Serving Environmental Needs of the Livestock Industry" Bearson Dairy, LLC Envirostock, Inc-Project 22967-001 ,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. Bearson Dairy will ship milk up to two times per day offsite with semi tractors and trailers. The dairy will receive feedstuffs, forages and feed additives delivered in semi trailers and trucks several times per day. Vendors and suppliers will frequent the site in pick-up trucks and personal vehicles. g) Who will provide fire protection to the site? Fire protection will be provided by the Fort Lupton Fire District. h) What is the water source on the property? (Both domestic and irrigation). Two commercial groundwater wells are currently used to provide water for the dairy and associated operations. Well registrations are included in this application. Additionally, quality municipal water from Central Weld County Water District for supplying cattle, personnel and tenants is available. i) What is the sewage disposal system on the property? (Existing and proposed). Existing sewage treatment for the office and employee housing is through individual septic systems. Permit copies for existing septic systems are included in this application. Sewage disposal from new facilities and new mobile/modular employee accessory 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 these 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. Manure is stored onsite for the period necessary to complete the composting process. Solid manure management and composting is conducted by Boss Composting from Brighton, Colorado. Once the composting process is complete, compost is removed offsite. 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. No additional landscaping is proposed at the site. However, as outlined in the Nuisance Management Plan, if nuisance conditions persist beyond increased maintenance interval controls, Bearson Dairy will install physical or mechanical means such as living windbreaks and/or solid fences to further minimize nuisance conditions from dust and odors. 991810 "Serving Environmental Needs of the Livestock Industry" Bearson Dairy, LLC Envirostock, Inc-Project 22967-001 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 Bearson Dairy or by Weld County, the mobile/modular accessory housing units will be removed. 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. Construction of the pens, milking center and related structures will begin within 3 years from approval of the USR permit and recording of the plat. Should any unforeseen delays postpone the development of the dairy beyond 3 years, Weld County will be notified and development schedules adjusted accordingly. 10. Explain where storage and/or stockpiles of wastes will occur on this site. Solid manure is stored seasonally at the site. Manure is managed and composted by Boss Composting from Brighton, Colorado. Once composting is completed,the material is removed to an ofliste location and sold. 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. 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 is contracted to a trash pick-up service and collected weekly. 991910 "Serving Environmental Needs of the Livestock Industry" Bearson Dairy, LLC Envirostock, Inc-Project 23124-1-98 Manure & Process Wastewater Management Plan for Bearson Dairy, LLC 9743 Weld County Road 16 Fort Lupton, Colorado 80621 Developed in accordance with the Colorado "Confined Animal Feeding Operations Control Regulation" & Generally Accepted Agricultural Best Management Practices Prepared By VIR0 TOCK,t . 11990 Grant Street, Suite 402 Denver, Colorado 80233 March 1999 991810 lf "Serving Environmental Needs of the Livestock Industry" a A iv, I kt z' "-' ' _ Bearson Dairy, LLC Envirostock, Inc-Project 22967-001 Table of Contents INTRODUCTION 3 LEGAL OWNER,CONTACTS AND AUTHORIZED PERSONS 3 LEGAL DESCRIPTION 3 LOCATION MAP 4 SITE MAP 5 SITE DESCRHTION 7 FLOODPLAINS 7 MANAGEMENT CONTROLS 8 MANURE AND WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT 8 Solid Manure 8 Retention Facilities 9 Retention Facility Dewatering 10 Stormwater and Process Water 10 IRRIGATION AND NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT 13 INSPECTIONS 14 APPENDIX A-FLOOD MAPS 15 APPENDIX B-MANURE MANAGEMENT RECORD FORM 16 APPENDIX C-RECORD KEEPING FORMS 17 APPENDIX D-WASTEWATER AND STORMWATER CALCULATIONS 18 "Serving Environmental Needs of the Livestock Industry" 2 991.810 Bearson Dairy, LLC Envirostock, Inc-Project 22967-001 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 Bearson Dairy, LLC is Darrell Bearson and Family Correspondence and Contacts should be made to: Mr. Darrell Bearson 9743 WCR 16 Fort Lupton, Colorado 80621 (303) 833-3316 The individual(s) at this facility who is(are) responsible for developing the implementation, maintenance and revision of this MMP are listed below: Darrell Bearson Owner (Name) (Title) Legal Description The legal description of Bearson Dairy, LLC is: The West %z of the Southeast ' and the East %s of the Southwest ' of Section 27, Township 2 North, Range 67 west of the 6"'Principal Meridian, Weld County, Colorado. "Serving Environmental Needs of the Livestock Industry" 99"1.810 3 Bearson Dairy, LLC Envirostock, Inc-Project 22967-001 Maps Location Map The Topographical Location Map shows the location of Bearson Dairy, LLC, surrounding sites, topography and major drainages. "Serving Environmental Needs of the Livestock Industry' 991.910 4 Bearson Dairy, LLC Envirostock, Inc-Project 22967-001 Site Map The Site Map details the configuration of the existing and proposed dairy pens and alleys, waste management system and site drainage patterns. "Serving Environmental Needs of the Livestock Industry" 991 810 5 Bearson Dairy, LLC Envirostock, Inc-Project 22967-001 Site Description (See Site Map) The average annual working capacity of Bearson Dairy, LLC is 2,500 head of dairy cattle. Table 1 outlines the types and approximate types of cattle at Bearson Dairy, LLC. Table 1 - Bearson Dairy, LLC - Animal Unit Table Animal Type Totals Milking Cows 1100 Dry Cows/Close-ups 300 Heifers/Steers` (500 lbs. Avg.) 850 Calves 250 TOTAL 2,500 Total animal units (AU's) as defined by the Colorado Confined Animal Feeding Control (CAFO) Regulations are 2,730. Animal units defined by the CAFO regulation are animal unit equivalencies and multipliers based on animal weight. Lactating and mature dairy cow equivalencies are 1.4; immature animals are 50% of mature equivalency factors or 0.7. Bearson Dairy, LLC AU equivalencies are outlined below: 1100 Milking Cows x 1.4 Animal Units for Mature Dairy Cows = 1,540 300 Dry Cows and Close-up Cows x 1.4 Animal Units for Mature Dairy Cows = 420 850 Heifers/Steers x 1.4 Animal Units x 0.5 for immature dairy animals = 595 250 Calves x 1.4 Animal Units x 0.5 for immature dairy animals = 175 1,540 + 420 + 595 + 175 = 2,730 total Animal Units per CAFO Regulations The use of this property is for a dairy facility for milk production, associated structures and corrals for livestock husbandry, equipment and feed storage and maintenance facilities, waste management and control structures, and residences for employees. Bearson Dairy, LLC owns approximately 260 acres. The physical facilities are located on approximately 45 acres and the 215-acre balance is farmground. The Weld County Special Use Zoning for the bearson Dairy, LLC operations encompasses approximately 160 acres. The additional 100 acres owned by the Bearson family are available to support the waste management of the facility in this Manure and Wastewater Management Plan. Four existing lagoons and one proposed stormwater pond is used for collection of wastewater from the dairy milking center and stormwater runoff respectively. Floodplains Bearson Dairy, LLC is not located within a mapped 100-year floodplain. National Flood Insurance Program, Federal Emergency Management Agency maps are in Appendix A. "Serving Environmental Needs of the Livestock Industry" 7 991.810 Bearson Dairy, LLC Envirostock, Inc-Project 22967-001 Management Controls Manure and Wastewater Management Solid Manure Solid manure is managed through routine pen maintenance. Solid manure is collected and composted. Boss Composting in Brighton composts and removes manure from the dairy. The composting process is conducted primarily onsite. No material is incorporated from off-site sources with the exception of bedding materials such as straw, corn stalks or other typical agricultural materials related to the Bearson Dairy, LLC facility. These inert materials are incorporated into the manure mix as a carbon source to facilitate proper composting. 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 routinely to allow proper stormwater drainage, eliminate low spots and ponding, and provide dry ground for livestock. 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. All solid manure at Bearson Dairy, LLC is collected, composted and removed offsite by Boss Composting of Brighton. Composting reduces total manure volume and manure's nitrogen content by approximately 50%respectively. Composting minimizes nuisance conditions related to manure storage. Under normal operating conditions, all manure/compost is removed from the facility for sale or use off-site. Should any solid manure or compost be applied to farmground owned or managed by Bearson Dairy, LLC, it will be analyzed for nutrient content, loaded, and directly applied to farmground at agronomically beneficial rates. Agronomic calculations and records will be recorded in the Manure Management forms in Appendix B of this Plan. Records of the quantity of solid manure and/or compost removed from Bearson Dairy, LLC to off-site locations not owned by Bearson Dairy, LLC will be recorded in the Manure Log forms included in the Appendix C of this plan. 'Serving Environmental Needs of the Livestock Industry" 991 810 8 Bearson Dairy, LLC Envirostock, Inc-Project 22967-001 Retention Facilities Bearson Dairy, LLC's stormwater and wastewater management control structures include four existing stormwater and wastewater lagoons and one proposed pond for stormwater collection only. 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. Stormwater runoff calculations for a 25-year, 24-hour storm indicate a required capacity of approximately 11 acre-feet is necessary for the facility. Total existing and planned stormwater and wastewater retention capacity is approximately 32 acre-feet. Wastewater production at Bearson Dairy, LLC is minimal. A water flush system that recycles process water from the ponds is used in the milking center. There are no freestall barns and associated flush systems. Bearson Dairy, LLC does not use parlor sprinklers, showers for livestock or udder washes. Animal waterers use valves to control water flow. The only additional fresh water introduced into the system is used to flush the piping system in the milking center and the parlor hose wash. Hose wash consists of approximately 50 gpm for 10 minutes following each of two shifts. The manual hose wash cleans the floor of the milking parlor and consists of approximately 1000 gallons per day. Wash water for the milking center pipelines consist of 4 60-gallon cycles twice per day or 480 gallons per day. Bulk tank washout consists of approximately 120 gallons per day. Total milking center process water usage is approximately 1,600 gallons per day or less than 2 acre/feet per year. Process water is recycled periodically to flush the holding pens outside the milking center. Periods occur during summer months when little or no water is present in the majority of the ponds due to evaporation. Lagoons 1 through 4 will contain approximately 20 acre-feet of process wastewater and stormwater. The existing lagoons 1 through 4 have sufficient capacity for approximately one 25-year, 24-hour storm event plus 6 months of process wastewater storage capacity. 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 115 acres of farmground. An additional 100 acres of available farmground is owned by the Bearson family but is not included in the Weld County Use-by-Special Review zoning permit. Wastewater and stormwater generation calculations are in Appendix D. The new stormwater retention pond will collect only stormwater from the dairy pen surfaces, alleys and manure/composting storage areas. The pond will be lined with compacted earthen material to a thickness of at least 18"or more to a permeability equal to or exceeding 1/4" per day seepage limitations 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. "Serving Environmental Needs of the Livestock Industry" 9 991.810 Bearson Dairy, LLC Envirostock, Inc-Project 22967-001 Retention Facility Dewatering As outlined in the Colorado Confined Animal Feeding Operations Control Regulation, process wastewater shall not be distributed on agricultural lands in a manner that adversely affects the quality of water of the state by causing exceedences of applicable water quality standards, numerical protection levels or impairment of existing beneficial uses. When irrigation disposal of process wastewater is employed, the irrigation application rate shall not exceed the estimated soil infiltration rate. For flood irrigation,tailwater facilities shall be provided. Irrigation application rates shall be adjusted to avoid significant ponding of concentrated runoff in surface depressions or seasonal drainageways. There shall be no discharge to waters of the state resulting from land application activities when the ground is frozen, saturated or during rainfall events. The lagoon system will be maintained to contain a 25-year, 24-hour storm event. Should stormwater runoff elevate the lagoons beyond 50% of the designed 25-year, 24-hour 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 flood irrigation systems. A tailwater pond will be used. Stormwater and Process Water Production and nutrient calculations for agronomic land application of stormwater and process water at Bearson Dairy, LLC are outlined in the following examples. At maximum production, the facility will generate less than 2 acre/feet per year of process wastewater. A 25-year, 24-hour storm event at Bearson Dairy will generate approximately 11 acre-feet of stormwater runoff. Average annual precipitation accumulations are approximately 6 acre-feet. Table 1 outlines lagoon water nutrient content for dairies from the NRCS— Agricultural Waste Management Field Handbook. Table 1 Nutrient Content of Dairy Milking Center Wastewater—Aerobic Lagoon lbs/1000 gallons Dry Matter % Total N NH4 .05 0.16 0.10 Total N includes the NH4 fraction. N "as applied" is calculated below: (0.16 Total N- 0.10 NH4 fraction)x 30%mineralization rate = 0.021 Organic N 0.201 Organic N+ 0.10 NH4 = 0.121 lbs available N/1000 gallons Stormwater runoff from the cattle pens as indicated by the NRCS-AWM Handbook for areas with< 25 inches annual rainfall and pen surfaces in above-average conditions (Highly effective °Serving Environmental Needs of the Livestock Industry' 10 9'CO 810 Bearson Dairy, LLC Envirostock, Inc-Project 22967-001 solids removal and less than 120 head per acre) show total Nitrogen content of approximately 60 lbs N per acre-inch. Table 2 Nutrient Content of runoff pond lbs/1000 gallons Dry Matter % Total N NH4 .3 _ 1.67 1.5 (1.67 Total N-- 1.5 NH4 fraction)x 30% mineralization rate = 0.051 Organic N 0.051 Organic N+ 1.5 NH4 = 1.55 lbs available N/1000 gallons Total potential stormwater runoff from a 25-year, 24-hour storm is approximately 11 acre-feet. Process water generation is less than 2 acre-feet per year. Annual evaporation for the Ft. Lupton area is approximately 8.89 inches per month average for the months of mid-May to mid-October or a total of 53.34 inches of evaporation. Accounting for stormwater, process water, and evaporation, total water production and nitrogen content for Bearson Dairy, LLC is outlined below. 2 AF process water + 10 AF stormwater = 12 annual AF 53.34" evaporation x 3.5 acre pond surface area x 1 foot/12 inches = 15.56 AF evaporation 12 AF water production—15.56 AF evaporation = (-3.56) AF net water production Per the Colorado Confined Animal Feeding Operations Control Regulation, whenever 50% of the designed runoff storage capacity is exceeded, the retention structure shall be dewatered to a level that restores the full runoff storage capacity within a fifteen day period. Bearson Dairy, LLC's lagoon system capacity is approximately 32 acre-feet; over twice the required retention capacity. Assuming Bearson Dairy, LLC must dewater whenever 50% of the design storage capacity capable of containing the 25-year, 24-hour storm is exceeded. 50% of the predicted 25-year, 24-hour storm is 5 acre-feet. Land application requirements for the agronomic application of 5 acre-feet is outlined below. 5 AFx 325,848 gal/1 AFx 1.55 lbs N/1000 gaL = 2525 lbs N 150-Bushel corn x 1.35 lbs N removed per acre = 202.5 lbs N needed per acre for Corn 2525 lbs N/202.5 lbs N required for Corn = 12.5 acres of Corn Production "Serving Environmental Needs of the Livestock Industry" 991810 11 Bearson Dairy, LLC Envirostock, Inc-Project 22967-001 The table below lists the typical land application requirements for the total 25-year/24-hour storm event and 6 months of wastewater for Bearson Dairy, LLC. Stara dar(2Gyrear,2bhorrdam)andRooaesVWehaa terPppikationRequkareas (aaseemesartalor Vdured25jr.,23hr stun eel 3,258,480 elms Val/act 6 mats assess mama 3,910,176 galas Tata Nature tatted in Squid 28,675 bs Armastrn-Isibtgle lost clap misses;bs 1,140 vloaiths m(17.5%) 196 vi inn a/(3%ag) taw InWaueAlap®dst 27,534 bs 28,479 Warn AmillstatoPlats 1st w.(PAM,bs 22,972 (30%nn ralefaaaritN) 23,917 (3C96 ran rats) Can Wfafaa Barley Can Silage Sagh.raSLdal Based on CSU edatioi&Mini9(CM-174 150 Bute 4tadaae 80 Wade 20vetbrdare 10 adtadan N req.(20 let remNinadMa6%Nefederwy),IWaae 185 250 86 213 185 Pass req.if manure applied Wo immolate aMNa iar 124 92 267 108 124 Pores req.if mean clad Ni dreadaltivdiar 129 98 278 112 129 'Pro rres lagoals oaten 6 RIMh6 process weeteeeter at 25 year dam°oaring aim ltanectay The table below outlines stormwater application requirements during a typical year. The table accounts for average annual rainfall and evaporation. StomTnater(Average Year Required Pumping) Ag YarAppfaabm Reg OS AF.),prams 1,954,973 TM Nlragen catered in squid,be. 7,620 Artnorran.N rget lost cuing appladiati IS. 684 sib Qiavabm(17.5%) 117 w iron an(3%erg.) Nitrogen in Mature/ter txcedraet,lbs. 7,136 7,703 NitrogenAvaleblelo Plat 1st N.(PAM.bs. 4,399 (30%can.reefa agaio-M 4,986 (30%inn rate) Corn Alfafa Barley Corn Silage Sorghum/Suian Based on CSU Extension Bulletin/ACM-174 150 Sian 4 tondacre a0 BWaae 20 vaatmNaae 10 ad tadaae N req.(20 lb.ma N in edIxa8%N elkdenf),lb./acre 185 250 86 213 185 Pores req.if manure applied Wo immediate ait vadon 24 18 51 21 24 Ames req.if mane applied W irtnedide cultivation 27 20 58 23 27 Bearson Dairy, LLC's primary application area consists of approximately 115 acres of farmground located immediately adjacent to the facility. An additional 100 acres of available farmground is owned by the Bearson family but is not included in the Weld County Use-by- Special Review Zoning permit. Copies of data and calculations for stormwater, process wastewater, manure generation and land application are in Appendix D. `Serving Environmental Needs of the Livestock Industry" 991810 12 Bearson Dairy, LLC Envirostock, Inc-Project 22967-001 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 Bearson Dairy, LLC 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. Bearson Dairy, LLC will follow the land application requirements outlined above. 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. "Serving Environmental Needs of the Livestock Industry" 991 810 13 Bearson Dairy, LLC Envirostock, Inc-Project 22967-001 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 I — .991810 "Serving Environmental Needs of the Livestock Industry" 14 Bearson Dairy, LLC Envirostock, Inc-Project 22967-001 Appendix A - Flood Maps "Serving Environmental Needs of the Livestock Industry° 991810 15 NOV. -03' 98ITUEl 181.5 FAO R;SL`:.;:,c... aI�.3 :.. Gu,; -^.r determine If flood Insurance Is available In this community, lute your Insunncc arch,or call ant Natloml Flood Insurance trram n ISCC) 635-6620. litir APPROXIMATE SCALE _. SCO C 600 FEET II�I�I IIIIII NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM ' FIRM : FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP WELD COUNTY, COLORADO UNINCORPORATED AREA . I PANEL 864 OF 1075 IEEE MAP INDEX FOR PANELS NOT PRINTAD1 i • COMMUNITY-PANEL NUMBER • MAP REVISED: SEPTEMBER 28, 1982 federal emergency management agency . t I . l t atx COA\iC 991,810 A10 F16. 0 ! iSLK=.IA JI�J P.NOV. -IiJ rlull�Cl 18 Jti ,-'� _ -- "—"—"--"-- See the atucn:d 0.M. See FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGcMENT AGENCY Instructions Exalt es April 3Q199$ STANDARD FLOOD HAZARD DETEILtiIIN.ATION --—'-' ._..... _ -... -_—__.__.—.--._. _.. LTLONI•LOAN INFORMATION 1---- -••D ADDRESS 2.COLLATERAL(Reliding/Mobile Homt/Personal Property)PROPERTY ADDRESS I 1.GENDER NAbSE AN (Legal Description may be attached; EnvUnknown 11990 Grant ock 9743 Weld county Road 16 Denver,CO 80233t.,Suite 402 Fort Lupton,CO 80621 C S l2 et Sec 27,T2N,R67W 3.LENDER ID.NO. 4.LOAN IDENTIFIER S.AMOUNT OF FLOOD INSURANCE REQUIRED Elizabeth _1____.. : . - 9F-CTI. ort II A.NATIONAL FLOODINSURANCE PR(IGRAM(NF1P1 COMMIINITY_JURISDICTION- —-- _ ,—,_ —,-- P Conimuart.. NFIP Community calmly( 1 Stan Name Number ^ -- — - .. Weld co 080266 Unincorporated •D.(gATIONALFLNumber tCommu PAOG Panel Numb IP)PA-1-. "-CCINGBUf1ASNG Q-tORi-. . .-L )• • • ---"—r lo • NPIP Map NumberarCammwutyPanelNumber --7• NFIPMapPanelEtikctive LOMA/LOMR Flood Zone Aevlsad Dan .._ ._ _...__ .—Ms (Community name,it not the snorers C OR0266.0864 -C 9iZSB2 —Yes Dale —.__ —� G6EDEi1AGFIAODINsvRANCi AtAILiiUITY(Cluck allthat apply) __.... --_ _ '--" X Federal Plead Inattomee le available(community pattidpetes In NFLP) X Regular?WIMP, Emergency Program of NM Relent Flood Insurance la not available because community does not panlelpet°in the NM Building/Mobile Homo is n Coastal Harrier Resources Mn(CERA),Federal Road Imuraeeo may not be available CBRAderignatiun data: _—_— . _ -- •_ D,DETERMINATION --- •- — 1'$5 K NO IS BUIWU4GIMOSILE HOME 1N THE SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREA __ (ZONES BEGINNING WITH LETTERS'A'OR'V)? • 1(yee,flood insurance Is required by the Flood Diluter Protection An of 1973 lino,flood insurance is not required by the Flood Disaster Protection Act or 1973 --.— _ E.COMMENT$(Opaonot) Please see copy of the attached map. The X with the circle around it marks the approximate location of the property. If you have any questions,please do not hesitate to call. Tlledrtermlaoaon le bated on examining the NFlvmap,and Federal Emergency MnnagementAgenty lainn IiL and any other Informatonneeded to locate the buildinghnoblle home on the NMI'map. .. .. — ---- -- - F.PREPARER'SINFORMATION ... .. '—•-- DATE OF DETERMINATION ------- --_� NAME,FloodIRneurarcLEPRO a N MUI— (itntharthanlender) lt/3198 1695 E.float Avenue eroompdd,CO 60020 Phone(303)462.1716 Fax(303)A52-1208 Trans 237535 __ 'TMFarm 11143,Jun 95 991810 NOV, -03' 981 iUEI 18: 55 ,iLOOD INSURANCE SYOS P. 007 E 27 ZONE C • 991810 Bearson Dairy Envirostock, Inc-Project 22967-001 Appendix B - Manure Management Record Form "Serving Environmental Needs of the Livestock Industry" 991.910 15 MANURE APPLICATION LOG (manure applied to feedyard property) Field: Year DATE CROP TONS ACRES TON/ACRE 940�.I810 Nutrient Management Pan Q. MANURE REMOVAL LOG (manure taken off feedyard property) Year: DATE PERSON TAKING MANURE AMOUNT(tons) 991.810 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 991810 Nutrient Management Pan MANURE MANAGEMENT RECORD SHEET k �d s. e �g�cyyz �3 a S� »a�ta��'� > 'x; g d'd t �$a S� . �rYrzs eSGgr�l6at176`��., ,a+ xk .� �flMw o. � xwwaK .r�xr.a^₹'^< zS az� 33tea8fna�t&ra�iS"a< �.s � g 4 k h /4 Lx4"'i*S/'M x III S• ao b ob@oS a yaaS1raw�"+$r&3c3Y`£rl ¢3' v"� �l�j+!r�' '+ ..c.._ �r �s '$ 3 3>o h��xr�fiS @y+62�Sw�`�`I .Yx$.a,.t�.'C,.r aoi a''�a'£o`^�� k t w< a, .£,$vY for 40 <$ H^ tl "�₹ tes a ov x°. noa h"$t A03Xc lsa lit£Mcert ` 3'etna ti ' w a $031iziiiito( Y >y boas @ „s Yteste' °Y` :°•+ c rc ma. Y� trr s �xx " ut xc`aog tp• x',s3 lea( i$ '�,.�. 'iwh`' f a 0 o >o ho row »S 4x.R' Q x » z �'' 3t »zv bA:0,. 3.p'x^,o. 4o x,. .Fuo.s S • Croso • Crop planted: ' N Requirement M F..�,,,,; ,,, 1 Expected yield (Past year a e ag °%): bu/A 2. Total N needed to thieve xpected yield: _ lbs/A (Expected yield x rop fac r/Efficiency factor) N Credits `g 3. Residual soil NO3 : �� "V lbs N/A 4. Irrigation water NO3 credit: lbs N/A (ppm NO3 N x 2.7 = lbs/acre ft. water) " t 5. Soil organic matter credit (credit 30 lbs N per % OM): r lbs N/A 6. Nitrogen available from previous legume crop: lbs N/A s 7. N available to crop (sum of lines 3, 4, 5, and 6): t lbs N/A i'.,, • ,,. .8. Plant available N/ton manure lbs/ton 9. Maximum manure application rate: i tons/A g Total Manure applied: tons/A Actual field bu/A N Fertilizer applied: lbs/A Total irrigation water applied: AF Notes: X91810 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: Date: Signature: 991810 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: 991810 Nutrient Management Pan Bearson Dairy Envirostock, Inc-Project 22967-001 Appendix C - Record keeping Forms "Serving Environmental Needs of the Livestock Industry" 16 991810 RETENTION FACILITY MEASUREMENTS (record a measurement on each retention facility on a weekly basis) Retention Facility: Year: DATE MEASUREMENT DATE MEASUREMENT 991610 Nutrient Management Pan RAINFALL LOG Rain Gauge Location: Year: BEGINNING ENDING RAINFALL DATE TIME DATE TIME (inches) 991810 Nutrient Management Pan N@' n2 A T . a Q e ≥ E = E E Yn- 3 oft, a CZ + + + + ,gy ..4 r c j Cr a o N C of h m O d e W ,, I ;Fi i =LL Lti i 03 CO al W it E e .v^. I Y a g c 2 = x � i— a' 3ci t Q 0. t. Q Q 4 o V) Z co 0 UJ Q W Q W ad N. $ v u -. v d II. Y W Pm, Mkt,li E ':.� ,c ,tip c to Q y Z i y $ I >.- w Q \/ c M V O i CI et 2 8 # u. V O t U O m aft. a u O Q IS S E. Q of E ` w,. Q... d n ;`' LL u - 0 r � , o @ w t . ca to ` X E `` 4+ a "+ ). f at' N >,.g., a: D i C� _ To N A� t C 1p d..._0 U CO V m t ac CD _.. Q sa 0 to al • c . L E. N R ea m t o Q N m to 991810 E t c _ b' &&'`' m ' la ars Y a a s Z y m C c N co .< in W 2 • Bearson Dairy Envirostock, Inc-Project 22967-001 Appendix D - Wastewater and Stormwater Calculations 991810 "Serving Environmental Needs of the Livestock Industry" 17 Runoff Calculation for Storage Capacity Bearson Dairy Area 711 Area#2 Area#3 Area#4 Area#5 Total Enter 25-year,24-hour Storm Event for the Location/n inches 400 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 Enter SCS Runoff curve#factor 1.11 1.11 1.11 1.11 1.11 1.11 90 for unsurfecetl lots factor 1.11 97 for surfaced lots factor 0.309 Enter total number of acres in facility drainage areas 45 45 Separate different drainage areas Include pens,alleys,mill areas, waking areas etc. Inches of runoff given SCS Runoff Curve Factor 2.92 2.92 2.92 2.92 2.92 Minimum Retention Capacity for Runoff Required(Acre-Ft) 10.95 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.95 Gallons 3,568,117 0 0 0 0 3,568,117 Lagoon Capacities Lagoon 1 Lagoon 2 Lagoon 3 Lagoon 4 Stonnwater Pond Length(Top of Berm)(feet) 145 145 425 450 650 Width(Top d Berm)(feet) 120 120 130 220 0 Liquid Depth(Feet) 4 4 6 6 6 Slope(ft.harizonfayf ft.vertical) 2 2 2 2 4 FreehoeM(feet) 2 2 2 2 2 Totals (Ca.-Ft) 53,749 53,749 267,588 516,288 525,819 891,375 (Gallon) 402,045 402,045 2,001,559 3,861,835 3,933,130 6,667,484 (Acre•FL) 1.23 1.23 6.14 11.85 12.07 32.53 991810 Runoff 3/31/99 I n o ej a to n m N s_ M a M M co a m u. N in in OD O) % W OD O) O O N n 0n N OD M O) U7 (T O M O 4 4 M M N N r r r r Q co Q Qy v o co O N- O a O) Of a tD v, r- m r (O co In co O (O IO OD O N CD Ol § V C N 7 0 aN- ir '�t (NOOOIO) b 'Co- -2 O CD OD fO * N I- 0ND W N a a CD DD O) (O OD M M M N (O CD r� N (N�ppn Nn 0• ow.et {0N O ei 0) NON CD CDDO CD a 4 N OD CD a N N OND COD in et tel N .- O0D n ^ * M w (a(pp 1� O N O aa '�t h O __ 17446 O N 0) 0 N a N- M O 07 d (O COOU7 Una V' M iv) el Ax U ` N O0OO47 V M so et N... ON O ,--t r... O C O co N O) N O O O d) p �j CO (D U)) U in et V M C') re) Q NN 7 7 O) 0On n (OU7 CD CO O CO 4) in N N N IO tit; a M is V O in N 2 O * 2 CO n n N- C (D lnv V M CO V ON OOO) O) 0DN (OI) tD CD tO O 47 U7 IA in III in It O n P') O) 4) n O) 4) g =0MOnNN-NO (o IUOUOeCO V O NCD OOO NON- V n et 0O NNOD 0O in U7 ON. OM O CO M r W CD. WOO n M0DOC n Eli 1O0 (D UO) U Inv * M to) 0 o )„ 0n V rNeCO MI NOD >S ON- in M O CO M r In O N OI0r nM ad 4Or n 2 O• C U) r OD itr n r n a O 'S7 O d tD for In O N a a M M M O 10 Q .r E t' sci E 43 a W 3 CO c a) c E yy gsQt ..- 0a •°3 °a o (• �j� a ��r n C0 .C C.) H ro y It O) W n CO47 .t M N r O C m2 � LL3 810 Bearson Dairy Bearson Dairy-Manure Handling Open Lot-Solid Manure taken off site-Stormwater Land Applied to Dairy property Solid Manure Annual N produced at Bearson Dairy,lbs. 1,861,500 Nitrogen lost during storage&handling,lbs. 884,213 (47.5%loss avg.) Ammonium-Nitrogen lost during application,lbs. 73,297 w/o imm.cultivation(22.5%avg.) 9,773 ve irnm.cult.(3%avg.) Nitrogen in Manure after application,lbs. 903,991 967,515 Nitrogen Available to Plants 1st yr.,lbs. 480,500 (35%min.rate for organic-N) 544,023 (35%min.rate) Corn Alfafa Barley Corn Silage Sorghum/Sudan Based on CSU Extension Bulletin#XCM-174 150 Bu/acre 4 tons/acre 80 Bu/acre 20 wet tons/acre 10 wet tons/acre N req.(20 lb.res.N in soil)(66%N effeciency),lb./acre 185 250 86 213 185 Acres req.if manure applied w/o immediate cultivation 2,597 1,922 5,587 2,256 2,597 Acres req.if manure applied w/immediate cultivation 2,941 2,176 6,326 2,554 2,941 Stormwater(25-year,24-hour storm) Volume of 25-yr.,24-hr.storm event,gallons 3,258,480 Total Nitrogen contained In liquid,lbs. 13,034 Ammonium-Nitrogen lost during application,lbs. 1,140 w/o Cultivation(17.5%) 196 w/imm.cut(3%avg. Nitrogen in Manure alter broadcast,lbs. 11,893 12,838 Nitrogen Available to Plants 1st yr.(PAN),lbs. 7,332 (30%min.rate for organic-N) 8,277 (30%min.rate) Corn Alfafa Barley Corn Silage Sorghum/Sudan Based on CSU Extension Bulletin#XCM-174 150 Bu/acre 4 tons/acre 80 Bu/acre 20 wet tons/acre 10 wet tons/acre N req.(20 lb.res.N in soil)(66%N effeciency),lb./acre 185 250 86 213 185 Acres req.if manure applied w/o immediate cultivation 40 29 85 34 40 Acres req.if manure applied w/immediate cultivation 45 33 96 39 45 Stormwater(Average Year Required Pumping) Avg Year Application Req.(6 AF.),gallons 1,954,973 Total Nitrogen contained in liquid,lbs. 7,820 Ammonium-Nitrogen lost during application,lbs. 684 w/o Cultivation(17.5%) 117 w/imm.cult.(3%avg. Nitrogen in Manure after broadcast,lbs. 7,136 7,703 Nitrogen Available to Plants 1st yr.(PAN),lbs. 4,399 (30%min.rate for organic-N) 4,966 (30%min.rate) Corn Alfafa Barley Corn Silage Sorghum/Sudan Based on CSU Extension Bulletin#XCM-174 150 Bu/acre 4 tons/acre 80 BWacre 20 wet tons/acre 10 wet tons/acre N req.(20 lb.res.N in soil)(66%N effeciency),lb./acre 185 250 86 213 185 Acres req.if manure applied w/o immediate cultivation 24 18 51 21 24 Acres req.if manure applied w/immediate cultivation 27 20 58 23 27 991810 Bearson Dairy -- Stormwater Generation Calculation(Average Values) Surface area of Ponds,ft= 259,588 Middle area of Ponds,ft`= 150,000 Precip.' Percent Runoff Area Total Runoff Pan Evap. Eap.Area Total Evap. Net Change Amt.Pumped Accumulation Month (inches) Runoff" (Acres) (Acre-Ft.) (inches) " (Acres) (Acre-Ft.) (Acre-Ft.) (Acre-Ft.) (Acre-Ft.) Jan 0.43 3.0% 40 0.26 0 3.44 - 0.26 0.26 Feb 0.33 5.0% 40 0.22 0 3.44 - 0.22 0.48 Mar 1.09 5.0% 40 0.72 0 3.44 - 0.72 1.20 Apr 1.54 12.5% 40 1.41 4.52 3.44 1.10 0.30 1.50 May 2.56 22.0% 40 3.15 5.45 3.44 1.33 1.82 3.00 0.32 Jun 2.03 22.0% 40 2.50 6.43 3.44 1.57 0.93 1.00 0.25 Jul 1.47 20.0% 40 1.71 7.23 3.44 1.76 (0.05) 0.20 Aug 1.18 18.0% 40 1.29 6.34 3.44 1.55 (0.25) (0.06) Sep 1.32 16.0% 40 1.36 4.93 3.44 1.20 0.16 0.10 Oct 0.87 16.0% 40 0.90 3.23 3.44 0.79 0.11 0.21 Nov 0.7 5.0% 40 0.46 0 3.44 - 0.46 0.67 Dec 0.45 3.0% 40 0.27 0 3.44 - 0.27 0.94 Jan 0.43 3.0% 40 0.26 0 3.44 - 0.26 1.20 Feb 0.33 5.0% 40 0.22 0 3.44 - 0.22 1.42 Mar 1.09 5.0% 40 0.72 0 3.44 - 0.72 2.14 _ Apr 1.54 12.5% 40 1.41 4.52 3.44 1.10 0.30 2.44 May 2.56 22.0% 40 3.15 5.45 3.44 1.33 1.82 4.00 0.26 Jun 2.03 22.0% 40 2.50 6.43 3.44 1.57 0.93 1.19 Jul 1.47 20.0% 40 1.71 7.23 3.44 1.76 (0.05) 1.14 Aug 1.18 18.0% 40 1.29 6.34 3.44 1.55 (0.25) _ 0.89 Sep 1.32 16.0% 40 1.36 4.93 3.44 1.20 0.16 _ 1.04 Oct 0.87 16.0% 40 0.90 3.23 3.44 0.79 0.11 1.15 Nov 0.7 5.0% 40 0.46 0 3.44 - 0.46 1.62 —Dec 0.45 3.0% 40 0.27 0 3.44 - 0.27 1.88 Jan 0.43 3.0% 40 0.26 0 3.44 - 0.26 2.14 Feb 0.33 5.0% 40 0.22 0 3.44 - 0.22 2.36 Mar 1.09 5.0% 40 0.72 0 3.44 - 0.72 3.08 Apr 1.54 12.5% 40_ 1.41 4.52 3.44 1.10 0.30 3.00 0.39 May 2.56 22.0% 40 3.15 5.45 3.44 1.33 1.82 -. 2.00 0.21 Jun 2.03 22.0% 40 2.50 6.43 3.44 1.57 0.93 1.13 Jul 1.47 20.0% 40 1.71 7.23 3.44 1.76 (0.05) _ 1.08 Aug 1.18 18.0% 40 1.29 6.34 3.44 1.55 (0.25) 0.83 Sep 1.32 16.0% 40 1.36 4.93 3.44 1.20 0.16 0.99 Oct 0.87 16.0% 40 0.90 3.23 3.44 0.79 0.11 1.09 Nov 0.7 5.0% 40 0.46 0 3.44 - 0.46 1.56 Dec 0.45 3.0% 40 0.27 0 3.44 - 0.27 1.83 Jan 0.43 3.0% 40 0.26 0 3.44 - 0.26 2.08 Feb 0.33 5.0% 40 0.22 0 3.44 - 0.22 2.30 Mar 1.09 5.0% 40 0.72 0 3.44 - 0.72 3.02 Apr 1.54 12.5% 40 1.41 4.52 3.44 1.10 0.30 3.33 May 2.56 22.0% 40 3.15 5.45 3.44 1.33 1.82 3.00 2.15 Jun 2.03 22.0% 40 2.50 6.43 3.44 1.57 0.93 3.00 0.08 Jul 1.47 20.0% 40 1.71 7.23_ 3.44 1.76 (0.05) 0.02 Aug 1.18 18.0% 40 1.29 6.34 3.44 1.55 (0.25) (0.23) Sep 1.32 16.0% 40 1.36 4.93 3.44 1.20 0.16 (0.07) Oct 0.87 16.0% 40 0.90 3.23 3.44 0.79 0.11 0.04 Nov 0.7 5.0% 40 0.46 0 3.44 - 0.46 0.50 Dec 0.45 3.0% 40 0.27 0 3.44 - 0.27 0.77 Jan 0.43 3.0% 40 0.26 0 3.44 - 0.26 1.02 Feb 0.33 5.0% 40 0.22 0 3.44 - 0.22 1.24 Mar 1.09 5.0% 40 0.72 0 3.44 - 0.72 1.97 Apr 1.54 12.5% 40 1.41 4.52 3.44 1.10 0.30 2.27 May 2.56 22.0% 40 3.15 5.45 3.44 1.33 1.82 4.00 0.09 Jun 2.03 22.0% 40 2.50 6.43 3.44 1.57 0.93 1.00 0.02 Jul 1.47 20.0% 40 1.71 7.23 3,44 1.76 (0.05) _ . (0.04) ,- Aug 1.18 18.0% 40 1.29 6.34 3.44 1.55 (0.25) - (0.29) Sep 1.32 16.0% 40 1.36 4.93 3.44 1.20 0.16 (0.13) Oct 0.87 16.0% 40 0.90 3.23 3.44 0.79 0.11 (0.02) Nov 0.7 5.0% 40 0.46 0 3.44 - 0.46 0.44 Dec 0.45 3.0% 40 0.27 0 3.44 - 0.27 0.71 Precipitation for Greeley,CO,NOAA "SCE,National Engineering Handbook "'Evaporation for Ft.Collins,CO,NOAA 991.810 11. Nutrient Management References 20 991810 • • MANURE APPLICATION RATE CALCULATIONS: • • BASED ON CROP N NEEDS . 1) calculate crop nitrogen need ♦ Use attached handout entitled, "Determining Crop Nitrogen Needs from Soil Analyses and Crop Nitrogen Requirements" • You will need to know crop type, expected yield, soil nitrate, and soil organic matter content. (The handout is a summary of all of the CSU fertilizer suggestion factsheets.) 2) determine manure nitrogen content ♦ Sample manure stockpile as you would soil sample a field (you need 20-25 sub- samples mixed together for analysis), and have it analyzed for total nitrogen. • If you don't have a manure sample, use Table A in handout entitled, "Manure Nutrient Content and Availability." 3) calculate the available nitrogen from the manure in the first year after land application + Look up the manure type being used in Table B in the handout entitled, "Manure Nutrient Content and Availability." • Multiply the fraction of total N available in the first year (from Table B) by the total nitrogen content of the manure. This will give you the amount of available nitrogen in the manure. 4) determine the manure application rate 0 Divide the crop nitrogen need (lbs/acre) by the available nitrogen in the manure (lbs/ton). • The result will be the application rate in tons/acre. • For beef cattle manure you can also use Fact Sheet 0.560, Cattle Manure Application Rates Table, to determine the correct manure application rate. This table assumes 50% N availability rather than 40% as in Table B; therefore, the application rates may be slightly different. On,tee 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 . 3.5 tons stover 1.11 Oats 32 60bu .' 1.95 1.5 tons straw 0.63 Rye 56 30 bu 2.08 1.5 tons straw 0.50 Sorghum 56 60 bu 1.67 3 tons stover 1.08 Wheat 60 40 bu 2.08 1.5 tons straw 0.67 Oil crops Canola 50 35 bu 3.60 3 tons straw 4.48 Soybeans 60 . 35 bu 6.25 2 tons stover 2.25 --Sunflower 25 1,100 lb 3.57 2 tons stover 1.50 Forage crops Alfalfa 4 tons 2.25 j Big bluestem 3 tons 0.99 I Birdsfoot trefoil 3 tons 2.49 Bromegrass 3 tons 1.52 Alfalfa-grass 4 tons Little bluestem 3 tons 1.10 Orchardgrass 4 tons 1.47 Red clover 3 tons 2.00 Reed canarygrass 4 tons 1.35 Ryegrass 4 tons 1.67 Switchgrass 3 tons 1.15 Tall fescue 4 tons 1.97 Timothy 3 tons 1.20 Wheatgrass 1 ton 1.42 Continued on nest page • 991810 • Table 3.Nitrogen removed in the harvested part of selected Colorado crops(continued) Crop %dry matter Typicpl yield/A(tons) %N in dry harvested material Silage crops Alfalfa haylage 50 10 wet/5 dry 2.79 Com silage 35 20 wet/7 dry 1.10 Forage sorghum 30 20 wet/6 dry 1.44 Oat haylage 40 10 wet/4 dry ,' 1.60 Sorghum-sudan 50 10 wet/5 dry 1.36 Sugar crops Sugar beets 20 0.20 ibrf grass Bluegrass 2 2.91 Bentgrass 2 3.10 Vegetable crops 3e11 peppers 9 0.40 3eans,dry 1 3.13 _ -2abbage 20 0.33 :arrots 13 0.19 2elery 27 0.17 :ucumbers 10 0.20 .ettuce(heads) 14 0.23 )nions 18 0.30 'eas 2 3.68 'otatoes 14 0.33 ;nap beans 3 0.88 ;weet corn 6 0.89 iweet potatoes 7 0.30 Wapted from USDA Agricultural Waste Management Field Handbook, 1992. are ree 65Chapter 6 -" Role of Plants in Waste Management -tiPart kgri�hual Waste Management Field Handbook not reached or nutrient imbalances do not occur.The 651.0606 Nutrient removal total nutrient uptake continues to increase with yield, but 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 levels,the percentages can more than double. Nitrogen uptake in grasses,like corn(fig.6-5), fol- lows an S-shaped uptake curve with very low uptake In forage crops,the percent composition for nitrogen the first 30 days of growth,but rises sharply until can range from 1.2 to 2.8 percent,averaging around 2 flowering,then decreases with maturity. percent of the dry harvested material of the plant.The concentrations can reach as high as 4.5 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. (Walsh and Beaton 1973). Multiple cuttings during the growing season maxi- 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 corn(adapted from Hanaway 1962) inmennems 100 ---- — � Uptake of nutrients G in relation to 's 15 dry weight 'o ` Ri - 80 ---- -------- -- ---- ,l 1 e E.S I t / o I 1 as° grain t _ ;5 I I / I / 40 ' I I/ I I I l I I I / I I I If;, I// I;11;11;11;1/;11/11;11;11, 1'/ 14 / 11 111 111 / I// /stalk // 111 / I/111 //I o II!/I II/111 II 111 / i ii 1111111111111111 iv / 117/I 11- /./ 1111 1 1 11 1.1 1 1 .1 1.1 , 11 20 - _ .. - - --- 'I • 0 25 50 75 100 115 Days after emergence (210-AwJ1FH,49?) 991810 6-17 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%drn = 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 7,2801b = 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 15,400 lb = 168 lb 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 12,000 lb = 261b P (b) Nutrient uptake example / 1.87%K x 12,000 lb =224 lb K Corn 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. lb P x 2.3=lb P2O5 1. Crops to be grown: corn and alfalfa lbK x 1.2=1b K 2O 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%potassium 3. Crop yield taken from local data base: corn grain: 130 bu/ac @ 56 lb/bu = 7,280 lb. o rs tee 6-18 (210-AWMFH,4/92) Chapter 6 Role of Plants in Waste Management P.,rt 651 cultural Waste Management . held Handbook Table 6-6 Plant nutrient uptake by specified crop and removed in the harvested part of the crop(Kilmer 1982;Morrison ® 1956;Sanchez 1976;USDA 1985) Crop Dry wt. Typical Average concentration of nutrients(%) i11n Zn lb/bu yield/acre N P K Ca Mg S Cuplant part Grain crops %of the dry harvested material Barley 48 50bu. 1.82 0.34 0.43 0.05 0.10 0.16 , 0.0016 0.0016 0.0`031 1 T.straw 0.75 0.11 1.25 0.40 0.10 0.20 0.0005 0.0160 0.0025 Buckwheat 48 30 bu. 1.65 0.31 0.45 0.09 0.0009 0.0034 • 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 1.34 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 0.0019 2.6 T.straw 0.60 0.09 1.16 0.18 0.10 0.0316 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 . 0.50 0.12 0.69 0.27 0.07 0.10 0.0300 0.0047 0.0023 Sorghum 56 60 bu. 1.67 0.36 0.42 0.13 0.17 0.17 0.0003 0.0013 0.0013 3 T.stover 1.08 0.15 1.31' 0.48 0.30 0.13 0.0116 Wheat 60 40 bu. 2.08 0.62 0.52 0.04 0.25 0.13 0.0013 0.0038 0.0058 1.5 T.straw 0.67 0.07 0.97 0.20 0.10 0.17 0.0003 0.0053 0.0017 Oil crops 96 of the dry harvested material Flax 56 15 bu. 4.09 0.55 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 Oil palm 22,000 lb. 1.13 0.26 0.16 0.19 0.09 0.0043 0.0225 5 T.fronds, stems 1.07 0.49 1.69 0.36 Peanuts 22-30 2,800 lb. 3.60 0.17 0.50 0.04 0.12 0.24 0.0008 0.0040 2.2 T.vines 2.33 0.24 1.75 1.00 0.38 0.36 0.0051 Rapeseed 50 35 bu. 3.60 0.79 0.76 0.66 3 T.straw 4.48 0.43 3.37 L47 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 0.34 0.17 0.0022 4 T.stover 1.50 0.18 2.92 1.73 0.09 0.04 0.0241 99 810 6-19 (210.AWMFH,4/92) 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 las Crop Dry wt. Typical Average concentration of nutrients(%) 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 0.68 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 Bromegrass 5 tons 1.87 0.21 2.55 0.47' 0.19 0.19 0.0008 0.0052 Clover-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 Qriree 6-20 (210-AWMFH,4/92) Table 7. Irrigated Feed Barley,Oats,and`Pr neat(100 bu/A). Table 9. Dryland Proso'.`.Pearl Millet(40 ba/A). Soil NO,-N• Soil organic matter(%) Relative Fertilizer rate Soil NO3-N• level (lb N/A) 0.1.0 1.1-2.0 >2.0 0-1ft 0.2ft —Fertilizer rate Qb N/A)— 0-3 0-6 very low 40 0-6 125 95 75 20 4-6 6-ll low 7-12 105 75 55 10 7-10 12-.17 medium 13-18 85 55 35 >10 >17 high 0 19-24 65 35 15 •Concentration ofNOrN in the top foot of soil or the sum of NO,-N concentrations in 1-foot sample depths to 2 feet (see 25-30 45 15 0 Table2). -The 10 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-ft.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 bu/A,add m. Table 10. Dryland Grain Sorghum(40 bu/A). subtract 2016 N/A for each 10 bu/A difference. Soil NO-N• Soil organic matter(%) r 0-1.0 I 1.1-2.0 I >2.0 —Fertilizer rate Qb N/A)-- 0-3 25 0 0 4.6 0 0 0 7.9 0 0 0 Table 8. Irrigated Malting Barley(100 bu/A). >9 0 0 0 Soil NO,-N• Soil organic matter(%) •Average concentration(ppm)NO3-N in 0 to 2 ft soil layer(see Table 1). 0-1.0 1.1-2.0 >2.0 -To adjust the N rate for other yield goals,add or subtract 12.5 lb N/A for each 10 bu/A difference. —Fertilizer rate Qb N/A)— 0.6 115 85 65 7-12 95 65 45 13.18 75 45 25 Table 11. Irrigated Grain Sorghum(40 bu/A). 19.24 55 25 0 Soil NO-N• Soil organic matter(%) r 25-30 35 0 0 0-1.0 I 1.1-2.0 I >2.0 >30 0 0 0 Fertilizer rate(lb N/A)— •Sum of ppm NO,-N in 1-ft.sample depths to 2 feet(sce Table 2) (for sample depths of 1-ft only,multiply the ppm value by 1.67 0.3 75 45 25 before using the table). -To adjust N rate for expected yields different from 100 bu/A,add 4.6 So 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 bu/A on 7.9 25 0 0 all other soils. >9 0 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. 991810 • Table 12. Dryland Forage Crops for Silage(15 tons/A). Table 15. Dryland Sunflowers(1,5001b/A). Soil NO,-N• Soil organic matter(%) Soil NO,-N' Soil organic matter(%) • 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 •Average concentration(ppm)NO,-N in 0 to 1 ft soil layer. Table I). -To adjust the N rate for other yield goals,add or subtract 6 l N/A -To adjust the N rate for other yield goals,add or subtract 8 lb N/A for each ewt/A difference. for each ton/A difference. Table 13. Irrigated Forage Crops for Silage(30 tons/A). Table 16. Irrigated Grasses. Soil NO,-N' Soil organic matter(%) Soil NO,-N Fertilizer rate 0-1.0 1.1-2.0 >2.0 lb N/A —Fertilizer rate(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 X19-24 110 19-24 110 80 60 25-30 85 25.30 70 40 20 >30 0 31-36 30 0 0 'Average concentration(ppm)NO,-N in 0 to 1 ft soil layer. Use the same N rates for grass-legume mi#ures containing les than 25%legumes. >36 0 0 0 •Average concentration(ppm)NO,-N in 0 to 2 ft soil layer (see Table 1). -To adjust the N rate for other yield goals,add or subtract 9 lb N/A for each ton/A difference. Table 14. Irrl ated 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 7-12 110 95 85 >10 0 0 13-18 95 80 70 •Average concentration(ppm)NOyN in 0 to 1 ft soil layer. 19-24 80 60 30 New seedlings of dryland alfalfa generally do not benefit from preplant N. 25-30 60 45 35 •Average concentration(ppm)NO,-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. Chapter 6 . .e of Plants in Waste Management Part f 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(%) lb/bu yield/acre N P K Ca Mg S Cu Mn Zn plant part 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 ,r Onions 18 tons 0.30 0.06 0.22 0.07 0.01 0.12 0.0002 0.0050 0.0021 Peas 1.6 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 5.5 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 Table beets 15 tons 0.26 0.04 0.28 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.0001 0.0007 Wetland plants 96 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 991810 6-22 (210-AWMFH,4/92) 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 masa Crop Dry wt. Typical Average concentration of nutrients(%) lb/bu yield/acre N P K Ca Mg S Cu hin 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 17,600 lb. 0.22 0.09 0.46. 0.34 Coconuts 0.6 tons-dry copra 5.00 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 %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 0.11 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 wet/5 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 %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 0 1.0 tee (216-AWMFH,4/92) 6-21 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 Proso and Pearl Millet Table 18. Irrigated Dry Beans Table 10. Dryland Grain Sorghum Table 19. Irrigated Potatoes Table 11. Irrigated Grain Sorghum • Table 3. Irritated Corn(175 bu/A), Table 5. Dryland Winter Wheat(50 bu/A). Soil NOr-N• Soil organic matter(%) Soil NO,-N• Soil organic matter(%) • 0-1.0 1.1-2.0 >2.0 0-1R o-2ft 0-1.0 1.1-2.0 >2.0 —Fertilizer rate(lb N/A)— —Fertilizer rate(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)NO,-N in 0 to 2 ft soil layer / 1 S >18 0 0 0 (see Table I} For grain yields other than 175 hu/A,use the equation: •Concentration of NOr N in the top foot of soil or sum of NO,-N N rate.235+[1.2 x yield goal(bu/A)]-[8 x soil NO,-N]-[0.14 x concentrations in I-foot sample depths to 2 feet(see Table 2). yield goal x%O.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-35+[7.5 x yield goal(tons/A)]-[8 x soil NO,-N1- N rate is 75 lb/A). [0.83 x yield goal x Y•O.M]. Table 6. Irrigated Winter Wheat(100 bu/A). Soil NO,-N• Soil organic matter(%) 0.2 ft 0-1.0 1.1.2.0 >2.0 —Fertilizer 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 l.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 NO3N in I-R sample depths to 2 feet(see Table 2) N rate a 35+[1.2 x yield goal(bu/A)]-[8 x soil NO,N]-10.14 x (for sample depths of 1-ft 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)]-[8 x soil N0,41]-10.85 x yield goal x%O.K. 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,Castilla,Rio Grande,and Saguache. 9x718 0 Determining Crop Nitrogen Needs from Soil Analyses and Crop Nitrogen Requirements Use a soil analysis to determine the NO3-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 ft.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-R.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(2a"ft) 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 NO3-N content In a soil(weighted avg.). Table 2. Calculating NO,-N In a soil(stun of two,1-ft.samples). Soil layer Thickness NO,-N Calculations Soil layer NO,-N —inches— PPm feet ppm 0-8 8 20 8x20-160 0-1 10 8-24 16 8 16 x8-121 1.2 4 total 288 10+4- l4ovm 288/24 -Man brstae Table l& Irrigated r Beans 001b/A NOTES Soil NO,N Fertilizer rate • l N/A 0-10 30 11-20 30 21-30 10 .. >30 0 •Average concentration(ppm)NO,-N in 0 to l ft soil layer. - Table 19. Irrigated Potatoes(400 cM/A). Soil NO,-N Fertilizer rate lb N/A 0-IS ISO 19-24 170 25.30 160 - 31.36 150 >37 140 •Average concentration(ppm)NO,-N in 0 to 1 ft soil layer. -Subtract 30 lb of N/A for each%soil organic matter above 1.0%. -For expected yields from 300 to 400 cvt/A,subtract 30 lb of N/A for each 30 cwt/A. • 991810 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 organic 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. 0 !EPr•to Chapter 11 —. Waste Utilization Part 651 gricultural Waste Management • cield 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 accurately determine the amount of nutrients to mineralize,releasing nutrients as the plants begin reaching the ground,samples collected at the soil growing in the spring.The objective is to match the surface must be analyzed.Because this procedure timing of the crop's nutrient uptake requirement with generally is not done, the nutrient losses can be esti- the release of nutrients from the manure. mated using procedures that follow.Tabular values and calculations are included to demonstrate account- ing for the major nutrients in manure. • Figure 11-10 Example of a water budget for winter wheat ummanams Annual • Average (inches) • 6.0 _ I — s`.4 M precipitation 4.0 4 ja. - .l .:,..,:''''<C ,-, _ i'''''',.:;1/2- ��tR' e. L .{ J 2.0 — ,evapotrancPiratroa M ;.r<j $- ,.' < t 4';, , .¶. and' r f:. r — Y .'f-w nlnoPrY ra �C �M."Y t aye ₹~ — � 1,; ,!:..., n;tS4 _rr..rMMrtrtasY frC _ — iii 0 '- { ftR.�f'z}G.t- , t 04 ,{f + • jr04. ✓' r it,4 1- S.'r *`, "' eeviiiici attlon�x t ir?Fti.s rg r 4-sintco.5 , ''4� 2.0 y r} t-trA " '' '' .� i; 4y inr A •;.T.c t y p1 a 7*01.7 ` t-i f `'^P �� T Jt-( f y. •sOII rx to; < w sr t ,r ` �.. swatei?s �. Yy11.l ic a ,ti >vz a 6.0 Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Month pp (210-AWMFH,4/92) 991810 11-17 • 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 Management system Beef ----Dairy Poultry---- Swine NPK NPK N P K N P K Percent Manure stored in open lot, 55-70 70-80 55-70 70-85 85-95 85-95 55-70 65-80 55-70 cool,humid region Manure stored in open lot, 40-60 70-80 55-70 55-70 85-95 85-95 hot,arid region Manure liquids and solids stored 70-85 85-95 85-95 70-85 85-95 85-95 75-85 85-95 85-95 in a covered,essentially watertight structure Manure liquids and solids stored 60-75 80-90 80-90 6575 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 65-80 80-95 80-95 55-70 80-95 80-95 roofed storage Manure and bedding held in 55-75 75-85 75-85 unroofed storage,leachate lost Manure stored in pits beneath 70-85 85-95 85-95 70-85 90-95 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 20-35 35-50 50-65 20-30 35-50 50-60 20-30 35-50 50-60 lagoon or stored in waste storage pond after being _ diluted more than 50% OM tag 11-1S (210-AWMFH,4/92) Chapter 11 Waste Utilization Part 651 gricultural Waste Management rIeld 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 melt,and irrigation drive soluble nutrients through the profile.Losses are 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 time before a significant loss occurs varies with the In irrigated areas,good water management is needed • climate.Manure applied to cool,wet soils does not dry to prevent excessive leaching of soluble nutrients. readily and thus does not volatilize for several days. Some leaching will occur, however,if excess irrigation 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 budget,the rate of manure appli- tions,more than 50 percent of the total nitrogen is in cation,its timing,and the crop uptake requirement the ammonium form,which readily volatilizes on ' 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 - feedlot in an arid or semi-arid climate,has already lost (FOTG)is to be used in developing the manure utiliza- much of its ammonium nitrogen through formation of lion program to estimate nitrate leaching.Table 11-7 ammonia gas.There is little additional loss with time. should only be used to provide general guidance in planning,as shown in example 11-6. (2 t After incorporation Sc::::e nitrogen losses occur within the soil after ma- The Leaching Index(LI)is a seasonably weighted nure has been incorporated. Nitrogen is lost from the estimate of nitrogen leaching potential.The probabil- soil primarily by leaching and denitrification;however, ity of nutrients leaching below the root zone is depen- organic nitrogen must be transformed or mineralized dent on the U.An LI of less than 2 inches is unlikely to for this to happen.Losses of phosphorus and potas- contribute to a problem,2 to 10 inches is a possible sium 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) Days between application Soil conditions and incorporation warm dry warm wet cool wet 1 70 90 100 4 60 80 95 7 or more 50 70 90 11-19 (210.AW61FH.4142) 991810 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)Denttrfcation—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. tion 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 water content(reflected in soil drainage stantial amounts of nitrogen as ammonia(NH3).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 nitrogen in soils related to various drainage classes organic matter and synthesized microbial cells and 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 mineraliiration cattle or swine manure because it has a higher concen- tration of nitrogen,mostly in the form of uric acid. 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 <2 5 tied up by the microbes becomes less available for 2- 10 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 proyide Lenalguidance in planning. oping the nutrient management plan. 11-20 (210-AWMFH,4/92) Waste Utilization Part 651 Chapter 11 za •-lgricultural Waste Management held Handbook A higher percentage of the total nitrogen in manure Although not as well documented as the nitrogen incorporated into the soil is converted to inorganic cycle,similar cyclic relationships exist for phosphorus nitrogen in the first year than in the second.More is and,to some extent,for potassium.The mineralization converted in the second year than in the third year.. rate for phosphorus and potassium are generally more This occurs because the easily biodegradable part is rapid than that for nitrogen,reflecting a larger propor- mineralized quickly and the residue is mineralized lion of the nutrients in available form as excreted. 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 conserved in waste collection,storage,treatment,and . incorporated daily to be 0.75;0.15;0.10;0.05.This application. 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 accelerated in moist soils as compared to the same so on.Theoretically,with enough time almost 100 soil where the profile is dry.Table 11-9 values for percent of the incorporated nitrogen will be converted nitrogen should be reduced 5 to 10 percent in arid and to the inorganic form. semi-arid areas where irrigation is not used.Local mineralization rates should be used if data are available. For example,if fresh cattle manure is applied every i 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, 16 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 In the second year,however,75 pounds will also be amount of nutrients required by plants must be deter- available from the second manure application.Thus, mined as part of the nutrient management program. 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 11-8 Approximate N denitrification estimates for various soils—See footnote for adjustments because of tillage, manure N,irrigation,drainage,and special soil conditions(Meisinger&Randall 1991) Soil organic Soil drainage classification Somewhat Poorly matter content Excessively Well Moderately well drained drained well drained poorly drained drained % %of inorganic N (fert.,precip.)denitrified* <2 2-4 3-9 4-14 6-20 10-30 2-5 3-9 4-16 6-20 10-25 15-45 >5 4-12 6-20 10-25 15-35 25-55 e;for manure N,double values;es;for tile drained soils,use one class better cial ddrainage;for paddy culture,us values ils as follows: For no-tillage,use one class poorly�drained;for irrigation or humid cli- mates,mates,use value at upper end of range;for arid or semi-arid nonirrigated sites,use values at tower end of range;for soils with compacted,very slowly permeable layer below plow depth,but above 4 feet deep,use one class wetter drainage. Qp (210-AWMFH,4/92) 991810 11-21 Chapter 11 Waste Utilization 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* Waste 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 Effluent from lagoon or diluted 40 46 49 75 85 90 80 88 93 waste storage pond Manure stored on open lot, 50 55 57 80 88 93 85 93 98 cool-humid Manure 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 1 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 tt manure stored, n lot,cool-humid,would be 0.80,0.08 and 0.05.The decay rate becomes essentially constant after 3 years. d,' o . 11-22 (210-AWMFH,4/92) Waste Utilization Part 651 Chapter 11 „� Agricultural Waste Management Field Handbook application rate of manure,but will over apply phos- Step 2.Add nutrients in wastewater, dropped phorus and potassium for the crop's requirement.Over feed,and added bedding. the long term this will lead to an undesirable accumua Wastewater,such as feedlot runoff,milking 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 (d) Nutrient accounting the worksheets in chapter 10).As a general rule, 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 mined by an accounting procedure.A procedure for part of the solids.See appropriate tables in chapter 4 determining manure application in wet tons(actual for the nutrient content of wastewater.Because of the weight)per acre for solids and slurries and in acre- variability caused by dilution,feeding,and climate, inches per acre for liquids is included.The procedure wastewater samples should be analyzed to determine is reasonable for estimating the available nutrients, the nutrient content. Convert the elemental nutrients, acres needed for application, and application rates. given in the tables in chapter 4 to fertilizer equivalents (N,P2O5, KzO). Variability of manure, differences in site and climate conditions,and the lack of localized research data are Step 3. Subtract nutrients lost during storage. factors that influence accuracy of estimates.However, s sampling of manure throughout the process will help Ac otine t fi rs all losseexcrets d of nuttil t a is m y the bemanure applied m minimize influences of variations and provide confi- theto dence in the accounting method. the field.Table 11-5 gives a range of nutrients retained in the manure that has been stored or treated by The mineralization series and the accounting for various methods.Multiply the percent retained(table -- previous applications of manure may be of no value 11-5)by the total nutrients from step 2 to obtain the unless the 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, the soil should be tested or the application should be Step 4.Determine the plant available nutrients adjusted on the basis of experience or crop yields. contained in the manure. Use State Cooperative Extension Service information, (e) Accounting procedure if available,to determine the fraction of the plant available nutrients that will be released by the manure Figure 11-11 displays the following steps for nitrogen. over the first crop analysis that gives results plant available nutrientse(PAN)is Step 1. Estimate nutrients in the excreted ma- preferred.A large fraction of the inorganic nitrogen (the ammonium and nitrate),phosphorus, and potas- nure. 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 smseach localized data are madenot available nee to the e plants.l give: If information 2O to derive theIf m nutrient concentration(N, values for mineralization rates of nitrogen,phospho- information P2O in the manure.If manure tableste ts chapterr local pus and potassium following land applications for atshw is not available,use duc in 4 that show the average nutrient production for various several wastes and management options.The values 1 animals.Use the worksheets in chapter 10 to compute the columns represent entthe ppl'oatiate o(plan at availability) one year's manure manure production. three consecutive year period of cropping with addi- tional manure application occurring each year.The values in table 11-9 are accumulative, thus give the 11- (210-AWMFH•4/92) 991810 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 ap- lions 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 production Nutrients(N)needed 1 • for crop production Step 1 4 Manure generated l Step 5a(1) i Plant harvest step Plant Step 2 Step Sa(2) N Wastewater and Step p 5 Denitrifcatlon step feed added StatServicnsion Leaching losa ses step NO3—e N2) Volatilization NH3 Service Step 6a(4) NO3 3 Step 3.� recommendation Additions from Denitrification Nz�- Nutrients(N)loss other sources v1/4„._ i in storage or treatment 4 1 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 Step Acres required to utilize nutrients(N) (step 4/step 6) Step 9 Determine application rate Step 10 Recommendation to land Ste Furher manager or make adjustments considerations I and go through the accounting procedure again e 11-24 (210-AWMFH,4/92) Chapter 11 Waste Utilization a Part 651 Bicultural Waste Management field 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 may be 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- tive 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 • dons 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. • Mineralization 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 garlic 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. 991810 11-25 (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,K2O)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- mercial 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- be detrimental in soils that have a high affinity to eter. Slopes range up to 10 percent.A 3,000 gallon tank adsorb 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 celfrupinglippof water bodies is a potential hazard. 11-26 (21O-AWMFH,4/92) Chapter 11 Waste Utilization --cart 601 -agricultural 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 1.67,0.83,and 2.50 lb/1,000 gal.of wastewater.This application)? results in a small amount of double accounting be- 2. What are the net available nutrients after leach- cause some manure affected the values in table 4-6; ing,denitrification,and other losses? however,the answer will still be reasonable and 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 of animals x mum amount of nutrients? daily wastewater production(gal./day/cow)x daily 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 200 x 5 x 1.67 x 365 wagon would be required to apply the manure? N = =610 lb 7. For an irrigation system design,determine the 1,000 gal total depth of wastewater application for 200 x 5x 0.83 x 365=3001b nutrients that have nitrogen control,and assess P 1 000 gal adjustments needed for phosphorus control. 200 x 5x 2.50 x 365 K= =9101b Solution: 1,000 gal 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 obtained from table 4-5, chapter 4. Converting to fertilizer form: Total N =40,030 lb N_ 200 x 1,200 x 0.45x 365=39,420 lb Total P2O5 =6,430 x 2.29=14,725 1,000 P Total K2O=23,640x1.21=28,604 200x1,200x0.07x365 =6,1301b 1,000 K= 200 x 1,200 x 0.26x 365 Step 3. Subtract nutrients lost during storage. =22,7801b 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 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 as follows: amount of nutrients remaining after the storage losses. Based on observations and using table 4-6 as a guide, 5 gal/cow/day was estimated to be representative. 991910 (210.AWMFH,4/92) 11-27 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=40,030x0.65=26,0201b K2O=29x1.21=35 P2O5 =14,725x0.80=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 gives 26 percent.) Plant available nutrients=Amount applied x fraction available Nitrogen needed considering denitrification=Plant requirements from Step 5a(1)divided by the percent N=26,020 1b x 0.55 (est)=14,311 1b retained as a decimal after denitrification,which is 100 percent less the percent lost(from table 11-7). P2O5 =11,780x 0.90=10,602 K2O=22,883x0.93=21,281 i 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.) 158 N =1171b/ac N 09-1761b P =20 OA t f> R An additional 18 pounds of nitrogen is needed to compensate for the anticipated leaching losses. 11-28 (210-AWMFH,4/92) Chapter 11 Waste Utilization .-•Ryrt 651 picultural Waste Management Field 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. • N=•176 =185 lb Step 8. Compute the acres on which manure can 0.95 be applied to use the nutrients available. An additional 9 pounds of nitrogen is needed to corn- 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=35 lb/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 Only 77 acres are needed to fully utilize the nitrogen, application rates. but 60S acres are required so that the potassium is not To answer question 3,Tow many acres are required over applied. to recycle nitrogen?"in this example,nitrogen is rate. selected as the controlling nutrient. Step 9.Estimate application 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) 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: 185 lb N /ac 200 x 1,200 x 1.3 x 365=113,880 ft3 This is the answer to question 3. 1,000 11-29(210-AWMFH,4/92) 99181 ., Chapter 11 Waste Utilization 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. 200x 5x 365=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 26,784 square feet.The annual precipitation storage is: 608 ac = 10 tons/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. 1 207,190 ft3 x 12 in/ft x ac = 57 ac—in The following calculations demonstrate a method for 43,560 ft2 &busting 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 head in tank).Area of application in acres: Calculate weight of stored material: 3,500x15= 52,500ft2 =1.21ac 207,190 ft3 x 60 lb/ft3 43,560 ft2/ac =6,216 tons 2,000 From step 8,use application area of 77 acres for N utilization and 608 acres for maximum waste utiiiza- .l . b' 11.4; 11-30 (210.AWMFH,4/92) Chapter 11 Waste Utilhation ^,rt Gil .gricultural 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 8.34lb/gal =10.3 tons/ac 2,0001b/ ton x 1.21 ac 7.48x 7-4) # passes = application rate (total) • 4 =5.6 gal/ft3 of waste 1 pass =10.3 tons/ac Note:The quantity of water added to the manure 81 causes the waste material to act essentially like water. 10.3 It has in fact become wastewater. =7.9 passes (8 tank loads /3,500 ft rum) 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 ft3 Volume =57ac-in+ 2715etax204 gal/ c-in Application by sprinkler: =57+43 Starting at step 3,recompute the additional nitrogen required for sprinkler application losses.Nitrogen to =100 ac-in apply= Nitrogen anticipated from Step 5a(3)divided 100 ac-in by the percent delivered(from table 11-6): Depth = 61 ac =1.64 in N -1761b/ac=2351bs/ac 0.75 This is the answer to the first part of question 7. P2O5 =46 (no change) K2O=35 (no change) For ground water protection in sensitive aquifer areas, 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 soil losses by leaching and denitrification of the plant uptake occurs.Known from the example nitrogen. problem statement,the soils used to grow corn have 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 by the Amount of nutrient per acre(step 6). Required Normal irrigation design/operation techniques set 50 acres: percent soil moisture depletion as the point at which 14,3111b irrigation operations are initiated. =61ac 2351b/ac 5.0 in x0.50=2.5in 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. ing 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 total solids(TS) (previously determined).To success- three separate applications.Application rates in inches fully irrigate material of this consistency through per hour must be set according to the intake rates "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 & 11-3). 991810 11-31 (210-AWMFH,4/92) Chapter 11 Waste Utlibation 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 P2O5 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 tion 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 (I') Adjustments for Site character- were given more prominence. istics 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 permeability,salinity,and soil depth all play a role in provides the highest value.The Oklahoma researchers assessing pollution potential.This is particularly true recommended reducing or eliminating waste applica- where the preceding procedures are used to calculate tion 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(Wafters 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- and plant growth potential. tion 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 ? P**t p q7 form of structural measure to reduce flooding. 11-32 (210-AWMFH,4/92) Chapter 11 Waste Utilization Pprt 651 — icultural Waste Management rteld 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, ary 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 The amounts shown in the tables are in pounds of lot,although most of the constituents,such as salt,are -_ retained. available nutrients per ton.The estimated nutrients Table 11-10 Rule-of-thumb estimate of available nutrients in manure from dairy cows by management system ausemmaila Management system Final moisture Nutrients available rust year N P205 1{.,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 2 4 4. Bedded manure,unroofed stacking facility (bedding is 10% 82 3 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 11-33 (zlo awn1FH,4/92) 991810 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 Management system Final moisture Nutrients available first year .. N P205 K20 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 3. 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 K20 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** 4. Broiler manure on sawdust or shavings cleaned every 4 months and 25 36 35 40 incorporated;warm humid climate* * Wilkinson 1974. **Sobel 1976. 0 r " Xo..e 11-34 (210-AWMFH,4/92) Chapter 11 —. Waste Utilization --.Part 651 kgricultural Waste Management Field Handbook Example 11-7: 60.51b/da • Given: Manure from a 50,000 layer operation in Geor- Manure = 1,000lb/ gia is stored in a shallow pit.The manure is spread lb every 6 months and plowed down.The land is used for Weight= 200 x 60.5x 365 da/yr silage corn.The recommended nutrient application 2,000 lb/ton rate is 150 pounds nitrogen per acre per years =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= 251b 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 essassmomm Final moisture Nutrients available first year Management system N P2O5 1(2O % 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 11-35 (210-AWMFH,4/92) 991810 Chapter 11 Waste Utilization Part 651 Agricultural Waste Manage^'?n.r Field Handbook " Nelson,Lewis B. 1975.Fertilizer for all-out food pro- 651.1106 References duction.In Spec.Pub.No.23,p.24,Amer.Soc. Agron.,Madison,WI. Alexander, E.L.,and GA.Margheim. 1974.Personal Pratt,P.F.,S.Davis,and R.G.Sharpless. 1976.A four- communication with C.E.Fogg. • cyear field trial with animal manure.J.Agric.Sci., CA.Agile.Exp.Sta.44(5),pp 113-125. Azevedo,J.,and P.R.Stout. 1974. Farm manure.An overview of their role in the agricultural environ- ment,CA Agric.Exp.Sta.Man.44. Nitrate leaching and economic analysis package: Model description and application.In R.F. Bundy,L.G. 1985.Understanding plant nutrients:soil Follett,D.R.Keeney,and R.M.Cruse(eds.).Manag- and applied nitrogen.Univ. WI Coop.Ext.Sew. ing nitrogen for ground water quality and farm Bull. No.A2519. profitability.Soil Sci.Soc.Amer.,Madison,WI. 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,W.A. 1977.Personal communication with R.A. Phillips.Based upon a number of SCS technical Wagner,R.E.,and M.B.Jones. 1968.Fertilization of guides in central United States. higgi yielding forage crops.Soil Sci.Soc.Amer. Heidlage, Robert F.,and Lyle C.Shingleton. 1984.Soil Watters,Steven P.,and Joseph P.Marak. 1984.208 potential for waste disposal.Soil Survey Hori- Task 1401,animal waste study.Final report to zons,vol. 25,no. 1. OK Pollution Control Coord.Board by OK State Dep.Agric.,Plant Indus. Div. Horsfield,B.C., R.Z. Wheaton,J.C.Nye,and J.V. Mannering. 1973. Irrigation for land application Wafters,Steven P., and Joseph P.Marak. 1985.Water of animal waste ID-88. Coop. Ext.Sew.,Purdue quality impacts of animal waste management in a Univ.,West Lafayette,IN. northeastern Oklahoma watershed.Proceed. Fifth intl.symp.on agric.wastes, Chicago,IL. Larsen,S., D. Gunary,and C.D. Sutton. 1965.The rate of immobilization of applied phosphate in rela- Wilkinson,S.R. 1974. Poultry manure: Waste or re- tion to soil properties.J.Soil Sci.vol. 16, No. 1. source. Farmers and Consumer's Market Bulletin. Mathers,A.C.,B.A. 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 crop yields and soil condition.USDA SW Great managing nitrogen for groundwater quality and Plains Res. Ctr.Tech. Report No. 11. farm profitability.Amer.Soc.Agron. 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 nure 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 Sta fl; t,fenv.,EC1094/rev. 1-89. 11-36 (210-AWMFH,4/92) - S.. C K O P 3 c \--\ ) -., / SOIL L__ l � a F f a rmss. t- -j A"1"`.'L- €'.` ^-"',� fJ-d) Y 'C'{'" iJr['�a/ `^Ki✓3+.1�' v"� � 8.^' r1�, VOr' Cattieirlyaridret4a�,p�lfcatlon Tates a �:yO; ,,:?: /� .,..� : ,. \� %�. ,:,!= o-' 5;. >.. . ?:t_ ---pk .'s+t.�".;,.til. >E ce-c.„, ..t :, z:, �x�,.nf4: 1, r -, K.V. Iversen and J.G. Davis ' i 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 Organic 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. of elements in many Using This Table compounds such as proteins. Nitrogen Content of Manure. Use the actual total nitrogen content on a fresh-weight basis(lbs 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 dairy manure, which represent typical analyses for each manure in Colorado. plants immediately and moves 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 is 9 tons per acre. §& le�y _�® O Example: �`��J\ Total N required 700 lb N/acre lb N/acre lb N/acre- - N from other sources - 60 lb N/acre lb N/acrelb N/acre (soil test, irrigation water,etc.) lb N/acre -. Uni eIJity® N desired from manure 100 lb N,racre ib N/acre Total N content of manure 23 lb N/ton lb N/ton lb N/ton CoopeExtension Manure rate for desired N rative 9 tons/acre tons/acre _ tons/acre ® Colorado State University application (from Table) Cooperative Extension. 10/97. 991810 — Table 1:Cattle manure application rates.t ,table uses only the total nitrogen content of a r. ure,so it is an estimate of what will hie 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 11 131: 15 17 19 21 '23; 25 27 29 31 33 Desired N Application Tons of manure per acre to apply (lbs Wacre) for desired nitrogen application 50 14 11 9 -d8% 7 6 5 5 la 4 4 3 3 3 3 •w F`,. 60 - 17 13 11 8 8 7 6 6 :gF it 5 4 4 4 4 3 70 20 16 13 '11?. 9 - 8 7 7 (6', 6 5 5 5 4 4 ,,rnx 80 23 18 15 12-:i 11 9 8 8 '74. 6 6 6 5 5 5 e,jt 90 26 20 16 143 12 11 9 9 'ti'- 7 7 6 6 5 5 7.100 29 22 18 .1, _ 5 13 12 11 10 749 ! 8 7 7 6 6 6 tiii- ut 110 31 24 20 174 15 13 12 10 10. 9 8 8 7 7 6 120 34 27 22 18`. 16 14 13 11 10` ' 10 9 8 8 7 7 WI.Yr 130 37 29 24 ,2 17 15 14 12 11 10 10 9 8 8 7 140 40 31 25 224 19 16 15 13 lb. 11 10 10 9 8 8 150 43 33 27 23 20 18 16 14.44 33 12 11 10 10 9 9 Iii:160 46 36 29 25' 21 19 17 15 13 12 11 10 10 9 cr 170 49 38 31 263 23 20 18 16 ` c 14 13 12 11 10 10 180 51 40 33 28'4 24 21 19 17 'C ,'g 14 13 12 12 11 10 190 54 42 35 29 25 22 20 18 LA 15 14 13 12 12 11 200 57 44 36 3) 27 24 21 19 ,,T.4 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 4ialis is, cooperation with the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Milan A. Rewerts, Director of Cooperative Cooperative Extension soil spect and Extension, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado. Cooperative Extension programs are associate professor, soil and crop sciences. available to all without discrimination. Bearson Dairy, LLC Envirostock, Inc-Project 22967-1-99 Management Plan for Nuisance Control A Supplement to the Manure & Process Wastewater Management Plan for Bearson Dairy, LLC 9743 Weld County Road 16 Ft. Lupton, Colorado 80621 Developed in accordance with Generally Accepted Agricultural Best Management Practices Prepared By §tiVIRO TOCK,f . 11990 Grant Street, Suite 402 Denver, Colorado 80233 March, 1999 991810 "Serving Environmental Needs of the Livestock Industry" Bearson Dairy, LLC Envirostock, Inc-Project 22967-1-99 Table of Contents Introduction 3 Legal Owner, Contacts and Authorized Persons 3 Legal Description 3 Dust 4 Odor 5 Pest Control 6 Insects and Rodents 6 References 7 991810 "Serving Environmental Needs of the Livestock Industry Bearson Dairy, LLC Envirostock, Inc-Project 22967-1-99 Introduction This supplemental Management Plan for Nuisance Control has been developed and implemented to identify methods Bearson Dairy,LLC will use to minimize the inherent conditions that exist in confinement feeding operations. This supplemental plan outlines management practices generally acceptable and proven effective at minimizing nuisance conditions. Neither nuisance management nor this supplemental plan is required by Colorado State statute or specifically outlined in the Colorado Confined Animal Feeding Operations Control Regulations. This is a proactive measure to assist integration into local communities as required by Weld County Zoning Ordinance, Section 47 - Livestock Feeding Performance Standards. These management and control practices, to their best and practical extent, will be used by Bearson Dairy, LLC. Legal Owner, Contacts and Authorized Persons The legal owner of Bearson Dairy, LLC is Darrell Bearson and Family Correspondence and Contacts should be made to: Mr. Darrell Bearson 9743 WCR 16 Ft. Lupton, CO 80621 (303) 857-9323 The individual(s) at this facility who is (are) responsible for developing the implementation, maintenance and revision of this supplemental plan are listed below: Darrell Bearson Owner (Name) (Title) (Name) (Title) Legal Description The confined animal feeding facility described in this NMP is located at: The East %S of the Southwest '4 and the West '4 of the Southeast '/4, of Section 27, Township 2 North, Range 67 West of the 6`11 Principal Meridian, Weld County, Colorado. "Serving Environmental Needs of the Livestock Industry" 991810 Seaman Dairy, LLC Envirostock, Inc-Protect 22967-1-99 Air Quality Air quality at and around confined animal feeding operations is affected primarily from the relationship of soil/manure and available moisture. The two primary air quality concerns at dairies are dust and odor. However, the management practices for dust or odor control are not inherently compatible. Wet pens and manure produce odor. Dry pens are dusty. The two paragraphs below outline the best management practices for the control of dust and odors that Bearson 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 Bearson 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 Bearson Dairy, LLC will conduct regular manure removal. Typically, manure removal and pen maintenance will be conducted several times per month. Pens will be maintained and harrowed on a weekly basis. 3. Water Trucks Should nuisance dust conditions arise beyond the management controls outlined above, water tanker trucks or portable sprinkling systems will be used for moisture control on pens and roadways to minimize nuisance dust conditions. 991810 'Serving Environmental Needs or the Livestock Industry' Bearson Dairy, LLC Envirostock, Inc-Project 22967-1-99 Odor Odors result from the natural decomposition processes that start as soon as the manure is excreted and continue as long as any usable material remains as a food source 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 fertili70r. Bearson Dairy, LLC 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 on a weekly basis. 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 Bearson Dairy, LLC. No chemical additives or treatments of the stormwater ponds for odor control are planned. 4. Land application timing Typically air rises in the morning and sinks in the evening. Bearson Dairy, LLC will consider weather conditions and prevailing wind direction to minimize odors from land application. Typically, land applications will be timed for early mornings and on weekdays. If Weld County Health Department determines nuisance dust and odor conditions persist, Bearson 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, Bearson 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. 99181.0 °Serving Environmental Needs of the Livestock Industry" Bearson Dairy, LLC Envirostock, Inc-Project 22967-1-99 Pest Control Insects and Rodents Insects and rodents inhabit areas that 1)have an adequate to good food supply and 2) foster habitat prime for breeding and living. Key practices Bearson Dairy, LLC will use to manage insects and rodents are to first eliminate possible habitat and second, reduce the available food sources. Bearson Dairy, LLC will control flies by: 1. Regular manure removal Manure management removes both food sources and habitat 2. Reduce standing water Standing water is a primary breeding ground for insects 3. Minimize fly habitat Standing water, weeds and grass, manure stockpiles, etc. are all prime habitat for reproduction and protection. Reduce or eliminate these areas where practical. 4. Weeds and grass management Keep weeds and grassy areas to a minimum. These provide both protection and breeding areas. 5. Minimize stockpiles or storage of manure Stockpiles of manure provide both breeding and protective habitat. Keeps stockpile use to a minimum. 6. Biological treatments Parasitic wasps are excellent biological fly control and are widely used. The wasps lay their eggs in fly larvae hindering fly reproduction. 7. Baits and chemical treatments Due to environmental and worker's safety concerns, chemical treatments are a last option for insect control. Chemical treatments and baits are very effective. Baits and treatments must be applied routinely. Rodent control at Bearson Dairy, LLC is best achieved by minimizing spillage of feedstuffs around the operation. Good housekeeping practices and regular feedbunk cleaning, site grading and maintenance are used to reduce feed sources. Rodent traps and chemical treatments are effective control methods and will be used as necessary. In the event Weld County Health Department determines nuisance conditions from pests such as flies and rodents persist, Bearson Dairy, LLC will initially increase the frequency of the housekeeping and management practices outlined previously. If further action is necessary, Bearson Dairy, LLC will increase use of chemical controls and treatments, such as fly sprays, baits and Rodendicide for pest control. 991910 "Serving Environmental Needs of the Livestock Industry" Bearson Dairy, LLC Envirostock, Inc-Project 22967-1-99 References These references are provided as a resource to Weld County Health Department and Bearson Dairy, LLC for making nuisance control decisions for the facility. These references represent the latest and most modern management and scientific information to date for control of nuisance conditions for the livestock feeding industry. 991810 "Serving Environmental Needs of the Livestock Industry' s4 S E R I E $ LIVESTOCK D'�7� -7 r.r ) ) J --7 A\ AGE ENT R� t- ` ' Feedlot manure management ,4 no 1.220 V -`-- , 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 coiled 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 feedlot pen maintenance and manure management. Encompassing so many every year. variables will, however, result in compromises between opposing performance Aim for pen moisture of 25 to 35 objectives. For example, low initial construction costs might equate to higher percent to control odor, fly, and maintenance costs. Another common compromise is between dust and odor control, If the feedlot surface is too dry, dust will become a problem. If it remains dust problems. too wet, odor is a great concern. Compromises often are needed in an integrated approach if the overall feedlot goals are to be met. Pens with light-weight feeder Typically, there are about 1,000,000 cattle on feed at any one time in cattle, high winds, and low Colorado. Each 1,000-pound animal produces between 50 and 60 pounds of precipitation are at greatest risk manure and urine per day with a moisture content of about 90 percent. By the for dust problems. time the manure is removed from the feedlot, its moisture content has dropped to about 30 percent. The nutrients excreted in the manure from these cattle have a Pens designed with a minimum fertilizer value of $34.7 million every year (Table 1). How these nutrients are of 3 percent slope are best for managed determines whether they are an economic benefit or an environmental managing excess moisture and liability to the feedlot operator. Nitrates from manure can be leached to collecting runoff. groundwater, and excessive nutrients in surface water can lead to overgrowth of aquatic plants, which use up all the oxygen and suffocate fish. Nutrients can be lost Seepage from runoff holding or conserved for future crop use at every stage: in the production units, in storage, ponds is required by law to be and after the manure is applied back to the land. less than 1/4-inch per day. • Table 1:Fertilizer value of manure from feeder cattle in Colorado. FertilizTotal Fertilizer Nutrients in Fertilizer value(S/yr) Manure er b/ton Nutrients in Cattle Colorado Feeder Cattle _ _ 7('� basis)ion on an as- rmfllinn IF,,/year) ( tO\rO r7 spread t�Jl ' � \711ji f\V'J 42 million lbs N 59.5 million �l♦taA 21 lb N 516.5 million 26 lb P,O, 3.i million lbs P:O, 16 58.7 million ® 36 lb K,O 72 million lbs K,O iJntversi>) Cooperative Extension To calculate fertilizer value, the following prices were used:mono-ammonium phosphate$305 ton;ure S 290/ton;muriate of potash S I45/ton.These figures do not include the manure produced by sheep and ©Colorado State University dairy cattle housed in feedlots. 1001 r..nnor ri F:rpncinn. 5/97. Percent of°potations Dust Control 100 Dust can threaten not only the health of cattle 72:9eo60.2eo (Franzen, 1984)and people,but can also compromise a feedyard's ability to continue to operate.The major source of dust in the feedyard comes from the pens; however, dust also 40 as a can come from roads, service areas, and feed processing. Generally, the peak time for dust occurs around sunset, when 20 y __ temperature starts to cool and cattle become more active. =�'r=:ti: : tee :" the ° ..' F..... of e` 1~ 0 The best way to control dust is through proper pen `c„tee eqA a s eat' a,� design and maintenance of surface moisture levels. Routine es``p F`.� 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 abor. The permanent fmay eaapprine sprinkling There are numerous surface amendments and chemical agents being nitally. ow er, continued $1,000 per pen initially. However, continued evaluated for dust control. Fly ash looks promising, and other compounds have -- labor expense is minimal once the system been considered include sawdust, apple pumice, ligno sulfate, and gypsum. yp is operational. Drain the system in the fall -o./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,Na.7045) intimately related to manure Average Animal Spacing(sq ft/hd) management. If you are siting a new 75 100 125 150 175 feedlot, select an isolated location Moisture(in/day) Animal size(avg Ibs/hd) downwind from neighbors with an .05 04 .03 .03 .02 adequate and well-drained land base. 400 .05 .04 .03 Design the feedlot to accommodate 600 08 .06 800 .11 .08 .06 .05 .04 .10 .08 .07 .06 frequent scraping, and keep manure 1000 .13 .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 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 e incorporate it as soon as possible. requires careful observation. This decision varies with m limn tuQ • Front-end Loaders vs. Box Scrapers experience with the specific site and climatic cotruitions. Cattle size and rations also Two of the most common methods of will influence moisture balance and the corresponding appropriate stocking rate. Inure removal are the wheeled front- ,Typical pen stocking densities in Colorado are between 15U ft2 and 300 ft2 per rd loader and the box scraper. Both animal. Increase stocking density during warmer,dry periods, and reduce density effective. The box scraper or other during wet or cool seasons. For both odor and dust control, the choice of stocking scraping devices, such as a paddle density should achieve a balance between a pen surface that is too dry versus one scraper or road grader, are more that is too wet. If this management goal is not achieved, more elaborate and effective at(1)providing a smooth pen expensive methods, such as sprinkling systems for dust control or frequent manure surface that facilitates proper drainage removal for odor control,will be necessary. . and(2)maintaining the integrity of the A combination of cattle density, sprinkling, spraying, and precipitation compacted protective seal or"hard pan" may need to be used, since cattle density alone may not be enough to control under feedlot pens. dust, especially in areas with high evaporation rates. Pens with light-weight feeder A wheeled front-end loader requires an cattle, high winds(high evaporation), and low precipitation are at greatest risk for experienced operator. For each bucket dust problems. of manure accumulated with a wheel There are numerous options to consider when attacking dust problems. loader, the operator must shift gears four Each has advantages and disadvantages. It is important to have a plan in place times while manipulating the bucket. and start prior to the time dust is a serious problem. Remember, water application This is most likely to result in an is minimized by removing loose manure and dust from pens in a timely manner. irregular pen surface at best or damage to the protective"hard pan."A Manure Removal combination of a wheeled front-end loader for major manure removal and a The removal of accumulated manure reduces odors, controls fly larvae, and scraper for final cleaning and grading minimizes the potential for surface and groundwater contamination. Maintaining a would be an effective compromise. firm, dry feedlot surface is an important factor in good animal health and a healthy environment. Frequency of manure removal also varies widely depending on size of lot and pen stocking rate. However, a thorough pen cleaning once per year is an absolute minimum. Most feedyards clean and prepare a pen prior to receiving new or "fresh" cattle. A feedyard operated year round typically replaces cattle or "turns a pen" 2.5 times per year and conducts pen maintenance as frequently, • weather permitting. Dairies also are concerned with animal health, comfort, and cleanliness. Some dairies harrow their pens daily with good results in both environmental and animal health benefits. While this is labor intensive for feedlots, it does indicate that pen cleaning as frequently as feasible for your specific operation is good management. Stockpile Location and Management Having adequate storage area to handle the quantity of manure production has many benefits. Primarily, adequate storage area provides the producer with flexibility in land application so that land application timing can be Stockpile Management determined by labor availability, weather and field conditions, and crop nutrient Locate stockpile areas away from needs rather than by lack of storage space. Use the information in Table 3 to watercourses and above the 100-year calculate how much manure you expect your livestock to produce, and be sure flood plain. that your storage capacity is adequate. Use grassed filter strips below stockpiles Table 3.Manure production per 1,000-pound animal.t solids o and memonoff ivn nutme ieby settling As Excreted Dry Matter Basis removing nutrients. 11.5 tons/yr(88%water) 138 tons/yr Beer Cattle o 1.80 tons/yr Soil sample downhill from stockpiles to Dairy Cattle 15.0 tons/yr(68%water) 1 82 tons/yr monitor nitrate buildup. ;;• ,�rN 7.3 tons/yr(75%water) 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). 991810 Insect Control Land-base Calculation Feedlot pen maintenance and manure Feedlot operators should have an adequate land base to spread their -management also play an important role ' manure. If land base is inadequate, arrange to apply manure to other cropland or in insect control. Insect pests stress prepare to market it for composting or garden use. Sample the manure and cattle and can greatly reduce provide the laboratory analysis to manure users so that they can apply the manure performance. Insects reproduce and at agronomic rates. mature in wet areas such as muddy First, a feedlot operator must know how much manure nitrogen (N) is ` pens, wet manure piles, and wet spots produced. Multiply the number of head by the tons produced(Table 3)to around waterers and feedbunks. One determine how much manure is produced. Multiply the tonnage by the lb N/ton in area cgmmonly 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 vy are not m ntre and accessible qirsmall heavy equipment and require small pounds N used by the crop per acre.The result is the acreage required as a land equipment and/or manual labor. base for your feedlot. However, they are significant breeding areas for insects. Keeping pens clean Runoff Management and Collection and dry will reduce insect populations, • Pens designed for good drainage (minimum of 3 percent slope from apron enhance performance, and minimize a to back of pen with adequate mounds)help manage excess moisture.The primary feedlot's reliance on chemicals and goals of runoff management are to divert water from flowing across the feedlot or other costly insect-control methods. storage area and prevent direct runoff from the feedlot or the stock-piled manure into waterways. Runoff can be diverted by digging ditches and building berms. One of the primary principles of runoff management is to keep clean water clean. In other words, direct clean water away from manure, whether manure is already Resources stockpiled or still in the feedlot. Decreasing the volume of water used reduces the —. Follett, R.H.,and R.L. Croissant. 1990. potential for runoff, so minimizing water waste from inefficient waterers and Use of manure in crop production. Fact sprinklers not only saves money, but reduces runoff hazard. sheet no. 0.549. Colorado State Collect and store all wastewater and storm water runoff from pens. It can University Cooperative Extension. be treated and discharged, or it can be applied to cropland as a source of water Franzen, D. 1984.Airborne Particle and nutrients. If it is applied to cropland, the irrigation application rate must be less Concentration Associated with than the infiltration rate, so that runoff does not occur from the cropland. Fence Pneumonia Incidence in Feedlot Cattle. animals out of watercourses to eliminate direct deposition of manure into water. iivi. Colorado State University;Fort Runoff solids can be removed by directing the runoff through filter strips or grassed Collins, CO. waterways or by using a sediment basin to settle the solids out. Removing solids NAHMS. 1995. Environmental from the runoff will reduce odors and prevent the pond from filling up with solids. Monitoring by Feedlots. Centers for Epidemiology and Animal Health. Management of Runoff Holding Ponds USDA:APHIS: VS. N167. 1194. Seal storage ponds and lagoons to prevent seepage. Seepage is required by law to be less than 1/4 inch per day if the pond contains stormwater runoff, Spencer, W., and D. Tepfer. 1993. Economics of composting feedlot only, but the seepage requirement k locc than 1/32 inch per day if the pond stores manure. Fact sheet no. 3.762. Colorado processing wastewater(for example, manure flushed from a milking parlor) in State University Cooperative Extension. addition to stormwater runoff. Seepage can be reduced by several methods, and manure itself has an ability to seal soil surfaces over time. Compact soil to a Sweeten,J.M. Feedlot dust control. minimum 12-inch thickness. Take soil type into consideration during site selection Cattleman's Library: Stocker-Feeder Locate ponds in the most impervious soil available. Soils must be loams or clays tc Section no. 7045. Texas Agricultural compact well. Low permeability materials may be required in sandier soils. Extension Service. Installing synthetic plastic impermeable liners or adding clay(bentonite) are a few r the ways to reduce seepage from runoff holding ponds. Prohibit access of livestoci 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. 'J.G. Davis. Colorado State University Cooperative Extension soil specialist and associate professor,soil and crop sciences; T.L.Stanton,Cooperative Extension feedlot Issued in furtherance of Cooperative Extension work,Acts of May 8 and June 30, 1914,in cooperatio specialist and animal sources;and with State the Universitty, Fort Collins,Colorado.Cooperative Extension ure,Milan A.Rewerts, eprogroams areeavtive Extension,ailable to all without T.Harem, Director of Natural Resources, Colorado Cattle Feeders Association. discrimination. 991.810 • 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 airerion-tnge with abse climate ce matt can dssoils) into which a iggll occurs e ogy and management practices which can reduce pollution from livestock and poultry operations. where manure production and/or animal traffic are high. Van Dyne and Gilbertson(1978)estimated the total Intensive Animal collectable (economically recoverable) manure from all livestock and poultry production to be 52 Production Systems million tons per year(dry matter basis).The per- centages from various species were:dairy cattle 39 percent;feeder cattle 31 percent;hogs 11 per- cent;laying hens 6 percent;broilers 5 percent; The major types of livestock and poultry produc- sheep 3 percent; turkeys 2 percent; and other 3 tion facilities, their design and the manure manage- percent. ment systems associated with them are described These manure production estimates are based on in several reports(MWPS,1987;U.S. EPA,1973; an engineering standard adopted by the American White and Forster, 1978;Foster and Mayrose, Society of Agricultural Engineers(ASAE, 1976) 1987).Roofed or total confinement facilities are which defines constituent production per unit common for poultry and swine and to a lesser weight of live animal.These standard values were extent, dairy and beef production (National Re- recently updated to reflect current research data search Council, 1979).However,open feedlots (ASAE, 1988).In most cases,average values of dry (non-roofed) are most commonly used for beef manure and nutrients (pounds per day per 1,000 cattle production.They are also widely used for pounds liveweight)were revised upward. dairy,swine and sheep production in the south- western United States. Cattle feedlots Intensive livestock production systems are re- garded as "animal feeding operations."The U.S. The United States has 9.4 million beef cattle in feed EPA defines such operations (for purposes of lots,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-day "stabled or confined and fed or maintained for a fattening period produces about 1 dry ton of col- total of 45 days or more in any 12-month period, lectable manure solids.This equals about 2 dry and. . .crops,vegetation, forage growth or post- tons of collected manure per year per head of feed harvest residues are not sustained in the normal lot capacity.The animal spacing per head varies a( 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 O as to animal species, type of confinement facility or square feet per head in the desert southwest wher there is less than 10 inches of annual rainfall; 175 t 99 tin. 200 square feet per head in the southern and cen- �J • Extension Ag icuttural Engineer,The Texas nt<tif Universitytral Great Plains where there is 15 to 25 inches of System -.-._-,.,,-royac ARM lUr.rvers^i System•College Station,Texas • rain per year,and 300 to 400 square feet per head manure storage tanks beneath slotted floors and in the eastern and northern Great Plains where anaerobic lagoons used for manure storage and _ there is 25 to 35 inches per year.Most cattle feed- treatment are important odor sources. lots are concentrated in the southern and central When open feedlot surfaces become wet,particu- Great Plains. • larly in warm weather,anaerobic decomposition ' T. Most of the manure deposited on the feedlot sur- occurs over a large surface area for the evolution of face is compacted by cattle into a manure pack of odorous gases(National Research Council, 1979). 35 to 50 percent moisture content(wet basis). At Feedlot odor problems are most frequent in warm, higher moisture contents odors can develop, espe- humid areas and in feedlots constructed where daily in warm weather.Such odors may be a nui- there is inadequate drainage or poor drying condi- sance to employees and downwind neighbors. lions. Cattle hooves may pulverize surface manure dur- Animal manure odor is comprised of gaseous com- ing prolonged dry weather to only 10 to 25 percent pounds that are the intermediate and final prod- moisture.When surfaces are excessively dry,as is ucts of biodegradation, and includes these groups: often the case in arid areas of Arizona,California ammonia and amines;sulfides;volatile fatty adds; and Texas, there is a potential for dust problems alcohols; aldehydes;mercaptans;esters;and car- (National Research Council, 1979). bonyls(Table 1) (Ashbacher, 1972;Miner, 1975; Dust from cattle feedlot surfaces, alleys and roads Barth et aL,1984; ASAE,1987;National Research can annoy neighbors,irritate feedlot employees, Council,1979). possibly impair cattle performance and create a . traffic hazard on adjacent highways (Sweeten, Table 1. Compounds Resulting From the 1982).The amount of dust produced is affected by Anaerobic Decomposition of feedlot area, cattle density in pens,wind speed and Livestock and Poultry Manure precipitation and evaporation patterns (Peters and Blackwood,1977). Alcohols Armes Methylamine Ethyl amine Odors from livestock feeding Adds Trimethylamine Butyric Diethylamine operations Acetic Propionic Isobutyiic Esters • Although odors from livestock feeding facilities lsovaletic are sometimes an annoyance,odorous gases are Fixed Gases not toxic at concentrations found downwind.How- Carbonyls Carbor.Dioxide(odorless) ever,nuisance lawsuits can threaten the survival of Methane(odorless) an operation (George et al.,1985), and livestock Ammonia producers need to control the evolution of odorous Sulphur compounds Hydrogen Sulfide compounds (Miner, 1975;National Research Coun- Dimethyl Sulfide Nitrogen Heterocycles cil, 1979). Diethyl Sulfide Indole Methylmexcap2n Odorous gases arise from feed materials (food-pro- Disulfides 5katole cessing wastes and fermented feeds),fresh manure and stored or decomposing manure (National Re- search Council, 1979).The odor from fresh manure Concentrations of these compounds are usually is generally less objectionable than that from an- low and downwind from feedlots.However, some aerobically decomposing manure. Fresh manure may exceed olfactory threshold values and create a has large quantities of ammonia,but little of the nuisance. other decomposition products that have the most There is almost universal acceptance of sensory objectionable characteristics. Odorous compounds approaches,using trained human panelists,for which develop in manure treatment facilities area the measurement of odor.However, the instru- function of the material as excreted, the biologic re- ments and techniques used in sensory odor meas- actions occurring in the material and the configure- urement may vary.Odor measurement techno- lion of the storage or treatment unit. logy applicable to livestock operations includes Roofed confinement facilities usually have signifi- determining: cant odor potential because of the high animal den- • Concentrations of specific compounds sity involved, the large amount of manure in (ammonia, hydrogen sulfide,volatile organic storage and the limited rate of air exchange (Na• acids,etc); tional Research Council, 1979).Manure-covered surfaces (e.g.,building floors and animals), 991810 a Dilutions to threshold with a dynamic forced- Elam be at 1 t pens 1 ) Californiafeedlots,collected lict f elot dust using samples in choice olfactometer or scentometer,and side plex high-volume air sampler and operating in ■ Equivalent concentration of butanol vapor 1- to 3-hour increments during 24-hour sampling (using a butanol olfactometer)that matches periods.Peak particulate concentrations,which the ambient odor intensity. were collected between 7:00and 10:00 000 . .,ranged 14,200 from 1,946 to 35,536 µg per averaged lineodor l states and a ali he have property- per m3.Lowest concentrations occurred in early line standards based on these and other mess- moing and were only 130 to 250 mg per m3 in urement methods(Sweeten,1988). some feedlots. The odor caused by anaerobic decomposition of Algeo et al. (1972)measured total suspended per- verse(1981), was measured found tht by Meyer and Con- ticulates in 24-hour samplings both upwind and ammonia o who n that hydrogen sulfide and downwind in 25 California feedlots(Table 2).Net concentrations percent were, at rdespectively, F particulate concentrations(downwind minus up-percthan 60 d gr es F.In nt European e at 73 search( F ind)for a 24-hour period ranged from 54 to 1,268 at 8 ), th degrees F. emission re from ch(Klaren- µg per m3.The average value for all 25 feedlots he houses, wit, the odor aly stored u swine was 654+376per m3.Upwind concentrations µg p 0 fold with each 18 degree manure increased averaged 25 percent of the downwind concentra- hire for i8 ventilation rise in manure aces,wasra- tions.Both upwind and downwind particulate lev- more h including times Brea er i rate imer th els usually exceeded the U.S.EPA ambient wore r.E four n were 73 tp in summer than in air-quality standards for TSP.• winter.Emissions percent greater with fully slotted floors than with partially slotted floors. Table 2. Summary of 24-Hour Particulate s (TSP) Concentrations at 25 California In the same study,odor intensity observations Cattle Feedlots (Alger et al., 1972). were made with centometers both upwind and a downwind of feedlots.Upwind odor intensities Up Downwind wi nd Net,Downwind were usually in the range of 0 to 2 dilutions to (1 (pwin) minus U wind threshold,while downwind concentrations aver- (n=24) aged 13 to 49 dilutions to threshold. 06 Mean 836 06 1376 654 Dust emissions from livestock SSttd.Devia- .437 :22 feeding operations tion Range: • Minimum100 46 54 1,268 In 1971, the U.S. EPA (1987) defined primary and Maximum 1,599 460 secondary ambient air-quality standards for total suspended particulate matter(TSP).The primary peters and Blackwood (1977)cited major standards were set at 260 µg per ms for a 24-hour lions in these results: limita- average,not to be exceeded more than once per year,with an annual geometric mean of 75 µg per at All sampling was performed in the dry sea- m3.Secondary standards were set at 150 µg per m3 son;and for a 24-hour sampling period,not to be exceededla Details such as feedlot size,cattle number, dis- more than once per year. tances from samplers to feedpens and climate Effective July 31,1987,the U.S.EPA replaced TSP conditions were not reported. - - as the indicator(PM-10) for the ambient standards Nevertheless, the California data from in favor of a new indicator that includes only those Nevertheless, et e s,using(1972), and Blackwood particulates with an aerodynamic particle diameter Algeo et al.d what they Peters and Blackwood to be od(1977) -case less thane equal to a nominalreplaced a (U.S.e24-hour EPu, ro ections for cattle feedlots. According to their primary The new standard with PM-1 the standard projections feedyards with more than 500 head, 150at 140 square feet per head,would emit more TSP a PM-10 standard of projections, me µg per an 2)r hmeticd the annual geometric than 100 tons of particulates per year, not includ- mean with an arithmetic mean PM-10 standard of in the feedmill. 50 µg per m3;and 3)replaced the secondary TSP Based 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,t se feed e U.S. )pub shed emi These standards,of course,apply to livestock Sion factors (AP-42) feeding operations. crude estimates at best (U.S.EPA,1986). 991810 • These emission factors were based on the assump- goo lion that feedlots would generate 280 pounds of II I IIIII I I I particulates per day per 1,000 head,and 27 tons of — - laiD v 010 particulates per 1,000 head fed.Other emissions GSD_2.11 zia r. factors were similarly written for ammonia,amines so — T and total sulfur compounds. . ' The U.S.EPA emission factors ignored the major r — climatic differences among cattle feeding regions g of California,the Great Plains and the Midwest. 4 60 — 44 Both total rainfall and seasonality of rainfall are o= i different.'Also,California has less than 4 percent e ° - 7 of the United States cattle on feed,as compared to a 40 - Texas and Nebraska which combined have 40 T percent. _ t . To obtain a broader data base,dust emissions were t measured at three cattle feedlots in Texas,ranging 20 - IEl T in size from 17,000 to 45,000 head. Measurements .were made on 15 occasions in 1987 to determine — both the total suspended particulates(TSP) and the c Till I I I ,I I I I t , particulates below 10µm aerodynamic particle size S R N r y a r (PM-10) (Sweeten et al,1988).Net feedlot dust con- w 44 CV E. !J f in b comN N g centrations(downwind minus upwind)ranged Aerodynamic clumsier(Jim) 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. Cumuli:nip volume malign a teedJa du x panicles a given a:2e ma California data).Dust concentrations were genes- « liners of High va, o, d Mato sa0pws:downwind samplers ally highest in early evening and lowest in early tsn /.nC and nB(Experiments8 .) 11,to and 16). g (sweeten end Pame�.ltlBfl.) morning,and upwind concentrations averaged 22 t. 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 rz= of the downwind TSP were smaller than 10µm, 0.634 and 0.858 for Wedding and Anderson's while 40 percent of upwind TSP was smaller than 321-A samplers,respectively(Sweeten et al., 1988). 10µm. Mean particle sizes of feedlot dust were 8.5 to 12.2 mm on a population basis,while respirable dust (below 2µm)represented only 2.0 to 4.4 percent of Air Pollution Control total dust on a particle volume basis (Hebner and Parnell, 1988). Methods When the Wedding sampler was used for PM-10 measurements, feedlots were below the new EPA standard,and peak concentrations did not coincide 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 Elam et al. (1971)reported that feedlot manure than 10µm and 66 percent were smaller than 10µm. moisture content of 20 to 30 percent was needed Mass median diameters (MMD) of dust particles for dust control. Particulate concentrations 991810 • (24-hour averages)increased from 3,150 to 23,300 Frequent manure collection by flushing,cable per m3 when daily water sprinkling was termf- scraping or pit drainage recharge helps absorb µa p g odorous gases and elimate anaerobic storage condi- tions nated for 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 include masking though in the top 1 inch(dilutionso feedlot to surface,threshold)l- a ents,counteractants,digestive deodorants, though odor essionty uaonidi atedtthe chemical deodorants,adsorbents and feed addi- " creased.Regression equations indicated that the fives tter,1980).Digestive deodorants are the manure moisture needs t b 2 manure o 1 and 35 most widely used.They must be added frequently (wet p basis)in the loose surface d n to to allow seected bacteria to become predominant. 41 percent dust t a allowable o depth TSP fn order of control feedlot to 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) beds or filter fields,or packed beds;and(3)odor determined that zeolites(clinoptilolite and dispersion,accomplished by selecting a site that is erionite)were somewhat effective in reducing far enough away from neighbors and that takes ad- odors from a dirt-surfaced cattle feedlot. vantage of topography,wind direction frequency Odor capture and treatment Installing a cover on and atmospheric stability data (Sweeten,1988). an outside manure storage pit, tank or lagoon is an Manure Treatment Controlled anaerobic diges- effective means of odor control because it reduces tion of liquid swine manure at 90 degrees F re- the ventilation rate and hence the rate of odor emis- duced the odor emission rate by 90 percent as Mon.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). formed a sludge house, wh althh ough it difficultdust oserircu Mechanical aeration of liquid manure in toloxidation late the scrubbing water.Schirc (1977)cited prob- method hs oHu meni ie a t,1975;J nes a al.,19l lems with the dogging of spray nozzles when only the et third or Jones et a1.,1971). scrubbing with recycled water,and biological treat- Aerating only the top third or half of swine lagoon ment was required.Licht and Miner(1978)built a contents proved successful and reduced power re- horizontal cross-flow,packed-bed wet scrubber for quirements as compared with complete mixing a swine confinement building and achieved 50 and (Humenik aeration et al.,of liquid C swine ee eanu al. a without 90 percent removal of particulates larger than 1 limited of manure a and 5 microns,respectively; and ammonia reduc- measurable dissolved oxygen residual and re- tion of 8 to 38 percent; and an 82 percent reduction duced odor as compared to non-aerated storage. of odor intensity. Phillips et al. (1979)rapidly reduced hydrogen sul- A packed-bed dry scrubb'e:filled with a zeolite fide and methanol emissions from swine manure by aeration,but less volatile and less offensive corn- (cl noptilolite) reduced ammonia emissions from a pounds such as phenols persisted. Aeration just poultry house by 45 percent initially,but efficiency prior to land spreading could reduce odors from dropped to only 15 percent in 18 days (Koebliker e • field application. al.,1980). 991810 The soil is an excellent odor scrubbing medium be- research base is not yet well enough developed to cause it chemically absorbs,oxidizes and aerobi- support heavy reliance on dispersion models for cally biodegrades organic gases(Bohn,1972). livestock odors. Lindvall et al. (1974)determined that soil injection reduced odor emissions(measured as dilutions to threshold)from liquid swine manure by 90 to 99 percent as compared to surface spreading.Odor References from a soil-injected manure site was about the same as from a nonmanured soil surface.Disk har- rowing or plowing of surface spread manure re- duced odor by 67 to 95 percent. ASAE.1976.Manure Production and Characteristics. ASAE Data D384,American Society of Agricultural Soil filters with perforated pipe in a shallow soil Engineers,St.Joseph,MI,1 p. bed have proved effective for scrubbing odors ASAE.1988.Manure Production and Characteristic. from exhaust air.Kowalewsky(1981)removed 52 ASAE Data D384.1,American Society of Agricul- to 78 percent of the ammonia and 46 percent of the tural Engineers,St.Joseph,MI,4 p. organic constituents from ventilation air from a swine confinement building using a soil filter sys- Alego,J.W.,C.J.Dam,A.Martinez and T.Westing.1972. tern.Prokop and Bohn(1985)reported 99.9percent Feedlot Air,Water and Soil Analysis:Bulletin P. 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- trot of Manure Odors.ASAE EP-379,Agricultural textured soil,sufficient moisture and a P Engineers Yearbook of Standards,American Society 8.5.The land area required is 2,500 to 4,600 square of Agricultural Engineers,St.Joseph,Ml,pp.405-06. feet per 1,000 cfm,depending upon the air flow rate(Prokop and Bohn,1985).Sweeten et al. (1988) Andre,P.D.1985.Sprinklers solved this feedlot dust measured a 95 to 99 percent reduction in ammonia problem.Beef(Feb):70-72,74,79-81. emissions and a 30 to 82 percent reduction in odor Aschbacher,P.W.1972.Air Pollution Research Needs . intensity(matching butanol concentrations)using with Animals.Paper No.72-153,Presented at 65th a 1/4-acre sand filter field to scrub air from a poul- Annual Meeting of Air Pollution Control Assoda- try manure composting operation. lion Pittsburgh,PA Barth,C.L.1985.ARational 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 luted, depending on atmospheric turbulence and the 5th International Symposium on Agricultural odorant reactions.An odor panel observed a 90 Wastes,American Society of Agricultural Engineers, percent reduction in odor intensity, as determined St.Joseph,MI,pp.638-647. by a matching butanol olfactometer(Sorel et at, Barth,C D L.F.Elliot and S.W.Melvin.1984.Using 1983),over a distance of half a mile downwind Odor Control Technology to Support Animal Agri- from a cattle feedlot in Texas (Sweeten et at,1983). culture.Trans.ASAE,27:859.864. Atmospheric dispersion models are sometimes Bohn H.1972 Soil Absorption of Air Pollutants.J.Emi- used to predict the travel of odor emissions(Janni, ron.Quality,1:372-377. 1982)and the impact on communities.However, Carroll,J,J„Dunbar,J.R.,Givens,R.L.,et al.1984.Sprin- the use of dispersion models is limited to short dis- kling for dust suppression in a cattle feedlot.nlifor- tances and to nonreactive odorous gases (National nia Agriculture(March):12-13. Research Council,1979).One or more versions of C.,D.L.Day,J.T.Pfeffer and B.A.Jones.1971. the Gaussian diffusion model are used in most Converse,J. J I re ato applications.Theprediction models re- Aeration with ORP Control to Suppress Odors Emit- regulatory PP ted from Liquid Swine Manure System.In:Live- quire that atmospheric stability,wind speed and stock Waste Management and Pollution Abatement odor emission rates are known. Proceedings of International Symposium on Live- Based in part on dispersion model results,r aired stocc Wastes,American Society of Agricultural Engi- P �1 neers,St.Joseph,MI,pp.267-271. minimum separation distances for livestock feed- ing operations (based on number of head)have Elam,C.J.,Alego,J.W.,Westing.T.,et al.1971.Measure- been developed for swine facilities in the Nether- C ment and control of feedlot particulate matter.Bulle- tin lands(Klarenbeek, 1985)and for cattle feedlots in How to Control Feedlot Pollution.California Australia (QDPI, 1989).These relationships are Cattle Feeders Association,B'aktsville,CA,January. being used to determine the size of operation that Foster,J.and W.May-rose.1987.Pork Industry Hand- should be allowed in a particular location.The book.Cooperative Extension r Service,Purdue Uni- versity,West Lafayette,IN 444 A1O • and L.George,J.A.,C.D.Fulhage and S.W.Melvin.1985.A Lindvafl,T.,O. oren Manure ys us.1974.Odor Re Summary of Midwest Livestock Odor Court Ac- duction for lions.In:Agriculture Waste:Utilization and Manage- 17:508-512. ment,Proceedings of the 5th International MINI'S.1987.Beef housing and Equipment Handbook Symposium on Agricultural Wastes,American Sod- MW PA-6,Midwest Plan Service,Iowa State ety of Agricultural Engineers,St.Joseph,MI, University,Ames,IA pp.431-438. Meyer,D.J.and J.C.Converse.1981.Gas Production vs. Gray,A.S.1984.Feedlot sprinkling.Western Feed(lune). Storage Time on Swine Nursery Manure.Paper No. 81-1512,American Society of Agricultural samplers Heber,D.J.,PaParnell, 88.Comparison of PM-10 and En gin St.Joseph,MI high-volume air samplers using a Coulter counter particle size analyzer.Paper No.SWR 88-109.Pre- Mina,J.R 1975.Management of Odors'Associated With sented at 1988 Southwest Region Meeting of ASAE, Livestock Production.In:Managing Livestock Lubbock,TX Wastes,Proceedings of the 3rd International Svmpo- slum on Livestock Wastes,American Society of Agri- Odor D.T.and C.L. r[n. Quantitative Prediction. cultural Engineers,St.Joseph,MI,pp.378-380. Intensity Transactions of the ASAE.19:939-944. h. Humenik,F.J.and M.R.Overcash.1976.Design Criteria Miner,Surface Odor Rand RC. Stroh. tro 1976.Controlling Rates by ApplicationFeedlot for Swine Waste Treatment Systems.EPA-600/2-76- Con a erdai Products.Trans.ASAE,19:533-538. 233.USEPA,Ada,OK,291 p. Total Waste National Research Council 1979.Odors from Stationary Humenik F.J.,RE.Sneed,M.R. al J.C.Barker and Mobile Sources,National Academy of Sciences, and G.D.Weatherhill.1975. Manage- Washin on,DC ment for a Large Swine Production Facility.In:Man- 8t aging Livestock Wastes,Proceedings of Third Peters,J.A.and T.R.Blackwood.1977.Source Assess- International Symposium on Livestock Wastes, meet:Beef Cattle Feedlots.Montsanto Research American Society of Agricultural Engineers,St. Corporatfon,EPA-600/2-77-107,USEPA,Industrial Joseph,MI,pp.168-171. Environmental Research Laboratory,Research Janni,KA.1982.Modeling Dispersion of Odorous Triangle Park,NC - Gases from Agricultural Sources.Trans.ASAE. Phillips,D.,M.Fattori and N.R.Bulley,1979.Swine Ma- 25.1721-1723. nure Odors:Sensory and Physico-Chemical Analy- Jones,D.D.,D.L..Day and A.C.Dale.1972.Aerobic Treat- sis.Paper No.79-4074,American Society of ment of Livestock Wastes.Final Report SW-16 rg, Agricultural Engineers,St.Joseph,MI,19 p. USEPA,Washington,DC,55 p. Prokop,W.H.and H.L.Bohn.1985.Soil Bed System for Iaarenbeek,J.V. 1985.Odour Emissions of Dutch Agricul- Control of Rendering Plant Odors.Paper No.85-79.6 (Presented at the 78th Annual Meeting,Detroit,MI),hire.meet,In:Proceedings of Waste5th International aon al Manage- irPollution Control Association,Pittsburgh,PA, went,Proceedings of the International Symposium on Agricultural Wastes,American Sod- 17 p. ety of Agricultural Engineers,St.Joseph,MI, Raabe,S.J.,J.M.Sweeten,B.R.Stewart and D.L.Reddell. pp.439-445. 1984.Evaluation of Manure Flush Systems at Caged Koelliker,J.K,J.R.Miner,M.L.Hellickson and H.S. Layer Operations,Tans.ASAE,27:852-858. Nakave.1980.A Zeolite Packed Air Scrubber to Ritter,W.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,Nit 16 p. Korsmeyer,W.,M.D.Hall and T.H.Chen.1981.Odor Schirz,S.1977.Odour Removal from the Exhaust of Ani- control for a Farrow-to-Finish Swine Farm--A Case mal Shelters. Agriculture and Environment,3:223- Study.In:Livestock Waste:A Renewable Resource, 228, Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on - Simpson.F.M.1970.The CCFA control of feedlot pollu- Agricultural Wastes,American Society of Agricul- non plan.Bulletin A.How to Cont Feedlot Polls- tural Engineers,St.Joseph,MI,pp.193-197,200. tion,California Cattle Feeders Association, Kowalewsky,H.H.1981.Odor Abatement Through Bakersville,CA,May 28. earth Filters,Landtechnik 36(1):8-10. Sorel,J.E.,R.O.Gauntt,J.M.Sweeten D.L.Reddell and Kowalewsky,H.H.,R.Scheu and H.Vetter.1979. A.R McFarland.1983.Design of a 1-Butanol Scale Measurement of Odor Emissions and Imissions.In: Dynamic Olfactometer for Ambient Odor Measure- Effluents from Livestock Q.KR Gasser,Editor). ments.Trans.ASAE.26:1201-1206. Applied Science Publishers,London,U.K Sweeten,J.M.1982.Feedlot Dust Control.L-1340,Texas pp.609 675. Agricultural Extension Service,Tne Texas Ab:M Un Licht,L.A.and J.R.Miner. 1978.A Scrubber to Reduce versity System,College Station,TX Livestock Confinement Building Odors.Paper No. PN-78-203,American Society of Agricultural Engineers,St.Joseph,MI,12 p. 991810 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- ards,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 • bee,Canada,June 25-28.20 p. Matter and Appendix J—Reference Method for the Determination of Particulate Matter as PM-10 in Sweeten,J.M.,C.B.Parnell,RS.Etheredge and D. the Atmosphere.Federal Register 52(126):74634- 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, went,P1H-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,R.O. and Environment,3:217-222. Gauntt and J.E.Sorel.1983.Field Measurement of Ambient Odors with a Butanol Olfactometer.Trans. Warburton, 198.Scarbrough, , Commy L.Day and cial Products ASAE,26:1206-1216. for Odor Control and Solids Reduction of Liquid Sweeten,J.M.,RE.Childers 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,Intenta- 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. White,RK 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 CFR 177 73 including Appendix 13 thereof.) Educational programs conducted by the Texas Agricultural Extension Service serve people of all ages regardless of socioeconomic level,race, color, sex,religion, handicap or national origin. Issued in furtherance of Cooperative Extension Work in Agriculture and Home Economics,Acts of Congress of May 8,1914, as amended,and June 30,1914,in cooperation with the United States Department of Agriculture.Zerie L.Carpenter,Director, Texas Agricultural Extension Service,The Texas A&M University System. 991810 •7`� ENG, E&NR 1 2M-6.91,New L-i: I 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 S 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 g, or ath, followed by y heavywaterlitionil byvani- wind velocity decrease. vl sprinkled treatment program. The sprinkler water Techniques can provide moisture for aerobic stabilization of the • manure. A moisture content of between 25 and 40 Dust control techniques for feedlots should pre- percent is required for rapid aerobic bacterial activi- vent dust from becoming a problem, since it is not t•, which produces little unpleasant odor. feasible to remove suspended dust from the air. Avoid ovenvatering. Excessively wet spots sup- There are several aproaches: port anaerobic decomposition, the primary source of Feed Pens Roads and Service Areas feedlot odor. Manure with 25 to 85 percent moisture Removal of excess manure Wate'sprinkling also provides a good environment for fly breeding. Increasec cattle stocking Oiling especially under fence lines, and other locations where there is little cattle traffic. • rate . Water application Chemical application Chemical application Water application is the most effective, economical Rates and timing Adjust water application rates according to weather conditions, animal size and ma- However,reliable the other hs methods dlling dust from plementa nure depth. Recommended initial application rates ma- However, can be of supplemental should be at least 1 gallon per square yard per day benefit. (0.18 inches per day)until a 25 to 35 percent moisture Manure Removal level is reached in the loose manure near the surface. An important step in reducing manure dust is Thereafter, water should be applied at one-half to removal of excess manure from corrals. Although the three-fourths gallon per square yard per day (0.09 to manure pack may contain stored moisture, dry. pul- 0.13 inches per day) while the weather remains dry. verized manure hampers dust control. Thus, For recently scraped feed pens, one-fourth gallon per minimizing manure accumulation increases dust con- square yard per day is recommended. trol effectiveness. A maximum depth of 1 inch of loose California research showed that daily watering manure is recommended. gave significantly better dust control than alternate day watering. Watering frequency has proved to be a Water more critical factor than depth of loose manure on the The most common and effective method of dust feedlot surface. control is application of water to the feedlot surface. Water treatment for dust control within the feed_ In California research, properly sprinkled feedlots yard will increase the relative humidity, which in generated up to 18 times less 'dust than untreated humid weather, can impair the animals' ability to lose lots. Dust levels rose more than 850 percent 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 'Ex:ension agricultural enotneer — was:e management. Tne during the early evening hours. This coincides with Texas AMM University System. the period of heaviest dust activity. %QtRIO • Texas Agrlcuhural Extension Service•The Texas AMA University System•Denial C.Ptannatiel,Director a College Station,Texas 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. Rater 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 Mobile Equipment equipment)with large droplet sizes and low pressures can be operated less frequently and for short periods. • Water tankers • They require fewer spray nozzles, lateral lines and Rater trucks risers. However, they are more likely to lead to If designed to provide adequate coverage of the feed- ponding of water on the feedlot surface unless spray ' pen and proper application rates, these systems are pattern and duration of water application are carefully • about equal in controlling dust. Pen size and shape controlled. are a major factor in equipment selection. For exam- Low capacitysprinklers 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 .a.tuuuut�p •- — °' kept free from sprinkling water. Ir Permanent sprinkler systems Permanent sprinkler systems (Figure 1) can treat I large sections of a feedlot surface simultaneously. - I -lNillin•illnla Sprinkler systems require little labor and can be fully _--_ ,.7z automated to apply water at the correct time every 1 1 , a=. C , day. • I r.-1r ^^ r Major disadvantages to permanent sprinklers are • il7 - ;s--,=- --4-,kry,-. •. • high initial cost, frequent maintenance and depen .{ Bence on relatively calm weather for uniform dis F: �� x111 �N �"i? 7^ r .; tribution. Routine inspection of the entire system will «'�1� ,. :" prevent or minimize poor distribution or overwater- —. -„ J �` ';, r. � _, + „n.: • ing. Sprinkler heads placed inside feedpens can ham- n per pen cleaning. Sprinkler systems can be damaged l5 • , ._,_ _ �. from freezing or impact during idle seasons. Perms- '� _r .�._„_ nent sprinkler systems are inflexible because they. �r :: ,. ?•r•:F-• ; must be designed. installed and operated for a par- �, �i ".�, � `� •^: ticular feedlot configuration. The system may not c. X" _ r \ r function properly if the feedlot is expanded or the + • ;' :4'. ?.., ^•'�;r;? - 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 coverage is achieved under ideal conditions completely effective, and have little salvage value. of operation. 991810 • 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 . I. .- configuration and for dust control in alleyways. i Major disadvantages of tank trucks include high r,•s _ i labor costs. high operating expense. difficulty in gain- / "1 ing quick control over dust and the need for backup - • L equipment. + i-- t - Mobile units used for feedlot dust control vary - = •• from standard two and one-half ton trucks outfitted with 4.000 to 5,000 gallon tanks, up to large tankers 9 -i a .. / with a 6.000 to 9,000 gallon capacity. The tanker capacity recommended for a particular feedlot can be ••'"- ` .d�a'r` `. —� = estimated from Figure 4. `f ' Mobile units should be outfitted with 40- to 120- .. '`_ .. horsepower pumps supplying 500 to 2,000 gallon per y ) - minute discharge rate. As many as six nozzles con- . .. ., trolled by air vales may be installed. An elevated 1, Ott ••i j, - main nozzle with 60- to 120- foot trajectory is re- r , quired, with at least one lower nozzle for uniform distribution within 6 to 80 feet of the water tanker or . - truck. A typical custom-built elevated nozzle with 316-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. (elevated\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 21. 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 he water tanks (Figure or tuc3l should have a k. atop sun shades. Nozzle spacings, diameters, dis- elevate 10,000lfillee tank allo capacity An oand be supplied charge rates and operating pressures are interrelated, 5 000• tand should be selected for each precise application. either wither mind orute. well llto 12-inch trt the rted of 4000 Small nozzles (1/8 inch diameter), closely spaced to gallons per -fill the truck gravityor tanker dis h the provide considerable overlap, will provide the most pipe of he bottomo 2.000can gallons per minute. uniform distribution pattern available. Mobile equipment Mobile tankers or tank trucks (Figure 3) cost less initially than permanent sprinkler Cattle Stocking Rate ng systems and are more versatile. With skilled Inc The Increasing operators, equal or better watering uniformity can be 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 • 991810 • • Average animal spacing.t:emd sprinkling or chemical treatment. It could also lower Anima! solid waste management costs, since the manure pack ' size 75 100 125 150 175 would be concentrated over a smaller area and easier (average Ins. per head) Moisture.inchesday . to collect. However, the California experiments sug- gest that excessive moisture could eventually result. 400 005 0.04 0.03 0.03 002 Research in Arizona indicates that a space alloys• 600 0.8 .06 .05 .04 .03 800 .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 Ca:tie Feedlots Shade space per head limits animal spacing in hot • weather. Crowding cattle together during hot weath- square feet per head produces about 25 inches of er when dust conditions are worst, without compen- moisture per year or 0.05 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 lions. 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 0.016 inches per day depicted in Figure 6. Whenever moisture produced by the cattle and by " " precipitation is consistently less than daily evapora- tion rate, dust will become a problem. The number of `= days until dust problems arise cannot be estimated . from available data. In dry weather, dust problems are often noticed first in pens with light replacement Mt I` 'T cattle and where the moist manure pack has been �t�• removed recently. Stocking rates in Texas and the Southwest ranget ;�� h•pically from 100 to 150 square feet per head. Re- -7--5"1"---->.. _ ,.. + search in California showed that when stocking rates =_ '—• a'_ : - —.-- were increased to 70 to 50 square feet per head no detrimental effects on daily gain were observed and Figure 3. The cost effectiveness of mobile equipment feed conversion was slightly lower. Under carefully such as this water tanker depends upon proper equip- managed conditions, crowding can be a more eco- ment sizing. placement of loading facilities. equip- nomical method of dust control than either water ment reliability and operator skill. 991810 • (Pivot) REQUIRED TANKER FEEDLOT DAILY WATER WATER • LOADS CA?ACTT`.' AREA APPLICATION RATE REQUIREMENTS PER DAY (1000 GAL) (ACRES) (GAL..SQ.YD.) (1000 GA_'DAY) o` J 20 400 — — 0:25 25 t 0 — 30 27 5 350 015 — 25 -- 33 ^ _ 22 5 300 — 02 — — 10 - 275 — 025 _ 3s 2.0 — 20 — 250 — 03 — 43 — — 2 5 — 17 5 - 225 — 0` — 45 30 — 75 — 200 — OS — 50 — _ 4 0 — 175 07 -- 06 - - 12 5 10 - - 60 _ 6.0 150 - s 09 • 70 - 7.0 10 9 125 - 125 - 80 .— t0 0 p. — $ s — 100 — 106 20 - 00 - 15 _ �i�% - 7 - •5,Z \ I 20 _ 20 �� // 6 -_ 80 - �� 30 - 125 25 - �i / 55 - 70 �� 40 .50 •50 - 32 53 le 5 — 4.s 60 — �� •5 60 - -�� :75 .i'e / - r — 64. 50 55 �`` = 60 �� 200 — �i� 60 —i — 35 45 1 0� __ 1.0 `��_i.225 //!`- 70 3 40 — . — �� 2oJ — 275 x/00 — — 2 5 •30 — 35 20 — `� 300 — /// — 150 2 - 27.5 — 25 N. — 350 / 200 — _ t 75 2s — ''0 %. .0,,00 — % — 250 - 22.5 = 40 _ �` 300 — : 5 20 — 5 0 _ 50C%,G-- 513 _— 350 : 2s _ 17.5 — — 6 0 — 55` — SC0 i 0 —1 — 600 — 600 _ 7 5 — — 9 0 _ 700 — 700 ' 0 _ CO — - - 12.5 15 0 — t 7 5 600 I 1000 -- 900 10 _ 20 0 — C00 • Figure 4. Nomograph for estimating the optimum si=c of water tankers or trucks for feedlot dust control. Example Problem • Computing Water Requirements and ground speed of 5 mph loaded. A ?.000 gallons per Tanker Capacity for Dust Control minute gravity loading station will be located at one end of the feedlot. Given: A 33.000 head cattle feedlot operating at To determine: Will this tanker provide adequate dust — almost full capacity is developing a dust problem. control? Cattle spacing is 140 square feet per head. The mana- Solution: (Use Nomograph — Figure 3) ger has located a new water tanker with 8.000 gallon capacity, 800 gallons per minute discharge pump and Step 1. Calculate the feedlot surface area: 991810 • Feedlot surface area = 33.000 hd x 140 sq ft/hd = 106 acres 43,560 sq ft/acre Step 2. Draw a straight line between the feedlot area Chemical Application of 106 acres and the water application rate of 1.0 Chemical agents with demonstrated potential for gallons per square yard per day. Continue this dust control in construction and aviation applications straight line over to the axis labeled Water Require- have shown little effectiveness in feedlots. These ments, and read 513.000 eallons per day of water chemicals and their modes of action include: needed for a complete feedpen cover. • Lignosulfonate —.particle binding Step 3. Draw a straight line from the water re- • Sodium carbonate — dispersion and moisture ab- • quirement of 513.000 gallons per day to the given sorption from the atmosphere tanker capacity of 5,000 gallons. NVhere 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 = 5,000 gal + 2,000 gpm = 4 water to be effective. The fourth is least effective at low humidities, when it is needed most. All are minutes b. Discharge time = 5,000 gal + 800 gpm = S 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 y load = 19 loads per day. ‘ Step 6. Compare the 64 loads per day needed with `, the 19 loads per day achievable at 83 percent opera- ting efficiency. tn• Answer: No, the 8,000 gallon tanker will not ` ' `=.ft be adequate for peak application rates of 1.0 gallons per day per square yard. It would be p� . adequate for the maintenance application rate of 0.5 gallons per day per square yard when y . • operated at 13.5 hours per day(32 loads per day) r` during the dust season. or when supplying only _ - - 60 percent pen surface coverage at the mainte- - nance application rate with 8 hours per day. Figure 5. Typical custom-designed pressure nozzle for uniform distribution of water from a mobile tank- er or water truck onto the feedlot surface. 991810 Calcium sulfate reduces nitrogen loss from ma- sampling of the feedlot surface to anticipate re- nure. Calcium nitrate sill increase nitrogen content quirements. Restore dust control systems and equip- in manure. Other chemicals. such as calcium chloride ment to peak working effectiveness as the dust season and waste oils, hinder the resale value of manure. approaches, then maintain it in good repair through- Chemicals provided little or no dust control in out the period of use. Keep backup equipment availa- Arizona research. In California research, calcium sul- ble. Repair service capabilities should be no longer fate(gypsum)applied to a feedlot surface at the rate of than two days. 0.36 pounds per square yard showed some potential The best means of feedlot dust control is water for dust control. However. the cost was 50 to 60 application. Either permanent sprinklers or mobile percent more than for treatment with water. equipment can be effective. Chemicals may be more effective and practical in For most Texas and Southern Great Plains feed- controlling dust from feed alleys, roads and loading! yards where dust control is a periodic rather than a unloading areas around the feedlot. rather than the perennial need, mobile equipment of adequate capac- feedlot surface itself. Other materials commonly used itv with well-planned water loading facilities will be for roadways include waste petroleum oils, coarse effective. gravel and asphalt. A mixture of 240 pounds of cal- The operating cost of dust control equipment is cium nitrate, 3 gallons of glycerine and 47 gallons of not appreciably different for either mobile equipment water has also been recommended for this purpose. or permanent sprinklers, but when depreciation is considered, sprinkler systems cost three times more. Summary Both methods cost substantially less than calcium sulfate, the most effective chemical. Dust from cattle feeding operations can be reason- Recommendations ably controlled by conventional methods. These Fmmlloe these steps to control feedlot dust: methods require dedicated management, skilled op- eration,and adequate financing. 1. Remove excess manure from the feedlot surface as The most important steps in dust control are dry weather approaches. Keep loose manure pad attacking the problem early and maintaining steady less than 2 inches deep. control. This requires periodic inspection or moisture 2. Plan water distribution system to insure uniform coverage of at least 75 percent ofthe unshaded pen area. o.=o- • r.•'Min? •,,,•,_c,«-•,,,•,_c,«- , �— --_ ., 3. Apply water to the feedlot surface at the rate of .- ""n` 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 twice this amount until manure moisture levels reach 25 percent. .10- 4. Control dust on roads and alleyways usingtoarse G. gravel, waste oils, chemicals or water. 5. To control fly breeding, avoid watering vacant F. pens or oyenvatering beneath fencelines or feed- ; .04- bunks. Correct improper pen drainage to avoid s a n wet spots where odors and fly breeding also occur. 6. When necessary and feasible, temporarily de- o : _ 22 __ _ _' crease cattle spacings to increase manure mois- u_ .o o..c ...,. • co.=si cure. commensurate with operating constraints Figure 6. Typical daily moisture removal by ecapo- and animal health considerations. Installation of ration from surface of -wet- and -dry- soil (Olton portable fences may facilitate animal density ad- clay loam). justment. 991810 October 1979 General Guidelines for Design of Sprinkler System for Feedlot Dust Control By John M. Sweeten, Ph.D. , P.E. Extension Agricultural Engineer- Waste Management Texas Agricultural Extension Service General Recommendations for Dust Control 1 . Provide 80-100% sprinkler coverage of surface of feedpens, cattle alleys and working pens. . 2. Sprinkle once or twice daily in dry season as needed. 3. Start dry season by removing loose, powdery surface manure. 4. Apply water at 1/4 to 1 .0 gal/sq yds/day as needed (400-1600 gal/ acre/day) . This amounts to 0.05 to 0. 19 inches/day. With daily manure moisture, this should match evaporation rate of 0.25 to 0.35 inches/ • day. 5. Select moderate to high operating pressure (50-60 PSI ) , small diameter nozzles (1/8-3/16") and close spacings (45 x 45 ft. grid) to give small droplet sizes and uniform coverage. 6. Provide water supply and distribution system to provide at least 27 gpm/acre of feedlot surface. This is same as applying 1 gal/sq. yd/day at 60 min/day operating time. For instance, to sprinkle 25 acre section of the feedlot in 60 min per day, a pump output of 675 gpm will be needed. To reduce the pumping rate and pipe sizes, the feedlot can be divided into sections, with automatic valves used to cycle from one section of the feedlot to the next. • 7. Select pipe sizes from hydraulic engineering tables. For example, an 8" main line should be used to supply 675 gpm to a 25 acre feedlot section. Lateral lines can be smaller and reduced in size downstream as water is dispersed through the system. Design steps: 1 . Select water application rates (gal/day/acre) and schedules (min/day) . 2. Select sprinkler nozzle sizes, spacings, and pressures. 3. Select riser pipe sizes. Design guards to protect sprinkler nozzles and riser pipes from cattle damage. 4. Determine optimum layout, sizes and materials for lateral lines (tradeoff between head loss vs. cost) . 5. Determine size, materials and location for main water supply pipes. 6. Select pump that provides pressure & flow rate established from above steps. 7 . Repeat, if necessary steps 1-6, working from downstream to upstream end of the system. 991810 Hello