The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About991239.tiff Busker Dairy 7678 Weld County Road 17 Fort Lupton, Colorado 80621 Special Use Permit Application Submitted to Weld County September 1998 bcr' Application Prepared By: u , b, £ g NV IRO TOCK,Ite. 11990 Grant Street, Suite 402 Denver, Colorado 80233 (303) 457-4322 (Please submit all correspondence to EnviroStock, Inc. at the address above) [I IXNI$IT 991239 11990 Grant Street, Suite 402 Denver, Colorado 80233 NV1RO Phone (303)457-4322 Fax (303) 457-4609 TOCK,( . Thursday, September 17, 1998 Weld County Planning & Zoning Weld County Administrative Offices 1400 North 17th Street Greeley, Colorado 80631 Subject: Busker Dairy USR Application Dear Commission: Enclosed is the Use-by-Special-Review application for Busker Dairy. The proposed expansion of Busker dairy is planned in the N '/s, SW '/.& S `/:,NW '/ Section 28,T2N,R 67 W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado. Busker Dairy,when completed,will encompass 4,500 dairy cattle. The physical facilities are located on approximately 130 acres. Approximately 80 additional acres owned by Scott Busker is available to support the waste management of the facility. Significant time and effort have been involved in developing a comprehensive plan for Busker Dairy. Scott Busker has met individually with neighbors to incorporate their concerns into this plan. Please direct all correspondence to EnviroStock, Inc. at the address listed above. If you have any questions regarding this plan or require additional information for consideration, please contact me directly at (303) 457-4322. Sincerely, U�—, omasaren Vice President 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. DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICE.. 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 Application Fee Paid //cv Receipt#_ dV/ Date Recording Fee Paid Receipt#_ Date Application Reviewed by: c TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT: (Please print or type, except for necessary signature) LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT AREA: SEA ATrnCHaD LEGAL PARCELNUMBER: ±.3.± 2.S.0 .Q. .QS..1(12digitnumber-foundonTaxI.D. Information or obtained at the Assessor's Office. Section 26 , T 2 N, R (oI W-Total Acreage ± IZ5 Zone District A Overlay Zone N R Property Address (if available) %I-8 WCR Il FT L1iprow , CO SO(n2.1 Proposed Use DAIR`S — AMIM AI F—DIMS,- APERAT1oh1 SURFACE FEE (PROPERTY OWNERS) OF AREA PROPOSED FOR THE SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT Name: ext cctr Bc',KER Address: _7•1o0$ W CP. 11 City/State/Zip: Fr LuvroM 80621 Home Telephone:_ Business Telephone €33- 33 I} Name: Address:_ City/State/Zip: Home Telephone: Business Telephone APPLICANT OR AUTHORIZED AGENT(if differenter than abovel Name: ENVIRDSTOC.� I IO INC . % MAS ULMt4 Address: II990GR►.Nr Se rm. 40Z. City/State/Zip: Denali ER do 802-33 Home Telephone: Business Telephone:('303') 415?- - 431-Z- DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES USE ONLY Case# [AC IQ— Iar) ,,z, riII `Lc1,/ Floodplain: o Yes No Geologic Hazard: ❑ Yes ❑' No I hereby state that all statements and plans submitted with the applic ' n are tru anp correct to the best of my knowledge. /(/ _ Rev: 1-27-97 Signatur : caner or Authorized Agent Road File# F 5 • FRAME IllllllBill 11111Ili MEW 111111111WII 0345 291175118 2of2R 99 69311 NMd0w4vCO E)WI►1T'A' • PROPERTY DESCRIPTION OF PARCEL ONE: THAT PART OF SECTION 26,TOWNSHIP 2 NORTH,RANGE 67 WEST O6f F THE l P.M.. COUNTY OF WELD,STATE OF COLORADO,BEING MORE PARTICULARLY BEGINNING AT THE WEST 1/4 COINER OF SAD SECTI BEARING ON 25; ALONG THE WESTERLYTHENCE NORTH 00 DEGREES 00'00'WEST ON AN flamer) UNE OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 26 A DISTANCE OF 1317.07 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE SOUTH 1/2 OF SAID NORTHWEST 114 OF UFE SECTION ON SOUTH 1/2 • THENCE NORTH E DEGREES ALONG THE NORriiEnL OF THE NORTHWEST 1M OF SECTION28 A DISTANCE OAF 2529.35 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAD SOUTH 1/2 OF THE NORTHWEST NORTHERLY UNE OF THE SOUTH 1/2 OF THENCE NORTH SS DEGREES 30'01'EAST ALONGTHE WESTENLY THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTONN 28 A DISTANCE OF 19.62 FEET TO WESTERLYE BULL CANAL SAID LINE BEING 26 UNE OFA STRIP FI LAND.65 FEET WIDE. TTO THE LEFT Of THE CEIET OF SAID BULL CANAL: THENCE Y OR SOUTHERLY ALONG O SAD WESTERLY UNE OF THE BULL CANAL.BEING CONVEYED TO THEFARMERS F ARMORS RESERVOIR AND IRRIGATION COMPANY SY DEWS RECORDED OCTOBER 30, . 1909 N BOOK 755 AT PAGE 311 AND JULY S.1917 N BOOR 47S AT PAGE 427.THE FOLLOWING 22 COURSES: DEGREES 11.1 SOUTH 32 DEORfi£S 3640'WEST A DISTANCE Of 77.30 FEET; 12.1 SOUTH 28 01'43'WEST A DISTANCE OF 57.12 FEET l)SOUTHT 111 DISTANCES CF 1 WEST FEET;DISTANCE OF 81.62 FEET; 14.1 SOUTH 02 DEGREES SOUTH 00 DEGREES 37'36'WEST A DISTANCE OF 75.24 FEET; (6.)SOUTH 07 DEGREES 10'62"EAST A DISTANCE OF 66.77 FEET: (7.)SOUTH 11 DEGREES 22K6'EAST A DISTANCE OF DEEGREES 55'443)sWEST A DISTANNCCES 09'34'EAST OF 76.08 FEET: 11100.))SOUTH 15 DEGREES 48'6 ANCE OF 75A2 FEET; IS.)SOUTH WEST A DISTANCE OF 219.3E FEET: (11.)SOUTH 1C DEGREES 43'41'WEST A DISTANCE OF 134.76 FEET: (12.)SOUTH 21 DEGREES 21'14'WEST A DISTANCE OF 95.57 FEET; 113.) • SOUTH 23 DEGREES 21'34'WEST A DISTANCE OF 72.61 FEET: 114.)SSOIFH EG39 R� SOUTH26'25'WEST A DISTANCE OF 50.28 FEET; (16.) 44 DEGREES DISTANCE DISTANCE OF 888.18 FEET; 116.)SOUTH 40 DEGREES 29'Cf�TS DIS'�1 DOFF 153.70 FEET: 117.1 SOUTH 36 DEGREES 46'15'WEST A DISTANCE _ DEGREES 50'57'A DISTANCE OF 61125 FEET; (20•)SOUTH 11 DEGREES 4S A DISTANCE OF 393.18 FEET; '1560'WEST A DISTANCE OF 74.8 14 5 T A2DISTANCE 1 WEST SOUTH DEGREES WEST OF 71.53 FEET TO THE SOUTHERLY UNE OF THE NORTH . 1/2 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 28: THENCE SOUTH SB DEGREES 38'10'WEST ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY UNE OF THE NORTH 1/2 OF THE SOUTHWEST 114 OF SECTION 28 A DISTANCE OF 1273.51 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER O SAID NORTH S O10'3B WEST ALO THE NG 1THE WESECTION 29; STERLY LINE OF THE NORTH 1/2 OF THENCENORTHTW 00/4DEGREES THE SOUTHWEST 7l4 OF SECTION 26 A DISTANCE Of 1307.60 FEET TO THE PORT OF SEGNMMO CONTAINS:126.978 ACRES MORE OR LESS. . Busker Dairy Envirostock, Inc-Project 23124-1-9it 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 4,500 head of cattle, associated corrals, milking facilities and storage, management and support facilities. Additionally, this proposal includes addition of eight 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 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. Two recently constructed rural residences are located north of the dairy. Dryland farmground and native rangeland pasture predominantly surround. There are two rural residences located within 500 feet of the parcel boundary. "Serving Environmental Needs of the Livestock Industry" Busker Dairy Envirostock, Inc-Project 23124-1-98 5. 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. b) How many employees are proposed to be employed at this site? Busker dairy will employ approximately 20 people at this site. This number may increase or decrease by 20% over several years. c) What are the hours of operation? Dairy farming operations will run 24 hours every day., 365 days per year. Office hours will be from 8 am to 5 pm, Monday through Friday, and from 8 am to Noon on Saturday. 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, a new dairy milking center, and eight mobile/modular employee accessory dwellings. Additional structures and storage areas for hay, feed and other commodities may be constructed to support the expansion. e) What type and how many animals, if any, will be on this site? The site will contain approximately 4,500 head of dairy cattle. Of the 4,500 head approximately 2,500 will be milked three times per day. The balance will be dry cows waiting to calve, calves, steers and replacement heifers. f 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. Busker Dairy will ship milk up to three times per day offsite with semi tractors and trailers. The dairy will receive feedstuffs, forages and feed additives delivered in semi trailers and trucks 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. "Serving Environmental Needs of the Livestock Industry" Busker Dairy Envirostock, Inc-Project 23124-1-St h) What is the water source on the property? (Both domestic and irrigation). Water will be obtained from several potential sources. Quality municipal water from Central Weld County Water District for supplying cattle, personnel and tenants is available. An 8" Central Weld water main is located adjacent to WCR 17 immediately west of the dairy. Negotiations to obtain a water tap from a new line have been initiated with the District. Two groundwater wells are currently used to provide water for the dairy and associated operations. A letter from Central Weld County Water District and copies of the well permits from the Colorado Division of Water Resources are included in the "Sewage and Water" section of this application. Completion of activities to secure a water supply from the Central Weld County Water District is contingent upon receipt of a USR permit from Weld County. 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. 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. Once the process is complete, compost is removed and sold to local landscape companies. Chemicals and petroleum products required for the facility will be stored in appropriate locations and include secondary containment where required. 6. Explain the proposed landscaping for the site. Landscaping plans include providing an eye-appealing and well-groomed facility that has a professional appearance. Shelterbelts for wind and water erosion control and wildlife habitat are coordinated through Federal and State agricultural technical assistance programs. The entrance into the facility from WCR 17 is landscaped with over 60 trees to provide an aesthetically pleasing appearance. Landscaping and appropriate buffers will be placed along the northern boundary of the property to minimize nuisance impacts from the composting area. Additionally, as outlined in the Nuisance Management Plan, if nuisance conditions persist beyond increased maintenance interval controls, Busker Dairy will install physical or mechanical means such as living windbreaks and/or solid fences to further minimize nuisance conditions from dust and odors. "Serving Environmental Needs of the Livestock Industry" Busker Dairy Envirostock, Inc-Project 23124-1-98 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 Busker 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. Manure stockpiles, if used, will be located on the designated area north of the dairy where runoff can be controlled and nuisance conditions minimized. Use of solid waste stockpiles will be minimized to reduce fly and insect concerns due to sanitary conditions required at dairy facilities. Stormwater and water from the milking facilities is stored in earthen structures designed to meet the requirements of the Colorado Confined Animal Feeding Operations Control Regulations. Stormwater and dairy wastewater will be collected for application to farmground at agronomic rates. All solid manure will be composted, sold and removed to offsite locations. Details of the manure management system are outlined in the Manure and Wastewater Management Plan. Hazardous or solid waste storage is not proposed at this site. Refuse removal will be contracted to a trash pick-up service and collected weekly. "Serving Environmental Needs of the Livestock Industry" Busker Dairy Envirostock, Inc-Project 23124-1-98 Floodplains Busker Dairy is not located within a mapped 100-year floodplain as shown in the National Flood Insurance Program, Federal Emergency Management Agency maps on the following pages. "Serving Environmental Needs of the Livestock Industry" determine If flood Insurance Is avallabla In Oh community, Bast your Insurance agent,or call the National Flood Insurance gram at 1600)676b620.1rC 141 APPROXIMATE SCALE • 600 0 600 FEET I-. - --t 11 NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM II i 14 I FIRM • • FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP t WELD COUNTY, I COLORADO i UNINCORPORATED AREA 1I I ' PANEL 864 OF 1075 1 IEEE MAP INDEX FOR PANELS NOT PRINTED/ I 1 I I . I COMMUNITY•PANEL NUMBER 1 I ii 080266 0864 C I MAP REVISED: - SEPTEMBER 28, 1982 • I Weal smaraanwy management agency i , , 2 .Nfa Ee.a¢ ._ ____ • Set the ettaebed OMA No.3067 02ea " i- -- '- FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY I Esping Apr030,1p5a STANDARD FLOOD HAZARD DETERMINATION Instruction L-- SECTION I•LOAN INFORMATION --� -- PROPERTY •12.COLLATERAL(Building/Mobile Home/Penonal property) ADDRESS I.LENDER NAME AND ADDRESS i(Legal Deecrlptioa may he attached) 1 Busker Dairy 1 11990 Granteck 17678 Weld County Road 17 Denver, ,CO 80233t.,Suite 4112 I Fart Lupton,CO I, Dcavel,C N 2 SW 4 Sec 28,T2N,ROM I 3.LENDER ID.NO. . I4.tOAN mama --i5.AMOUNT OF FLOOD INSURANCE REQUIRED 1 j Elizabeth Haren ^' J j7ON II_ • iA.NATIONAL FLOOD LIRP Community RAM(NFL%COMMUNITY JURISDICTION Stale I — �P Community .._NATIONAL NFL!Commonily County( ) Number _I Name I -- 080266 1 - - -_. Weld Co II Unincorporated L____ _ T - — 1 IL NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM INnil DATA AFFECTING TV RIDING(MOBILE HOME) -Na NF@ I - Nth*Map TON(Effective ILOMA(LOMR Flood Zoae Map ` pip•(jrMp Nominee(pmotthe s Pried Number Rewind Dote _ (C.mm00)ty nowt,It one the bone as'A') C�- r-- 08026E•U8a4 .C 9 /82 Yes Doe —L_. l C.FgpRRALFLOOD INSURANCE AVAIWILTLY(Cheeks8 mat apply) X Regular Propnm Emergency Program at NFU X Federal Flood Insurenec is available(community psnicipalen in NFU') _ _— 1 Federal Modd ltu rance is not wettable became toemunny does cot panteipaic in NF I j aultdinglMobile Home N a Comtal Barrier Rumen Airs(CBRA),Federal Flood tesumna may not he avuilabte CBRA dcnignotion data _. --. D.DETRRMINATtON YES X NO Till WLDING/MOBILE HOME IN THE '1D HAZE A _ (ZONES BEGINNIN G WITH LETTERS A OR i IC yes,flood buurenee is required by the Rood Diluter Protection Act of 1913 I If rut,flood meat%is hot required by the Rod Dueler Ptosectton Act of 10 _.. - 73 -- rCOMMENTS(Optimal) Please act copy of the attached map. The X with the circle around it marks the approximate location of the property. If you have any question,please do not hesitate to call. 1 This idermdnation ie hosed on ewmining Um?MP map,sad Federal Wnsienry Msnagemnl Agency neWoos m tM sod any other 1 ii nformalhro needed tolerate the b lIdinaltnobila home no the NFU map. __' F.PREPARERS INFORMATION - AD1'E OF DFTERADNATIOV NAM lL TELEPHONEE.ADPTELEPHONE NUMBER Cr other than lender) 7lI 3M8 I pool Insurance Samos,lad 1685 E.180th Avenue '�. Broomhid,CO 80020 I . _.._ ....---- - L_ Phone(303)452.1R8 Fax(303)452.1208 . .. _._. .—.FEMA term BIM,Jun 95 Tram 222760 . Flood Plains 1I I • i 29 2 0� ieV L t'S , \ \ i Busker Dairy Envirostock, Inc-Project 231c+-1-98 Busker Dairy, LLC Road Access Information Sheet Attachment Busker Dairy will access the dairy facility from the current access onto WCR 17. No additional access is proposed. The traffic pattern consists of one main access from WCR 17. Sufficient parking areas will be designated for the office, support areas, loading and unloading, and the employee housing area. The access is sufficiently designed and will be maintained to carry the loads expected and be of adequate lane width to accommodate two-way traffic into and out of the dairy. Proper drainage will be established to prevent erosion of the access at the intersection at WCR 17. The entrance will be landscaped to differentiate the private road from public roads and provide an aesthetically pleasing appearance. Landscaping will be placed at a distance sufficiently east from the intersection that will not interfere with traffic line-of- sight. "Serving Environmental Needs of the Livestock Industry" II •1IWO ELD COUNTY TREASURER WELD CUUN I Y IAX Nu I lUt RI111796 ).BOX 456 , . Taxes Due in ; iGELED DESCRIPTIONN58 TAX LEVY ' GENERAL TAX TAX AUTHORITY GAL OF PROPERTY � 22.038 31.51 0414-D PT S2NW4 28-2-67 LYING N&W OF BULL WELD COUNTY 4 038 3 .5 2 ANAL (.90R) SCHOOL DIST RES 1 060 NCW WATER 1.43 CWC WATER 0.000 0.00 FORT LUPTON FIRE 4.956 7.096 322 9.04 AIMS JUNIOR COL 1.449 0.040 2.01 WELD LIBRARY aG\ IS . vc}4-“igie‘ a No.ss,_o absence of State LaphtelNa FUMaq.-It 83.270 Fund Levy PROPERTY nave E ISn FULL TAX ter School;General a DISTRICT ACTUAL pxpPERTY VAWEI4 " :1 1 1 f PAYMENT SCHEDULE 1RGELI NUN.19;RF APP'AU NE RC REAL CGNTAG 1111LASURI I IMM(DIAI EIY! 1128000042 1st Half Tax DUE MARCH 2 49.90 2nd Half Tax DUE JUNE 15 49.90 FULL PAYMENT DUE APRIL 30 99.80 THE TREASURERS OFFICE IS REQUIRED BY LAW TO SEND THE TAX NOTICE TO THE OWNER OF RECORD.IF YOUR TAXES ARE PAID BY A MORTGAGE COMPANY KEEP THIS NOTICE FOR YOUR RECORD.IF YOU BUSKER DAIRY HAVE SOLD THIS PROPERTY,PLEASE FORWARD THIS NOTICE TO THE NEW OWNER OR RETURN TO THIS OFFICE MARKED'PROPERTY SOLD' 7678 WELD CO RD 17 FT LUPTON,CO 80621 (' plealasee reveres Me Of This form idflidditibfiat1RfonrtBtibn.. ' TAlX NOTICE PORTION• OR YOUR RECORDS IELD COUNTY TREASURER WtLU CUUN I Y IAA NU I ICC .O.BOX 458 Taxes Due in R0348694 iEG LED S RI80PTION OF TAX AUTHORITY 1 TAX LEVY ,,.,a.,,, "'" I GENERAL TAX EGAL DESCRIPTION PROPERTY 20414-C N2SW4/S2NE4 28 2 67 EXC E1487.41' WELD COUNTY 22.038 1080.084.067 1669.62 N2S2NE4 ALSO EXC STRIP 55'WIDE-30'E&25'W OF SCHOOL DIST RE8 39.6 LINE DESC AS BEG AT PT ON S LN OF N2SW4 OF SEC NCW WATER 0.000 1.000 49.00. 1 3" OFWLN SEC THN13D28'E305'N36D53'E CWC WATER I, tOD46'E 50'N45D24'E 885'TO PT ON N LN FORT LUPTON FIRE 4.956 242.89 6.322 309.84 TOGETHER WITH ALL THAT PART OF S2NW4 LYI AIMS JUNIOR COI. 1.449 0.040 69.06 -DDITIONAL LEGAL ON FILE WITH ASSESSOR WELD LIBRARY C 3e No.2S...n.banal of State L.gStlNNe Rodin..* 83.270 pow SchoolGnat Fund Lery wax.PITY WNW TOTAL LEVY FULL TAX AX DISTRICT ACTUAL PROPERTY VALUE IS VALUATION OF LAND VALUATION MPS OR PERS TOTAL VALUATION •I I _ I I I: PAYMENT SCHEDULE wf�ELF IF rVtjU PITO AN FAA :An u numaelh Appeav��.aaE REAL Cr^.IAr n I r A4UH1It mo.+r a All_Y. 31128000040 1st Halt Tax DUE MARCH 2 2nd Hall Tax DUE JUNEI 15 17I0.25 1710.25 FULL PAYMENT DUE APRIL 30 3420.50 THE TREASURERS OFFICE QED BY LAW TO SEND THE TAX NOTICE TO HE OWNER OF IS RECORDIF YOUR TAXES ARE PAID BY A MORTGAGHAVE SOLDE COMPANY HIS PROPEREP RTY.TMPLEASE IS FORWARD THIS NOTICE TO THE FOR YOUR RECORD.IF YOU BUSKER SCOTT D&SUSAN J NEW OWNER OR RETURN TO THIS OFFICE MARKED'PROPERTYSOLD' 7678 WELD CO RD 17 FT LUPTON,CO 80621 - - Please eee reverse side of this form for additional information:.. -TA RETAIN TOP PORTION FOR YOUR RECORDS. Busker Dairy Envirostock, Inc-Project 2S:44-1-98 Manure & Process Wastewater Management Plan for Busker Dairy 7678 Weld County Road 17 Fort Lupton, Colorado 80621 Developed in accordance with the Colorado "Confined Animal Feeding Operations Control Regulation" & Generally Accepted Agricultural Best Management Practices Prepared By NVIRO TOCK,L. 11990 Grant Street, Suite 402 Denver, Colorado 80233 September, 1998 "Serving Environmental Needs of the Livestock Industry" Busker Dairy Envirostock, Inc-Project 23124-1-98 Table of Contents Introduction 3 Legal Owner, Contacts and Authorized Persons 3 Legal Description 3 Location Map 4 Site Map 5 Site Description 6 Floodplains 6 Management Controls 6 Manure and Wastewater Management 6 Solid Manure 6 Retention Facilities 7 Retention Facility Dewatering 7 Stormwater and Process Water 8 Irrigation and Nutrient Management 10 Inspections 11 Appendix A —Flood Maps 12 Appendix B-Manure Management Record Form 13 Appendix C—Record keeping Forms 14 Appendix D— Wastewater and Stormwater Calculations 15 "Serving Environmental Needs of the Livestock Industry" 2 Busker Dairy Envirostock, Inc-Project 23124-1-98 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 Busker Dairy is Scott Busker Correspondence and Contacts should be made to: Mr. Scott Busker 7678 WCR 17 Fort Lupton, Colorado 80621 (303) 833-3317 The individual(s) at this facility who is(are)responsible for developing the implementation, maintenance and revision of this MMP are listed below: Scott Busker Owner (Name) (Title) Legal Description The legal description of Busker Dairy is: N '/, SW '/ & S '/,NW '/ Section 28, T2N, R 67 W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado "Serving Environmental Needs of the Livestock Industry" 3 Busker Dairy Envirostock, Inc-Project 23 I c4-1-98 Maps Location Map The Topographical Location Map shows the location of Busker Dairy, surrounding sites, topography and major drainages. "Serving Environmental Needs of the Livestock Industry" 4 Busker Dairy Envirostock, Inc-Project 23 z4-1-98 Site Map The Site Map details the configuration of the dairy pens and alleys, waste management system and site drainage patterns. 'Serving Environmental Needs of the Livestock Industry" 5 Busker Dairy Envirostock, Inc-Project 237.4-1-98 Site Description The average annual working capacity of Busker Dairy is 4,500 head of dairy cattle or 6,300 animal units as defined by the Colorado Confined Animal Feeding Control Regulations. The 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. The physical facilities are located on approximately 130 acres. Approximately 80 additional acres owned by Scott Busker is available to support the waste management of the facility. Six stormwater ponds are currently used for collection of stormwater runoff and wastewater from the dairy milking center. An additional stormwater pond will be constructed north of the existing ponds. Floodplains Busker Dairy is not located within a mapped 100-year floodplain. National Flood Insurance Program, Federal Emergency Management Agency maps are in Appendix A. Management Controls Manure and Wastewater Management Solid Manure Solid manure is managed through routine pen maintenance. Animal density per pen is controlled to optimize the surface area and feed bunk space while maintaining solid, dry footing for livestock. Pens are harrowed and leveled daily to allow proper stormwater drainage, eliminate low spots and ponding, and provide dry ground for livestock. 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 Busker Dairy is collected, composted and sold offsite. Composting reduces both manure volume and nitrogen content by approximately 50%. Composting minimizes nuisance conditions related to manure storage. Should any solid manure be applied to farmground owned or managed by Busker Dairy, 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 compost removed from Busker Dairy to off-site locations not owned by Busker Dairy will be recorded in the Manure Log forms included in the Appendix C of this plan. "Serving Environmental Needs of the Livestock Industry" 6 Busker Dairy Envirostock, Inc-Project 2.,,_4-1-98 Retention Facilities Busker Dairy's stormwater and wastewater management control structures include six existing ponds and one proposed additional pond. 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 17 acre-feet is necessary for the facility. Total existing and planned stormwater and wastewater retention capacity is approximately 44 acre-feet. Wastewater production at Busker Dairy 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. Busker dairy 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 15 gpm for 60 minutes following each of three shifts. Total milking center process water usage is approximately 3,000 gallons per day or 3.4 acre-feet per year. Periods occur during summer months when little or no water is present in the majority of the ponds. 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 80 acres of flood-irrigated fannground. Stormwater generation calculations are in Appendix D. The new retention pond will be lined with a compacted earthen material to a thickness of at least 18" or more to a permeability not to exceed 1/32"per day as required by the Colorado Confined Animal Feeding Operations Control Regulation. The liner construction and permeability will be verified by a registered professional engineer. The results will be forwarded to the Weld County Health Department,the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, and incorporated within this plan. 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. "Serving Environmental Needs of the Livestock Industry" 7 Busker Dairy Envirostock, Inc-Project 23 i 44-1-98 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 Busker Dairy are outlined in the following examples. At maximum production, the facility will generate approximately 1.095 million gallons per year of process wastewater or 3.36 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 NH, .05 0.17 0.10 Total N includes the NH, fraction. N"as applied"is calculated below: (a 17 Total N—0.10 NH4 fraction)x 30%mineralization rate = 0.021 Organic N 0.021 Organic N+ 0.10 NH4 = a 121 lbs plant available N/I 000 gallons (Year 1) Table 2 Nutrient Content of runoff pond lbs/1000 gallons Dry Matter % Total N NH, .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 plant available N/l000 gallons (Year 1) "Serving Environmental Needs of the Livestock Industry" 8 Busker Dairy Envirostock, Inc-Project 2...-4-1-98 Total potential stormwater runoff from a 25-year, 24-hour storm is approximately 17 acre-feet. Process water generation is approximately 3.36 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 Busker Dairy is outlined below. 3.36 AF process water + 17AFstormwater = 20.36 annual AF 53.34" evaporation x 5.74 acre pond surface area x 1 foot/12 inches = 25.51AF evaporation 20.36 AF water production—25.51 AF evaporation = (-5.15) 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. Busker Dairy's lagoon system capacity is approximately 44 acre-feet; over twice the required retention capacity. The following example assumes Busker Dairy 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 8.5 acre-feet. Land application requirements for the agronomic application of 8.5 acre-feet is outlined below. 8.5 AFx 325,848 gal/1 AFx 1.55 lbs plant available N/1000 gal. = 4,293 lbs N 150-Bushel corn x 1.35 lbs N removed per acre = 202.5 lbs N needed per acre for Corn 4,293 lbs N/202.5 lbs N required for Corn = 21.2 acres of Corn Production Busker Dairy's primary application area consists of approximately 80 acres of flood-irrigated farmground located immediately adjacent to the facility. "Serving Environmental Needs of the Livestock Industry" 9 Busker Dairy Envirostock, Inc-Project 2s,.4-1-98 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 Busker Dairy pond water for irrigation and to recycle valuable nutrients is a practical, commonly accepted best management practice given that fertilization rates are applicable and that deep soil leaching does not occur. Busker Dairy 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" 10 Busker Dairy Envirostock, Inc-Project 2:i s L4-1-98 Inspections The authorized person(s) will inspect the retention facilities, equipment and material handling areas for evidence of or potential for problems resulting in manure or wastewater entering waters of the State. Appropriate corrective actions will be taken immediately and properly documented. Management controls will be inspected routinely for integrity and maintenance. Reports of these evaluations will be inserted into this MMP. Inspection Report Form Initials Item Notes 'Serving Environmental Needs of the Livestock Industry" 11 Busker Dairy Envirostock, Inc-Project 23124-1-98 Appendix A — Flood Maps "Serving Environmental Needs of the Livestock Industry" 12 Busker Dairy Envirostock, Inc-Project 23124-1-98 Appendix B - Manure Management Record Form 'Serving Environmental Needs of the Livestock Industry" 13 Busker Dairy Envirostock, Inc-Project 20,za 1-98 Appendix C — Record keeping Forms "Serving Environmental Needs of the Livestock Industry" 14 Busker Dairy Envirostock, Inc-Project 23144-1-98 Appendix D — Wastewater and Stormwater Calculations "Serving Environmental Needs of the Livestock Industry" 15 RETENTION FACILITY INSPECTION REPORT (complete this form for each retention facility on a quarterly basis) • Retention facility: Year: YES NO NIA --_ Embankment free of visible seepage - _Embankment showing no signs of cracking -_Vegetation maintained on embankment as designed i_Riprap or erosion controls in place (if required) = Exterior slope free erosion = _ Interior slope free of erosion _Liner has not been disturbed =-_Dewatering equipment is functional ==_Minimum freeo ardthe of si feet _At least 50% of the design capacity is available _Trees excluded within root zone distance Ma Water level measuring device in place and functional -__Rain gauge in place and functional _Runoff from manure storage area is contained _Runoff from land application site is contained --_Other: --_Other: __Other: Comments: Date: Signature: Nutrient Management Pan 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 NIA 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 YES NO NIA COMMENTS Other Preventive Maintenance-------- Date: Signature: Nutrient Management Pan Busker Dairy Envirostock, Inc-Project 23:<4-1-98 Appendix A — Flood Maps "Serving Environmental Needs of the Livestock Industry" 23 1 determine If flood Intunnce Is avallabi, In thb communitY, mct your Inaunnca agent,or call the Mama!flood Insurance tram at($001 63E-6620. It le APPROXIMATE SCALE - ,-. O 600 FEET AINATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAli j cc FI • FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP WELD COUNTY, COLORADO UNINCORPORATED AREA PANEL 864 OF 1075 I ME MAP INDEX FOR PANELS NOT PRINTED/ I � I I� COMMUNITY-PANEL NUMBER I 080266 0864 C MAP REVISED: SEPTEM it 28, 1982 • 1 i federal emergency management agency t ' w!w conic See the'Bathed O.MA No.306702ee - —•� '—'"-FEDERAL EASERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY itatrncGma ExpiresApr030,1958 STANDARD FLOOD HAZARD DETERMINATION . SECTION I.LOAN INFORMATION --, I.LENDER NAME AND ADDRESS -- .1 2.COLLATERAL(uulldlag/Mobae fome&Pereatol Property)PROPERTY ADDRESS I(Legal Description may Mt attached) Busker Dairy 119 0 Gran 17678 Weld County Road 17 11990 Grant St.,Suite 41I2 I Fort Lupton,CO pcnvef,CO 60233 I N 2 SW 45cr 28,T2N,R67W 4,LOAN lllENCIFIER —i S.AMOUNT OF FLOOD INSURANCE 1%ZQUIRED II 3.LENDER ID.NO, ! --j Elizabeth Earen — — -J, J _ SECTION It_ -- 1 :A NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM MF1P)COMMUNITY JURISDICPION '—TA P Cnmmunlq ;I — NFU'Community CountyC Stale Number I Name O80?be �1 1, \ .___L__Weld 1 CO 66 i Unincorporated i _ ... --ti I_ A.NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE pRUGRAM(NFTP)DATA AFFECTING;GILDING(MOBILE HOME) ho NFMI' I 1 NYW Map Panel Effective fI,OMA(LOMR Flood Znta I Map I NFIP Mop Number of CImtnadry Petal Nombre Palmed Date (Community woe,If DOI attain al'A') _— - --C— I i1-- 080266-0864 -C 9/I.BIB. Ycs Dne _L_. - C,FBJ)IiRAt•PC(10U INSURANCE AVAItMILITY(Checkail that apply)• X Balmier Program Emergency Prognm of NF7P —JI 1l X Federal Flood Insurance u wvuilobtc(gnmuniry participate in NFU') Far Fetal Flood Immo=is not available beam community does not penitipSe in NE 1l Bultding)Mobile Home is s Coastal Barrier Racemes Amu(CDR A),Federal flood lesumna may not be available I _ - CBRA dcnignotion dttc: _. — D.DECERMINATION YES X NO I BS UILDINGIMOBILE HOME IN THE SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD A !(ZONES BEGINNING WITH LE'ITERS'A'OR'V')7 I I If yes.Good inaurunCt is required Ty the Flood Dismiss Protection Act of 1973 1 I If no,flood Insurance is not requital by iha Food Disaster Pmtaeion Act of 10 _ i 73 1 & —MMEN'TS(Ippliomq Please nee copy of the attached map. The X with the circle around 1t marks the approximate location of the I I property. If you have any questions,please do not hesitate to call. I 1 i II I I I Thto dale:nineuao h BMAon ewnlning the NH?map,mud Federal Emergency Management Agency rov Wens toil,aed any War 1 Woman'needse to locate the building/mobile home ea lbs NFIP map. _ -_ E.PREPARER'S INFORMATION - ILtTE OF DFfERbDNAlION NAME,ADDRESS,TELEPHONE NUMBER of otter than lender) I 7113P)8 Flood Insurance SaivismLtd. 1 1665 E.160m Avenue 1 _ Broomfield,CO 80020 _-- .___ ._._. L_ phone 13031452-17ta Fax(303)452.1209 ._._._ . .. --- -' Trans 222160 FEMA Form 81.93,Jun 95 Flood Plains k \ II • i \11 / 29 I _ . k007 2`.‘ I\CO . H i 1 / ,I j / II 2 I I \ I .....,,,,,____________________\r____b __, __________0 , , Busker Dairy Envirostock, Inc-Project 23,24-1-98 Appendix B - Manure Management Record Form "Serving Environmental Needs of the Livestock Industry" 24 11 SURE MANAGEMENT RECORD SHEE Field Description Previous o'p - Yield Man je sted by, < Soil tested by Wajer testes by. ' - f Cro Seaso • _ Crop planted: ' tsct N Requirement .....--.., - 1. Expected yield (Past 5 ye"year4eéted era" g�e` .5%)� bu/A 2. Total N needed to Achieve yield: lbs/A (Expected yield x crop factor/Efficiency factor) N Credits 1\%'st/14;7 3. Residual soil NO3 : lbs N/A .---.""..,-a—.,"r" - 4. Irrigation water NO3 credit: lbs N/A (ppm NO3-N x 2.7 = lbs/acre ft. water) f R ' i -Nei': lbs N/A 5. Soil organic matter credit (credit 30 lbs N per % OM): _ i 6. Nitrogen available from previous legume crop: _ P lbs N/A e g 7. N available to crop (sum of lines 3, 4, 5, and 6): L lbs N/A 1/48. Plant available N/ton manure r- ! Ilbs/ton 9. Maximum manure application rate:" . tons/A a %; of 1. \,, a '= yr Total Manure applied: • tons/A Actual Yield: " ' bu/A N Fertilizer applied: Ibs/A Total'irrigation water applied: AF Notes: Busker Dairy Envirostock, Inc-Project 23124-1-98 Appendix C — Record keeping Forms "Serving Environmental Needs of the Livestock Industry" 25 WASTEWATER APPLICATION LOG (wastewater applied to feedyard property) Field: Year: Acre inches = gallons per minute X number 15 minutes per irrigation event 2 Inches per event = Acre inches Acres GALLONS NUMBER INCHES PER NUMBER OF ACRE OF PER DATE CROP MINUTE MINUTES INCHES ACRES EVENT -_-===_ 111.11 --- __- Nutrient Management Pan MANURE APPLICATION LOG (manure applied to feedyard property) Field: Year DATE CROP TONS ACRES TON/ACRE SSW ■ -- SISMINSI .111111. ISSMINISMISIS -_- - • Nutrient Management Pan MANURE REMOVAL LOG (manure taken off feedyard property) Year: DATE PERSON TAKING MANURE AMOUNT (tons) =--- -111 SIMMIN 11.1111.11111111.1111 Nutrient Management Pan Busker Dairy Envirostock, Inc-Project 231�4-1-98 Appendix D — Wastewater and Stormwater Calculations "Serving Environmental Needs of the Livestock Industry" 26 To o- CD 0 r CO co cet en co cn- tec at nr cc CO r- <• ƒ CO co \ % § CNI CD CD 0 CO `, , N r - NC ! / [ § ! K © b ; 0 _ N N 'ut ` Z. k co ai o CD . r - CNI kCO - - © N ` in ` Nr VI N Ce) al CO _ e N _ _ _ , $ f CD 'cr - CO n - - CD / ; N CD \ ; _ _ , _ etm CO la- B ~ — / 0C _ CC {/ § e to $ k$- c CD * 2 B \ a 2 } ) ) !DI / \ 6, CIS a ! t ` \ \ \ ® t k _ ! a | 2 . e7 k k co § a k \ kU I. a to co c z { ° )o o f toa) ( - \ 6. \; ( k « « )\ � ) \k � E �\ / � 2 { «' • CO . a « ! ® t m co[ ; k i -- l ; £ k = m 11. Nutrient Management References 20 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 A, ♦ 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 (Ibs/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. Table 3.Nitrogen removed in the harvested part of selected Colorado crops %N in dry Dry weight Typical rop lb/bu •• yield/A harvested material I Grain crops i 80 bu 1.82 Barley 48 2 tons straw 0.75 56 150 bu 1.61 •Corn 56 tons stover 1.11 32 60bu .' 1.95 Oats 1.5 tons straw 0.63 30 bu 2.08 Rye 56 1.5 tons straw 0.50 60 bu 1.67 , Sorghum 56 3 tons stover 1.08 40 bu 2.08 Wheat 60 0.67 1.5 tons straw Oil crops • 35 bu 3.60 Canola 50 4.48 3 tons straw � 35 bu 6 2.25 Soybeans 2 tons stover 1,1001b 357 Sunflower25 1.50 2 tons stover Forage crops 4 tons 2.25 Alfalfa 3 tons 0'99 Big bluestem 3 tons 0.99 Birdsfoot trefoil 3 3 tons 1.tons 1.887 Bromegrass 4 tons 1. Alfalfa-grass2 Little bluestem1.10 3 tons 1 A7 Orchardgrass 4 tons Red clover 4 tons 1.00 2.00 4 tons 1. Reed canarygrass 5 Ryegrass 3 tons 1.67 Switchgrass 4 tons 1.9715 Tall fescue 3 tons 1.20 Timothy 1 ton 1.20 Wheatgrass -- ---- Continued on next page T, Nitrogen removed in the harvested part of selected Colorado crops(continued) Crop %dry matter Typical yield/A(tons) %N in dry harvested material iilage crops • alfalfahaylage 50 10 wet/5 dry 2.79 ::om silage 35 20 wet/7 dry 1.10 ;orage sorghum 30 20 wet/6 dry 1.44 fat haylage 40 10 wet/4 dry ,' 1.60 iorghum-sudan 50 10 wet/5 dry 1.36 iugar crops •.. iugar beets 20 0.20 ibrf grass - 3luegrass 2 2.91 3entgrass 2 3.10 /egetable crops kit peppers 9 0.40 leans,dry 1 / 3.13 z' ' 'ge 20 0.33 13 0.19 11/4 27 0.17 :ucumbers 10 0.20 tttuce(heads) 14 0.23 )pions 18 0.30 'eas 2 3.68 'otatoes 14 0.33 nap beats 3 0.88 weet corn 6 0.89 weet potatoes 7 0.30 .dapted from USDA Agricultural Waste Management Field Handbook, 1992. Chapter held Handbook not reached or nutrient imbalances do not occur.The 651.0606 Nutrient removaltotal nutrient uptake continues to increase with yield,by harvesting ®f crops but the relation does not remain a constant linear 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 age of nutrients,particularly nitrogen,during the rapid plant leaf is about 2 percent nitrogen,0.25 percent phosphorus,and 1 percent potassium.Where nutrients growth stage of stem elongation and leaf growth are available in the soil in excess of plant sufficiency like corn(fig.6 5), fol- levels,the percentages can more than double. Nitrogen uptake in grasses, lows an S-shaped uptake curve with very low uptake In 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 theflowering,then decreases with maturity. percent of the dry harvested material of the plant.The Harvesting the forage before it flowers would capture concentrations can reach as high as 4.5 percent,how- ever,if the soil system has high levels of nitrogen the plant's highest percent nutrient concentra maxi- Multiple cuttings during the growing season (Walsh and Beaton 1973). mizes dror y matter production.A system of two would three >P 1 The total uptake nutrients by crops from a cul- harvests per year at the time of grass heading tural waste applications increases as the crop yields . optimize the dry matter yield and uptakelanttissue an removal. concen- increase,and crop yields for the most part increase tration,thus maximize g with increasing soil nutrients,provided toxic levels are Figure 6-5 Growth and nutrient uptake by corn(adapted from Hanaway 1962) IIIMOMMIZMI 100 — l m Uptake of nutrients in relation to ts c .''4-a-� - Z. dry weight - -- ---.. .- I - 80 — ------- -1 - -...._ 11 o i Ii�,so* Y e0 e 1/grain fa A T Icy tl \\ / c 4o r--F I / 11'II I , I , 11 / II II l l I / l II II II l l II 1 1 ii/itII/i lj 11(111111 i I i 1iI, i efilii1 z I'll / I I I I I 'l l stalk I I I 1 1 1 12 it I I l I/ I I II 1 1 1 t I I I I I I l I 1 1 11 p _ . 11 /1�i11III I1/ ICI 1I111rlIlII II iII.1!I tr 20 - . .. ll 1 I , .`J� 7,�..�. l. 1 V - t` leleaves < I p Ali + 'j 0 25 50 75 100 115 Days after emergence 6-1 (210-AwMFH,492) Chapter 6 R of Plants in Waste Management Part 65. Agricultural Waste Management • Field Handbook Nutrient uptake calculation corn silage: 22 tons/ac @ 2,000 lb/ton @ 35%dm = 15,400 lb Table 6-6 can be used to calculate the approximate nutrient removal by agricultural crops.Typical crop alfalfa hay: 6 tons/ac @ 2,000 lb/ton yields are given only as default values and should be = 12,000 lb selected only in lieu of local information. 4. Multiplying percent nutrients contained in the crop 1. Select the crop or crops that are to be grown in harvested by the dry matter yield: the cropping sequence. 2. Determine the plant nutrient percentage of the corn grain: crop to be harvested as a percentage of the dry 1.61%N x 7,280 lb = 117 lb N or wet weight depending on the crop value • 0.28%P x 7,280 lb = 20 lb P given in table 6-6. 0.40%K x 7,2801b = 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%Kx 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 = 26lb P (1-1 Nutrient uptake example ' 1.87%K x 12,000 lb =224 lb K and alfalfa are grown in rotation and harvested Nutrient values are given as elemental P and K The a ain 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 P205 1. Crops to be grown: corn and alfalfa Ib K 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: -n grain: 130 bu/ac @ 56 lb/bu = 7,280 lb. 6-18 (210-AWMFH,492) Chapter L nbt•��•`-'- - - " r 'd 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) Dry wt. Typical Average concentrations of nutrients(%) MnCu Zn Crop lb/bu yield/acre N P K Ca Mg plant part ______- Grain crops %of the dry harvested material Barley 48 50 bu. 1.82 0.34 0.43 0.05 0.10 0.16 • 0.0016 0.0016 0.0D31 1 T.straw 0.75 0.11 1.25 0.40 0.10 0.20 0.0005 0.0005 0.0160 0 0.0025 Buckwheat 48 30 bu. 1.65 0.31 0.45 0.09 0.01 0.6 T.straw 0.78 0.05 2.26 1.40 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 2 0.0019 2.5 T.straw 0.60 0.09 1.16 0.18 0.10 Rye 66 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 13 0.0013 3 T.stover 1.08 0.15 1.31' 0.48 0.30 0.13 Wheat 60 40 bu. 2.08 0.62 0.52 0.04 0.25 0.13 0.0013 0.0038 0.0058 1.6 T.straw 0.67 0.07 0.97 0.20 0.10 0.17 0.0003- 0.005� 0.0017 %of the dry harvested material Oil crops 0.0061 Flax 56 15 bu. 4.09 0.65 0.84 0.23 0.43 0.25 1.75 T.straw 1.24 0.11 1.75 0.72 0.31 0.27 0.0043 0.0225 Oil palm 22,000 lb. 1.13 0.26 0.16 0.19 0.09 5 T.fronds, 0.36 stems 1.07 0.49 1.69 Peanuts 22-30 2,800 lb. 3.60 0.17 0.50 0.04 0.12 0.24 0.0008 0.0051 2.2 T.vines . 2.33 0.24 1.75 1.00 0.38 0 38 0.36 Rapeseed 50 35 bu. 3.60 0.79 0.7(i 3 T.straw 4.48 0.43 3.37 1.47 0.06 0.68 0.0001 0.0008 0.0017 60 35 bu. 6.25 0.64 1.90 0.29 0.29 0.17 0.0017 0.0021 0.00381 Soybeans 115 2 T.stover 2.25 0.22 1.04 1.00 0.45 0.25 0.0010 0.011 Sunflower 25 1,100 lb. 3.57 1.71 1.11 0.18 0.34 0.17 0.00220.0241 4 T.stover 1.60 0.18 2.92 1.73 0.09 0.04 6-19 (210.AWMMFH,4/92) Chapter 6 . :of Plants In Waste Management Part 6t Agricultural Waste Manager.,ent Field Handbook 6-6 Plant nutrient uptake by specified crop and removed in the harvested part of the crop-Continued tnisi 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 0.58 0.83 0.13 0.27 0.20 0.0040 0.0073 0.0213 &1,000lb. 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 0.0076 0.0020 Brnmegrass 6 tons 1.87 0.21 2.65 0.47' 0.19 0.19 0.0008 0.0052 t ,r-grass 6 tons 1.52 0.27 1.69 0.92 0.28 0.15 0.0008 0.0106 ,grass 3 tons 1.92 0.20 1.72 0.66 0.40 L _teagrass 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 6-20 (210-AWMFH,4/92) Table 7. Irritated Feed Barley,Oats,and VTable 9. D land Prose and Pearl Miner 40 Due d(300 WA). Fertilizer rate So Soil NO•N• Soil organic trotter(7.) level b N/A) Soil 0-1.0 I 1.1-2.0 I >2.0 0-1ft 0-2 ft _ -Fertilizer rate(lb N/A)- 40 0.6 125 95 75 0-3 Men4 6 �ew 20 7.12 105 75 55 10 7-10 12-17 EMI 13-18 85 S5 35 • _ >l0 >17 e 15 •Concentration of NO,-N in the tap foot of soil or the sum of 19.24 65 35 (see NOS N concentrations.in I-foot sample depths to 2 feet (ss 2S-30 45 ® 0 Table 2). avhenPand/orXis being -The 10 lb N/A rate is suggested only 31-36 25 v 0 - applied. >36 0 0 0 •Sum of ppm NO,•N in 1-R sample depths to 2 feet(see Table 2) (for sample depths of la orgy,multiply the ppm value by 1.67 before using the table). _ -To adjust rate for expected yields different from 100 bu/A,add Cr Table 10. D land Grain So hum 40 bu/A subtract20 lb N/A for each 10 bu/A difference. Soil NO,-N• Soil organic miner(%) 0.1.0 1.1-2.0 >2.0 —Fertilizer rate(lb WA).-.- - 0.3 Will 0 0 , 4.6 0 0 0 ® 0 0 0 Table B. Irrlated Milan Bark 100 bW nenv 0 0A NO,-Nin0to2flsoil layer(see Soil NO,•N• Soil organic miner(%) •Avenge leconcent concentration(ppm) 1). 0-1.0 1.1-2.0 >2.0 -To adjust the rate for other yield goals,add or subtract 12.5 lb N/A for each 10 bu/A difference. Fertilizer rate(lb WA)- 0-6 115 85 65 an95 65 45 13-18 75 45 25 Table 11. Imitated Grain So hum 40 bu/A 19-24 55 25 0 SoiINO,-N' 25-30 ® 0 0 _ 0-1.0 1.1-2.0 >2.0 >30 0 0 0 •Sum of ppm in l sample depths to 2 fat(see Table 2) EON® (for sample depths off la only,multiply the ppm value by 1.67 0.3 before using the table). NM 50ata 0 To adjust N rate for expected yields different from 100 bWA,add or subtract 10 lb N/A for each 10 bu/A difference on sang ® 25 v 0 loamy sand,and sandy soils'and 15 lb N/A for each 10 bu/A on all other soils. 1112011 0 0 0 a Average concentration(ppm)NOS 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. Table 12. Dryland Forage Crops for Salle(15 tons/A). Table 15. Drvland Sunflowers(1500 Ib/A;. SoilNOS N• Soil organic nutter(%.) SoilNOS N• Soil organic nutter(X) 0-1.0 1.1-2.0 >2.0 0-1.0 1.1-2.0 >2.0 —Fertilizer rate(lb N/A)— —Fertilizer rats(lb N/A)_- _ . 0-3 90 60 40 0-6 75 55 35 — 4-6 65 35 15 7-12 55 35 i 15 7-9 40 10 0 13-18 35 15 0 10.12 15 0 0 19-24 15 0 0 >12 0 0 0 25-30 0 0 0 •Average concentration(ppm)NO,-N in 0 to 2 ft soil layer(see •Avenge concentration(ppm)NOs-N in 0 to 1 ft soil layer. Table 1). -To adjust the N rate for other yield goals,add or subtract 61b WA -To adjust the N rate for other yield goals,add or subtract 8 lb WA for each cwt/A difference. for each ton/A difference. Table 13. Irrigated Forage Crops for Silage(30 tona/A). - ' Table 16. Irri sled 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 /19.24 110 19-24 110 80 60 25-30 85 25.30 70 40 20 >30 0 Avenge concentration(ppm)NO,-N in 0 to 1 R soil layer. 31-36 30 0 0 Ilse the same N rates for grass-legume mixtures containing les titan 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. Irrigated Sunflowers(2,400 lb/A). Table 17. New Seedlings of Irrigated Alfalfa. Soil NO,-N• Soil organic matter(%) New seedling with New seedling without Soil NO,-N companion crop companion crop 0-1.0 1.1-2.0 >2.0 —Fertilizer rate(lb N/A)— —Fertilizer rate(lb N/A)— • 20 0.3 60 0-6 130 110 100 10 4-6 30 7-12 110 95 85 0 >10 0 13-18 95 80 70 •Average concentration(ppm)NOr-N in 0 to 1 ft soil layer. New seedlings of dryland alfalfa generally do not benefit from 19.24 80 60 50 pre-plant 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 P '•of Plants in Waste Management Part 651 Agricc i Waste Management Field Handbook e 6-6 Plant nutrient uptake by specified crop and removed in the harvested part of the crop-Continued Anima Crop Dry wt. Typical Average concentration of nutrients(%) Mn Zn lb/bu yield/acre N P K Ca Mg S Cu plant part Vegetable crops %of the fresh harvested material Bell peppers 9 tons 0.40 0.12 0.49 0.04 Beans,dry 0.6 ton 3.13 0.45 0.86 0.08 0.08 0.21 0.0008 0.0013 0.0025 Cabbage 20 tons 0.33 0.04 0.27 0.05 0.02 0.11 0.0001 0.0003 0.0002 Carrots 13 tons 0.19 0.04 0.25 0.05 0.02 0.02 0.0001 0.0004 Cassava 7 tons 0.40 0.13 0.63 0.26 0.13 Celery 27 tons 0.17 0.09 0.45 Cucumbers 10 tons 0.20 0.07 0.33 0.02 Lettuce(heads) 14 tons 0.23 0.08 0.46 ' Onions 18 tons 0.30 0.06 0.22 0.07 0.01 0.12 0.0002 0.0050 0.0021 Peas 1.6 tons 3.68 0.40 0.90 0.08 0.24 0.24 Potatoes _ 14.5 tons 0.33 0.06 0.62 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 r 0.06 0.04 0.0002 0.0004 0.0002 'stile beets 15 tons 0.26 0.04 0.28 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.0001 0.0007 atland plants %of the dry harvested material Cattails 8 tons 1.02 0.18 Rushes 1 ton 1.67 Saltgrass 1 ton 1.44 0.27 0.62 Sedges 0.8 ton 1.79 0.26 0.66 Water hyacinth 3.65 0.87 3.12 Duckweed 3.36 1.00 2.13 Arrowweed 2.74 Phragmites 1.83 0.10 0.62 --_ 6-22 (214-AWMFH.4/92) Chapter 6 Role or Plants In Waste Management Part 651 .gricultural Waste Management Field Handbook Table 6-6 Plant nutrient uptake by specified crop and removed in the harvested part of the crop-Continued stammwas Crop Dry wt. Typical Average concentration of nutrients(%) lb/bu yield/acre N P K Ca Mg S Cu Mn Zn plant part Fruit crops %of the fresh harvested material Apples' 12 tons 0.13 0.02 0.16 0.03 0.02 0.04 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 Bananas 9,900 lb. 0.19 0.02 0.54 0.23 0.30 Cantaloupe 17,500 lb. 0.22 0.09 0.46. 0.34 Coconuts 0.6 tons-dry copra 6.00 0.60 3.33 0.21 0.36 0.34 0.0010 0.0076 Grapes 12 tons 0.28 0.10 0.50 0.04 Oranges 54,000 lb. 0.20 0.02 0.21 0.06 0.02 0.02 0.0004 0.0001 0.0040 Peaches 15 tons 0.12 0.03 0.19 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.0010 Pineapple 17 tons 0.43 0.35 1.68 0.02 0.18 0.04 Tomatoes 22 tons 0.30 0.04 0.33 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.0002 0.0003 0.0001 Silage crops %of the dry harvested material ---- Alfalfa haylage(60%dm) 10 wetro dry 2.79 0.83 2.32 0.97 0.33 0.36 0.0009 0.0052 Corn silage(35%dm) 20 wet/7 dry 1.10 0.26 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%din) 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 (210-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 Prose and Pearl Millet Table 18. Irrigated Dry Beans Table 10. Dryland Grain Sorghum • Table 19. Irrigated Potatoes Table 11. Irrigated Grain Sorghum • Table 3. Irrl,vated Corn(175 hu/A). Table 5. Dryland Winter Wheat(50 bu/A). Soil No,N• Soil organic matter(%) Soil NO,N• Soil organic matter(%) 0-1.0 I 1.1-2.0 I >2.0 0-Ift 0-2ft 0-1.0 1.1-2.0 >2.0 -Fertilizer rate(lb N/A)- -Fertilizer rite(lb NIA)- -3 0.5 75 75 75 0 0_6 210 183 165 7=12 160 135 1I5 4.6 6-9 75 70 30 13-18 110 85 65 7-9 10-12 75 45 25 19-24 ^ 60 35 15 10-12 13-13 50 20 0 >24 10 0 0 13-15 15-18 25 0 0 •Avenge concentration(ppm)NON in 0 to 2 ft soil layer >IS >18 0 0 0 (ace Tables} •C,�pation of NO,-N in the top foot of soil or sum of NO,N For rate yields other than oat75 hull,]- the ilNequation: concentrations in 1-foot sample depths to 2 feet(see Table 2} Nrate�35a[1.2Oyieldgoal(bWA)]-(8xsoilNOiN]-[0.14x _To adjust N rate for expected yields diffeerent from 50bu/A,add _ yield,goal thex equation:t. or subtract 25 lb N/A for each 10 bu/A difference(maximum For silage,use 7. xe N rats is 75 lb/A). N rats�35+[7.5 x yield goal(torulA)]-[8 x soil NOa-N]- [0.85x yield goal xY.O.M]. Table6. IrrIzeted Waster Wheat(100bull). _- Soil NOi N• Soil organic matter(%) 0_2ft 0.1.0 1.1-2.0 I >2.0 -Fertilizer rate(lb N/A)- Table 4. Dryland Corn(80 bu/A). TS Soil NOi N• Soil organic matter(Ya) - 0_6 125 95 12 105 75 55-- 0-1.0 11.1-2.0 I >2.0 7- -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 •Avenge concentration(ppm)NOiN in 0 to 2ft soil layer >36 0 0 0 (sec Table 1} •Sum of ppm NOi N in la sample depths to 2 feet(see Table 2) For grain yields other yield goal(bu/A use the equation: (for sample depths of 1-ft only,multiply the ppm value by 1.67 N rate-35+[1.2 x yield (bull)]•IS x soil NOn•N)-I 0.14 x before using the table). yield gust x e equation:t. .To adjust N rate for expected yields different from 100 bu/A,add or For silage,useIh8 xsoil N rate 35+yield x yieldl goal subtract 20 lb N/A for each 10 bu/A difference. (tons/A)]-I8 x NOi N]-[0.83 x goal x YaO.bl]. NOTE:Increase above rates by 40 lb NIA for the following counties: Alamosa,Conejos,Castilla,Rio Grande,and Saguache. Determining Crop Nitrogen Needs from Soil Analyses and Crop Nitrogen Requirements Use a soil analysis to determine the NOS-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-ft.samples) • Sunflowers(can also use 2 ft.samples) Use Tables 3- 19 to determine the nitrogen requirement for your crop. Soil nitrate concentration(top ft.) ppm(from soil analysis) Soil nitrate concentration(tad ft.) ppm(from soil analysis) Average or sum of nitrate content _ppm(from analysis or Table 1 or 2) Soil organic matter _a/o(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 NO-N content In a soil(weighted avg.). Table 2. Calculating NO,-N in a soil(sum ortwo.1-ft.samples). Soil layer Thickness 1 NO,-N Calculations Soil layer NO,-N inches— PPm feet ppm 0-g 8 20 8x20 -160 0.1 10 8-24 16 8 16x8• 1-2 4 tovl'Z88 10+4- 1400nt 288/24 -12 txnn Table]& In! atedD Bars 00INA' NOTES • Soil NOs N Fertilizer rate lb N/A 0-10 50 1I-20 30 21-30 10 >30 0 •Average concentration(ppm)NOr-N in 0 to 1 ft soil layer. Table 19. Ire] algid Potatoa 400 evrt/A SoilNOr-N Fertilizer rate lb N/A 0-I8 180 19-$4 170 25-30 - 160 31-36 150 >37 140 •Average concentration(ppm)NOrN in 0 to 1 ft soil layer. -Subtract 30 lb of N/A for each%soil organie matter above 1.0Y. -For expected yields from 300 to 400 evNA.subtract 30 lb of N/A for each 50 esvt/A. MANURE NUTRIENT CONTENT AND AVAILABILITY • Table A. Nutrient content of solid manures in Colorado (based on 1996 manure survey). Manure Source Total N F'205 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. Gnapter♦♦ --' ' 'old Handbook The optimum time for nutrient application based on (a) Nutrient losses figure 11-10 would be late in winter or early in spring, into two general catego- so the nutrients will be readily available to plants.If Nutrient losses can be grouped m the manure before it is incolporated shah as nutrientsi in a waste material are less available, intozi es—those the soil and those within the soil after incorporation. such as with manure solids mixed with bedding giving g a higher C:N ratio,incorporating the waste late in fall or early in winter allows additional time for the waste To accurately the ground, the samples amount collected at the nutrients 1 to mineralize,releasing nutrients as the plants begin reaching iegmust be analyzed.Because this procedure growing in the spring.The objective is to match the timing of the crop's nutrient uptake requirement with generally is not done,the nutrient losses can be esti- mated using procedures that follow.Tabular values the release of nutrients from the manure. and calculations are included to demonstrate account- iutg for the major nutrients in manure. ------------ Figure 11-10 Example of a water budget for winter wheat liallaratiall Annual ' Average (inches) .. 6.0 ii Ili, aZ51P Mtn '�.,,, Yx r4 a h�„�j t3r AYt� ��1� +:eva otran3P r i A .:Eft; .i "• el '10 '3 st* 'Y` + li. L F. + i l .S.}} ^', ran�Orr'V a c$ .. ' r S].. 4 t m • y 7 we`' s 3� 6; o '. �i i e ! ; 4-r'1 t'x'' .iaxT4(i'2/t - p, a 7- _ r - .x. F asw. a, s s Y �.'v'.� .s. C : Q j..,+f. ,yn..rs— sµ , .i.' f k5 a^"tC' Tub r 7/�1g4. . .. Y.er..ery+ eY� s- • .!`j. ", tF� f'x x%Y vii r... YY,zo , j r'�fi. '"`aY4S` 'It: .KS ; E' �-V*1 tat -,s—- k . n4 � ' "iT er `* rt x `M, �i 10, x' �i 4S , a , i- z.tie t •A *Mc Y-1i.;,r < '` :� t ,^+x, ..S lix. vv. :ne , . en. r i ` 20 <r( w*sx i t at i s 'e . x.'VP-.0;t Ca . . '•'t rt i t rai fr I '3k Y weCfSs lt a'[e.?S% 4 '�'.v�y Water mil '+ �"t,fly '� S +. ..er Y F.:_ i 4s"if / l4 /.. t'Y i .:7yak Y �i i• q t s_!r i 1 al EPC.7+ .4w e-. 'vdrT3t 'ktel~ q-tVt 4 ..s} tr Y .sr; Arcr tit 4.0 4 ....x. ,27 ls.4... .. i Dec 6.0 Aug Sep Oct Nov Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Month 11—IT (210-AWMF11,4/02) Chapter 11 R._.e Utilization Part 65 Agricultural Waste Management Field Handbook 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 mineonn Management system Beef ----Dairy Poultry Swine N P K N P K 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 ' ire stored in open lot, 40-60 70-80 55.70 55.70 85-95 85-95 rid 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 65-75 80-90 80-90 70-75 80-90 80-90 in an uncovered,essentially watertight structure Manure liquids and solids 65-80 80-95 80-95 (diluted less than 50%) held in waste storage pond Manure and bedding held in 65-80 80-95 80-95 55-70 80-95 80-95 roofed storage Manure and bedding held in 55-75 75-85 75435 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 ?' nure 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 i or stored in waste oe pond after being — unuted more than 50% l l-IS (210-AWMFH,4/92) C.napa. .. eld Handbook • Table 11-5 shows nutrients remaining for manure that baton 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 areas,good water management is needed time before a significant loss occurs varies with the In irrigated 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 rd budget, the rate ke manure eappli- tions,more than 50 percent of the total nitrogen is in mtio et n,itsbe considered.iming,and The cropoil Leaching requirement the ammonium form,which readily volatilizes on 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 a ed in developing trate ea ping.Tabl t i 7 much of its ammonium nitrogen through formation of tion program to ammonia gas.There is little additional loss with time. should d only as be example used t vide gnera guidance in pl S After incorporation a seasonably weighted Sc:�:e nitrogen losses occur within the soil after ma- The LeachingIndex(LI)ispotential.The nu:a has been incorporated.Nitrogen is lost from the its estimateof of nutrientsitnitrogen leachinge ching bel ote root zone is probabil- soil primarily by leaching and denitrification;however, hes is depen-organic nitrogen must be transformed or mineralized dent contribute the LI.to a problem,nU ofless 2 s than 2 i cs is a u l bll to for this to happen.Losses of phosphorus and potas- sium are minimal after incorporation,but the mineral- conntriobutor,andr more than 159iIches is a likely con- Table 11-6 Percentage of nitrogen of that in the applied manure still potentially available to the soil(Ammonia volatilization ® causes the predicted losses)(l4illrich,et-al.1974) — Application method Percentage remaining/delivered ---------------- Injection 95 Sprinkling 75 Broadcast(fresh solids) Soil conditions Days between application warm wet coolwet and incorporation warm dry 1 70 90 4 60 80 95 7 or more 50 70 90 11-19 (210.AWMFH.4,92) — Chapter 11 W._-e Utilization Part 651 Agricultural Waste Management • Field Handbook l _lent 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)Denitrtfication—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(prganic 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(NFL).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 r" 'gen in soils related to various drainage classes organic!flatter and synthesized microbial cells rganic matter content This table assumes that (Azevedo&Stout 1974).Uric acid and urea are un- .e 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 mineralization 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 2(1:1.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 n 5 tied up by the microbes becomes less available for 10 plant uptake during this interval. Consideration should 15 be given to compensate for this temporary lag in nitrogen mineralization from the manure when devel- •This table should be used to provide general guidance in planning. oping the nutrient management plan. 11-20 (210-AW.IFH,492) Field Handbook Althoughnot as well documented as the nitrogen incorporated pr percentage of thetotal nitrogen in manure cycle,similar cyclic relationships exist for phosphorus intof the soil is converted to inorganic and,to some extent,for potassium.The mineralization nitrogen d in the first year thaninthan the second. d More is converted second year in the third year.. rate for phosphorus and potassium are generally more This occurs because the easily biodegradable part is rapid than lion ofthe thatfor nutrients trlogen,r efl ctinigas a anger propor- mineralized quickly and the residue is mineralized slowly. Soil micro-organisms use the part of the waste that gives them the most energy first and the.part that Table 11-9 displays the rd ate of fm for some iotypicaloffro- melds the leastthe energy last tlast. the wine fraction is manures and management conditions.As has been used first and feces part last 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 conservedco in waste collection,storage,treatment,and incorporated daily to be 0.75;0.15;0.10;0.05.This • means that 75 percent of the incorporated nitrogen Microbial activity necessary for nitrogen mineraliza- remaining availablenigethe first yeaz, 1a percent of the remaining nitrogen becomes available in the second tion 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 o Theoretically, prat enough time almost 100 soil where the profile is dry.Table 11-9 values for percent percent in arid of theincorporated nitrogen will be converted nitrogen mi-arid areas where irrigatio be reduced 5 n is not used.Local and to the inorganic form. mineralization rates should be used if data are available. For example,if fresh cattle manure is applied every year at the rate of 100 pounds of total nitrogen per (c) Nutrient requirements acre,75 pounds(75 percent)will be available the first year. In year 2, 15 percent of the remaining 25 pounds becomes available,or 4 pounds(rounded from 3.75). Manure can provide part,all,or even excessive amounts of the nutrients required for plant production.The amount of nutrients required by plants must be deter- available second year,secondc manure,7 pounds willin.al Thus,o mined as part of the nutrient management program. from the application. 79 pounds are available in year 2.The nitrogen avail- able in the third year would be the sum of that avail- able from year 3,year 2,and year 1. ------------ ---- Table - Approximateirrigation, iNggs o�drai rage estimates for special soil conditions(Meisingeous soils—See r�&Randall 991,ote for adjustments because of tillage, �—� Soildrainageclassif,cation•------------ matter content Excessively Poorly Soil organic Well Moderately Somewhat ed drained well drained poorly drain well drained drained % %of inorganic N (fert.,precip.)denitrified 4-14 6-20 10-30 22 2-4 4-1616 6-20 10-25 15-45 2- 4-122 6-20 10-25 15-35 25-55 >5double all use one class wetter drainage;for manure N, aeon, classa special bte soils as e;follows:paddy: For no-culture,u e values under poorly drained;for irrigation or humid cli- mates,Adjust for tillage,manure,irrigation, compacted,very values;for the drained iup soils,r n use one f better drainage;for ted site, mates,use value at upper end of range;for and or semi-arid nanirrigated sites,use values at lower end of range;for soils with slowly permeable layer below plow depth,but above 4 feet deep,use one class wetter drainage. 11-2 (210-AWMFH,4,92) Chapter 11 F, a Utilization Part 65: Agricultural Waste Management Field Handbook nost 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 applies • - lion 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' W ,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 assumes annual applications on the same site.If a one time application,the decay series can be estimated by subtracting year 1 from year .1 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 pnosphorus from manure stored in open lot,cool-humid,would be 0.80,0.09 and 0.05.The decay rate becomes essentially constant after 3 years. 11-22 (210-AWMFH,61/92) Field Hand000, 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 accumw lation of plant nutrients in the soil. Wastewater,such as feedlot runoff,milking center waste,and other process water,may also be applied to the soil for recycling of the contained nutrients(see the worksheets in chapter 10).As a general rule, (d) Nutrient aeconnting nitrogen tends to be more a part of the liquid compo- • The nutrients available for plant growth can be deter- nent of waste,while phosphorus and potassium are procedure.A procedure for part of the solids.See appropriate tables in chapter 4 mined iny an accounting for the nutrient content of wastewater.Because ee of the determining manure solids application slurries wet tons(actual forw caused by dilution,feeding, inches per tree for sinced. and in acre- wastewater samples should be analyzed to determine is as per reasonableef for liquids is included.The procedurenutrients, the nutrient content. Convert the elemental nutrients. is sneede for application, the available applicationlie at given in the tables in chapter 4 to fertilizer equivalents acres needed for application,and rates. Z l P2Oo0) StepV3. Subtract nutrients lost during storage. oitio of manure, of a in site and climatel conditions,and the lack of localized research data are factors that influence accuracy of estimates.However, Account for all losses of nutrients in the manure applied tom sampling iofn manure throughout she and processoi will help minimize-influences of variations provide confi- the time it is excreted until it is deady to be of nutrients retained the field.Table 11-5 gives a rand aerate in the accounting method. in the manure that has been stored r treated (table . by various methods.Multiply 2 retainedto obtdin the The ions applications series and the accounting of fory 11-5)by the total nutrients from step unless the farm twne /o manure rep be e un value nutrient value after storage and at the time of field unless farm owner/operator keeps adequate application. records over the years so the history of each field is pP ]mown.If the owner/operator does not have records, Step 4.Determine the plant available nutrients the soil should be tested or the application should be adjusted on the basis of expe rience or crop yields. contained in the manure. Use State Cooperative Extension Service information, de if available,to determine the fraction of the plant (e) Accounting procedure available nutrients that will season.be A manure analysisased by the n manure Figure 11-11 displays the following steps for nitrogen. over githe first crop growing that gives results as plant available Aenunutrients(PAN)is preferred.A large fraction of the inorganic nitrogen (the ammonium and nitrate),phosphorus,and potas- siumStep 1.Estimate nutrients in the excreted ma- ear.Only a part of Wore, are plant available the first y- The starting point for all calculations is to estimate the the organic nitrogen(the total nitrogen minus the inorganic nitrogen)is broken down by micro-organ- State each ic tro and made availableto the cro-or If give: total Cooperativeper content a she manure research excreted.orUse B State a ion toe Extension Service c local localized data are not available,use tabl 1 9.It giv information to derive the.If manureanstests concentrationr lcal(N, values for mineralization rateso of nitrogen,pho for ho- iPnfor atio in the manure.If chapter rue and potassium following land applicationsvfor i informtion is not available,use tables in chapter 4 several wastes and management options.The t that show the average nutrient production for various application over a animals.Use the worksheets in chapter 10 to compute: the columns represent the mineralization rate (plan availability)of one year's manure app cat with over a three consecutive year period of cropping manure production. application occurring each year.The tonal manure give the values in table 11-9 are accumulative,thus gi 11 (210-AviMFH,4/92) Chapter 11 r e Utilization Part 65 Agricuitwal Waste Management held Handbook 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- tions are available.This is the best basis for managing plied.Multiply the mineralization factor for each of the nutrients.Proceed to step 5a if needed data are not nutrients by the total nutrients ready for land applica- available.The use of step 5a is not recommended for lion(from step 3). calculating a nutrient budget for a nutrient management plan,but may be used for general planning and estimat- Step 5.Determine the nutrients required by the ing land application area requirements.The variation in crop and soil to produce the yield goal. nitrogen availability would cause discrepancies(either deficits or excess)in nitrogen recommendations. Figure 11-11 Nitrogen transformation in the accounting procedure • Nutrients available for crop production Nutrients(N)needed 4 for crop production Step 1 j t Manure generated 1 Step 5a(1) Plant Plant harvest step f Step 2 Step ba(2) N Wastewater and - Step 5 Denitrlfcatt(ton step ) feed added Cooperative Step ba(3) NO3—.N„ State Extension Leaching losses step Volatilization NH3 4 Service Step 5a(4) NOa Step 3 recommendation Additions from Denitrifcation N211/4,-Nutrients(N)loss other sources • t in storage or treatment 4 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 1 Step 8 Acres required to utilize nutrients(N) (step 4/step 6) Step 9 Determine application rate Step 10 Recommendation to land manager Cr make adjustments Further considerations ns and go through the accounting procedure again 11-24 (210-AWMFH,492) • feld 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 additions.Local data may be available from reports. os are given in Extension bulletins and on soil test field trial and nitrogen prediction models,such as NLEAP(Nitrate Leaching and Economic - • Analysis Package) (Shaffer et al. 1991).Leach- Step 5a.In lieu of a soil test or local State Coopers- ing losses may range from 5 to 40 percent of five Extension Service crop nutrient recommendation, 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 lions • not over applied.The sources of additional can also occur.No attempt is made to account nitrogen are: for losses caused by erosion,volatilization,or immobi- e lization. • Mineralization of soil organic matter 1. Estimate the amount of nutrient removed by • Atmospheric deposition mineralization • Irrigation the harvested plant materials.Table 6-6 in • Residuewater chapter 6 provides an estimate of the nutrients • Credits from legumes concentration in the harvested part of the crop. Multiply the yield goal by the volume weight(in No adjustment for arty of these additions are in pounds per unit measure)and the fraction of the nutrient concentration.The values for the example,but they can be substantial.These phospadditions need to be subtracted from the esti- elemental us andpo must be aconvee expressed td in the mated nitrogen needed.General values for form must converted to P2O6 and K2O. 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 SOM.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 tnor- other 30 to 150 pounds of nitrogen per acre per garlic fraction of the nitrogen available from year.Irrigation additions can be estimated by multiplying the nitrogen concentration in parts the manure during the growing season and and per million by the quantity of water applied in dependent organic matter on the soildrainage classs soil acre-inches by 0.227.Additions of nutrients thconditions o content.It isb alsog dependentpresent for on form crop residue may be calculated using the denitrification t to take pll ce.Onlynitrogenee information in table 6-6 and manure residual undoths process.to take place. will release of nutrients is given in table 11-9. undergo this 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. 11-25 (210-AWMMFH,4P32) — — Chapter 11 Wae.e Utilization Part 651 Agricultural waste Management • Field Handbook Sic, I. 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,P2O5,IC2O)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,corn- in 'al fertilizer)to complete the total crop and soil Example 11-6: re iments 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 parlorhnilkhouse wastewater are pumped into an uncovered waste storage pond(SCS Solid,semi-solid,and shiny manure—Determine the Practice Code 425). The bottom of the pond is 60 by application fate.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 a -b and hold these nutrients from erosion and wagon is available for spreading the liquid manure. r ag. Yet in soils that do not have these holding L. _acteristics, the contamination of water bodies is a potential hazard. 11-26 (210-Aw1IFH.4/92) Chapter 11 • eld Handbook Questions: Estimate the nitrogen,phosphorus,and potassium 1. What is the amount of nutrients available after involved to be equal to the values prof wided in wastewater.This mineralization(assume 3 consecutive years of of 1.67,0.83,and 2.50 lb/1,000 g aL application)? results in a small amount of double accounting be- ' 2. What are the net available nutrients after leach- cause e some manure answer will still be vathe lues in: table and ing,denitrification,and other losses? conservative. 3. Estimate the area required,based on nitrogen slightly being the critical nutrient 4. What area would be required to use the maxi- Nutrients nre ate production(gal/day/cow)he wastewater= aofanimalsaily mum amount of nutrients?t daily 5. What is the application rate in tons per acre for nutrient production(lb.of nulrienU1,000 gal.)x no.of the area that would provide maximum nutrient days. utilization? 6. What number of passes per day with the tank N —200 x 5 365=6101b wagon would be required to apply the manure? 1, x 1.67l 7. For an irrigation system design,determine the 200 x 5 x 0.83x l365_ total depth of wastewater application for P = —65—3001b nutrients that have nitrogen control,and assess 1,000 gal adjustments needed for phosphorus control K x 5 365 g0b = -- = 11 • 1,000 gal Solution: Step 1.Estimate the total nutrients (NPR)in the Total nutrients produced: excreted manure. Nutrients per storage period=Number of animals x Total N =39,420+610=40,030 lb weight(lb)x daily nutrient production(lb/day/1,000 Total P =6,130+300=6,430 lb lb)x storage period(days). Total K =22,780+910=23,690 lb Nutrient values for as excreted dairy cow manure are Converting to fertilizer form: obtained from table 4-5,chapter 4. Total N =40,030 lb N =200x 1,200x 0.45x 365=39,420lb Total P2O5=6,430x 2.29=14,725 1,000 Total K 20=23,640 x 1.21=28,604 200x1,200x0.07x365 P= =6,1301b 1,000 Step 3. Subtract nutrients lost during storage. K= 200x 1,200x 0.26x 365=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 pond.Nutri- percent.Multiply the percent retained(from table 11-5) No field the p rlenters the wastew storage by the total nutrients from step 2 to compute the entsin follows:parlor/milkhouse wastewater are calculated amount of nutrients remaining after the storage losses. as Based on observations and using table 4-6 as a guide, 5 gal/cow/day was estimated to be representative. 11-27 (2t4AWMFH,492) Chapter 11 { .e Utilization Part 6, Agricultural Waste Management • Field Handbook i...sients after storage losses=Total nutrients pro- Converting to fertilizer form: duced x fraction retained=Amount available for land application. N =117 lb/ac P205 =20x 2.29=46 N.40,030x 0.65=26,0201b K20=29x1.21=35 P205=14,725x 0.80=11,780 K20=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.b5 �est�=14,3111b retained as a decimal after denitrification,which is 100 percent less the percent lost(from table 11-7). P205=11,780 x 0.90=10,602 K20=22,883x 0.93=21,281 / N= 117 =1581b 0.74 s 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(8).Add to the plant requirements addi- ` tional nitrogen to replace anticipated leaching Step 5. Determine the nutrients required by the losses. crop and soil to produce the yield goal. From table 11-7,for a leaching index of 6(6 inches of Generally,a soil analysis would be taken and the State annual percolation below the root zone),the estimated Cooperative Extension Service recommendation loss is 10 percent.This means 90 percent,of the nitro- would be used,but for illustrative purposes the gen would be retained. Divide the amount of nitrogen method to estimate nutrient requirements given in required from step 5a(2)by the percent retained chapter 6 will be used. An example in chapter 6 pro- (0.90)to increase the nitrogen to provide adequate vides the nutrients removed by the harvest of 130 nitrogen for the plant after losses anticipated from bushels of corn. leaching. Step 5a (1).Estimate the amount of nutrients Nitrogen=Nitrogen required anticipating denitrifica- removed by the crop using table 6-6. tion losses divided by the percent retained(as a deci- mal)after leaching losses. (See section 651.0606(b),Nutrient uptake example.) N- 158=1761b N =1171b/ac 0.9 P =20 K =29 An additional 18 pounds of nitrogen is needed to compensate for the anticipated leaching losses. 11-28 (210-AWMFH,4/92) Gasp ter a. - - Agntuicura. ., • Id 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= O79=185lb Step 8. Compute the acres on which manure can be applied to use the nutrients available. An additional 9 pounds of nitrogen is needed to 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 / K20=351b/ac P2O6=46 K2O=35 Required acres: 21,281 lb =608 ac Note:Estimates for nitrogen additions to the field 35 lb/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 608 acres are required so that the potassium is not To answer question 3,"How many acres are required over applied. to recycle nitrogen?"in this example,nitrogen is Step 9.Estimate application rate. selected as the controlling nutrient. Step 8. Compute the acres on which manure can The waste storage pond contains the manure produced be applied to use the nutrients available. by the 200 cows plus the milk parlor wastewater.Pre- cipitation and evaporation must be considered to obtain Required acres=Amount of PAN (from step 4)divided the total volume of stored material.Chapter 10 discusses by the amount of selected nutrient for crop production procedures to account for climatic conditions. (step 6) Manure excreted per day= 1.30 ft3/da/1,000 lb cow Required acres: (table 4-5). 14,311 lb N =77 ac Total manure volume per year. 185lbN /ac 200 x 1,200 x 1.3x 365=113,880 ft3 This is the answer to question 3. 1,000 11-29 (210-AWMFB,4/92) Chapter 11 . Utilization part 6, Agricultural Waste Management • Field Handbook • •utal wastewater volume per year. tion.Application rate is calculated by dividing tons applied by the acres covered. 200x5x365=48,670ft3 7.5 Cons 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 Mine in acre-inches: fairly dilute.Salinity and ground water effects should be monitored. 207,190 ft3 x 12 in/ft x 1 ac =57 ac-in 43,560 ft2 The following calculations demonstrate a method for adjusting waste applications to consider site charac- teristics. Volume of water that has been added per cubic foot of manure is: Application by tank wagon: Calculate the number of passes over the same ground (48,670 fr3+44,640 fix 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: 52,500ft2 _ 3 3 3,500x15= 43,560fr2/ac-1.21ac 207,190 ft3 x601b/fr =6,216 tons 2,000 n step 8,use application area of 77 acres for N .-.lzation and 608 acres for maximum waste utiliza- 11-30 (2I0-AWMFH,492) Chapter 11 Aviculture!Waste n1u,abc..,—. Id Handbook Application rate in one pass: be added at the rate given in figure 11-2. Compute mathematically as follows: 3,000 gal x 8.34 lb/gal =10.3 tons/ac 2,0001b/ ton x 1.21 ac 7.48x(7-4) =5.6 gal/ft3 of waste application rate (total) - 4 # passes = 1 pass =10.3 tons/ac Note:The quantity of water added to the manure causes the waste material to act essentially like water. 81 It has in fact become wastewater. 10.3 =7.9 passes (8 tank loads /3,500 ft run) Determine the total depth of application for nitrogen: The answer to question 6 is 8 passes per acre. b:6 gal/ft3 x 207,190 ft3 Volume =57ac-in+ 27,154 gal/ac-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 Depth =100 ac-in by the percent delivered(from table 11-6): 61 ac - =1.64 in _1761b/ac=2351bs/ac N 0.75 This is the answer to the first part of question 7. P2O5=46 (no change) K 2O=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 proble plant m statement,the soils occurs. own from the example used to grow corn have nitrogen. an available water capacity of 5 inches in the top 60 compute the acres required: inches of soil. Returning to step 8, P divided Required acres=Amount of PAN (from step 4) Normal irrigation design operation techniques set 50 by the Amount of nutrient per acre(step 6).Required percent soil moisture depletion as the point at which acres: 14,3111b irrigation operations are initiated. =61 ac 2351b/ac 5.0inx0.50=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). 11-31 (2I0-AWMFH,4/92) Chapter 11 % .e Utilization Part 651 Agricultural Waste Management . Field Handbook • 1...,sphorvs application: Depth affects the thickness of the root zone,plant For crop growth,46 pounds per acre P205 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 (f) 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 • 'ssing pollution potential.This is particularly true recommended reducing or eliminating waste applica- • e the preceding procedures are used to calculate tion on sites where the sum of the ratings fell below nirtimum area required to recycle nutrients based established levels.Where management or structural on nitrogen. solutions are implemented to overcome the limiting factor(s),the limitation of the site is eliminated. A procedure was developed in Oklahoma to consider site characteristics in assigning a pollution potential to Similar reasoning to that done by Heidlage in Okla- any given field(Heidlage 1984).The procedure was homa can be used to factor soil and other site limita- used in one watershed,and after 4 years monitoring, tions into waste application strategies.Table 5-3 in no pollution from any of the farms studied was indi- chapter 5 lists several soil characteristics,degrees of cated (Watters 1984 and 1985). limitation,and recommendations for overcoming limitations.This understanding of soil limitations at The following soil properties and features were con- application sites and methodology for overcoming the sidered in selecting suitable sites for land application limitations provide a tool for identifying components of wastes: of a waste application plan and,in some cases,further planning needs. Flooding was considered the most important feature in Oklahoma because waste applied to flood prone For example,if the field(s)to receive manure is sub- soils can be readily transported into a watercourse. ject to frequent flooding,table 5-3 shows a severe site limitation and recommends wastes be applied during Rock fragments greater than 3 inches affect the periods when flooding is unlikely.A waste application ease of tillage potential for waste incorporation and strateg 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- ' plant growth potential. tion opportunities. Other potential remedial actions might include waste injection to reduce opportunity _ope affects the potential for runoff from the site. for runoff of the manure during flood event and some form of structural measure to reduce flooding. • 11-32 (210-AWMFH,4/92) " •d Handbook (g) Ru1e-of-thamb estimates vary considerably according to the climate and waste management system. (Refer to table 11-9 for nutrient Tables 11-10, 11-11, 11-12,and 11-13 can be used for mineralization rates.)The tables also show the esti- rule-of-thumb estimates of available nutrients in differ- mated moisture content,which can be used as a guide. ent manure for the common methods of manure man- The tons are the actual weight of the manure as it is agement.Field offices can develop additional tables applied,which includes moisture and bedding.Use for other livestock handling methods that are custom- reliable local data if they are available.In most cases, my in their areas.Tables 11-10, 11-11, 11-12,and 11- manure changes weight during storage loses nd'rtturd reatment 13 are limited to: because it almost always g e. • 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.!slathers(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 compares to fresh manure that has 86 percent This content and 14 peren TS.The lot manure Manure liquids are not included because manure of has an average TS content of 66 percent The manure had to dry considerably for the TS content to increase this type will storagebe diluted or4 treatment 10 as so e Wi can be from 14 percent to 66 percent.If no loss of volatile flushed Snfo astemnagment,aagfacilities. nitrogenth this solids occurred,the manure would have shrunk about method occur waste management,a is large lossld of ma t five times.Because some loss of solids always occurs, determinecan theein nitrogenge concentration.and tests should be made to the shrinkage is even greater.Stated another way—of 5 tons of manure excreted,only 1 ton remains on the lot,although most of the constituents,such as salt,are The amounts shown in the tables are in pounds of 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 ® ------------- Final moisture Nutrients available ars5 e year Management system % lb/ton----- incorporated before drying 89 7 3 5 1. Fresh manure,collected and applied daily, 3 3 5 2. Manure collected daily, 50%processing water added,stored in covered 92 tank,applied semi-annually,incorporated before drying 3 3 4 3. Manure placed daily in open storage pond;30%processing water 92 added;liquids retained;spread annually in fall;incorporated before drying;cool,humid climate;evap. =precip 82 3 2 4 4. Bedded manure,unroofed stacking facility (bedding is 10% by weight);spread in spring before drying;cool,humid climate; evap. =precip 87 3 2.5 4 5. Manure,no bedding,stored outside; leachate lost;spread in spring before drying;cool,humid climate 6. Open lot storage—see beef cattle u-a3 (210-AW MFH.492) Chapter 11 ...se Utilization Part 6i Agricultural Waste Management • Field Handbook • a•„L example of moisture gain is seen in waste manage- pound cow,the volume is increased by about 35 per- ment for daily cows in the northern part of the court- 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(tall 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 P206 K,O gy lb/ton 1. Fresh manure,collected and applied daily,no dilution or drying, 90 9 7 10 incorporated before drying 2. Covered storage tank,applied and incorporated before drying, 93 4 6 6 diluted with 50 percent additional water •'entilated storage pit beneath slotted floors,diluted 1:1, 95 2.5 3 5 nptied 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 62 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 g5 lb/ton----- I. 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** Broiler manure on sawdust or shavings cleaned every 4 months and 25 36 35 40 corporated;warm humid climate* • Wilkinson 1974. '•Sobel 1976. 11-3-1 (210-AWMFH,4/92) Chapter as yield Handbool: Example 11-7: Ida Given:Manure from a 50,000 layer operation in Geor- Manure = 0.60.5 0 lbb I gia is stored in a shallow pit.The manure is spread 2 x 6lb every 6 months and plowed down.The land is used for Weight= 2,0.5 x 365 da/yr lb/ ton silage corn.The recommended nutrient application rate is 150 pounds nitrogen per acre per year, =2,210 ton/yr Questions: 1. What is the application rate using the rule-of- 2.Calculate weight of manure applied since manure thumb tables? losses weight while in storage.From table 11-12, 2. What is needed to recycle the manure at this management systems 1 and 2,moisture content can be rate? estimated as 75 percent(fresh)and 65 percent(ap- • plied).Thus,total solids content is 25 percent(fresh) • Solution, question 1: and 35 percent(applied). From table 11-12,management system 2,about 25 pounds of nitrogen per ton of manure are available the 25% wt = 35% =0.71 of wt produced first year per ton of manure applied. 0.71x 2,210 ton 150 lb N (State nutrient guide rate =1,670 ton/yr Rate= 25 lb N /ton =6 tons/ac / 3.Calculate area required: 1,570 ton/yr' Area= Solution, question 2: 6 /ac (from question 1 1. Calculate weight of manure produced(see table 4- =6 ton a/aces re ed 14).Weight of layers=50,000 birds x 4 pounds average 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 Final moisture Nutrients available lust year Management system N 45 lb/ton 86 9 5 8 1. Fresh manure,collected and applied daily,incorporated before drying 86 7 56 8 2. Manure collected daily,stored in covered tank, no dilution or drying, applied semi-annually,incorporated before drying 80 5 5 7 3. Bedded manure pack under roof, cleaned in spring,incorporated before drying(bedding=7.5%by wt) 7 9 14 a 4. Open lot storage, cleaned in spring,incorporated before drying, 70 cold humid climate 30 11 16 3 5. Open lot storage, cleaned semi-annually and incorporated; warm semi-arid climate 20 6 15 36 6. Open lot storage, cleaned bi-annually and incorporated;hot arid climate -- -•---- 11-3c (210-AWMFH.4/92) Chapter 11 Waste Utilization Part 65. Agricultural Waste hlanage^'•nr Eteld Handbook EL..- 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- year field trial with animal manure.J.Agric.Sci., communication with C.E.Fogg. CA.Agric.Exp.Sta.44(5),pp 113-125. ' Azevedo,J.,and P.R.Stout. 1974.Farm manure.An Shaffer,M.J.,A D.Halvorson,and F.Pierce. 1991. overview of their role in the agricultural environ- Nitrate leaching and economic analysis package: ment, CA Agric.Exp.Sta Man.44. 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.Serv. ing nitrogen for ground water quality and farm Bull.No.A2519. profitability.Soil Sci.Soc.Amer.,Madison,WL Conn and Stumpf. 1972.Outlines of biochemistry,third Sobel,A.T. 1976.The high-rise of manure management. edition.John Wiley&Sons,Inc.New York. Dep.Agric.Eng.Rep.AWM 76-01,Cornell Univ., Ithaca,N.Y. Ghoshal,S. 1974.Fate fertilizer phosphorus under Sweeten,John M. 1976.Dilution of feedlot runoff.MP- aerobic decomposition.Plant and Soi140(3). 1297,TX A&M Univ.,College Station,TX. Hayes,W.A. 1977.Personal communication with RA Wagner,R.E.,and M.B.Jones. 1968.Fertilisation of Phillips.Based upon a number of SCS technical higit yielding forage crops.Soil Sci.Soc.Amer. guides in central United States. Watters,Steven P.,and Joseph P.Marak. 1984.208 dlage,Robert F.,and Lyle C.Shingleton. 1984.Soil Task 1401,animal waste study.Final report to potential for waste disposal.Soil Survey Hori- OK Pollution Control Coord.Board by OK State zons,vol.25,no. 1. Dep.Agric.,Plant Indus.Div. Horsfield,B.C.,R.Z.Wheaton,J.C.Nye,and J.V.Mannering. 1973.Irrigation for land application Ratters,Steven P.,and Joseph P.Manic. 1985.Water of waste ID-88. Coop.Ext.Serv.,Purdue quality impacts of animal waste management In a of animalnortheastern Oklahoma watershed.Proceed. Univ.,West Lafayette,IN. Fifth inU.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,i 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. Williams,J.R.,and D.E.Kissel. 1991.Water percola- Mathers,A.C.,BA. Stewart,J.D.Thomas,and B.J. ton:An indicator of N leaching potential in Blair. Effects of cattle feedlot manure managing nitrogen for groundwater quality and crop yields elds and soil condition.USDA SW Great farm profitability.Amer.Soc.Agron. Plains Res.Ctr.Tech. Report No. 11. Meisinger,J.J., and G.W.Randall. 1991.Managing Willrich,R.L.,D.O.Turner,and V.V.Volk. 1974.Ma- nitrogen for ground-water quality and farm 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 -ire,JA,and M.J.Gamroth. 1989. Calculating the Food Tech. fertilizer value of manure from livestock opera- tions.OR State Univ.Ext.Serv.,EC1094/rev. 1-89. 11-36 (210-AWM H,4/92) ..... . v..... \ 1 . 11, K,. iy SOIL i Y d) ejz r aa+F..F,''� K e e. tits I] reWtd ... /,� ....fit;-•. ' �� i~i�c—Y-'_?'4`r4. ._....V �..-P•!k. •. t� K.V. Iversen and J.G. Davis ' 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 • y. m help you determine the from to be available.Theicroorganisms.Some trogen(N)is available time involved depends on theand some takes type of compounds n hs or manure application rate from a years 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 7rganic 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. r elements in many Using This Table pounds such as proteins. Nitrogen Content of Manure.Use the actual total nitrogen content on a Inorganic nitrogen includes NH4, fresh-weight basis(lbs N/ton)from your manure analysis.If you have no analysis 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 com 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. ® Exam : lb N/acre lb N/acre __ Total Nple required 760 lb N/acre lb N.�acre t ��®- �' _ ` N from other sources - 60 lb N/acre - lb N/acre - ' 41, (soil test. irrigation water,etc.) 4�N/acre __ lb N/acre 100 lb N/acre lb N/ton U ratin. N desired from manure �3 lb N/ton _ lb N/ton __ L'OOpeati Total N content of manure 9 tons/acre ___ tons/acre __ tons/acre Extensioonn Manure rate for desired N application (from Table) ® Colorado State University Cooperative Extension. 10/97. Table 1:Cattle manure application rates.(This table uses only the total nitrogen content of a m=..nure,so it is an estimate of what wiii i„ available to the crop during the growing se i. Use it to determine application rates until yc in obtain more precise numbers.) Nitrogen Content of Manure (lbs of total N per ton manure(fresh weight)) 7 . 9 11 - 43_ 15 17 19 21 23,E 25 27 29 31 33 31. sired N ..pplication Tons of manure per acre to apply (lbs Wacre) for desired nitrogen application y g, 50 14 11 9 78 7 6 5 5 4:. 4 4 3 3 3 3 60 - 17 13 11 ;,5 7 6 6 '.5: 5 4 4 4 4 3 Tt 70 20 16 13 1; 9 - 8 7 7 6 : 6 5 5 5 4 4 80 23 18 15 12.E 11 9 8 8 "•7y: 6 6 6 5 5 5 90 26 20 16 14; 12 11 9 9 Lf3 4 7 7 6 6 5 5 100 29 22 18 -15 13 12 11 10 `i9 8 7 7 6 6 6 110 31 24 20 Z..17,E 15 13 12 10 101 9 8 8 7 7 6 • 120 34 27 22 413::: 16 14 13 11 70; ' 10 9 8 8 7 7 130 37 29 24 20, 17 15 14 12 1 10 10 9 8 8 7 :fa QV 140 40 31 25 22 19 16 15 13 d21 11 10 10 9 8 8 :Ifs will 150 43 33 27 .:241 20 18 16 14 ' 12 11 10 10 9 9 - 160 46 36 29 25 st 21 19 17 15 13 12 11 10 10 9 170 49 38 31 2b 23 20 18 16 a 14 13 12 11 10 10 SS 180 51 40 33 .21 r 24 21 19 17 1 14 13 12 12 11 10 tt 190 54 42 35 29 25 22 20 18 Mj s 15 14 13 12 12 11 fi 200 57 44 36 3y 27 24 21 1 19 T74 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 lune 30, 1914, in fertility research associate;I.G. Davis, cooperation with the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Milan A. Rewerts, Director of Cooperative Cooperative Extension soil specialist and Extension, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado. Cooperative Extension programs are associate professor, soil and crop sciences. available to all without discrimination. Busker Dairy Envirostock, Inc-Project 23124-1-98 Management Plan for Nuisance Control A Supplement to the Manure & Process Wastewater Management Plan for Busker Dairy 7678 Weld County Road 1743 Fort Lupton, Colorado 80621 Developed in accordance with Generally Accepted Agricultural Best Management Practices Prepared By VIRO TOCK,t►c. 11990 Grant Street, Suite 402 Denver, Colorado 80233 September, 1998 "Serving Environmental Needs of the Livestock Industry" Busker Dairy Envirostock, Inc-Project 231241-98 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 "Serving Environmental Needs of the Livestock Industry" 2 Busker Dairy Envirostock, Inc-Project 23124-1-98 Introduction This supplemental Management Plan for Nuisance Control has been developed and implemented to identify methods Busker Dairy 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 Busker Dairy. Legal Owner, Contacts and Authorized Persons The legal owner of Busker Dairy is Scott Busker Correspondence and Contacts should be made to: Mr. Scott Busker 7678 WCR 17 Fort Lupton, CO 80621 (303) 833-3317 The individual(s) at this facility who is (are) responsible for developing the implementation, maintenance and revision of this supplemental plan are listed below: Scott Busker Owner (Name) (Title) (Name) (Title) Legal Description The confined animal feeding facility described in this NMP is located at: N 'h, SW 'A & S 'h,NW ''A Section 28, T2N, R 67 W of the 61h P.M., Weld County, Colorado 'Serving Environmental Needs of the Livestock Industry" Busker Dairy Envirostock, Inc-Project 23124-1-98 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 Busker Dairy 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 Busker Dairy 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 Busker Dairy will conduct regular manure removal. Typically, manure removal and pen maintenance will be conducted several times per month. 3. Sprinkler systems Sprinkler systems,timed appropriately, are an effective method for keeping dairy surfaces moist. Dairy cattle produce significant moisture through urine and feces. Pens surfaces are extensively maintained for cattle health and milk quality purposes. Busker Dairy is not planning a sprinkler dust control system for this facility. 4. Water Trucks Should nuisance dust conditions arise,water tanker trucks or portable sprinkling systems will be used for moisture control on pens and roadways to minimize nuisance dust conditions. "Serving Environmental Needs of the Livestock Industry" Busker Dairy Envirostock, Inc-Project 23124-1-98 Odor Odors result from the natural decomposition processes that start as soon as the manure is excreted and continue as long as any usable material remains as food for microorganisms living everywhere in soil, water and the manure. Odor strength depends on the kind of manure, and the conditions under which it decomposes. Although occasionally unpleasant, the odors are not dangerous to health in the quantities customarily noticed around animal feeding operations and fields where manure is spread for fertilizer. Busker Dairy will use the methods and management practices listed below for odor control: 1. Establish good pen drainage Dry manure is less odorous than moist manure. The dairy will conduct routine pen cleaning and surface harrowing to reduce standing water and dry or remove wet manure. 1. Regular manure removal Reduce the overall quantity of odor producing sources. The dairy will conduct routine pen cleaning and harrowing several times per month. 3. Reduce standing water Standing water can increase microbial digestion and odor producing by-products. Proper pen maintenance and surface grading will be conducted by the dairy to reduce standing water. The stormwater ponds will be dewatered regularly in accordance with the Manure and Wastewater Management Plan for Busker Dairy. No chemical additives or treatments of the stormwater ponds for odor control are planned. Research to date indicates poor efficacy, if any, of these products. 4. Land application timing Typically air rises in the morning and sinks in the evening. Busker Dairy will consider weather conditions and prevailing wind direction to minimize odors from land application. Typically, land applications will be timed for early mornings. If Weld County Health Department determines nuisance dust and odor conditions persist, Busker Dairy 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, Busker Dairy will install physical or mechanical means such as living windbreaks and/or solid fences to further minimize nuisance conditions from dust and odors. "Serving Environmental Needs of the Livestock Industry" Busker Dairy Envirostock, Inc-Project 23124-1-98 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 Busker Dairy will use to manage insects and rodents are to first eliminate possible habitat and then, reduce the available food supply. Busker Dairy 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 line of defense for insect control. Baits and treatments must be applied routinely. However,they are very effective. Rodent control at Busker Dairy 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, Busker Dairy will initially increase the frequency of the housekeeping and management practices outlined previously. Iffiirther action is necessary, Busker Dairy will increase use of chemical controls and treatments, such as fly sprays, baits and Rodendicide for pest control. "Serving Environmental Needs of the Livestock Industry" Busker Dairy Envirostock, Inc-Project 23124-1-98 References These references are provided as a resource to Weld County Health Department and Busker Dairy for making nuisance control decisions for the facility. These references represent the latest and most modem management and scientific information to date for control of nuisance conditions for the livestock feeding industry. "Serving Environmental Needs of the Livestock Industry" L 1 V ES T O C 1 SER IF S ti V ça .r • l l y ' l i t-lt .:Vf:F.i.,4:-4'n.4.,1;c,1„."A.--.....„::::-::,g:t4-NS„d.„z':.1,-:_'...,1-A'„;f:„-.:;:::::i.':G;-:ft.3.,:E,:;..I1- M--Yee.77-1zi,E2::rici$'9.\;./,Ee. eT-:5,?.2i44. rr _ i ly n0 :220 _Feedlot manuretmanagement,_ .,2 . uv .-iaa 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 dbly as much s occur, s 2 percent ent coder r proton ed mudddy yase, pcan ee reduced as much as 25 penio s.re Respt d P Improper en cleaning can result in low areas that percent. if pens are constantlyona dusty. P 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 ever feedlot pen maintenance and manure management. Encompassingsfomany every year. variables will, however, result in compromises between opposing pe rmance 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 or. Nitrates from manure managing excess moisture and rou d waters feedlot, and excessivetnutrients in surface water can n be n runoff. lead to o ergrowth of collecting g aquatic plants, which use up all the oxygen and suffocate fish. Nutrients can be lost Seepage from runoff holding or conserved after ed for futurree is appliede back at eryttoht and in the production units, in storage, ponds is required by law to b and less than 1/4-inch per day. Table 1:Fertilizer value of manure from feeder cattle in Colorado. Fertilizer value(5/yr) ------------.--------- ---:------ Fertilizer Total Fertilizer Nutrients in Manure Nutrients on in as- Colorado Feeder Cattle 7^ (lb/ton on an as- smtui„m IV.,/year) CO— ��rOl/C�l spread basis) 59.5 million Wj '!— - 4?million lbs N 21 lb N516.5 million 261b P:O �:million lbs PA Sg.7 million s 72 million lbs KtO U�`,e�i�,® 36 lb Kr0 Cooperative Extension To calculate fertilizer value,the following prices were used:mono-ammonium phosphate 5305/ton;ur 5290/ton;muriate of potash 5145/ton.These figures do not include the manure produced by sheep anc m Colorado state University dairy cattle housed in feedlots. Cooperative Extension.5/97. Percent of Ope1e11ons Dust Control too Dust can threaten not only the health of cattle eo rza sos (Franzen, 1984) and people,but can also compromise a ' :? feedyard's ability to continue to operate. The major source of 60 dust in the feedyard comes from the pens; however, dust also 40 36'y can come from roads, service areas, and feed processing. 11 thepeak time for dust occurs around sunset, when 20 Generally, and cattle become more active. 9 __ ____ - _ .__,_ .-__ the temperature starts to cool o '""" ""` .i ..4- e� e The best way to control dust is through proper pen yoF �m�� `5 s design and maintenance of surface moisture levels. Routine 5Q �' ee0. T��'� cleaning of pen surfaces also helps to minimiedust most problems. A recent survey(Figure 1)suggests Figure 1:Dust control practices on beef feedyards use a mechanical scraper as the main tool in theirdustt control strategies. trat i s. feedlots of 1,000 or more head. Keep the loose manure layer less than one inch deep penmoisturebete n too 25 and 35 percent.Too much moisture will increase odor and fly problems; little moisture will promote difficulties with dust.water-distribution system to use. For Pen size and shape dictate the type example, large,deep pens probably require fence-line sprinkling systems, while Fenceline vs.Mobile Sprinklers shallow pens may favor mobile equipment. Selecting a sprinkling system assumes The decision to install fenceline that the feedyard has adequate amounts of water beyond drinking water needs. sprinklers versus acquiring mobile Wind breaks also may be used to control or capture fugitive dust. Fast- equipment is a tradeoff between initial growing poplar trees planted along the perimeter of the feedyard will provide cost,o maintenance,p depreciation, and shelter from the wind and may largely contain any fugitive dust. systemlab The permanent nt may ppr a sprinkling There are numerous surface amendments and chemical agents being investmentitlly. However,e continuedo u I,000 evaluated for dust control. Fly ash looks promising, and other compounds that have per pen pence is inimal e systemapple pumice, ligno sulfate, and gypsum. labor expense is minimal once the been considered include sawdust, 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 ugh and p stockingen rate footage may be es. Mobile equipment is expensive.A used However, linear-bunk space, water trough space, 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 r susine ip above-average or enrage to large-sized feedyard, there may not be Temporary fencing also gives flexibility during p 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 uur d steer strategy. tonow the area and weight per animal. For example, a 1,000-p square feet of pen space produces about 28 inches of moisture per year or 0.08 inches per day(Table 2). , Odor Control Offensive odors from feedlots are Table 2:Manure moisture production in cattle feeedlorage Anots Avima,Spacing(sq ft/hd) intimately related to manure 100 125 150 175 management. If you are siting a new 75 Moisture(in/day) selecto an isolated location Animal size(avg Ibs/hd) — 03 .02 .Oi .04 .03 downwindequ frm d with 400 .05 .043 .03 adequate and well-drained land base. .06 .06 .05 .04 600 .11 .086 .06 Design the feedlot to accommodate 600 .10 Og .07 .06 .13 .096 .08 .076 ,:;Gwent scraping, and keep manure 1000 16 .12 stockpiles dry and covered. When 1200 manure is applied to land, the timing Stocking density has a significant influence on the animal and and placement of the manure can bemanaged environmental performance of a feedlot. Stocking density partly determines the manure reduce odor wind issnc. average moisture content of the pen surface. Cattle add moisture through feces Apply s morning, wind calm, and urine to the pens each day. Determining how much moisture is desirable pr incorporate raly in the morning, and incorporate it as soon as possible. requires careful observation.This decision varies with management style and will influence moisture balance and the corresponding appropriate stocking rate. Front-end Loaders vs. Box Scrapers experience with the specific site and climz ot, itions. Cattle,size and rations also Two nanure the most common methods of :Typical pen stockingdensities in Colorado are between 150ft' a dre300 ft" per warmer, dry periods,removal are the wheeled front- animal.Increase stocking density during id loaderti . The thebox box scraper.scraperorBoth during wet or cool seasons.For both odor and dust control, the choice of stocking r effective. e paddle other pen surface that is too dry versus one scraping devices, such as a density should achieve a balance between is not achieved, more elaborate and scraper or road grader, are more that is too wet. If this management g 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.• sprinkling, spraying, and and(2)maintaining the integrity of the A combination of cattle density, sp g not bein , and enough precipitation control compacted protective seal or "hard pan" may need to be used, since cattle density tonalone may with light-weight feeder under feedlot pens. dust, especially in areas With high evaporation low precipitation are at greatest risk for A wheeled front-end loader requires an cattle,high winds(high evaporation), dustproblems. riskf experienced operator. For each bucket dust problems. tan fn place of manure accumulated with a wheel There are numerous options to consider octant t actin a p ltcation loader, the operator must shift gears four Each has advantages and disadvantages. It is important Remember, plan application times while manipulating the bucket. and start prior to the time dust is a serious problem. 1 a timely ppnner. This is most likely to result in an is minimized by removing loose manure and dust from pensirregular pen surface at best or damage to the protective"hard pan."A Manure combination of a wheeled front-end The removal Removalof accumulated manure reduces odors, controls fly larvae, and scrapermination. e for major manure removalnd and a the would annal cleaning ctive compr grading firm,dry feedloto surface is an importance and t factor in goodanter imal health and Maintaining healthy environment.be effective compromise. envidrydepending on size of lot environmeeq Frequency of manure removal also varies widely P perce year is an and pen stocking rate. However, a thorough pen cleaani o priorpare a pen to is an blore minimum. Most fe dyar de cleanednround typically replaces cattle or new or "pen"" ttti A feper yeard an year en maintenance as frequently, "turns a pen" 2.5 times per year and conducts p weather permitting. Dairies also are concerned with animal od iesunits in both and cleanliness. Some dairies harrow their pens daily with 9for • environmental and animal health benefits. a While this isylab or intensive for your feedlots, it does indicate that pen cleanin8 le specific operation is good manage Stockpile Location and Management Having adequate storage area to handle the quantity of modes the re production has many benefits. Primarily, adequate storage area p producer with flexibility in land application so that land application timing can be determined by labor availability, weather and field conditions, and crop nutrient Stockpile Management lack of storage space. Use the information ble 3 to nd be sure watercoursesLocat pan areas aa the from needs rather than by you expect your livestock to produce,loodla and above the 100•year the your storage capacity is adequate. flood plain. Use grassed filter strips below stockpiles cable 3.Manure production per 1,000-pound animal' — pry Alalter Basis A5 Excreted to reduce runoff volume by settling 1 38 mesh•. 11.5 tons/yr(88%water) 1.803 tons)yr solids and removing nutrients. cart Cattle 15.0 tonslYr(88^/,water) Soil sample downhill from stockpiles to parry Cattle 3 tons/yr(75%water) 1.82 tons/yr monitor nitrate buildup. ""`N The more control a feedlot manager has over the facility's manure Locate downstream a stockpiles swt ell, 750 more but may be feet from any well. Composting emanure r requires tadditional llandnand equipment beneficially use d. advantageous where markets are available (see Spencer and Tepfer, 1993). Protect wellheads with grassed buffer areas. 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 tti m or garden users s use. that Sample the applye and the manure cattle and can greatly reduce provide the laboratoryanalysis performance. Insects reproduce and at agronomic rates. mature in wet areas such as muddy First, a feedlot operator must know how much manure nitrogen (N) is pens, wet manure piles, and wet spots produced. Multiply the number of head by the tons produced(Table 3) to around waterers and feedbunks. One determine how much manure is produced. Multiply the tonnage by the lb N/ton in area commonly overlooked in pen that manure (Table 1)to calculate how many pounds N are available for land maintenance is manure build-up directly application. Next, calculate how much crop removal there will be per acre. Multiply undert fence rows and adjacent to the expected yield by the average N content of the harvested crop to determine N Theserus structures like are waterersnotreadily and feed bunks. removal by the crop. Finally, divide the pounds N produced in the manure by the areas m nta accessible qirsmallpounds N used by the crop per acre.The result is the acreage required as a land with heavy equipment and require base for your feedlot. equipment and/or manual labor. However, they are significant breeding areas for insects. Keeping pens clean Runoff Management and Collection and dry will reduce insect populations, Pens designed for good drainage(minimum of 3 percent slope from apron enhance performance,and minimize a to back of pen with adequate mounds)help manage excess moisture.The primary feedlot's reliance on chemicals and goals of runoff management are to divert water from flowing across the feedlot or other costly insect-control methods. storage area and prevent direct runoff from the feedlot or the stock-piled manure into waterways. Runoff can be diverted by digging ditches and building berms. One of the primary principles of runoff management is to keep clean water clean. In other words, direct clean water away from manure, whether manure is already Resources stockpiled or still in the feedlot. Decreasing the volume of water used reduces the Follett, R.H.,and R.L. Croissant. 1990. potential for runoff, so minimizing water waste from inefficient waterers an& 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 estorm c oaten runoff of from ro of water pens. It can University Cooperative Extension. be treated and discharged, or r it cropland,aneapplied dirriga cropland and as a sourceo rate must be le: Franzen, D. 1984.Airborne Particle and nutrients. If it is applied Concentration Associated with than the infiltration rate, so that runoff does not occur from the cropland. Fence minate ater. Pneumonia IncidenceSat inFeedlot Cattle. Runoffanimal solids can out of atercourses to be removed byldirectingtthet deposition of manure into runoff through filter strips orrgrasse iivi.o Colorado State University;Fort Collins, CO. waterways or by using a sediment basin to settle the solids out. Removing solids NAHMS. 1995E Environmental from the runoff will reduce odors and prevent the pond from filling up with solids. Monitoring by Feedlots. Centers for Management of Runoff Holding Ponds Epidemiology and Animal Health. o 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. 1993E only, but the seepage requirement i<to==than 1/32 inch per day if the pond stor manure. Fact of no.composting feedlot2. Colorado processing wastewater(for example, manure flushed from a milking parlor)in State U.Usniversity Cooperative 3.762E xt nsion. State University Extension. addition to stormwater runoff. Seepage can be reduced by several methods, and manure itself has an ability to seal soil surfaces over time. Compact soil to a Sweeten,I.M. Feedlot dust control. minimum 12-inch thickness. Take soil type into consideration during site selectio Cattleman's Library: Stocker-Feeder Locate ponds in the most impervious soil available. Soils must be loams or clays' Section no. 7045E Texas Agricultural compact well. Low permeability materials may be required in sandier soils. Extension Service. Installing synthetic plastic impermeable liners or adding clay (bentonite) are a feu the wars to reduce seepage from runoff holding ponds. Prohibit access of livesto 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. 'I.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 coopers ti specialist and professor,animal sciences;and with the U.S.Department of Agriculture,Milan A.Rewerts,director of Cooperative Extension,Colo T.Haren, Director of Natural Resources, State University,Fon Collins,Colorado.Cooperative Extension programs are available to all withoi Colorado Cattle Feeders Association. discrimination. B-5011 Texas Agricultural Extension Service Odor and Dust From Livestock Feedlots John M.Sweeten' This report discusses the relationship of livestock animal density,but essentially integrates these factors(along with climate and soils)into a single ogyand production managementto pian is s which csan thr duce mterion-the absence of vegetation-which occurs poll utiofrom livestock practices which per reduce where manure production and/or animal traffic pollution from and poultry operations. are high. Van Dyne and Gilbertson(1978)estimated the total ---------------- collectable(economically recoverable)manure Intensive Animal from all livestock and poultry production lldst)nh e 52 million tons per year(dry Production Systems 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; 3 percent; turkeys 2 percent;and other 3 The major types of livestock and poultry produc- sheeparcane. tion facilities, their design and the manure manage- These manure production are based on ment systems associated with them are described an engineering manure duard adopted estimatesby the American in several reports (MWPS,1987;U.S.EPA,1973; yr Society of Agricultural Engineers (ASAE, 1976) 198)e and edror total co8;Foster and Ma es are which defines constituent production per unit ccom).Roofed or tryand swine andnt facilities extent,xmmod for poultry p swine (National a lesser weight oupdated to reflectcurrent research dat values a ea dairyon and beef production open feedlots y p (ASAE, 1986).In most cases,average values of dry search Council, 1979).However, manure and nutrients(pounds per day per 1,000 (non-roofed)u are most commonly used fus beef pounds liveweight)were revised upward. cattle production.They are also widelyused for dairy,swine and sheep production in the south- Cattle feedlotswestern United States. Intensive livestock production systems are re- garded as "animal feeding operations."The U.S. Tote averaging States United has as pounds.4million beef liveweight. feed EPA water ll such operations (for purposes re animals of is fed in a "stabled pollutionor confined and fed or maintained for aaze Each fattening periodtproduces about 11 130-to dry ton of0-day cool- lectable manure solids.This equals about 2 dry and of 45 days or moro in any e1 growthonth or post- tons of collected manure per year per head of feed- harvestr. residues vegetation,aenosustained forage d in the post- residues are not in the normal lot capacity.The animal spacing per head varies ac growing season over any portion of the lot or facil- cording to rainfall and temperature, slope and ity" (U.S.EPA, 1976).The definition is not specific other factors.For example,there are 100 to 125 as to animal species,type of confinement facility or per head in the desert southwest when there isflessthan 10 inches of annual rainfall; 175 t 2 square feet per head in the southern and cen- ' Extension Agricultural Engines:,Tne Texas A&.Vt University tral Great Plains where there is 15 to 25 inches of System .”"re, C p,,,,-,,• o ests••The Texas AMM Ur.Ners'/System•Cortege Station,Texas ben ath s and rain per year,and 300 to 400 square feet per head manure storobic ae taus b for manure and in the eastern and northern Great Plains where treatment are lagoonsimportant odor rest there is 2i to 35 inches per year.Most cattle feed- r. es. lots are concentrated in the southern and central When open feedlot surfaces become wet,particu- Great Plains. larly in warm weather, anaerobic decomposition • Most of the manure deposited on the feedlot sus- 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 humidFeedlot ardoreas prano li ms are cost freq ten N huent in wa arm, higher moisture contents odors can develop, espe- cially 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 at,1984; ASAE,1957;National Research can annoy neighbors,irritate feedlot employees, Council,1979). possibly impair cattle performance and create a Table 1. Compounds Resulting the traffic hazard on adjacent highways (Sweeten, Compounds DecompositionultingFromof 1982).The amount of dust produced is affected by Anaerobicro and Poultry nof feedlot area, cattle density in pens,wind speed and _ re precipitation and evaporation patterns (Peters and Alcohols Amines Blackwood,1977). Mir hyta.-nine Adds 'irimethyiamine Ethylamine Odors from livestock feeding Butyric thethytL•nine operations ACtic Propionic Essen • lsobutvtic Although odors from livestock feeding facilities lsovaledc are sometimes an annoyance,odorous gases are Fixed Gases -not toxic at concentrations found downwind.How- Carbonyls Carbon Dioxide(odorless) ever,nuisance lawsuits can threaten the survival of Methane(odorless) Ammonia an operation(George et a1.,1985),and livestock Sulphur compounds producers need to control the evolution of odorous Hydrogen Sulfide compounds (Miner, 1975;National Research Coun- Dimethyl Sulfide Nitrogen Heterocycles Diethyl Sulfide 1.•�dole cil, 1979). Methytmatap n Odorous gases arise from feed materials (food-pro- Disulfides Skatole cessing wastes and fermented feeds),fresh manure and stored or decomposing manure (National Re- search Council,1979).The odor from fresh manure Concentrations of these compounds axe usually' is generally less objectionable than that from an- low and downwind from feedlots.However,some aerobically decomposing manure.Fresh manure may exceed olfactory threshold values and create a has large quantities of ammonia,but little of the nuisance. other decomposition products that have the most There is almost universal acceptance of sensory objectionable characteristics.Odorous compounds approaches,using trained human panelists,for which develop in manure treatment facilities are a the of measurementtodor.However,the insttu- function of the material as excreted, the biologic re- menu and techniquesa used sensory odor cocas• actions occurring in the material and the configure- urement may vary. Odor measurement techno- tion of the storage or treatment unit. logy applicable to livestock operations includes Roofed confinement facilities usually have signifi- determining: cant odor potential because of the high animal den- a Concentrations of specific compounds sity involved,the large amount of manure in (ammonia,hydrogen sulfide,volatile organic storage and the limited rate of air exchange (Na- acids, etc); tional Research Council, 1979).Manure-covered surfaces (e.g.,building floors and animals), Elam et al. (1971)collected feedlot dust samples in- side pl. 9t 10 collected feedlot feedlots,using a es i ■ h ice to threshold with a dynamic forced- pax 5 pens at 10 air California and operating in S choice olfactometer or scentometer,and 1- to 3-hour increments during 24-hour sampling a Equivalent concentration eoft )that vapor periods.Peak particulate concentrations,which (usinge a bient o of intensi • r that matches :0 andm and 10:00 averaged ranged the ambient odor intensity. were collected between 7:00 p.m., from 1,946 to 35,536 µg per Severalodor states and s based ali he have property- µg per m3.Lowest concentrations occurred 3 early 14,200 morning and were only 130 to 250 mg per line standards based on these and other mess- some feedlots. urement methods(Sweeten,1988). Alger et al. (1972)measured total suspended par- The odor mused by measured d Meyer a Lion of Algeo et in 24-hour17 ) samplingssurtboth suspended and swine manure was that by Meyer and Con- downwind in Californiabothgable 2).a Net ammoniaverse ),who found that hydrogen sulfide and particulate in 25 Caliionia feedlotsind up- than concentrations8percent were, atre 73 degrees F wind)for a concentrations period ranged from minus5 o 1 p- hana percent and gr es F.Innt Europeane at re research( F mg The averagevalue for all 25 feedlots ,268 than at 60 ),the odoremission rm (1Claren- perWgas 3 3 h6 µg err rev Upwmd ll fe tdlots houses 8 it the yto rate manurea swine avenged 3 percent of the.Upwind d conce ions ntra- houses with a each 18 degree stored tempered lions Both upwind to fold for i8 ventilation ens rise in manure tempera- and downwind particulate lev- mreand,includinge venteater rate influences,was els usually exceeded the U.S.EPA ambient more than four timesn 73 in summer than inau-quality standards for TSP. • winter.Emissions were 73 percent greater with Table 2. Summary of 24-Hour Particulate fully slotted floors than with partially slotted floors. (TSP) Concentrations 1 California In the same with odor intensity observations Cattleoce Feedlots (Alger at 5 1972).ifo were made with scentometers both upwind and wind Net,Downwind • downwind of feedlots.Upwind odor intensities Downwind UP minus Upwind were usually int the range of 0 to 2 dilutions to (nnwl (pwin) (n=24) threshold,while downwind concentrations aver- • aged 13 to 49 dilutions to threshold. 836 206 634 Mean �-137 _116 _376 Std.Devil- Dust emissions from livestock lion feeding operations and Rat mum 100 M *6 154 9 nge: aximum 1,559 460 In 1971,the U.S.EPA (1987)defined primary _ secondary ambient air-quality standards for total Peters and Blackwood(1977)cited major limits- standa ds e particulate ate matter( mj3 The r l24-hoour standards were set at 260 µg perEons in these results: year, not to be exceededmmore tha oof 75 a All sampling was performed in the dry year,with an annual geometric mean of 75 µg peL3 sea- m3.Secondary standards were set not at 150 be exceeded morein a son; o/aqs such as feedlot size,cattle number, pis and for a 24-hour sampling period, more than once per year. lances from samplers to feedpens and climate Effective July 31,1987,the U.S.EPA replaced TSP Nevertheless,th ns were e not eped. - - data from iasn the indicator a (P indicator for the ambient ddes stonly thus Algeo et al s using theetC California Blackwood (1977) in particulates favor anewwih indaerod that includes only those developed )hey Iona de Bl to be od (19 7) lesthno with to aerodynamic mm (particle diameter projectionsp for what they feedlots. According worst-case to their lessthane equal nanom) replaceda the protections,feedyards with more 500 head, prim The new standard with1) PM-10 darn24-hour of at projections, 40 square feet per head,would than 5t more 15imaryTSP m3;t2)replaced a annual roam geometric meane µg per 2)thm the M-1g than 100 tons of particulates per year,not includ- with an arithmetic mean PM-10 standard of inn the feedmill. treatmei 50 µg per m3;and 3)replaced the secondary TSP Based on Peters and'Blackwood's (1977) standard with identicalc and the apnmar stands for cattleU feedlots as aids that are to primary of the California data, the U.S.EPA publisheden being These standards, of course, apply to livestock sion factors (AP-42) feeding operations. crude estimates at best (U.S.EPA,1986). These emission factors were based on the assump- no I I I I I I I I I ) tion that feedlots would generate 280 pounds of ! Wvd Prn,c particulates per day per 1,000 head,and 27 tons of T uu°-o.sr 691 particulates per 1,000 head fed.Other emissions GD"Z" �' factors were similarly written for ammonia,amines so l T and total sulfur compounds. • • The U.S.EPA emission factors ignored the major climatic differences among cattle feeding regions of California,the Great Plains and the Midwest. 2 5 % Both total rainfall and seasonality of rainfall are 6; _ :'*1 different.'Also,California has less than 4 percent := of the United States cattle on feed,as compared to Texas and Nebraska which combined have 40 1 percent. . U To obtain a broader data base, dust emissions were t T measured at three cattle feedlots in Texas,ranging 20 in size from 17,000 to 45,000 head.Measurements ei were made on 15 occasions in 1987 to determine I I I I I I I ,I I I I i both the total suspended particulates(TSP)and the o particulates below 10µm aerodynamic particle size © r n 3 ry ;� Pi o _ N ry e (PM-10)(Sweeten et al.,1988).Net feedlot dust con- 4.- « In : 'D SI centrations (downwind minus upwind)ranged Aerodynamic dumpier barn) from 16 to 1,700 µg per m3 and averaged 412±271 , J e'radian d India due pandas Cl given ado cap per m3 (which is 37 percent less than the earlier Faun 1. Cumulative ngaffsof High vain.W PM10 samplers:downwind ipQ p*Pere' California data).Dust concentrations were genes- Ie•dcte A,c and a(Expernwna 11,1 and 16). ally highest in early evening and lowest in early (swnien and Panel.1980 morning,and upwind concentrations averaged 22 percent of downwind concentrations. . Using two types of PM-10 sampler(Wedding and captured on high averaged Anderson-321A), the PM-10 dust concentrations c4.2µrm nhigh and volume samplers upwind feedlots were 19 to 40 percent,respectively,of mean TSP 14.2u(Sweeten and downwind and 1989).3 m Thirty-three of feedlots tween concentrations.and There was good concentrationsslwionth be- of the downwind TSP were smaller than 10µm, 0.634 nd 0.8588 TSP Weddingnd with 's= while 40 percent of upwind TSP was smaller than 0.634 and for and Anderson's 321-A samplers,respectively(Sweeten et al.,1988). 10µm. Mean particle sizes of feedlot dust were 8.5 to 12.2 mm on a population basis,while respirable dust Air Pollution Control(oelow 2µm)represented only 2.0 to 4.4 percent of total dust on a particle volume basis (Hebner and Methods Parnell,1988). When the Wedding sampler was used for PM-10 measurements, feedlots were below the new EPA standard, and peak concentrations did not coincide Controlling dust with the expected early evening peaks caused by cattle activity.Hence,comparatively little of the Feedlot dust is usually controlled by sprinkling sum- 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, day on a schedule ecl of 2 hoand urs ot o her spr nk ed PM-10 samplers (Figure 1) (Sweeten and Parnell, each 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 l0µm. moisture content of 20 to 30 percent was needed Mass median diameters (MrID) of dust particles for dust control. Particulate concentrations • went manure collection by flush ng cable (24-hour averages)increased from 3,150 to 23,300 scr pre9 ing or pit drainage recharge helps absorb µga per m3 when daily water sprinkling was fermi- odorous gases and elimate anaerobic storage condi- ntedfor 7 days. tions in confinement buildings(Korsmeyer et at, Sweeten et al. (1988)found that feedlot dust con- 1981;Meyer and Converse, 1981;Raabe et at, 1984). centrations decreased with increasing moisture Biochemicals for odor control include masking contentthough inthe top 1 inch it tions to surface,threshold) agents,counteractants,digestive deodorants, odor intensity equationst indicated thatthe in- chemical deodorants,adsorbents and feed addi- manure tsr needs to rcet tives (Ritter,1980).Digestive deodorants are the manure moistureth surface 26 to percent most widely used.They must be added frequently (wet p rcent an the loose depth manure and 35 to to allow selected bacteria to become predominant. 41 percent dust a allowable TSPin order tofcontrol Potassium permanganate e(1 I0-500 pe mare oxidizingyr n feedlot to limits of 150 and peroxide (100-125 ppm)260 µg per m3. 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)n manure treatment-maeration,acapture c and chemicalts-aeration,formulations.chlorination ndvall et al. (9 4)digestion or biochemical ereatmenc;(2) cap re- treatment of odorous gases using covered storage duced odors from liquid swine manure with bbeds or filter fields,or packed beds;and(3)absorptiondor ammonia determined that zeolites(dinoptilolite Miner and tand(1976) far enough away from neighbors selecting thsite t t tathkt is es ad- odoorstfrom were a dirt-surfaced effective feedlot. reducing 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 covers hencea the e rate ofe odor emis- duced the odor emission rate by 90 percent as sion.However,ri gid 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 fwith water or or industrial and food oxidizing chemicals processing plant odors,and (i.e.,low loading rate)to produce relatively little on thDesign volatile solids loading rate, ,which is d propor- confinement buildings.Van some researchers have tGeele and Van Der tional to the volume per pound of liveweight Hoek(1977)obtained an 88 percent reduction in (Barth,1985;Humenik and Overcash,1976; odor concentration with wet scrubbing of exhaust Sweeten et al.,1979; ASAE,1990). from a swine house,although captured dust formed a sludge which made it difficult to reds- Mechanical aeration of liquid manure in oxidation late the scrubbing water.Schist(1977) prob- method (Humeniklagoons is an ,1975;Jones odor al.,1971). lems with the dogging of spray nozzles when method et third or et a1.,19ago ebbing with recycled water,and biologicbal treat- Aerating only the top third or half of swine lagoon meet was required.Licht and Miner wet9sc8)rubber for contents proved successful and reduced power re- horizontal cross-flow,packed-bed quirements as compared with complete mixing used a swine confinement building and achieved 50 and (Humenik et al.,1975).Converse et al. (1971) 90 percent removal of particulates larger than 1 limited aeration of liquid swine manure without a and 5 microns, respectively, and ammonia reduc- measurable dissolved oxygen residual and re- bon of 8 to 38 percent; and an 82 percent reduction duced odor as compared to non-aerated storage. n n itesity. Phillips et al. (1979)rapidly reduced hydrogen sue- of odorA o ack nten dry s.^rubb'e:filled with a zeolite fide and methanol emissions from swine manure by aeration,but less volatile and less offensive corn- (clinoptilolite)reduced ammonia emissions from 2 pounds such as phenols persisted. Aeration just poultry house by 45 percent initially,but efficient y Koebliker prior to land spreading could reduce odors from dropp8e0d to only 15 percent in 18 days field application. The soil is an excellent odor scrubbing medium be- research base is not yet well enough developed to cause it chemically absorbs,oxidizes and aerobi- support heavy reliance on dispersion models for cally biodegrades organic gases (Bohn,1972). livestock odors. Lindvall et al. (1974)determined that soil injection reduced odor emissions(measured as dilutions to - threshold)from liquid swine manure by 90 to 99 References percent as compared to surface spreading.Odor from a soil-injected manure site was about the same as from a nonmanured soil surface.Disk har- rowing or plowing of surface spread manure re- ASAE.1976.Manure Production and Characteristic. re- duced odor by 67 to 95 percent. ASAE Data D384,American Society of Agricultural Soil filters with perforated pipe in a shallow soil Engineers,St.Joseph,M1,1 p. bed have proved effective for scrubbing odors ASAE.1988.Manure Production and Characteristics. from exhaust air.Kowalewslcy(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 Alego,J.W.,C.J.Elam,A.Martinez and T.Westing.1972. swine confinement building using a soil filter sys- Feedlot Air,Water and Soil Analysis:Bulletin D, tem.Prokop and Bohn(1985)reported 99.9 percent How to Control Feedlot Pollution.California Cattle odor reduction when a soil filter was used to treat Feeders Association,Bakersville,CA,June.75 p. high intensity odors in exhaust from rendering American Society of Agricultural Engineers.1987.Con- plant cookers.Soil filters require a moderately fine- trol of Manure Odors.ASAE EP-379,Agricultural textured soil,sufficient moisture and a pH of 7 to Engineers Yearbook of Standards,American Society-0 8.5.The land area required is 2,500 to 4,600 square of Agricultural Engineers,St.Joseph,MI,pp. feet per 1,000 cfrn,depending upon the air flow rate (Prokop and Bohn,1985).Sweeten et al.(1988) Andre,P.D.1985.Sprinklers solved this feedlot dust problem.Beef(Feb): ers ,74,79.81. measured a 95 to 99 percent reduction in ammonia emissions and a 30 to 82 percent reduction in odor Asch�c P W.1Paper Air Ption 3 Presented Needs ds intensity(matching butanol concentrations)using AnnualithAnimals.Meeting of N Pollution Control at 65 - a 1/4-acre sand filter field to scrub air from a poul- €on,Pittsburgh,PA try manure composting operation. Barth,C.L.1985.A Rational Design Standard for Anaero Odor dispersion.The farther odorous gases travel Mc Livestock Waste Lagoons,In:Agricultural downwind from their source the more they are di- Waste:Utilization and Management,Proceedings of luted, depending on atmospheric turbulence and the 5th International Symposium on Agricultural odorant reactions.An odor panel observed a 90 Wastes,American Society oc.e ci 7 of Agricultural Engineers percent reduction in odor intensity,as determined St.Joseph,MI,pp by a matching butanol olfactometer(Sorel et al., Barth,CL,L.F.Elliot and S.W.Melvin.1984.Using 1983),over a distance of half a mile downwind Odor Control Technology to Support Animal Agri- from a cattle feedlot in Texas (Sweeten et aL,1983). culture.Trans.ASAE,27:859-864. Atmospheric dispersion models are sometimes Bohn H.1972.Soil Absorption of Air Pollutants.J.Ensi- used to predict the travel of odor emissions()anal, row Quality,1:372-377. 1982)and the impact on communities.However, you,J.J.,Dunbar,J.R.,Givens,AL.,et a1.1984.5prin- the use of dispersion models is limited to short dis- Icing for dust suppression in a cattle feedlot.Calif o tances and to nonreactive odorous gases (National via Agriculture(March):12-13. Research Council,1979).One or more versions of Converse,J.C.,D.L.Day,J.T.Pfeffer and B.A.Jones.197 the Gaussian diffusion model are used in most Aeration with ORP Control to Suppress Odors Emi regulatory applications.The prediction models re- ted from Liquid Swine Manure System.In:Live- quire that atmospheric stability,wind speed and stock Waste Management and Pollution Abatemen odor emission rates are known. Proceedings of International Symposium on Live- stock Wastes,American Society of Agricultural En; Based in part on dispersion model results,required veers,St.Joseph NC,pp.267-2271. minimum separation distances for livestock feed- Elam,C J Alego,J.W.,'w�`nFr T.,etal.1971.Measure ing operations (based on number of head)have men,and control of feedlot particulate matte:.But been developed for swine facilities in the Nether tin C How to Control Feedlot Pollution. Calif ornia lands (Klarenbeek, 1985) and for cattle feedlots in Cattle Feeders Assxiation,Bakersville,CA,Janua: Australia (QDPI,1989).These relationships are and�. May-rose.1967.Pork Industry Hand- �being used to determine the size of operation that FosteJk Cooperative Extension Service,Purdue Uni- should be allowed in a particular location.The versity,West Lafayette,IN L ndvall,T•,O.Noren and L.Thy:elius Odor1974. Re- Summary and S.W.Melvin 19B5.A valL T.,for liquid Manure. Systems.Trans.AS e- Geor uJ.A.,C.D. lidwe duction f 2 Summary of MIdture livestock Odor Court Ac- and Equipment Handbook lions.In:Proceedings ofthe55thInternate: titionalon dManage MWPS.1987.Beef housing est Senposium on A Symposium on Agricultural Wastes,American SOd- University,A mwes,IAA Service,Iowa State ety of Agricultural Engineers,St Joseph, Meyer,D.J.and J.C.Converse.1981.seryManure Paper No. pp.431-438. WesternFeed(June). Stotage Time Swine oaety of Agricultural Production vs. Gray, ,D.J.' err Feedlot 1988.Co81-I512,American Parnell, samplers using arCou toof counter and Engineers,St.Joseph,MI aed With Heber,D.I•' a amens,of Odors'Assoa par high-volume e air Paper o a Coulter counter Miner J.R.1975.Mang d Livesated sentedtide at 19 8 analyzer.outh No.SINKing1of ASAE, s of 3rdan InternationalLivestock Svmpo 1988 Southwest Region Meeting of ASAE. Wastes,Pr oceedings gs of the Managing Wastes,Proceeding Lubbock,TX sium on Livestock Wastes,American Society pp. ofAgri- clumonEnestockWt.stes, Hill,D.T.and C.L. Transactions Quantitative Prediction of J.R.and R.C.Engineers, St.Jos197eph, Controlling Feedlot Odor Intensity F.J.and Transactions hof t19 6.Design 3r Miner Rates by Application o Iinfor S .J• Waste M.R. a ant Systems. EPA- 00Criteria- Surface Odor Emission • for Swine A .OK,291 Systetns.EPA 600�2'7b of Commercial Products.Trans.ASAE,19:533-538. Ten USEPA, .Sneed,OK M.R.p. J.C. arker National Research Councl.1979.Odors from Stationary Htameoik F.J., ea 197 .Total o lW, and Mobile Sources,National Academy of Sdences, and G.D.aLargeSwine of Production Facitelity. tyM.In Man- Washings anent for a Large Swine Fa duty• aging Livestock Wastes,Proceedings of Third peters,J•A.and T.R.Blackwood.1977.`Source Assess- International Symposium onn livestock Wastes, Sent Beef Cattle Feedlots.Montsanto Research American Society 8-Agricultural Engineers,St. Corporation.EPA-600/2-77-107,USEPA,Industrial Joseph,MI,pp•168of- Environmental Research Laboratory Research 171. orous Triangle Park,NC Janni, sees from 62.Modeling Dispersion Trans.ASAE. Phillips,D.,M.Patton and N,R.BullC yo-. e�S�n�Ya- Gases Agri nure Odors:Sensory and PhY Society 2,D.D.,D.L. sis.Paper No.79-4074,�rsAmericanSMI 1 p. Agricultural Engineers, Joseph, of Jones,D.D.,D.L.Day and A.C.Dale.19Z•Aerobic Treat- and H.L.Bohn.1985.Soil Bed System for Sent ofA livestock Wastes.DC,Final Report SW-16 rg ?ramp,W.H. Plant Odors.Paper 85.79.E USEPA,Washington,.195.Odour 55 p. Control of Rendering Detroit,Mrs, In:laazture. JAgticuluralWEmUtiozuio and Manage- (Presented at the 78th Annual Meeting, ment,Proceedings of Waste 5tht Utilization and Manage' Air Pollution Control Association,Pittsburgh,PA, went,Proceedings of the International 17 p• J.M.Sweeten,M.Stewart D.L.Reddell. Symposium onf ral Engineer Wastes,s American Sod- ,S. , .M.Sweeten, of Manure Flushand D t at Caged ety 439-445.of Agricultural Engineers,St Joseph,MI, �ab1 1984.Evaluation uationof Manans re Systems pp.r,JK, 52-858. ock Kcellilker,J.K,J.R.Miner, Packed Air Scrubber and H.S. of Ag Improe.1980.ve Poul A Zeolites n%iro Aiets.Tra . lutt Wastes,P Paper No. '059,American Soc• iety of Improve:157- 6 HouseEnvironments.Trnns. ri��Engineer,St.Joseph,MI,16p. ASAE 23:157-161. Exhaust of An Schirz,5.19Ti.Odour Removalr anA Environment,,3:2A Korsmeyer,W.,M.D.Hall and TM.Chen•1981.Odor mar Shelters. Agri - control for a Farrow-to-Finish sWaste: Swine Fars es-A Case 228. Study.In:Livestock A Renewable Resource, sour en Proceedings of the 4th International SymposiumSimpson FM 1970.The CCFA i ontrol of feedlot-A u to all Elturalngine Wastes,American Society of 00. taon plan.Bulletin A.How to Control Feedlotu Poll' rural Engineers,St.Joseph MI,pp lion,California Cattle Feeders Association, 1 Kowalewsky,KM.1951.Odor Abatement Truough Bakersville•CA,May' 28. earth Filters,Landtechnik,36( ):8-10. Sorel,J.E.,RO.Gauntt,J.M.Sweeten D.L.Reddell an`Design of a 1-Butanol Stall Vetter.19i9. A.R.McFarland. KowMe suresky,H.H.,of d reE audio Dynamic OLa 1983.r for Ambient Odor hleasu' Measurement Odor Emissions and'missions.IrL ASAE.26:1201-1206. Effluents from Livestock()JCR_Gasse,Editor). ments.M 1982.Feedlot Dust Control.L-1340,Tex Applied Science Publishers,London,U.K Sweeten,J.M. �� Agricultural&ReuionScrice,Tne Texas A bber to Reduce varsity System,College Station,TX Livestock Licht,L.A.andJ.R.Mine:. 1978.Confinement Building Odors.Paper No. B P,N'-78.203,American Society of Agricultural Engineers,St.Joseph,MI,12 p. Sweeten,J.M.1988.Odor Measurement and Control for U.S.EPA.1986.Supplement A to Compilation of Air . Pollution Emission Factors,Section 6.15 Beef Cattle the Swine Industry.Journal of Environmental Health, Pollution (Stationary Point and Area Sources,Vol 1). VoL 50,No.5,pp.286. AP-42,Office of Air Quality Planning and Stand. Sweeten,J.M.and C.B.Parnell 1989.Particle Size Dis- ands,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 Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate of American Society of Agricultural Engineers,Que- Matter and Appendix J—Reference Method for the bec,Canada,June 25-28.20 p. Determination of Particulate. Matter as PM-10 in Sweeten,J.M.,C.B.Parnell,RS.Etheredge and D. the Atmosphere.Federal Register 52(126):25633- Osborne.1988.Dust Emissions in Cattle Feedlots. 24669. Veterinary Clinics in North America:Food Animal Van Dyne,D.L and C.B.Gilbertson.1978.Estimating Practice,Vo14,No.3,Nov.,pp.557-578. U.S.livestock and Poultry Manure and Nutrient Sweeten,J.M,C.L Barth,RE.Hermanson and T.Lou- production.ESCS-12,Economics,Statistics and Co- don.1979.Lagoon Systems for Swine Waste Treat- operative Services,U.S.Department of Agriculture, ment,PER-62,National Pork Industry Handbook, Washington,DC,150 p. Cooperative Extension Service,Purdue University, Van Geelen,M.A.and KW.Van Der Hoek.1977.Odor West Lafayette,IN,6 p. Control with Biological Air Washers.Agriculture Sweeten,J.M,D.L.Reddell,AIL McFarland,R.O. and Environment,3:217-222. Gauntt and J.E.Sort1.1983.83.Field Measurement of Warburton,D.J.,J.M.Scarbrough,D.L.Day and A.J. Ambient Odors with a Butanol Olfaciometez.Trans. Muehling 1981.Evaluation of Commercial Products ASAE,26:1206-1216. for Odor Control and Solids Reduction of Liquid Sweeten,J.M,RE.Childcs 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,Interna- 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,ILK and D.L.Forster.1'978.A Manual on Evalu- . U.S.EPA.1973.Development Document for Proposed anon 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,Mar 18,1976.p.11460.(See also 40 CFR 17 including Appendix B thereof.) Educational programs conducted by the Texas Agricultural Extension Service serve people of all ages regardless o socioeconomic level,race, color, sex,religion, handicap or national origin. —_--------- Issued in furtherance of Cooperaive Extension Work in Agncutture and Home Economics,Acts of Congress of May 8,1914 as amended,and June 30,1914,in coopera5on with the United States Department of Agriculture.Zerie L Carpenter,Director Texas Agricultural Extension Service,Tne Texas AIM University System. ENG,E&NR 2M-6.91,New IA, 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 trlions. feedlot dusstttcan a lso impairm Ma y. cattleodors hrd. In sufficient concentra- the control of perforance moisture content of the surface manurenat 25 tto 35 and irritate feedlot employees. percent.Dunne do weather. surface manure may contain California research showed that peak dust enera- tion occurs between 7 and b p.m.. which coincides only 7 to oblems.10 pert moisture can be raised causing to thesevere desi able . withm experience ine Texas. This is because tore e- p by an e more active at dusk, when temperature and mallcrrowwding'torlby both. followed byatdailbwwat ani- windy r velocity decrease. 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 SS percent moisture also provides a good environment for fly breeding. Removal of aci excess manure wale'sprinkling especially under fence lines, and other locations m rate c czale stocking Oiling where there is little cattle traffic. • rare Water application Chemical application Chemical application Rates and timing Adjust water application rates Water application is the most effective, economical according to weather conditions, animal size and ao reliable hs of methods dust from fesupplemental nure depth. Recommended initial application rates bema- However, the other methods 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 0.13 eeif three-fourths gs rllday)pr while the aweather per r dday (0.09 to t• manure pack may contain stored dust moisture,control.dry.Thus,Pu , For recently scraped feed pens, one-fourth gallon per i z manure hampers dustcon- square yard per day is recommended. minimizingtrl effectiveness.e maximum accumulation increases h Iinch of e q California research showed that daily watering manure ris A recommended. depth of 1 of loose gave significantly better dust control than alternate manure is 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 Californiaresearch, of waterp to erlytsp feedlot surface.rinkled feedlots vardtGill increaseter rt then dust control which ea generated up properly p humid weather, can impair the animals'ability tool` e a levels 18s times less 'dust thanr untreated body heat b evaporation during the hottest p of lots. Dusttrtm rose more corm nue percent ays. the day. In 'humid climates, apply water treatments er water treatment was discontinued for days. during the early evening hours. This coincides w4it h 'Extension agriculture! engineer — waste management. The the period of heaviest dust activity. Texas AGM University System. Tam Agricultural Extanalon sarvlu•Th.Tema AMA Unlvaral y Syfurn•Daniel C.Plannafal.Dlractor•;allege Station.Texas Equipment The following types of water control: a- Solid set sprinkler systems require a constant r. These systems need to be Irrisystems have been used for feedlot dust control: carefull of engineeredesith respect to sizes and place- Irrigation Equipment ment of pumps, pipes and nozzles. Many system Permanent sprinklers configurations have been used successfully. Water Fence line sprinklers droplet size is related to spray nozzle design and Shade-mounted sprinklers hydraulic pressure. Protected risers (inside pen) High capacit systems(sprinkler irrigation or mobile Portable big gun sprinklers equipment)with large droplet sizes and low pressures Mobile ners ent can be operated less frequently and for short periods. Water tankkers They require fewer spray nozzles, lateral lines and Water trucks risers. However, they are more likely to lead to if designed to provide adequate coverage of the feed- ponding of water on the feedlot surface unless spray pen and proper application rates, these systems are pattern and duration of water application are carefully • • about equal in controlling dust. Pen size and shape controlled. are a major factor in equipment selection. For exam- µ. capacity sprinklers are characterized by high ple, deep pens are difficult to cover kith mobile pressure (50 to 60 pounds per square inch), small • equipment and may require supplemental sprinklers. nozzle size (5i64 inch to ;t 2 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- i shades may require mobile sprinkling from both feed hood of surface ponding,, and can sometimes be and cattle alleys to obtain good coverage Asithout • creating a mud problem under the shades. The shaded area is kept moist by the cattle and should M. receive little or no water. Feed bunks should also be �� _i •• kept free from sprinkling mate:. Permanent sprinkler systems• f� Permanent sprinkler systems (Figure 1) can treat 1I ,�� large sections of a feedlot surface simultaneously. �___ Sprinkler systems require little labor and can be fully 1 -� _a .,.a 4_; automated to apply water at the correct time even' _ day. � `jt+�'tr„� . L' 1 -�m - �.� ,. _ �.�a-c-r-. tom. Major disadvantages ntot permanent sprinklers are ( _t x+�.s high initial cost, frequent maintenance and leper• rya r weather for uniform dis- _, �:• w�;, -? dence on relatively calm . tnbution. Routine inspection of the entire system will �, r ; ns t e 1 ! -:` prevent or minimize poor distribution or ovenvater- �+ac1 • ing. Sprinkler heads placed inside feedpens can ham- "`s-% r -. • '::_, ••= .- ..• per pen cleaning. Sprinkler systems can be damaged s••,.- 'r • -a•- H '°--- -.. _ ��'ate 1 Y' r r. i- •-. from freezing or impact during idle seasons. Perma- � ,- vent sprinkler systems are inflexible because they `_x�V :may;• ,• must be designed. installed and operated for a par- 4 _��y�-.per E M --?.. -cam ,,` •ti titular feedlot confguration. The system may not ,e: ��,-_( ; -} function properly if the feedlot is expanded or the r� l water pumping rate is altered. Vacant pens v•ill re- ceive water. Stationary sprinkler systems installed after may bet is built may expensive. Ifots the osprinkler designed systems automated toot eat largeareas cof thesystems eedlot at can r fully once. prove ineffective initially, they cannot be rendered Uniform t overage is achieved under ideal conditions completely effective, and have little salvage value. of De • feedlot. even corners, can be treated. Dusty trouble spots in a feedyard can be treated heavily without sprinkling the entire lot. Mobile equipment for dust control can be readily adapted to changes in feedlot configuration and for dust control in alleyways. • Major disadvantages of tank trucks include high -±n labor costs. high operating expense. difficulty in gain- �' : / - t ing quick control over dust and the need for backup R equipment. -- ; Mobile units used for feedlot dust control vary ,r-- _ _ ' - rfrom standard two and one-hall ton trucks outfitted to large tankers - � with 4.000 to 5,000 gallon tanks, up g with a 6.000 to 9,000 gallon capacity. The tanker capacity recommended for a particular feedlot can be } ! ems• ` - = estimated from units should be outfitted with 40- to 120- horsepower pumps supplying 500 to 2,000 gallon per minute discharge rate. As many as six nozzles con- , trolled by air valves may be installed. An elevated �tr .— main nozzle with SO• to 140- foot trajecton is re- �.� v : quired, with at least one lower nozzle for uniform distribution within 6 to SO feet of the water tanker or = `=tic truck. A apical custom-built elevated nozzle with .__ rr 3/6-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 dependent Teoratingiefficiency required of tomobile lbad t units unit,s ly el machinery and cattle. to and return from the feedpens being watered. Op- • timum turn-around time for fillup, hauling, water application and dead haul is ].5 minutes per load. In large aeedlotn provide more than one water loadingn operated frequentlyHowever, water distributionout the day to relievens PP heat stress.s water patterns are g adversely affected by high winds. and there is more station.These loading stations can be either overhead (elevated`tanks or earthen ponds. If ponds are used, a evaporation loss from small droimplantedplets. tractor PTO driven, long-shaft. centrifugal pump h sprinkler heads oar be Hid inside the pens 2,000 to 4.000 gallons per minute capacity can be and encased for protection (Figures 1 and 21. They used to load the water tanks or truck. can be mounted on fences in cattle alleys or mounted An elevated filler tank (Figure 3) should have a atop e rates s ands. Nozzleratinpressure d interrelated, did, 000- to 10,000-gallon capacity and be supplied charge and selectedcteno pressureseachpreciseare i application. either witty pond or %yell water at the rate of 1,000 and Small should es 6 r each diameter). closely application.t gallons per minute. A 9- to 12-inch gravity discharge provide nozzles considerableb inch lap. vd spaced mosto pipe at the bottom can fill the truck or tanker at the overlap, willa provide the ra a of 1,000 to 2.000 gallons per minute. uniform distribution pattern available. Mobile equipment Mobile tankers or tank trucks Increasing Cattle Stocking Rate (Figure and less initially than permanent skilled ki sprinkler The quantity of cki added to the feedlot systems and are more versatile. With ' can be surface in the form of fecesmoisture and addd isthe of achievers.Sprayequal or patternser water equipmentuniformity can canc s and urine and controlledbody size. They bechimore al d from mobile fo high animal spacing (area per amount of manure oureeer Brt at d is shong wn 1"_n more easily adjusted to compensate for P winds. Evaporation loss is probably lower. With Table 1. A 1,000 pound properly designed discharge nozzles, all areas of the Average animal spacing.t?md sprinkling or chemical treatment. It could also lower Animal solid waste management costs„ since the manure pack raze �5 1oD 125 150 1�5 would be concentrated over a smaller area and easier (average tos. to collect. However, the California experiments sug- per head) Moisture.inones'gay gest that excessive moisture could eventually result. 400 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.03 002 Research in Arizona indicates that a space alloca- tion 0.8 .06 .05 .0= .03I tion of about 0.1 square feet per pound of live weight .11 .06 .05 800 .13 .00 05 .07 .oa controls dust in moderate weather. On hotter days. 1000 .16 .12 .09 .08 07I the cattle concentrate in shaded areas, reducing the 1200moisture .production in much of the open corral. lade 1. Manure Marsture Proou_tian sr.Came Feealo:s Shade space per head limits animal spacing in hot • weather. Crowding cattle together during hot weath- square feet per head produces about 2b 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 5 or 9 days may make high stocking rates risk', since cattle per- after a heavy rainfall the soil surface is vet. 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, dustwill become problem. The number of d `- •1 ! days until dust problems arise cannot be estimated from available data. In dry weather, dust problems v are often noticed first in pens with light replacement cattle and where the moist manure pack has been removed recently. `~ la mo -- .. Stocking rates in Texas and the Southwest rangers typically from 100 to 150 square fee: per head. Fie- • �— search in California showed that when stocking rates —fir"- were increased to 70 to S0 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 ess this water tanker o k r depends endin upon proper equip- equip- managed conditions, crowding can be a more ece- merit siling.gility and operator skill. nomical method of dust control than either water Pivot) REQUIREDTANKER WATER CRED TA DAILYC WATER IREMENTS LOADS REO(tGCO Gam: FEEDLOT APPLICATION RATE 0U PER DAY AR=A (70l>D GAL.:T)AY1 (ACRES) (GAL..SO.YD) 0 o, J 20 30 27 5 0:25 25 t 0 400 0:5 22 5 350 07 33 I t 0 20 25 2 300 025 35 2.0 :7 5 275 03 2 5 50 225 • 0` e5 30 e 0 15 05 5C t 2 5 200 06 175 07 60 6.G 10 150 70 7.0 9 125 0 t25 BO 10 0 i� 7 f i/ 106 15 t5 20 ��rr'�//a Ss too .� 20 Nit\•••• 30 :25 25 20 �' S t.5 eo 70 .� ��`_� ao .50 •50 32.e� // �� 175 ��i 35 60 55 �`0c ``�y. 273 i�� 60 70 6450 as o - ` 1.0 �� i22' 2 5 e0 .� 250 275 /Jew 35 300 / . 150 2 • 20 �� 350 // 200 7 30 27.5 3 0 2 5 �%`00 / 300 - 25G t 5 25 22 5 5 0 e C 33 /'`' 513 - 350 20 6 0 SGG 55C 600 - SCO : 0 t 7.5 7 0 600 _700 c 0 70G 15 ;GO - 1000 :2 0 CO0 12.5 t50 175 90G 10 2C 0 I COC Figure 4. Nomograph for estimating the optimum size of water tankers or trucks for feedlot dust control. Example Problem ground speed of 5 mph loaded. A 2.000 gallons ) Computing Water tor Dust Controlo and minute gravity loading station will be located at t Tanker Capacity Dust end of the feedlot. Given: A 33.000 head cattle feedlot operating at To determine:Will this tanker provide adequate d almost full capacity is developing a dust problem. control? Cattle spacing is 140 square feet per head. The mana- Solution: (Use Nomograph — Figure 3.1 ger has located a new water tanker vith 6.000 gallon gallons er minute discharge pump and Step 1. Calculate the feedlot surface area: capacity, 800 ga P • 33 000 hd x 140 sg fdhd = 106 acres Feedlot surface area ... 43,560 sq ft/acre Step 2. Draw a straight line between the feedlot area Chemical Application li or of 106 gallons aper squareeyarde per p day. Continuef this dust control lingconstruction and aviation potentialpp for ttle ments,t line over and read 51 the axs 3 000 teallons per day chemicals andd 3,1Vs.L1_9--ke Ili"- have shown ttheir modtiveness in es of action includes These 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 givensorption from the atmosphere improvement tanker capacity of 5,000 gallons. Where this line • Calcium sulfate—water penetration imp intersects the loads per day axis, read 64 loads per • Calcium nitrate and glycerol — moisture absorp- day. tion from the atmosphere Step 4. Estimate the round trip time requirement for The first three chemicals listed need sufficient each load as follows: water to be effective. The fourth is least effective at a. Loading time 6,000 gal _ 2,000 gPm = 4 low humidities, when it is needed ea most..All laare minutes relatively expensive and requirereapplication fter b. Discharge time = 8,000 gal _ S00 gpm = 8 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 productivityraias �_ ;� follows: (6 hrs/day x 50 min!hr) •`_ ••c . � load = 19 loads da`'• Step 6. Compareloads per day needed opera the 19 loads per day achievable at 83 percent • :� :: ting efficient}'. : Answer: No, the 6.000 gallon tanker will not be adequate for peak application rates of 1.0 gallons per day per square yard. It would be q adequate for the maintenance application rate of `',� 0.5 gallons per day per square yard when • operated at 13.5 hours per day(32 loads p r da) 11 during the dust season. or when supplying 60 percent pen surface coverage at the masnte Typical custom-designed Pressure no-=i nance application rate with 6 hours per day. Figure 5. TyP for uniform distribution of water from a mobile tan( er or water truck onto the feedlot surface. • Calcium sulfate reduces nitrogen loss from ma- sampling of the feedlot surface to anticipate re- nure. Calcium nitrate will increase nitrogen content quirements. Restore dust control systems and equip- in manure. Other chemicals. such as calcium chloride a e t tote peak working ain effectiveness en good repair through- Chemicals sea on and waste als, r the resalenovalue manure. PP backup usp u be no longe- Chemicals provided little or no dust control in out the period ofuse. Keep backup equipment availa- Arizona research. In California research, calcium sul- ble. Repair service capabilities fate(gypsum)applied to a feedlot surface at the rate of than two eat smears of feedlot is water 0.36 pounds per square yard showed some potential lotdust controlnts mobile water for dust control. However. the cost was 50 to 60 application. Either permanent percent more than for treatment with water. equipment can be effective. Chemicals near be more effys. re and practical in For most Texas and Southern Great Plains feed- controlling dust from feed alle}'s, roads and loadings 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 it:: with i ewell-planned water loading facilities will be for roadways include waste petroleum oils, coarse The operating cost of dust is gravel and asphalt. A mixture of 240 pounds of cal- not appreciably erati different dust control mobileequipment equipment is permanent sprinklers,erent for but whenr eq ipm is ate nitrate,s 3 gallons e o mendedne and 47 gallonsup . water has also been recommended for this purpose. considered, sprinkler systems cost three times more. Summary Both e th ete methods costt e substantiallych less than calcium su m Dust from cattle feeding operations can be reason- Recommendations ably controlled by conventional methods. These Follow these steps to control feedlot dust: methods require dedicated management, skilled op- I Remove excess manure from the feedlot surface as eratioq and adequate financing. dry weatr The most important steps in dust control are less than°einchesodeep. beep loose manure pad attacking the problem early and maintaining stead}' control. This requires periodic inspection or moisture 2. Plan water distribution system to insure uniform coverage of at least 75 percent of the unshaded pen • area. ce c°.,° •,r,.:rr„0. .P., •c>u*z,•,.i__•__ 3. Apply water to the feedlot rss fare atath the (rate of 09 • y,•a inches per gallon using day mobile or stationary equip- a ment. Begin water treatment before dust actually I reaches the problem stage. Initial applications on a • s dry feedlot surface may require twice this amount until manure moisture levels reach 25 percent. ,° 4. Control dust on roads and alleyways using,coarse gravel, waste oils, chemicals or water. .04 5. To control fly breeding. avoid watering vacant pens or ovenvatering beneath fencelines e or t fee& \ bunks. Correct improper peng wet spots where odors and fly breeding also occur. 6. When necessary and feasible, temporarily de- ° • , • ,• ,• 11 22 2' 2• crease cattle spacings to increase manure mois- ° , �_ with o erating constraints • uvt r°�l°.,,+ �•"'•�“ (D••31 CUfe. :^^,mP 75f71te P o- and animal health considerations. Installation of Figure ion from Typical daily wet" and remoc°soil (OIl by Don portable fences may facilitate animal density ad- ration surface of"tent "dry justment. clay loam). General Guidelines for Design of Sprinkler System for Feedlot Dust Control By John H. Sweeten, Ph.D. , P.E. Extension Agricultural Engineer- . Taste 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 gal/sq yd/day at 60 min/day operating time. For instance, to sprinkle of 25 acre section of the feedlot in 60 min per day, pump output 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 tales.es a Foraere ample, an 8" main line should be used to supply 675 gpm lot 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. nozzles 3. Select riser pipe sizes. Design guards to protect sprinkler 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. Hello