440/1-73/004
   Development Document for Proposed
      Effluent Limitations Guidelines
d New Source Performance Standards for the
             FEEDLOTS
          Point Source Category
                        t>
 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                 AUGUST 1973

-------
                   Publication Notice





     This is a development document for proposed effluent



limitations guidelines and new source performance standards,



As such, this report is subject to changes resulting from



comments received during the period of public comments



of the proposed regulations.  This document in its final



form will be published at the time the regulations for



this industry are promulgated.

-------
              DEVELOPMENT  DOCUMENT

                       for

        EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS  GUIDELINES

                       and

        NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS


         FEEDLOTS POINT  SOURCE CATEGORY

                  John Quarles
              Acting Administrator

                Robert L.  Sansom
Assistant Administrator  for Air &  Water Programs
                  Allen Cywin
     Director, Effluent Guidelines  Division

                Jeffery D. Denit
                Project Officer
                  August  1973
          Effluent Guidelines Division
        Office of Air and Water Programs
      U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
             Washington, D.C. 20460
              Environmental Protection Agency
               *•"  '-

-------
ACEUCY

-------
                                    • ABSTRACT


     This document presents the findings of an extensive study of the feedlot
     industry for the purpose of developing proposed  regulations,  providing
     guidelines for effluent limitations and Federal standards of performance
     for  the industry to implement sections 304 and 306 of the Federal Water
     Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972.

     Feedlots for the following animal types were considered in  this  study;
     beef  cattle,  dairy  cattle, swine, chickens, turkeys, sheep, ducks and
     horses.

     Guidelines are set forth for effluent reduction attainable  through  the
     application  of  the  "Best  Practicable  Control  Technology  Currently
     Available", the "Best Available Technology Economically Achievable"  and
     for  New  Source  Performance  Standards.   The proposed recommendations
     require no discharge of process wastewaters to navigable water bodies by
     1 July 1977 except for precipitation event(s)  in excess of the 10  year,
     24 hour, storm for the location of the point source for all animal types
     except  ducks.   Duck  growing  operations  will  be  required to meet a
     limitation on BOD and bacterial pollutants  using  biological  treatment
--)   (e.g.  2.0  pounds  of  BOD  per 1000 ducks) .   By 1983, the no discharge
 ,j   limitation will apply to  all  animal  types  except  for  precipitation
     event(s)  in  excess  of  the  25  year,  24  hour rainfall.  The latter
     limitation also applies to all new sources.

     Supportive data and rationale for development of the proposed guidelines
;     for effluent limitations are presented.

-------
                                CONTENTS


Section

I CONCLUSIONS                                                  1

II   RECOMMENDATIONS                                           3

III  INTRODUCTION                      ,                        5

     Purpose and Authority                                     5
     Basis for Guidelines Development                          6
     Definition of a Feedlot                                   8
     Beef Cattle                                               9
     Dairy Cattle                                             10
     Swine                                                    12
     Chickens                                                 14
     Sheep                                                    17
     Turkeys                                                  20
     Ducks                                                    22
     Horses                                                   23

IV   INDUSTRY CATEGORIZATION                                  25

     General                                                  25
     Categorization                                           37

V WASTE CHARACTERIZATION                                      51

     Introduction                                             51
     Beef Cattle                                              53
     Dairy Cattle                                             69
     Swine                                                    84
     Chickens                                                 96
     Sheep                                                  104
     Turkeys                                                122
     Ducks                                                  123
     Horses                                                 123

VI   SELECTION OF POLLUTANT PARAMETERS                      131

     Definition of Pollutant                                131
     Solids content and Oxygen Content                      131
     Color and Tubidity                                     134
     Odor and Taste                                         134

VII  CONTROL AND TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY                       135

     General                                                135
     Feedlot Analysis                                       136
     End-of-Process control and Treatment                   142
       Technology Identification
                                  iii

-------
     Land Utilization of Animal Wastes                      143
     Composting                                             156
     Dehydration                                            157
     Conversion to Industrial Products                      163
     Aerobic Production of Single Cell Protein              164
     Aerobic Production of Yeast                            167
     Anaerobic Production of Single Cell
       Protein                                              169
     Feed Recycle Process                                   173
     Oxidation Ditch                                        176
     Activated Sludge                                       181
     Wastelage                                              186
     Anaerobic Production of Fuel Gas                       187
     Reduction with Fly Larvae                              190
     Biochemical Recycle Process                            193
     Conversion to Oil                                      196
     Gasification                                           196
     Pyrolysis                                              200
     Incineration                                           200
     Hydrolysis and Chemical Treatment                      203
     Chemical Extraction                                    206
     Runoff Control                                         150
     Barriered Landscape Water
       Renovation System                                    208
     Lagoons for Waste Treatment                            211
     Evaporation                                            214
     Trickling Filter                                       214
     Spray Runoff                                           217
     Rotating Biological Contactor                          220
     Water Hyacinths                                        221
     Algae                                                  222
VII I COST, ENERGY, AND NON-WATER QUALITY ASPECT             226

     General                                                226
     Cost                                                   226
     Energy and Non-Water Quality Aspect                    251
IX   EFFLUENT REDUCTION ATTAINABLE THROUGH                  256
  THE APPLICATION OF THE BEST PRACTICABLE
  CONTROL TECHNOLOGY CURRENTLY AVAILABE —
  EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES

     Introduction                                           256

     Effluent Attainable Through the                        256
     Application of the Best Practicable
     Control Technology Available

     Identification of the Best Practicable                 257
     Control Technology Currently Available
                                  iv

-------
     Rationale for the selection of the Best                 258
     Practicable Control Technology
     Currently Available

X EFFLUENT REDUCTION ATTAINABLE THROUGH                      262
  THE APPLICATION OF THE BEST AVAILABLE
  TECHNOLOGY ECONOMICALLY ACHIEVABLE --
  EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES

     Introduction                                            262

     Effluent Reduction Attainable Through                   262
     the Application of the Best Available
     Technology Economically Achievable

     Identification of the Best Available                    263
     Technology Economically Achievable

     Rationale for the selection of the                      264
     Best Available Technology Economically
     Achievable

XI   NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STAND                            266
  PRE-TREATMENT STANDARDS

     New Source Performance Standards                        266


XII  ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS                                        268
XIII REFERENCES                                              271

     Statistical Data                                        271
     Land Utilization                                        271
     Composting                                              273
     Dehydration                                             274
     Conversion to Industrial Products                       276
     Aerobic Single Cell Production (SCP)                     276
     Aerobic Yeast Production                                277
     Anaerobic SCP Production                                277
     Feed Recycle                                            277
     Oxidation Ditch                                         278
     Activated Sludge                                        279
     Wastelage                                               280
     Anaerobic Fuel Gas Production                           281
                                 v

-------
     Fly Larvae                                             281
     Biochemical Recycle                                    282
     Conversion to Oil                                      282
     Gasification                                           282
     Pyrolysis                                              283
     Incineration                                           284
     Hydrolysis                                             284
     Chemical Extraction                                    285
     Runoff Control                                         285
     BLWRS                                                  287
     Lagoons                                                287
     Evaporation                                            289
     Trickling Filter                                       289
     Spray Runoff                                           290
     Rotating Biological Contactor                          290
     Water Hyacinths                                        291
     Algae                                                  291
     Regulations                                            291

XIV  GLOSSARY                                               293

     Introduction                                           293
     Terms and Definitions                                  293
                                  va.

-------
                                FIGURES
Number

  1  Typical Beef Feedlot Flow Diagram                        9
  2  Typical Dairy Farm Flow Diagram                         11
  3  Typical Swine Feedlot Flow Diagram                      13
  4  Typical Broiler Feedlot Flow Diagram                    14
  5  Typical Laying Operation Flow Diagram                   16
  6  Typical Lamb Feedlot Flow Diagram                       18
  7  Typical Turkey Feedlot Flow Diagram                     20
  8  Typical Duck Feedlot Flow Diagram                       22
  9  Flow Diagram of Typical Racetrack                       23
 10  Beef Cattle Industry Structure                          39
 11  Dairy Cattle Industry Structure                         40
 12  Swine Industry Structure                                41
 13  Broiler Industry Structure                              42
 14  Layer Industry Structure                                44
 15  Sheep Industry Structure                                45
 16  Turkey Industry Structure                               46
 17  Duck Industry Structure                                 47
 18  Horse Industry Structure                                50
 19  Beef Cattle Industry Waste Identification               54
 20  Beef Cattle Category I Flow Diagram                     55
 21  Beef Cattle Category II Flow Diagram                    65
 22  Dairy Cattle Industry Waste Identification               70
 23  Dairy Cattle Category III Flow Diagram                  71
 24  Dairy Cattle Category IV Flow Diagram                   74
 25  Dairy Cattle Category V Flow Diagram                    76
 26  Swine Industry Waste Identification                     84
 27  Swine Category VI Flow Diagram                          85
 28  Swine Category VII Flow Diagram                         86
 29  Swine Category VIII Flow Diagram                        95
 30  Deleted
 31  Sheep and Lamb Industry Waste Identification            103
 32  Sheep and Lambs Category XII Flow Diagram              105
 33  Sheep and Lambs Category XIII Flow Diagram              121
 34  Turkey Industry Waste Identification                   122
 35  Duck Industry Waste Identification                     124
 36  Composting                                             158
 37  Dehydration                                            160

-------
38  Dehydration - Mass Balance                                     161
39  Aerobic Production of Single Cell Protein                      165
40  Aerobic Production of Yeast                                    168
41  Anaerobic Production of Single Cell Protein                    172
42  Anaerobic Production of single Cell Protein - Mass Balance     174
43  Feed Recycle Process                                           175
44  Oxidation Ditch                                                178
45  Oxidation Ditch - Mass Balance                                 179
46  Activated Sludge                                               183
47  Anaerobic Production of Fuel Gas                               188
48  Conversion of Solid Wastes to Methane                          189
49  Reduction With Fly Larvae                                      192
50  Biochemical Recycle Process                                    194
51  Gasification                                                   198
52  Pyrolysis                                                      201
53  Pyrolysis - Mass Balance                                       202
54  Steam Hydrolysis                                               205
55  Chemical Extraction                                            207
56  Barriered Landscape Water Renovation System                    210
57  Trickling Filter                                               216
58  Spray Runoff                                                   219
59  Algae                                                          224
60  Land Utilization Investment Cost - Solid Manure                229
61  Land Utilization Operating Cost - Solid Manure                 231
62  Liguid Manure - Investment Cost                                232
63  Liquid Manure - Operating Cost                                 233
64  Irrigation Equipment - Investment Cost                         234
65  Irrigation Equipment - Operating Costs                         236
66  Cost of Sewage Treatment Unit Operations                       243
67  Lagoons and Ponds - Investment Cost                            247
68  Lagoons and Ponds - Investment Cost (Detail)                    248
                                Vlll

-------
                                 TABLES
Number

  1  Beef Cattle
  2  Beef Cattle
  3  Beef Cattle
  H  Beef Cattle
  5  Beef Cattle
  6  Beef Cattle
  7  Beef Cattle
  8  Dairy Cattle
  9  Dairy Cattle
 10  Dairy Cattle
 11  Dairy Cattle
 12  Dairy Cattle
 13  Dairy Cattle
 14  Dairy Cattle
 15  Dairy Cattle
 16  Dairy Cattle
 17  Swine
 18  Swine
 19  Swine
 20  Swine
 21  Swine
 22  Swine
 23  Chickens
 24  Sheep
 25  Sheep
 26  Lambs
 27  Lambs
 28  Sheep
 29  Lambs
 30  Sheep & Lambs
 31  Sheep
 32  Lambs
 33  Sheep
 34  Lambs
 35  Turkeys,
      Breeding
 36  Turkeys,
      Growing
 37  Ducks
 38  Horses
 39  End-of-Process
 UO  Energy and Non-
 Fresh and Slotted Floor/Shallow Pit Manure        56
 Biodegraded Manure                                58
 Dirt/Normal Slope Runoff                          59
 Dirt/Steep Slope Runoff                           61
 Paved Lot Runoff                                  63
 Slotted Floor/Deep Pit Manure                     66
 Housed/Solid Floor Manure & Bedding               68
 Stall Barn Milk Room Waste                        72
 Stall Barn Manure and Bedding                     73
 Free Stall Barn Milking Center Waste              77
 Free stall Barn Manure & Bedding                  73
 Free Stall Barn Liquid Storage & Slotted Floor    79
 Free stall Barn Liquid Flush                      80
 Cow Yard Milking Center Waste                     81
 Cow Yard Manure                                   82
 Cow Yard Runoff                                   83
 Solid Floor Waterwashed Waste                     87
 Slotted Floor/Pit Manure                          89
 Oxidation Ditch Mixed Liquor                      91
 Unaerated Lagoon Effluent                         93
 Manure                                            97
 Dirt Lot Runoff                                  100
 Fresh Manure                                     101
 Housed Manure  (Solid)                            107
 Housed Manure  (Liquid)                           108
 Housed Manure  (Solid)                            no
 Housed Manure  (Liquid)                           m
 Partial Confinement Manure                       113
 Partial Confinement Manure                       114
 Open Lot Runoff                                  115
 Partial Confinement Corral Manure                117
 Partial Confinement Corral Manure                ng
 Dirt Lot Manure                                  119
 Dirt Lot Manure                                  120
 Fresh Manure                                     125

 Fresh Manure                                     127

 Wet Lot Waste Water                              129
 Manure and Bedding                               130
Technology Classification                         144
•Water Quality Aspect                              255

-------
                               SECTION I

                              CONCLUSIONS
Among the conclusions derived in the course of this study  is  that  the
animal feedlot industry may be segmented into eighteen subcategories for
the  purposes  of  establishing effluent limitations.  The main criteria
for  categorization  of  the  feedlot  industry  were  animal  type  and
production  process employed.  Secondary criteria were product produced,
prevalence of the production process employed,  and  characteristics  of
waste  produced.   The  factor of raw materials used is mainly concerned
with the feed used by the animals and  its  influence  is  reflected  in
animal  type  and  the  characteristics  of  the waste produced.  Age of
facilities and equipment were found to  have  no  meaningful  effect  on
categorization.    Location   and   climate  greatly  influence  feedlot
management but represent such a diversity as to be an inefficient  basis
for  categorization.   Treatability of the wastes was considered but not
found to have a significant effect on categorization  because  no  known
practical  treatment  system  exists  which  can reduce or alter feedlot
wastes (with the exception of duck feedlot wastes)  to  the  point  where
they can be discharged.

With  the  exception  of  the  duck feedlot subcategories, it is further
concluded that animal feedlot subcategories can achieve a level of waste
control which prevents the discharge of any  wastes  into  waterways  by
July  1,  1977.  The duck industry requires until 1 July 1983 to meet the
no discharge requirement.

There exists a number of promising  refined  waste  management  concepts
such  as  manure  processing  and  reuse  which offer potentially viable
alternatives to land utilization.  These concepts are all  at,  or  past
the level of "breakthrough" and should be pursued to establish practical
applicability.

-------
                               SECTION II

                            FECOMMENDATION S


It  is  recommended  that  no  discharge  of  wastewater  pollutants  to
navigable waterbodies be the effluent limitation effective July 1,  1977
for  existing feedlots for all animal types except ducks:  beef cattele,
dairy  cattle,  swine,  chickens,  turkeys,  sheep,  The  no   discharge
requirement  should  apply  to  all  flushing or washdown waters used to
clean pens barns or other animal confinement facilities, all waters from
continuous overflow watering systems and all rainfall runoff except that
storm event (s) in excess of the 10 year, 24 hour storm as defined by the
U.S. Weather  Bureau,  for  the  location  of  the  point  source.    This
elimination  of  discharge should be achieved by the recycling of wastes
to land for efficient utilization as moisture and nutrients  by  growing
crops.

The  effluent  limitation  for discharges to navigable water bodies from
existing feedlots, for the animal tye ducks, applicable for July 1, 1977
should be less than 0.9 kilograms (two pounds)  of BOD5 per day per  1000.
ducks  being fed and less than the National Technical Advisory Committee
recommended  values  for  total  viable  coliform  counts  in  shellfish
producing  waters.  The resulting coliform limitation for ducks shall be
a median of less than 10 million and a maximum of less than  33  million
counts per day per 1000 ducks being fed..

It  is  recommended  that  no  discharge  of  waste  water pollutants to
navigable waterbodies constitute the effluent limitation for all  animal
types and subcategories thereof effective July 1, 1983, and no discharge
of waste water pollutants constitute the standard of performance for new
ources.    The  no  discharge requirement should apply to all flushing or
washdown waters used to clean pens,  barns or  other  animal  confinement
facilities, all waters from continuous overflow watering systems and all
rainfall  runoff except that storm event (s)  in excess of the 25 year, 2U
hour storm as defined by the U.S. Weather Bureau for the location of the
point source.

-------
                              SECTION III   '

                              INTRODUCTION
                               •

PURPOSE_|WD_ AUTHORITY

On October 18, 1972, the Congress  of  the  United  States  enacted  the
Federal  Water  Pollution  Control  Amendments of 1972.  The Act in part
requires  that  the  Environmental  Protection  Agency   (EPA)  establish
regulations,   providing  guidelines  for  effluent  limitations  to  be
achieved by "point" sources of waste discharge into navigable waters and
tributaries of the United States.

Specifically, Section 301 (b)  of the Act requires the achievement by  not
later  than  July  1,  1977,  of effluent limitations for point sources,
other  than  publicly  owned  treatment  works,   which   requires   the
application   of  the  best  practicable  control  technology  currently
available as defined by the Administrator pursuant to Section 304(b)   of
the Act.  Section 301(b)  also requires the achievement by not later than
July  1,  1983,  of  effluent  limitations for point sources, other than
publicly owned treatment works, which requires the  application  of  the
best  available  technology economically achievable which will result in
reasonable further progress toward the national goal of eliminating  the
discharge   of   all   pollutants,  as  determined  in  accordance  with
regulations issued by the Administrator pursuant to  Section  304(b)   to
the Act.  Section 306 of the Act requires the achievement by new sources
of  a  Federal  standard of performance providing for the control of the
discharge of pollutants which reflects the greatest degree  of  effluent
reduction  which  the  Administrator determined to be achievable through
application of  the  best  available  demonstrated  control  technology,
processes,  operating  methods,  or other alternatives, including,  where
practicable, a standard permitting no discharge of pollutants.

Section 304 (b) of the Act requires the Administrator to publish within 1
year of enactment of  the  Act,  regulations  providing  guidelines  for
effluent  limitations  setting  forth  the  degree of effluent reduction
attainable through the  application  of  the  best  practicable  control
technology  currently  available  and  the  degree of effluent reduction
attainable through the application of  the  best  control  measures  and
practices   achievable   including  treatment  techniques,  process  and
procedure innovations,  operation methods and other  alternatives.   This
study  recommends  effluent  limitations  guidelines pursuant to Section
304 (b)  of the Act for the animal feedlot industry.

Section 306 of the Act requires the Administrator, within 1 year after a
category of sources is included in a list published pursuant to  Section
30 6 (b) (1) (A)   of  the  Act,  to propose regulations establishing Federal
standards of performances for new sources within such  categories.    The

-------
Administrator  published in the Federal Register of January 16, 1973 (38
F.R. 162U), a list of 27 source categories.   Publication  of  the  list
constituted   announcement   of   the   Administrator's   intention   of
establishing, under Section 306, standards of performance applicable  to
new  sources  within  the  listed categories.  This study recommends the
standards of performance applicable to new  sources  within  the  animal
feedlot  industry  which  was included within the list published January
16, 1973.

The guidelines in this document identify in terms of chemical, physical,
and biological characteristics of pollutants,  the  level  of  pollutant
reduction  attainable  through  the  application of the best practicable
control technology currently available, (BPCTCA), and the best available
technology  economically  achievable,  (BATEA).    The  guidelines   also
specify  factors  which must be considered in identifying the technology
levels and in determining the control measures and practices  which  are
to be applicable within given industrial categories or classes.

In  addition  to  technical  factors,  the Act requires that a number of
other factors be considered, such as  the  cost  and  non-water  quality
environmental impacts (including energy requirements)  resulting from the
application of such technologies.

BASIS FOR DEVELOPMENT OF GUIDELINES AND PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

The  feedlot  industry  is  extremely diverse with individual operations
utilizing management techniques which vary due to animal type, size  and
weight,   crops  available,  market  available,   geographical  location,
climate, traditional practices, and management experience and education.
This study has been based upon the available data and the best estimates
and judgements by recognized experts in the feedlot industry field.   To
perform  a  more exact study would require extensive new and/or original
investigative work.  The  results  are  felt  to  properly  reflect  the
present  situation  in the industry and form a basis for the development
of effluent guidelines.

The  effluent  limitations  guidelines  and  standards  of   performance
proposed  herein  were  developed  in  the  following manner.  The point
source category was first studied for the purpose of determining whether
separate  limitations  and  standards  are  appropriate  for   different
segments  within  a  point  source  category.   This analysis included a
determination of whether  differences  in  raw  material  used,  product
produced,   manufacturing   process   employed,   age,   size,  wastewater
constituents, and other factors require development of separate effluent
limitations and standards for different segments  of  the  point  source
category.   The  raw  waste  characteristics  for each segment were then
identified.  This included an analysis of  (1) the source and  volume  of
water  used  in  the  process  employed  and  the  sources  of waste and
wastewaters in the plant; and  (2) the constituents  (including  thermal)

-------
of  all  wastewaters including toxic constituents and other constituents
which result in taste, odor, and color in water  or  aquatic  organisms.
The  constituents  of  wastewaters  which  should be subject to effluent
limitations guidelines and standards of performance were identified.

The full range of control and  treatment  technologies  existing  within
each  category  was  identified.   This  included identification of each
distinct control and treatment technology, including  an  identification
in  terms  of  the  amount  of  constituents  (including thermal) and the
chemical, physical, and biological characteristics of pollutants, of the
effluent level resulting from the application of each of  the  treatment
and  control technologies.  The problems, limitations and reliability of
each treatment and control technology and  the  required  implementation
time   was   also   identified.    In  addition,  the  nonwater  quality
environmental impact, such as the effects of  the  application  of  such
technologies  upon other pollution problems, including air, solid waste,
noise and radiation were also identified.  The  energy  requirements  of
each of the control and treatment technologies was identified as well as
the cost of the application of such technologies.

The  information,  as  outlined  above,  was  then evaluated in order to
determine what levels of technology constituted  the  "best  practicable
control  technology  currently  available",  "best  available technology
economically achievable" and the "best demonstrated control  technology,
processes,  operating  methods,  or  other alternatives." In identifying
such technologies, various factors were considered.  These included  the
total  cost  of  application  of  technology in relation to the effluent
reduction benefits to be achieved from  such  application,  the  age  of
equipment and facilities involved, the process employed, the engineering
aspects  of  the  application  of  various  types  of control techniques
process changes, nonwater quality environmental impact  (including energy
requirements)  and other factors.

The data and recommended effluent guidelines within this  document  were
developed  based  upon  review  and  evaluation of available literature,
consultation with recognized experts  in  specific  animal  fields,  and
visits to 91 exemplary feedlots in 17 major "feedlot" states.

Eight  animal  types  were  included  in  the  study; beef cattle, dairy
cattle,  swine,   chickens,   sheep,   turkeys,   ducks,   and   horses.
Specifically   excluded  from  the  purview  of  the  report  are  those
facilities used to raise pets (dogs, cats, small animals),  small  game,
and wild game.

Five  consultants and a technical contractor (cited in Section XII)  were
employed to provide the most current and accurate data for these  animal
types.   The  consultants  were chosen based upon their long established
interest, expertise and current participation in  the  field  of  animal

-------
waste  management,  as  well  as their recognition by Government and the,
agricultural industry as experts in their field.

No consultant was utilized for  horses  due  to  the  diversity  of  the
industry  and  the  lack  of  scientific  attention horses have received
relative to the other animals.  The consultants provided overall  animal
industry  statistics  and specific information on production methods and
types of wastes and waste treatment systems prevalent.   The  contractor
provided  similar  data for horses based on literature searches and con-
versations with individuals in the industry.

DEPiNlTlON_gF_A_]FEEDLOT  (See FIGURES 1A and IB)

In accordance with the Federal Water  Pollution  Control  Amendments  of
1972,  animal  feedlots are defined as "point sources" of pollution.  It
is  necessary,  therefore,  to  distinguish  between  animals  grown  in
feedlots  and those grown in nonfeedlot situations.  For the purposes of
this document, the term  feedlot  is  defined  by  the  following  three
conditions:

1.   A high concentration of animals held in a small area for periods of
time in conjunction with one of the following purposes:

a.  Production of meat
b.  Production of milk
c.  Production of eggs
d.  Production of breeding stock
e.  Stabling of horses

2.  The transportation .of feeds to the animals for consumption.

3.  By virtue of the confinement of animals or poultry, the land or area
will neither sustain vegetation nor be available for crop production.

These criteria must be met by a facility in order to be classified as  a
feedlot.   Facilities which meet the first condition invariably meet all
conditions also.  However, pasture and range operations do not meet  the
first  condition  but  on  occasion  do  meet  the second condition.  In
pasture and range situations, the animals are at such a low  density  in
terms  of  numbers  of  animals  per acre that the growth of grasses and
other plants is not inhibited.  In these cases the animals  receive  the
major  portion  of their sustenance from these plants and in turn return
nutrients to the soil in the form of  wastes.   These  wastes  are  then
assimilated  by  the  plants  in  a  natural recycle system.  Under pure
pasture or range conditions  no  pollutional  source  is  ever  reliably
identifiable.   In  some  instances supplementary feed may be brought to
the animals  (usually in the winter) but this level of feeding  does  not
introduce  a  situation  wherein the ability of the natural ecosystem to
absorb the animal wastes is exceeded.

-------
                                                                 o

                                                                 Q
                                                                 CQ



                                                                 LU
                                                                 Q_

                                                                 O


                                                                 O
                                                                 I—H


                                                                 00
                                                                 I—(

                                                                 a:
                                                                 DC
                                                                 O
                                                                 o
                                                                 \—
                                                                 LLJ






                                                                 ca-
                                                                 r—i

                                                                 LU
                                                                 C£.
8a

-------
                                                     uj o o
                                                     a: «C _i
                                                     ID a: a
                                                     C9 cC UJ
                                                     1-1 m LU
                                                     a. c_3 u-
8b

-------
 There are animal management schemes where the animals are on  the  range
 or   pasture for part of their growth cycle and in a feedlot, or confined
 area,  the remainder of the time.   Under  these  circumstances  only  the
 wastes from the feedlot were considered as being subject to the effluent
 limitations  defined in Sections  IX, X and XI.   Where management schemes
 bordered  on being a pasture or range situation,  only the higher  density
 type  operations were  addressed  as  being  subject  to  the technical
 analyses  and conclusions developed herein.
The following paragraphs  provide  a  general  description
industry,  including the range/feedlot  relationships.

BEEF CATTLE
                          of   each   animal
The production and early growth of beef calves  is accomplished  on  range.
As  of  January  1973  there were approximately 101 million head of beef
cattle in the United States.  Of this number only 1U million  head were
in  feedlots.   The rest of the animals which include bulls, brood cows,
and calves were on range.  Figure 1 shows a generalized flow diagram  of
a  beef cattle feedlot operation which may be operated as either an open
or housed confinement  facility.   The  feed  usually  contains  a  high
proportion  of  cereal  grains such as corn, barley and milo and protein
supplements such as soybean meal with 5% to 20%  roughage such as   silage
or alfalfa to promote proper digestion.

The exact proportion of each constituent depends on a number of factors,
including  the availability and cost of each constituent and the weight,
grade, and sex  of  the  animal.   On  large  feedlots,  the  ration  is
programmed  by  computer  based  on  these  factors,  and then mixed and
brought to the cattle by a variety of mechanical means.
    270 kg Calves —
    (600 Ib) Calves
    Water •• • -   -      • •    i
    38 - 114 liter/head/day
    10 - 30 gallons/head/day
    Feed	
    7.7 - 10.4 kg/head/day
    (17 - 23 Ib /head/day
                               BEEF FEEDLOT
Time in Feedlot
130 - 180 Days
                      477 kg
                      (1050 Ib)
                      •Market
                      Animals
                               Average Raw Waste
                               22 kgAead/day
                               (48 Ib/head/day)
                  TYPICAL BEEF FEEDLOT FLOW DIAGRAM
                              FIGURE 1

-------
When calves on range  reach  a  weight  of  160-275  kilograms  (350-600
pounds)   they  are  sold to feedlots as "feeder" calves.  The calves are
fed highly concentrated feeds for a period of 130 to 180 days until they
reach a weight of 450 to 550 kilograms (1000 to 1200 pounds).   At  this
point  they  are slaughtered.  On occasion calves are grown on a feedlot
to only about 365 kilograms  (800  pounds)   and  then  transferred  to  a
"finishing" lot where they complete their growth.

The  type  of feed provided to cattle in feedlots consists of 5.0 to 20%
roughage with  the  remainder  being  concentrated  grains  and  protein
supplements.  A total of about 7 to 9 kilograms of feed are required for
every  kilogram  of  grain  on  the  animal.   Approximately  45 billion
kilograms  (100 billion pounds) of feed were consumed by  feedlot  cattle
in  1972.   A total of about 27 million cattle  (approximately 12 billion
kilograms ±27 billion pounds 1) were marketed for slaughter  by  feedlots
in 1972 with an approximate gross income of 10 billion dollars.

The  vast majority of cattle feedlots are open dirt lots and are located
mainly in the West Central and Southwest  parts  of  the  country.   The
small percentage of lots which are housed facilities are in the Midwest.
The  ten  leading  states  in  feedlot  cattle  production (1972)  are as
follows:
State                    Cattle_Marketed

Texas                     4,308,000
Nebraska                  3,990,000
Iowa                      3,896,000
Kansas                    2,405,000
Colorado                  2,291,000
California                2,062,000
Illinois                  1,003,000
Minnesota                   935,000
Arizona                     899,000
Oklahoma                    626,000


DAIRY CATTLE

Milk cows, replacement heifers and dairy breeding stock total  about  16
million head in the United States.  Of this number 11.5 million are milk
cows,  which are the only dairy cattle partially or completely fed under
feedlot conditions.  The rest of the dairy cattle are  on  pasture.   At
the  age  of  about  two  years heifers are bred and after the birth are
started as milk cows.  From that point on they are bred once  each  year
so  milking  can  be continued.  When they are no longer acceptable milk
cows they are sold as utility or commercial grade beef.  Eighty-five  to
ninety-five  percent  of all the milk cows in this country are Holsteins
and weigh about 590 to 635 kilograms  (1300 to 1400 pounds).  Their  diet
consists  of  35 to 40% concentrate ration and 60 to 65% roughage, which
                                  10

-------
may be supplied by  pasture.   Total   daily   consumption  is  16   to  25
kilograms  (35 to 55 pounds) of feed per cow.  Water  consumption is 57 to
95 liters  (15 to 25 gallons) per cow per  day.   Total feed consumption by
all  milk  cows is 71 billion kilograms  (157  billion pounds)  of feed per
year.  Of this, an undetermined amount comes  from pasture.   Figure 2  is
a  flow  diagram showing input and output parameters of  a typical dairy.
The water input is shown is for drinking   and  washing.    In  operations
that  use  water  to  flush  manure  from the   facility,   this value is
approximately 132 to 473 liters  (35 to 125 gallons)   per  cow  per  day.
Dairy  cattle  are  fed  some  cereal  grains  and protein supplements, but
roughage provides 60% to 65% of the diet.  In some cases,  the cattle are
allowed to graze on pasture, and depending on the guality  and type  of
pasture, the diet may be supplemented  as  necessary.
                                            -Milk
                                             9-25 kg/cow/day
                                             (20-55 Ib/cow/day)

16-25 kg/cow/day
(35-55 Ib/cow/day)
Water — ' ' ' *«L
64-322 lit/cow/day
(17-85 gal/cow/day)
0— "3 leer /CTMI /c\a\7
(0-7 Ib/cow/day)

DAIRY


1





                                            ••Calves for replace-
                                             ment or sale as
                                             beef animals
                                             1 per cow per year
                           • Average Raw Waste, 41 - 54 kg/cow/day
                                            (90 - 120 Ib/cow/day)


                    TYPICAL DAIRY FARM FLOW DIAGRAM

                               FIGURE 2
In  1972  the average production per milk cow was 4663 kilograms  (10,271
pounds) of milk and 172 kilograms  (377 pounds) of  milkfat.   Total   for
the  dairy  industry  was  54,  606  million  kilograms  (120,278 million
pounds) of milk and 2,006 million kilograms  (4,420  million   pounds)   of
milkfat,  for  a  per  capita  consumption  of  milk  and milkfat  of  270
killograms (595 pounds) per year.  Gross farm income from diary products
in 1972 was 7.3 billion dollars.  The ten leading milk production  states
in 1972 were:
                                  11

-------
                           Millions of
                        Pounds of Milk      Gross Income
                       Plus_MLlk_Fat	   (Millions of Dollars)

1.  Wisconsin              20,370             1,070
2.  California             10,803               611
3.  New York               10,560               645
4.  Minnesota               9,925               186
5.  Pennsylvania            7,293               482
6.  Michigan                5,098               299
7.  Ohio                    4,708               284
8.  Iowa                    4,671               236
9.  Texas                   3,502               243
10. Missouri                3,135               169


The distribution of dairies throughout the country follows  .closely  the
population  distribution.   The  major  influence is the distance from a
market.  Generally market distance is  less  than  480  kilometers  (300
miles)   for  fluid  milk  and  less  than 160 kilometers  (100 miles)  for
cheese plants.  Climate and land values are probably the most  important
factor in determining the type of facility used.  Cowyard facilities are
almost  exclusively  located  in the Southern half of the country.  Free
stall barns are mainly used in the North with only a small percentage in
the South.  Stall barns are  almost  exclusively  found  in  the  North.
Pasturing of milk cows is more generally seasonal in the North.

SWINE

Nearly all swine are born and raised under feedlot conditions.   The June
1,  1972  swine  inventory was approximately 62 million.  Of this figure
about 15% are breeding animals and 85% are market animals.  Market  hogs
reach  a  weight of about 100 kilograms (220 pounds) prior to slaughter;
this takes about 23 to 25 weeks.  Feed for an average 45  kilogram  (100
pound)   hog  is approximately 23 kilograms (5 pounds) per day.   The feed
includes little or no roughage and consists mainly of  grains,   minerals
and  protein supplements.  Hogs reguire from 3-4 kilograms of feed per
every kilogram of grain.  Total feed consumption for market hogs in 1972
was about 36.9 billion kilograms.  Figure 3 shows typical input - output
relationships for a swine feedlot.
                                  12

-------
A total of 91.5  million  hogs  were  marketed   for  slaughter  in  1972
providing  an  industry  gross  income  of  5.5  billion dollars.   The ten
leading 1972 hog producing states are:
State

1.  Iowa
2.  Illinois
3.  Indiana
4.  Missouri
5.  Minnesota
6.  Nebraska
7.  Ohio
8.  Kansas
9.  Wisconsin
10. South Dakota
                        Hogs Marketed
20,795
10,908
 7,201
 6,984
 5,374
 5,199
 3,889
 3,240
 3,096
 2,905
   Gross Income
.{Mil 1 ions _of _Dol 1 a r s]_

     1,270
       688
       468
       405
       319
       322
       226
       200
       163
       176
     Food-
     2.2  kg/hog/day

     (5  Ib/hog/day)
     Feeder Pigs (55 Ib)
     Water	
     4-23 lit/hog/day
     (1-6 gal/hog/day)
    SWINE  FEEDLOT
   Time  In  Feedlot:
    23  -  25 Weeks
           -»*100  kg hogs to
             slaughter
             (220 Ib hogs to
             slaughter)
                                    1
                            Average Raw Waste, 3-4 kgAog/day
                                             (7-8 Ibs/hog/day)
                  TYPICAL SWINE FEEDLOT FLOW DIAGRAM
                               FIGURE 3
Solid concrete floor and slotted floor  swine  feedlots are becoming  more
prevalent  in  states  with  severe winters,  however,  open dirt lots are
still the most common type of swine facility.   The  number  of  hogs  per
acre on dirt lots is sometimes low enough  to  provide a pasture situation
                                   13

-------
where  the wastes are absorbed naturally by the pasture.  These cases do
not represent feedlot conditions as previously defined.  Depending on  a
variety  of conditions the allowable animal density for pasture can be a
maximum of about 75  (30) hogs  per  hectare   (acre) .   Since  the  exact
number of hogs raised under pasture conditions cannot be determined, the
industry categorization in Section IV treats the swine industry as being
completely  operated on a feedlot basis.  However, if a particular swine
facility is able to operate under pasture or range conditions, it should
not be subject to the feedlot effluent limitations outlined in  Sections
IX, X and XI.

CHICKENS

The  chicken  industry is comprised of two distinct types of operations;
production of meat by the slaughter of broilers, and the  production  of
eggs by laying hens.

Broilers

Figure H is a flow diagram of a typical broiler growing operation.
     Chicks
     Litter-
     0.45 kg/bird
     (1 Ib/bird)
     Feed	
     0.064 kg/bird/day avg.
     0.14 Ib/bird/day avg.
     Water	
     0.129 kg/bird/day avg.
     0.285 Ib/bird/day avg.
BROILER FEEDLOT


Time in Feedlot:

6-8 Weeks
1.8 kg broilers
to slaughter
                                                        4 Ib broilers
                                                        to slaughter
                                 T
                          Average Raw Waste, 0.054 kg/bird/day
                                          (0.12 Ib/bird/day)
                 TYPICAL BROILER FEEDLOT FLOW DIAGRAM
                               FIGURE 4

-------
All broilers are hatched and raised under feedlot conditions.  There are
approximately  468,000,000  broilers  in  feedlots  at  present of which
25,000,000 are breeding stock.  At the time of slaughter, a broiler is 6
to 8 weeks old and weighs approximately 1.70  kilograms   (3.75  pounds).
Over this period of time feed con-sumption is 3.86 kilograms  (8.5 pounds)
per bird, for a feed

consumption  per  kilogram  of gain of approximately 2.3 kilograms.  The
feed consists  of  grains,  minerals  and  protein  supplements.   Total
consumption  of  feed  by  growing broilers in 1972 is estimated to have
been 12 billion kilograms (27 billion pounds).
                 •
Broiler production in 1972 was 3.1 billion birds, which  represents  5.2
billion  kilograms  (11.5  billion pounds).  Total gross income was 1.62
billion dollars.  The ten leading broiler producing states in 1972 were:

                          Production         Gross Income
State                    	    .(Thousands of Dollars)^

1.  Arkansas               532,135           255,159
2.  Georgia                442,937           214,692
3.  Alabama                399,274           188,298
4.  North Carolina         301,772           163,591
5.  Mississippi            256,264           125,159
6.  Texas                  178,511            93,790
7.  Maryland               177,247           108,528
8.  Delaware               131,873            80,746
9.  California              86,022            63,226
10. Virginia                77,238            41,987


Broilers are produced almost exclusively in floor litter houses.  As can
be seen from the above listing, the major  production  area  is  in  the
Southern states.

Layerg

•Like  broilers,  laying  hens  spend their entire life in feedlots.  The
present population of layers is 478,000,000.  Beginning  egg  production
at  approximately  six  months of age, laying hens produce for about one
year at which time they are slaughtered, usually for use in soup.   Feed
for  laying  hens  consists of grains, minerals and protein supplements.
Total feed con-sumption per bird is about 43 kilograms (95 pounds )  over
its  18 month life span.  During this time the hen will produce about 18
dozen eggs.  Feed consumption  per  dozen  eggs  on  a  gross  basis  is
approximately 2.4 kilograms (5.3 pounds) .   On the basis of only the feed
received  during  the  laying period, this number drops to 1.9 kilograms
(4.3 pounds).  Total feed consumed by laying hens in 1972  is  estimated
                                  15

-------
to  be  13.6  billion kilograms  (30 billion pounds).   Figure  5  is  a flow
diagram for a typical egg laying operation.
     Food	
     0.095 kg.hen/day
     0.21 Ib/hen/day
     Water	
     0.168-0.193 kg/hen/day
     0.37-0.425 Ib/hen/day
     Litter	
     0.00032 kg/hen/day
     0.000?   Ib/hen/day
LAYER HOUSE
                  •Eggs
                  0.585 eggs/hen/day
                                  I
                          Average Raw Waste, 0.18 kg/hen/day
                                           0.4 Ib/hen/day
                 TYPICAL LAYING OPERATION FLOW DIAGRAM
                               FIGURE 5
                                   16

-------
Total egg production in 1972 was approximately 70 billion, for  a  gross
income  of  1.80  billion  dollars.   The  ten  leading  states  in  egg
production for 1972 were:
                           Number of Eggs      Gross Income
                           	IMillions)	      	-(Millions).
1.  California
2.  Georgia
3.  Arkansas
4.  Pennsylvania
5.  North Carolina
6.  Indiana
7.  Alabama
8.  Florida
9.  Texas
10. Minnesota
8,652
5,465
3,795
3,599
3,433
3,036
2,852
2,840
2,685
2,584
203.
160,
114.
 91.
 98.
 73.
 81.
 58.
 75.
 44.
Distribution of egg production across the nation  follows  somewhat  the
population distribution.  Regional shares of production for 1971 were as
follows:
5§2i°JQ                   Percent of Production
North Atlantic
East North Central
West North Central
South Atlantic
South Central
Mountain
Pacific
 14
 14
 14
 21
 20
  2
_1L
100
Although  there are several different methods for confinement housing of
laying hens, in different areas of the country, there is no evidence  of
a  preference  for particular systems.  Worthy of note, however, is that
about one hundred large  layer  operations  exist  which  employ  licruid
manure  handling  systems  -  and a trend toward this type of system may
become established.

SHEEP

The great  majority  of  sheep  and  lambs  in  the  United  States  are
maintained on pasture or range land.  Of those which are associated with
feedlot  operations, only a portion are maintained in feedlots on a full
time basis.  A significant number of sheep and lambs are  maintained  on
pasture  part of the time and in feedlots the remainder.  As with swine,
                                  17

-------
only the effluents  from  the  feedlot
limitations of sections IX, X, and XI.
situation  are  subject  to  the
The  total  population  of  sheep  in the country on January 1, 1973 was
17,726,000 head.  The January 1 date is used because it is the  time  of
the highest population of feedlots.  In the summer months, the number of
sheep  and  lambs  in  feedlots  is  very low.  Of the total number only
4,214,000 are in feedlots.  Of this number  2,066,000  are  in  feedlots
which  do not use supplemental pasture.  The remaining 2,148,000 utilize
supplemental pasture on the average of 50% of the time.  Figure 6  is  a
flow diagram for a typical sheep feedlot.
Feedlot lambs are generally born and raised to a weaning weight of  30 to
40  kilograms   (65  to 90 pounds) on range or pasture.  The remainder of
growth to about 45 to  60  kilograms   (100  to  130  pounds)   (slaughter
weight)  is accomplished in the feedlot.  An average lamb receives  about
1.7 kilograms (3.8 pounds) of feed per day.  The feed  consists  of 85%
concentrate  ration  and 15% roughage.  Feed conversion efficiency  for  a
lamb is about 5 to 7 kilograms of feed per kilogram of grain.
     Lambs	
     30 - 41 kg
     (65-90 Ibs)
     Feed	
     1.8 - 2.3 kg/hd/day
     (4-5 Ib/hd/day)
     Bedding	<
     Approx. 0.45 kg/hd/da}>
     Approx. (1 Ib/hd/day)
LAMB FEEDLOT


Time in Feedlot

40 - 150 Days
           •Lambs to slaughter
            45 - 59 kg
           (100 - 130 lb.)
                           Average Raw Waste, 3.3 kg/hd/day
                                           (7.2 Ib/hd/day)
                   TYPICAL LAMB FEEDLOT FLOW DIAGRAM
                               FIGURE 6
                                   18

-------
In 1972, 630 million kilograms  (1.1 billion pounds) of sheep  and  lambs
were  marketed.   Of  this total number, it is not known what percentage
was from feedlots.  Gross income  was  358  million  dollars.   The  ten
leading sheep producing states were:

                            Pounds           Gross
                           Marketed         Income
State                     	      IMilligns).

1.  Texas                    207              51
2.  Colorado                 201              57
3.  Wyoming                   96              19
1.  California                89              21
5.  South Dakota              81              22
6.  Iowa                      75              20
7.  Idaho                     71              19
8.  Utah                      65              17
9.  Montana                   51              12
10. Ohio                      15              12
                                  19

-------
The distribution of feedlot operation throughout the country is somewhat
vague; however, Texas and Colorado are the most important feedlot states
followed  next by Wyoming, Nebraska and Minnesota.  Note that not all of
these  states  fall  in  the  top  ten  production  lists.   This  again
emphasizes that many lambs are raised under non-feedlot conditions.

TURKEYS

Essentially  all  turkeys  are  bred  and  raised in feedlots.  The  only
exception if that some open facilities operate at such a low density of
birds per hectare that vegetative cover can be maintained.  This amounts
to  pasture  or range conditions and does not fall under the limitations
of sections IX, X and XI.  In the turkey  industry  the  term  range is
generally  used  to designate any open facility regardless of whether or
not it is a true range operation as defined by  this  report.   In   most
cases what is called "range" is actually a feedlot for reasons discussed
previously.
     Turkey chicks
     Feed •	
     0.18-0.23 kg/bird/day
     (0.4-0.5 Ib/bird/day)
     Water 	
     0.36-0.45 kg/bird/day
     (0.8-1.0 Ib/bird/day)
     Litter *_
     (no data)
TURKEY FEEDLOT

(Heavy Breed)

Time in Feedlot
20-24 Weeks
                                                     •Turkeys to slaughter
8.2 kg hens
(18 Ib hens)
13.6 kg toms
(30 Ib toms)
                           Average Raw Waste, 0.45 kg/bird/day
                                           (1 Ib/bird/dayX
     *  For Housed Feedlots Only
                  TYPICAL TURKEY FEEDLOT FLOW DIAGRAM
                               FIGURE 7
                                   20

-------
The   summer   population   (time  of  maximum  number   due   to   seasonal
operations)  of  turkeys  in  the  United   States   is   estimated  to  be
90,200,000  birds.  The turkeys are fed a ration of grains,  minerals and
protein supplements.  Slaughter weights and ages are:
Hen
Tom
Heavy Breed

Weight
kg (lb)

8.2 (18)
11 (24)
                                          Light Breed
                                           (10% of total  turkeys)
Age  (Weeks)

20
24
                                          Weight
                                          kg  (lb)
4.5
8.2
(10)
(18)
Age (Weeks)

20
24
Total turkey production in 1971  was  120,085,000  birds.   Live   weight
slaughtered was 1.02 billion kilograms  (2.26 billion pounds)  for  a gross
income  of  500  million  dollars.   The top ten turkey  producing states
were:
                                  21

-------
                          Pounds
                         Produced
state

1.  California
2.  Minnesota
3.  North Carolina
4.  Texas
5.  Missouri
6.  Arkansas
7.  Iowa
8.  Utah
9.  Virginia
10. Indiana
321
308
183
173
170
155
131
 92
 92
 84
  Gross
 Income
^Millions}.

   70
   66
   42
   36
   36
   36
   27
   20
   20
   20
Favorable climatic conditions favor the use  of  open   feedlots   in  the
Southern states.  Housed facilities are more prevalent  in  the  North.

DUCKS

The  total present domestic duck inventory is approximately  1.86  million
ducks.  The ducks are hatched and raised to a slaughter weight of  about
3  kilograms  (7  pounds)  in  7  weeks.   The  feed consists  of  grains,
minerals and protein supplements.  Feeding efficiency of ducks is  about
2.5  to 3.5 kilograms of feed per kilogram of gain.  Total feed consumed
by the duck industry in 1972 was  approximately  124  million  kilograms
(273 million pounds).  Figure 8 is a typical duck feedlot  flow diagram.
     Chicks	i
     Feed	
     0.19 kg/duck/day avg.
     (0.41 Ib/duck/day avg.)
     Litter	
     (no data)
       DUCK FEEDLOT

       Time in Feedlot


       7 Weeks
     Water	1
     Wet Lot:   38 - 132 lit/duck/day
               (10 - 35 gal/duck/day)
     Dry Lot:   Up to 15 lit/duck/day
               (Up to 4 gal/duck/day)
               3.2 kg Ducks
               to slaughter
               (7 Ib Ducks
               to slaughter)
                        Average Raw Waste, 0. 043 kg/duck/day
                                        (0. 094 Ib/duck/day^

                   TYPICAL DUCK FEEDLOT FLOW DIAGRAM

                               FIGURE 8
                                   22

-------
A total of about 13 million ducks are produced  in this
country each year with the largest concentration on Long  Island, New York.
For 1969, the top ten states for duck production were as  follows:
State

1.  New York
2.  Indiana
3.  Wisconsin
4.  California
5.  Illinois
6.  Virginia
7.  Ohio
8.  Missouri
9.  New Jersey
10. Pennsylvania
Number Produced  (Thousands)

       6,099
       2,989
       1,187
         766
         646
         456
         382
         310
         257
          87
Wet  lot  duck  operations  represent  80%  of  all  feedlots  and  is  the
predominant method of production in the East.  The remaining  20% are  dry
lots which predominate in the Midwest. Forty-five percent of   all   ducks
produced are raised on Eastern Long Island.

HORSES

  There  are  a  total of approximately 7.5 million horses  in  the  United
States, comprised of pleasure,  farm  and  track  horses.    Except  for
special  circumstances  such  as  resort   ("dude")  ranches in the West,
available data shows that pleasure and farm horses do not exist in large
groups in close confinement.  On the average there is usually  a  minimum
of  0.4 hectare  (one acre) grazing area available for each  horse and  the
actual time held in stalls or barns is not significant.

Figure 9 is a flow diagram for a typical horse stable facility.

    Feed	•
     9.1  -  13.6  kg/horse/day
     (20  -  30  Ib/horse/day)
    Water	•
    30-40  lit/horse/day
     (8-10  gal/horse/day)
    Bedding	^
    22/7 kg/  horse/day  avg.
     (50 Ib/horse/day  avg.)
                                     STABLE
                                  T
                               Average Raw Waste, 15. 0 - 22. 7 kg/horse/day
                                               (33 - 50 Ib/horse/day)
                   FLOW DIAGRAM OF TYPICAL RACETRACK
                               FIGURE 9
                                  23

-------
Horses housed in stables at racetracks represent an important segment of
the industry category of horses which is considered  as  a  feedlot.   A
total  of about 275,000 horses are currently housed at various racetrack
operations around the country.  Racing horses  consume  about  9  to  11
kilograms (20 to 25 pounds) of feed per day.  When a horse is not racing
this may drop to half this value.

The  three  major  types  of  horse racing are thoroughbred, harness and
quarter horse.  Tracks of  these  types  and  many  others  are  located
throughout  the  country.   Including  pleasure  and  farm  horses,  the
following states have the greatest horse population:

1.  Texas
2.  California
3.  Oklahoma
U.  Colorado
5.  Maryland

-------
                               SECTION IV

                        INDUSTRY CATEGORIZATION


GENERAL

The feedlot industry is most logically treated a a   function   of   animal
type.   For . this  study,  the  following  animals   were included:   beef
cattle, dairy cattle, swiner chickens, sheep, turkeys, ducks and horses.
This section details a description of the process  of  growing each  of
these  types of animals and the factors utilized in  further categorizing
each animal type, arid identifies the final industry  categorization   for
purposes of effluent limitations.

The  subcategories  derived  as  a  result of the analyses given in  this
Section are as follows:

(1)  Beet cattle, open lot
(2)  Beef cattle, housed lot
(3)  Dairy, stall barn
(4)  Dairy, free stall barn
(5)  Dairy, cowyard
(6)  Swine, open dirt or pasture
(7)  Swine, slotted floor houses
(8)  Swine, solid concrete floor
(9)  Chickens, broilers
(10) Chickens, layers
(11) Chickens, layer breed and replacement
(12) Sheep, open lot
(13) sheep, housed lot
(14) Turkeys, open lot
(15) Turkeys, housed lot
(16) Ducks, wet lot
(17) Ducks, dry lot
(18) Horses, stables

In addition to  the  general  description  discussion  in  Section   III,
additional  details  regarding  the  production methods specific to  each
subcategory are presented below, followed by  a  discussion  of  factors
used in arriving at the subcategorization.

Beef Cattle

Op,en	Lot  - An open lot is one which cattle are either entirely exposed
to the outside environment or in which a relatively  small portion of  the
feedlot offers some protection.  The limited protection afforded may   be
in  the  form  of  windbreaks, shed-type buildings with roofs  and one to
three sides enclosed, roofs only,  or some type  of   lattice-work  shade.
                                  25

-------
The  floor of the open feedlot may be of dirt, with a flat slope of up to
3%, moderate of 3% to 8% or a steep slope in excess of 8% or  may  be  a
paved  surface.   Cattle  in  open  feedlots are generally maintained at
densities of one animal per 6.5 to 27.9 square meters (70 to UOO  square
feet) ,  if the lot is unpaved, and less than a density of one animal per
6.4 square meters (90 square feet) if it is paved.

Just under 96% of the IH million head are fed in open lots  and  93%  of
the total are on open dirt lots with flat to moderate slopes.  Nearly 3%
are on dirt lots with steep slope; the number of paved lots is less than
1.0%.  For all of these facilities any waste water discharge that occurs
is  caused by rainfall with some contribution from watering systems such
as overflow waters.
32H§§d ~ A housed facility is a building in which cattle are kept  under
a roof at all times.  Buildings may have sides which are either entirely
open  or completely enclosed, may be equipped with a solid dirt floor or
concrete, or may have slotted floors.  Solid  floor  facilities  utilize
bedding  material  to  absorb the moisture of the excreted wastes and to
maintian these wastes in a solid  or  semi-solid  form.   Slotted  floor
facilities  utilize  either  a  shallow pit beneath the floor with daily
waste removal or deep  pits  for  waste  storage.   They  are  generally
stocked  with  cattle  at a density of less than about 2.8 square meters
(30 square feet) per animal.

Housed operations comprise just over H% of  the  total  production  with
slightly  under  2% being slotted floor and slightly over 2% being solid
floor operations.  Of the slotted floor operation, the deep pit facility
is predominant.
The inventory of milk cows and  replacement  heifers  on  farms,  as  of
January  1,  1971,  totaled 16 million head.  The 11.5 million milk cows
are kept in three major types of production  systems  -stall  barn  with
milk  room,  free  stall  barn  with  milking  center, and cow yard with
milking center.

Stall_Barn_With_Milk_Room .- Just under 60% of the dairy industry  is  on
farms  consisting  of  stall  barns  with  a  milk room.  This method of
production is predominant in the Northeastern and Northcentral  portions
of  the  country.   Milk cows and replacements are restrained to a fixed
location where they  are  fed  and  cows  are  milked.   The  barns  are
generally  insulated  and  mechanically  ventilated.  The amount of time
spent in the barn varies from as high as 100% to as low as 20% depending
on the climate, land availability and other factors.  The  remainder  of
the  time  the  cows are on pasture.  Milk is brought manually for small
systems, or by pipeline for larger systems, to the milk room where it is
cooled and stored.  Milking equipment is washed daily and stored in  the
                                  26

-------
milk  room.   Bedding  is widely used in the stall area where it absorbs
the moisture of the excreted manure, and the total semi-solid  waste  is
collected  in  gutters and removed by mechnical means.  Milk room wastes
are the only liquid wastes generated by  this  production  method  which
must  be  managed.  Runoff from rain will not be contaminated unless the
manure removed from barns is stored in the open and  subjected  to  this
exposure.

Free^Stall Barn^with^Milking Center - This type of facility is used with
approximately  16%  of  the  dairy  inventory  on  farms, but is rapidly
increasing in use for larger production systems.  Where pasture  is  not
available,  milk  cows  and  replacement  heifers are kept under roof in
barns but are allowed free movement between resting stalls  and  feeding
areas.   Where pasture is available, the animals spend as much as 80% of
the time on pasture.  The barns are  generally  not  insulated  and  are
naturally   ventilated.    In   very  severe  climates,  insulation  and
mechanical ventilation can be found.   The  milking  center  includes  a
"parlor"  and  milk room.  Cows are milked in the parlor twice daily and
the milk is mechanically transferred to the milk room where it is cooled
and stored.  Milking equipment is cleaned daily in both rooms.  Over 90%
of the free stall barns still use bedding in the resting  area.   Manure
is  usually  collected  in  alleys  and  mechanically scraped out of the
barns.  Some used bedding may be added to  the  manure  to  improve  its
handleability.   For  these  systems semi-solid wastes from the barn and
milking center are generally the same  as  those  from  the  stall  barn
system.   The  remaining  10%  of free stall barns utilize liquid manure
systems split equally  among  three  types,  solid  floors  with  liquid
storage, slotted floors and liquid flush.

In  northern  regions,  solid  floor  barns  with separate liquid manure
storage are becoming more popular than slotted floor barns with sublevel
storage.  in southern regions, liquid flushing systems predominate  with
collection  of the diluted wastes and daily or other periodic irrigation
of fluid wastes to the land.  The milking center wastes for these liquid
manure systems are generally added to the manure storage to  reduce  the
total solids concentration for ease of pumping.

Cow	Yard	With	Milking^Center - This method of production is used with
approximately 25% of the dairy inventory on farms, and is predominant in
the southern portions of the country.   Where the climate is hot and dry,
milk cows and replacements are maintained in open sided  shelters  which
provide  shade,  and  in  cooler  climates,  the  shelters are partially
enclosed and include bedded packs or free stalls.

Free access is provided to open  dirt  or  paved  exercise  yards  while
feeding  areas are normally paved and have fence line feed bunks.  These
type systems are common for herds larger than  200  animals.    Cows  are
moved  twice  daily  to  a milking barn or parlor.  Milking equipment is
washed daily and the use of "cleaned^in-place" equipment is  increasing.
                                  27

-------
Bedding is seldom used in large yards in the dry climates but often used
in  shelters  in  cooler  climates.   Manure  may  be  removed for field
spreading weekly from paved yards,  or  after  the  winter  season  from
bedded  shelters  and  partially paved yards.  With large earthen yards,
manure may be  mounded  periodically  and  removed  annually  for  field
spreading.   The  liquid  waste  discharge  from this type of production
system consists of milking  center  wastes  and  runoff  resulting  from
precipitation on the exposed surfaces of the cow yard.

Swine

The  production  of piglets for subsequent use as feeder pigs is for the
most part accomplished under feedlot conditions.  Of  the  61.6  million
swine  on feed in the United States during 1972, 85% were market animals
and 15% were breeding animals including those  in  pedigree  operations.
These animals were produced in three types of production systems -- open
dirt  or  pasture  lots,  fully roofed buildings with slotted floors and
solid concrete floors with partial or full roofs.  Open dirt or  pasture
lot is the most predominant method of swine production, and accounts for
60%  of  the  national  production capacity.  Open dirt or pasture units
have the lowest  density  of  hogs  and  are  considered  a  confinement
operation  since  feed is brought into the fenced area.  The recommended
stocking density is 62 market hogs  per  hectare  (25  market  hogs  per
acre),  but  densities  up  to  490 animals per hectare (200 animals per
acre) are employed in some cases.  The most  widely  practiced  stocking
density  is  estimated  to be between 62 and 250 animals per hectare (25
and 100 animals per acre).  The recommended pasture stocking density  is
49  to  74  animals per hectare  (20 to 30 animals per acre) on permanent
pasture such as Bermuda grass or fescue and ladino clover.  Beyond  this
density,  bare  areas  will  begin  to  appear.  For pasture to survive,
animals must be removed during the dormant or nongrowing season or  lots
rested  by  a  rotation  scheme.  Lots with 250 or more hogs per hectare
(100 or more hogs per acre)  will  not  support  vegetative  cover.   At
higher  densities,  any manure buildup will generally be disked into the
soil or scraped up  and  spread  on  crop  land  so  that  manure  packs
characteristic of high density beef feedlots do not usually occur.

Runoff  is  the  primary  waste  output  from  the  pasture  or dirt lot
production unit.  Animal density and annual  rainfall  are  the  primary
factors  to be considered with respect to the degree of pollution in the
runoff.  Temperature, vegetation, contributing watershed area  and  snow
melt relationships are additional factors which are involved.

Slotted_Floor_Hguses - Building with complete roofing and slotted floors
is  a  recent  development in the swine producing industry and presently
accounts for 15% of the  total  production  capacity.   These  buildings
generally  consist  of two types, those with only a portion of the floor
space slotted and those with the entire floor  space  slotted.   Slotted
floors  with  temporary  storage  pits  underneath reduce the hand labor
                                  28

-------
required to clean pens and thus are responsible for the continuing trend
towards fully enclosed houses with total slotted floors.
                                                                    »
The first buildings with partial slotted floors were designed with a pen
size of  1.2  meters  to  1.5  meters   (4  feet  to  5  feet)  wide  and
approximately 4.9 meters (16 feet)  long with 1.2 meters  (4 feet) of this
length  as -slats.  Average pit depth under the slats was about one meter
(3 feet).  With time,  more  space  in  each  pen  was  slotted  because
cleaning  time  could  be  reduced.   Many  units  for  market hogs were
developed on the basis of 0.07 square meters (8 square feet)  per  animal
with  one-third slotted.  Many of these buildings serve as a combination
nursery and finishing unit.  A common pen size  is  3.0  meters  by  7.3
meters   (10  feet by 21 feet) for three litters or approximately 30 pigs
(about 0.7 square meters,  8  square  feet  of  living  area  per  pig) .
Storage  capacity  in  the pit is 0.1 to 0.3 cubic meters  (5 to 10 cubic
feet)  per pig for a depth of 0.6 - 1.2 meters (2 to 4 feet).

Buildings with partially or totally  slotted  floors  may  have  storage
pits,   oxidation  ditches  or  under-house  lagoons  incorpor ated as an
internal component of the production unit.
                                                                      •

Systems with manure storage pits predominate and account for over 90% of
all slotted floor operations.  Pits are generally filled with a  minimum
of  15  centimeters  (6  inches)   to a maximum of 0.6 meters (2 feet)  of
water before pigs are placed in slotted floor pens,  or  after  complete
wastewater  discharge.    This  allows  for better cleaning when pits are
emptied as well as reducing odors initially.  Spillage and overflow from
waterers and mist from fogging for summer cooling add to the quantity of
liquid which must be handled.  The amount of washwater employed to clean
different partially slotted units represents the major difference in the
volume and concentration  of  wastes  stored  in  partially  or  totally
slotted  production  units.  Additionally, the manner in which pit waste
is  discharged  will  affect  concentration.   Many  storage  pits   are
completely  emptied  only  every three to six months to reduce labor and
water precharge requirements.  Pits may be  equipped  with  an  overflow
pipe  to  control  water  level  and thus supernatant may be continously
released or partially discharged as necessary.   The concentration  of  a
supernatant  overflow or partial discharge will be less than the average
concentration of the total waste load for a complete pit emptyinq.

Systems with integral oxidation ditches under slotted  floors  are  less
than  5%  of all slotted floor production systems.  The variable amounts
of  washwater  used  for  different  slotted  floor  configurations  and
management  schemes  will  affect  the  volume  of  waste  load  and the
concentration of ditch mixed liquor.  Such Any dilution effects  due  to
excessive water use, may mask oxidation ditch operation and performance.
                                  29

-------
Discharge  from  -the oxidation ditch is considered the waste load from a
production facility with such an under-house treatment unit.  This waste
load consists of the mixed liquor which may be  removed  continously  or
periodically depending upon operational and management techniques.

Systems  with  under-house  lagoons  also  are  less  than 5% of all the
slotted floor production  systems.   Since  these  lagoons  are  usually
exposed to the environment at the sides and under the houses, the effect
of  wash  water  volume  on the quantity and quality of lagoon*liquid or
overflow, will generally be insignificant compared to the  influence  of
climatic relationships and lagoon performance.


Solid	Concrete	Floor - Production units with solid concrete floors may
be partially or totally roofed.   About  25%  of  the  swine  production
capactiy  if  of  this  type  and  units  can  vary from those which are
partially open having 2.3 square meters (25 square feet)  of floor  space
per  market  animal,  to those which are completely roofed with only 0.9
square meters (10 square feet)   of  floor  space.   The  most  prevalent
practice  is to have 1.1 to 1.4 square meters (12 to 15 square feet) per
animal with one-half to two-thirds under roof.

Bedding of wood shavings, straw or sawdust is  used  in  some  farrowing
houses   and   nurseries   because  of  its  insulation  and  absorptive
characteristics; however, this prepresents an insignificant  portion  of
the wastes from the swine industry.

Wastes  on  the  concrete  pen floors are periodically washed or scraped
into a collection gutter.  High pressure, low volume hose systems  allow
more  rapid  and  efficient  cleaning  and  thus,  large  reductions  in
washwater quantities.  Drinking cup spillage, fogging  water  and  urine
continuously  flow into the collection gutter.  Rainfall and roof runoff
that have access to the concrete floors  or  drainage  that  enters  the
waste  collection  and  conveyance  system  contribute  to the amount of
wastewater that must be handled.  The amount of rainfall  that  must  be
handled  is  small,  amounting  to an average of about 1.3 to 1.9 liters
(1/3 to 1/2 gallons) per day per animal due to the high animal  stocking
rate.   These liquid wastes leaving the gutter may enter a concrete tank
or some other temporary storage, a lagoon,  or  discharged  to  adjacent
land.

Chickens

The  category  of  chickens  consists of two primary types of production
which prevail on a national basis -  broilers  and  layers.   Therefore,
discussion of industry categorization will begin at that level.

Broilers - The broiler industry encompasses three basic processes:
                                  30

-------
a.  Development of breeding stock;
b.  Production of broiler chicks by breeding stock, and
c.  Growth and slaughter of broilers.

These  operations may be separate or in combination.  The development of
breeding stock by. specialized farms involves the controlled breeding  of
high  quality birds.  The purpose is one of constantly improving broiler
birds by selective breeding.  The birds produced by  such  an  operation
are  then * used  to  produce  chicks which are grown on a grain and meal
concentrate ration and slaughtered as broilers.


Breeder stock is kept in houses which includes nesting,  litter  covered
floor  area,  and  slotted or wire covered perching area over pits.  The
wastes consist of a mixture of manure and  litter  plus  manure  scraped
from  the  pit.   The litter, which consists of w6od shavings or similar
materials, is used for absorbing the moisture in the wastes.  The weight
of the breeder stock birds is about 2.7 kilograms  (6  pounds)   for  hens
and 3.6 kilograms (8 pounds) for roosters with an average of one rooster
for every ten hens.   At the end of their useful life (1-1/2 years)  these
birds are usually sold as roasting chickens.

Broilers  are usually raised in houses using a floor litter system.  The
birds are grown to a  weight  of  about  1.8  kilograms  (4  pounds)  in
approximately eight weeks.  The waste is in the form of mixed litter and
manure.  The litter is replaced periodically and may remain in the house
for  as long as a year.  It may be turned with a plow between batches of
chicks and various chemicals (to aid in composting) and more litter  may
be added each time.
Layers  -  The  egg  laying  industry  is  comprised  of  two  different
operations.  These are:

a.  Laying hen production
b.  Egg production.

The  industry  operates  with  a  total  of  478,000,000  birds.   About
5,000,000  of  these  are breeding stock with a ratio of one rooster for
every ten hens.  Replacement layers  (pullet)   account  for  158,000,000
birds.  The remainder  (315,000,000)  are producing layers.

Breeding  birds  are maintained in circumstances similar to broilers and
the wastes are similar.  Roosters and hens weigh about 3.6 kilograms  (8
pounds) and 2.7 kilograms (6 pounds)  respectively.

The  growing pullets are maintained in cages over pits (20%)  or in floor
litter systems (80%).  In very few cases floor litter systems  are  used
in the first few weeks followed by cage systems until laying age.
                                  31

-------
Laying  hens  are maintained in several types of housing systems.  These
are:

Cages over Dry Pits VOX
Floor Litter/Pit Perch 20%
Slat-Wire/Litter Pit  5%
Cages over Dry Pits (Ventilated)   3%
Cages over Wet Pits  2%

The cage systems use several  set-ups  for  the  cages  which  are  only
different  in  geometry  with no effect on the waste load.  Both dry pit
systems utilize mechanical removal of wastes.   Fans  are  used  in  the
ventilated system for drying the wastes.  The pit in this type of system
is  generally deeper than pits used in the other system.  In the wet pit
system, water is added to facilitate pumping of the waste in the form of
a slurry.

The floor litter/pit perch system utilizes a litter covered  floor  area
with nests for laying and perches mounted over pits.  Food and water are
available  in  the  floor  area.    The  slat-wire/  litter pit system is
essentially the same except that slatted floors or wire meshes are  used
over the pits and food and water are placed in this area.
As  shown in Section III, the total population (January 1970)  of breeder
sheep and lambs on feedlots was 4,214,000; 3,604,000  of  which  are  on
open  lots  and  610,000  of  which  are  housed.   These statistics are
somewhat misleading in that they are not in  anyway  indicative  of  the
distribution  of  sheep  and  lambs  at  any  other  time  of  the year.
Actually, there are more sheep and lambs in the  United  States  in  the
summer than on January 1st.  However, in the summer the vast majority of
sheep  and lambs are either on range or pasture.   Hence, January 1st was
chosen for reporting since sheep and lamb  feedlots  have  the  greatest
population at that time.

Cereal  grains  make  up  the  bulk  of  lamb  fattening ration but some
roughage is desirable.  Bedding is found only in the housed facilities.

Oj2en_Lot - Open lots include completely exposed dirt lot  operations  as
well  as  partial  confinement  (e.g. sheltered feeding areas) where the
open area is a corral.  The wastes from these  operations  include  both
manure  and  runoff.  Breeding flocks in open lots are stocked at a rate
of from 1.9 to 19 meter sg.   (20  to  200  ft.  sq.)  per  animal.   The
stocking  rate  for  lambs  is about 1.4 to 9.3 meter sq. (15 to 100 ft.
sg.) per animal.
                                  32

-------
        ~  Housed  lamb  production  represents  the  most  modern   and
concentrated  lamb feeding operation.  Wastes from such an operation are
either solid (scraped) or liquid  (pumped) depending on the chosen  waste
management scheme.


Turkeys

The  two major methods of production consist of open lots with about 78%
of the production capacity and housed production for the remaining 22%.

Op_en_Lot - The open lot consists of a brooder  house  where  the  turkey
poults  are  kept  for  the first eight weeks after hatching and outdoor
confinement areas where the birds are fed to a finished  market  weight.
The  latter  period  averages  nine weeks for hens and fifteen weeks for
toms.  Normally open lots grow one flock of birds per year.   Some  open
lots  utilize the brooder house to produce a second flock, in which case
these birds are finished in confinement.

The wastes produced in the brooder house consist of the manure  excreted
by  the  birds and the litter material which is used to cover the floor;
both are removed from the house by mechanical means  between  groups  of
birds.   The  wastes  produced in the outdoor confinements or range area
are generally not of sufficient mended value of 620  birds  per  hectare
(250  birds per acre)  up to 1240 birds per hectare (500 birds per acre).
Good management practices consist of either rotating range areas  and/or
moving the feeders and waterers to prevent the accumulation of wastes in
any  one  area  in order to prevent the vegetation from being completely
killed.  This is also advantageous for  disease  and  parasite  control.
The surfaces of range areas are plowed and planted in cover crops during
idle  periods.    The  wastes  deposited  on  open  range land may have a
pollutional discharge due to runoff from incident rainfall.

Housed - Production of slaughter birds consist of poult growing for  the
first  eight  weeks  after hatching in a brood house and then feeding to
finish market weight  in  confinement  rearing  houses.   The  finishing
houses are similar to brood houses with the exception that more space is
allowed for each bird.  Both the brood house and finishing house utilize
litter  on  the  floor and wastes are removed periodically by mechanical
means.


The breeding portion of the industry is  usually  a  separate  farm  and
supplies  chicks  to open and housed operations.  The breeding operation
accounts for about 1/2% of the total  number  of  turkeys  on  feed  and
consists of breeding flock maintained in enclosed facilities.  The waste
produced  in  this  operation is from mature birds maintained on litter.
mechanically removed periodically from the breeding houses.
                                  33

-------
Ducks


Duck raising  facilities  may  be  considered  as  being  in  two  major
groupings;  wet and dry lots.  The primary difference between the two is
the amount of water used.  In feedlots, the primary purpose for allowing
ducks free access to swimming water is for improvement in the quality of
the feathers (used as down).   However, the quality of down is apparently
not materially affected by growing in total dry lot facilities.  Many of
the larger producers have integrated  facilities.   That  is,  breeding,
hatching,  growing  and  slaughtering facilities are located on the same
complex with the waste treatment plant usually designed  to  handle  the
entire waste load of the facility.

Wet  -  The  largest group (80% of the population)  are the "wet" lots in
which  the  ducks  have  access  to  water  runs.   Local  surface   and
groundwater is channeled to supply the birds swimming areas  ("runs")  and
to  facilitate  a  controlled discharge of waste water for treatment and
disposal.  The slopes leading to the waters edge collect fecal  material
which  is  washed  into  the water during rainstorms.  These runs may be
combined with some shelter facilities.  For the last few  weeks  of  the
growing  period, the birds are completely raised on the run and adjacent
land.  The amount of water provided in these "wet" lot ranges from 38 to
132 liters/duck/day (10 to 35 gallons/duck/day).

Dry - A second category of feedlot is the "dry"  lot  with  the  Midwest
being   the  area  tending  more  toward  this  totally  environmentally
controlled type of facility.   The main difference from a wet lot is  the
reduced  amount  of  water  used  in  the  raising of the duck.  Dry lot
facilities are usually constructed with flushing troughs placed under  a
wire  floor  portion  of the building.  Feeders and waterers are also in
this area providing for collection of some of the manure.  The remainder
of the floor is solid covered with  litter.   Flushing  results  in  the
dilution  of  the  manure and movement of the slurry into the processing
plant.   Water  usage  for  a  dry  lot  generally  ranges  up   to   15
liters/duck/day (4 gallons/duck/day).
Horses

Of the approximately 7,500,000 horses in the country, by far the largest
number  (75%)   fall  into  the  "pleasure" category.  For the most part,
these are backyard horses used for occassional riding.  Of this  number,
approximately half are located in suburban areas with the balance housed
in rural areas.

The suburban horse is stalled an average of one-quarter of the time, the
rest  being  spent  out-of-doors.   Some  local  ordinances restrict the

-------
number of horses allowed on a parcel of land with  the  minimum  usually
being  one  horse/acre.   The amount of bedding used varies considerably
from 4.5  -  18.2  kilograms/day/animal   (10  -  40  pounds/day/animal).
Bedding  material  is  usually  straw  but sawdust and wood shavings are
occasionally used.  The purpose of the bedding is two-fold.  It acts  as
an  absorbent  for the moisture excreted by the animal, and it acts as a
cusioning agent for the animal when it lies down.  The  manure  produced
per day per animal is composed of 15.0 - 22.3 kilograms (33 - 50 pounds)
of fecal waste at 75 - 80% moisture, 3.6 - 4.5 kilograms  (8 - 10 pounds)
of  urine  at 90% moisture and varying amounts of bedding.  Good manage-
ment practice dictates frequent stall cleaning, usually daily.

The second half of the "pleasure" horse population is  housed  in  rural
areas.   As  such,  the  amount of stalling will be less since more open
roaming land is available.   The  amount  of  bedding  used  and  manure
production  in  the  stall areas will, in general, be less than that for
the suburban horse population.  Certain special  circumstances  such  as
resort  ranches  or  riding  clubs  are  likely  to  have  corral/stable
facilities functionally similar to any other feedlot.

The remainder of the horses in  the  country  (25%  of  the  total)  are
considered  "commercial".   This  may be broken into two groups.  One of
these is "general farm animals" comprising 85% of this category.   These
are  used  for  general work around ranches and are stalled only a small
percentage of the time.  Bedding provided is slightly greater  than  for
the  pleasure  horse  averaging 9.1 - 18.2 kilograms/day/animal (20 - 40
pounds/day/animal)  rather than 4.5 - 18.2 kilograms/day/animal  (10 -  40
pounds/day  animal).   This  is due to the "equipmentlike" nature of the
animal that results in better care.  In addition,  bedding  material  is
more  readily  available on facilities such as these, and the wastes are
more easily disposed of leading to  a  more  generous  use  of  bedding.
Excrement  production  for  these  animals  is  the  same  as the others
discussed above.

For purposes of grouping, except for resort  ranches,  riding  clubs  or
similar  facilities,  all  three types of horses discussed so far may be
placed in one group.  In varying degrees they  deliver  their  excrement
directly  to  the  natural  eco-system,  thereby  obviating the need for
processing.  In the case of the individual owning a few backyard horses,
the possibility of  restrictions  beyond  the  local  level  seems  very
slight.


The  remaining  category of "commercial" horses are of the racing class.
These animals are carefully tended.  Except for those times on the track
or in training they, may be considered continually stalled.  These stalls
are cleaned daily with fresh straw bedding averaging 22.7  kg/day/animal
(50  Ib/day/animal)   provided.  Tradition and fear of damage to the feet
have slowed any change even in bedding material.   Together  with  resort
                                  35

-------
ranches  or  riding  clubs,   this is the only type of horse which can be
considered to be maintained under feedlot conditions.
                                  36

-------
CATEGORIZATION

The following factors were considered in establishing categories for all
the animal groups.

a.  Animal type
b.  Treatability of wastes
c.  Location and climate
d.  Size and age of facilities and equipment
e.  Raw materials used
f.  Product produced
g.  Production process employed
h.  Product or waste impact of any group or subgroup
i.  Characteristics of waste produced.

Animal type is of course a significant factor and was used as the  first
level  of  categorization.  In all cases, the treatability of wastes was
not a factor for categorization since, except as discussed later for the
category of ducks, all the wastes are so concentrated that there are  no
known  practical  technologies  available to treat the waste to a degree
which will allow an effluent to  be  discharged  directly  to  navigable
waterways.   Location  and climate have a material effect upon pollution
control methodology for any given operation or segment of the  industry.
However,  the impact of either location or climate is so highly variable
as  to  prove  to  be  unreliable  in  defining  or  substantiating  any
subcategories.   The  size  of  facilities  was  also  not  considered a
significant factor since the pollutional potential is the same per  unit
of  animal production for all sized facilities.  Moreover, the essential
requirements governing waste management and control are closely  related
for  all  facility  sizes.   The  age  of  facilities  is likewise not a
significant factor; any effect of age is predominately reflected in  the
type  of  production  facility,  and  this  is  taken into consideration
through the production process factor.

B§ef_Cattle

Raw materials used in each case are feed,  water  and,  in  some  cases,
bedding.   Since,  except for bedding, these materials are common in all
cases,  they  cannot  be  used  as  a  basis  for  categorization.   The
difference  of  bedding  being  used  in  limited  circumstances  is not
considered significant since any effect it has on a category shows up in
the waste characteristics and is considered at that point.  The  product
produced is also not considered a discriminator for categorization since
the  product  produced  in  each case is beef cattle for slaughter.  The
production process employed is a significant  factor  in  categorization
since  different  types  of facilities show materially different process
features and frequently lend themselves to different means of  pollution
abatement.   The  production  impact of certain types of facilities does
not judify their being separated into individual  categories.   In  this
                                  37

-------
case  they are placed in other categories which are most nearly similar.
Waste characteristics are considered as a pertinent factor in that  this
factor  incorporates  specific  differences  in the amount and nature of
waste constituents particularly related to rainfall runoff  (open  lots)
and relatively undiluted solids (housed lots) .

Figure  10  shows  the structure of the confined beef cattle industry by
type of production process employed.   The  capacity  of  each  type  of
facility as of January 1973 in terms of number of animals on feed at any
one  time  is  indicated.   In addition, the type of wastes generated by
each facility is also shown in generic terms.   Detailed  definitions  of
the wastes are given in Section V.

The  industry is divided into two categories for the purpose of effluent
limitations.  The major factor in this case is  the  production  process
employed,  open  lot  versus  housed facilities.  These open lot methods
each have similar wastes, giving further cause for such  grouping.   The
paved lot is somewhat different as a production method but does not have
the  product  impact  in  terms of animal capacity to justify a separate
group.  The housed facility category is barely  numerically  significant
but represents a very different production process.  The wastes from the
various segments of the housed operations are similar, but significantly
different  from  the wastes from an open feedlot.  The use of bedding in
the solid floor facilities  represents  a  minor  difference  and  since
350,000  head  raised on bedding is only a small percentage of the total
1U, 000, 000 head, there is not justification for a separate category.
Raw materials used are similar to  those  discussed  for  beef  and  the
rationale  for  not  being  a basis for categorization is the same.  The
same argument holds for product  produced  since  throughout  the  diary
industry  it  is milk.  As with beef, the production process employed is
considered a significant factor  in  categorization  as  are  the  waste
character! sties .

Figure  11  shows  the  structure  of  the  dairy  industry  by  type of
manufacturing process employed.  The capacity of each type  of  facility
as  of  January  1971 in terms of number of animals in production at any
one time is indicated.  In addition, type of  wastes  produced  by  each
facility is shown in generic terms.

The  dairy  industry is divided into three categories for the purpose of
effluent limitations.   The  major  factor  is  the  production  process
employed;  stall  barn, free stall barn and cowyard with milking center.
The differences in waste outputs between the stall barns  and  the  free
stall  barns  is not significant; however, the numerical significance of
each category is such as to further justify  their  separation.   Within
the free stall barn category, the subcategories of liquid storage,
                                  38

-------












UJ


a
UJ (9
|5
5 w
2 m
•M^LM^^^-


H
g§



E
' — o
< q
(fl 
-------
  STALL BARN
  WITH MILK ROOM
  6,800,000  (59%)
 •MILKROOM WASTES

 •MANURE AND BEDDING
   CATEGORY
MECHANICAL SCRAPE
1,636,000
— MILKING CENTER
  WASTE
— MANURE AND
  BEDDING
                                      DAIRY COWS
                                      IN PRODUCTION
                                      11,536,000
            FREE STALL BARN
            WITH MILKING
            CENTER
            1,816,000(16%)
 LIQUID STORAGE
 60,000
•MILKING CENTER
 WASTE AND
 LIQUID MANURE
   SLOTTED FLOOR
   60,000
— MILKING CENTER
  WASTE AND LIQUID
  MANURE
                                       CATEGORY IV
                          COW YARDS WITH
                          MILKING CENTER
                          2,920,000 (25%)
                                               •MILKING CENTER

                                               •MANURE AND BEDDING

                                               •YARD MANURE

                                               •RUNOFF


                                                  CATEGORY V
  LIQUID FLUSH
  60,000
•MILKING CENTER
 WASTE AND LIQUID
 MANURE
                 FIGURE 11.  DAIRY CATTLE INDUSTRY STRUCTURE

-------




1 	
, SOLID
1 FLOOF
| 15,400
1
| — WATE
• WASTI

f A T




SWINE
61,600,000

ON FEED
15% BREEDER
85% MARKET

	 ! ! 	
CONCRETE 1 1
? ' 1
000 (25%) | |

R WASHED | I

| I






SLOTTED
FLOOR
HOUSES
9,200,000 (15%)


• 1
1
i!
— MANURE I |
• PIT ' 1
• OXID. DITCH 1
DI RT LOT OR
PASTURE
37,000,000 (60%)

— MANURE
— RUNOFF
• LAGOON 1 1
crmo^s \/i 1 1 r-HTcni
^DV Mil ' • f A Trr^/~»DW Will
                                      CATEGORY VIII   J
FIGURE 12. SWINE INDUSTRY STRUCTURE

-------
r
                             BROILERS
                             ON FEED
                             468,000,000
                                    1
       BREEDING
       STOCK
       25,000,000
       (6%)
      •MANURE AND
       LITTER
l_
CATEGORY IX
                     BROILER HOUSE
                     (FLOOR-LITTER)
                     443,000,000
                     (94%)
                       •MANURE AND
                       LITTER
            FIGURE 13.  BROILER INDUSTRY STRUCTURE

-------
slotted  floor  and  liquid  flush  are significantly different from the
subcategory  of  mechanical  scrape  but  they   are   not   numerically
significant  enough  to  justify  a  separate  category.   Cowyards with
milking centers are not  only  numerically  significant  but  also  have
significantly  different waste outputs and thus are placed in a separate
category.

Swine

Raw materials used in  each  case  are  feed  and  water.   Since  these
materials  are  common  in all cases, they cannot be used as a basis for
categorization.  Product produced is also not considered a discriminator
for categorization since the product produced in each case is swine  for
slaughter.   The  production  process employed and waste characteristics
are a significant factor in categorization as in  the  preceding  animal
types.

Figure  12  shows  the  structure  of  the  swine  industry  by  type of
manufacturing process employed.  The capacity of each type  of  facility
in  terms of number of animals on feed at any one time is indicated.  In
addition, the type of wastes produced  by  each  facility  is  shown  in
generic terms.

The  industry  is  divided  into  three  categories  for  the purpose of
effluent limitations.   The  major  factor  is  the  production  process
employed; dirt lots, solid concrete floor lots and slotted floor houses.
Each  category  in  this  case  in  numerically significant and also has
significantly different waste outputs.

Chickens

Raw materials used in each case are feed,  water  and,  in  some  cases,
litter.   Since,  except  for  litter  these materials are common in all
cases they cannot be used as a basis for categorization.  The difference
of litter being used in some circumstances is not considered significant
since  any  effect  it  has  on  a  category  shows  up  in  the   waste
characteristics  and is considered at that point.  Product produced is a
significant discriminator for categorization since it  is  broilers  for
slaughter in one case and eggs in the other.  Hence the chicken industry
is broadly categorized into two major segments, broilers and layers.

Broilers  -  Figure  13  shows the structure of this industry by type of
manufacturing process employed.  The capacity of each type  of  facility
in  terms of number of animals on feed at any one time is indicated.  In
addition, the type of wastes produced  by  each  facility  is  shown  in
generic terms.

-------








0
«0§0
»v O UJ
si °. U-
^ 00 7
5s?



r"




5°o
L1|I-
_i Q o
bi£
K a. -

1
1




















«•



1


L
L.
r
1












,3


DUCTION
00 (66%)
IO 0
£8
Ul CO








z
Ul
iS §






BREEDING
FLOCK
' 5,000,000







^— '
MMMHM*

—









Q
Z
h MANURE fi
LITTER







^^^

* £
)OR LITTE
3
;E BROOD
0,000
u. < u — "

Ul
Q
80
K 0
03 O
U co



)OR LITTER
900,000
d^








^^^— ^"^^ ^
	 1
1
Q
Z
Ul Ul
Q: 0:0:
D D Ul
Z ZH
< < t
2 S _i
1 1


LJ
D ^
Z >-
f 8
UJ
5
u
i
u^
IS
In
1








— 1













1
«•


MBBI


—



^^




^H*






CAGE-WET PIT
6,000,000


^8
SI
ui 2


CAGES-DRY
PIT WITH
VENTILATION
10,000,000


£
Ul
Ul
Ul
ui o: _
o: on g
go: °-
il ^
J32


Ul
J£ 8
-1 t m"
u. a. to





— MANURE


Ul
CC
3
|

•MANURE
ftTEGORY XI
1 "


Ul



Q
Ul
i!=


i



UJ
a:
D

O
D
a:

to
te
D
Q


DC
UI
UJ
a:
D

-------
 r
&IE£
£
-------
                        TURKEYS
                        90,200,000 ON FEED
                 n
      HOUSED
      19,700,000
      (22%)
     •MANURE AND
      LITTER
I    CATEGORY XIV _J
       OPEN LOT
       70,500,000
       (78%)
    —MANURE
                                               —RUNOFF
L
CATEGORY XV
J
              FIGURE 16.  TURKEY INDUSTRY STRUCTURE

-------
                         DUCKS
                         1,860,000 ON FEED
                         95% MARKET
                         5% BREEDER
       DRY LOT
       380,000
       (20%)
                                           r
   	WASTE WATER
   — MANURE AND
      LITTER
L
CATEGORY XVI
                                              WET LOT
                                              1,480,000
                                              (80%)
                                             • WASTE WATER
L
  •MANURE AND
   LITTER

CATEGORY XVII
J
              FIGURE 17. DUCK INDUSTRY STRUCTURE

-------
The  industry  is ,, grouped  as one category for the purposes of effluent
limitations.  In this case there is no  significant  difference  in  the
type of production process employed or in the type of wastes generated.
        ~  Figure  14  shows  the  structure of this industry by type of
manufacturing process employed.  The capacity of each type  of  facility
in  terms of number of animals on feed at any one time is indicated.   In
addition, the type of wastes produced  by  each  facility  is  shown  in
generic terms.

The  layer  segment  is  divided  into two categories for the purpose of
effluent limitations.   The  major  factor  is  the  production  process
employed; replacement production and egg production.  The subcategory of
cage  brooder  in  the  category  of  replacement production does have a
different type of waste output but it  is  not  numerically  significant
enough  to justify separate categorization.  Likewise the differences in
production process employed and type of waste outputs encountered in the
egg production category are  minor  and  do  not  justify  further  sub-
categorization.
Raw  materials  used  in  each  case are feed, water and, in some cases,
bedding, and the rationale for not being a basis for  categorization  is
the  same  as  for  beef and dairy cattle.  Product produced is also not
considered a discriminator for categorization since the product produced
in each case is lambs for slaughter.  As with the previous animal types,
the production  process  employed  and  the  waste  characteristics  are
considered to be a significant factor in categorization.

Figure  15  shows  the  structure  of  the  sheep  industry  by  type of
production process employed.  The capacity of each type of  facility  in
terms  of  number  of  animals  on  feed  on January 1 is indicated.  In
additon, the type of wastes  produced  by  each  facility  is  shown  in
generic terms.

The  industry  is divided into two cateogries.  The main factor for this
categorization is the production process employed; open  lot  facilities
and  housed  facilities.  In the housed category there is no significant
difference in waste outputs of  the  subcategories  to  justify  further
division  into  two categories.  In the open lot category the same logic
holds true.  In  addition,  the  production  process  employed  in  both
partial confinement and dirt lots are essentially similar.

-------
Raw  materials  used in each case are similar to those used for chickens
and the rationale for not being a basis for categorization is the  same.
Product   produced   is   also   not   considered  a  discriminator  for
categorization since the product produced in each case  is  turkeys  for
slaughter.   After  considering all factors, production process employed
and waste characteristics are considered to be a significant  factor  in
categorization  as in the preceding animal types.  As a result, industry
is divided into two categories for the purpose of effluent  limitations;
housed facilities and open lots.

Figure  16  shows  the  structure  of  the  turkey  industry  by type of
production process employed.  The capacity of each type of  facility  in
terms of animals on feed at any one time is indicated.  In addition, the
type of wastes produced by each facility is shown in generic terms.


Ducks

Raw  materials  used in each case are similar to those used for chickens
and the rationale for not being a basis for categorization is the  same.
Product  produced  is  also  not  considered  to  be  a valid reason for
categorization since the product produced in  each  case  is  ducks  for
slaughter.     The   production   process   employed   and   the   waste
characteristics  are   considered   to   be   significant   factors   in
ca tegori zati on.

Figure 17 shows the structure of the duck industry by type of production
process.   The  capacity of each type of facility in terms of animals on
feed at any one time is indicated.   In  addtion,  the  type  of  wastes
produced by each facility is shown in generic terms.

The  industry is divided into two categories for the purpose of effluent
limitations; dry lots and wet lots.   Both  categories  are  numerically
significant and the wastes ate significantly different in terms of water
content and waste concentrations.

Horses

Only one category (horse stables) is recommended and since this category
involves only one type of stabling the factors for categorization do not
enter  into  the rationale.  The other uses of horses as shown in Figure
18 represent very low concentrations of animals  and  allow  the  direct
recycling  of  wastes  to  the  land  without,  in  general, causing any
pollution problems.   If these other uses of horses result  in  pollution
problems, they can be best handled individually at the local level.

-------








en §
uj q
O 10
I IN"














^^^H


















	




UJ
ct: o
D o
en °.
< IO -
u O
f\_ if) j:.





J
O
£E 0
^ S—
2 FN S-













—








MMM



^MBP

r
1
1
1
"? u.
S> O
co Tir
o a
. O UI
S CM" -J UJ
S - < 5
D oo p £
a: CM" en H


w O
z — -
IE >o _j 2
D CM _1 CZ
m^- ff
3 oo p u.
en CM" tn O

_ i«-
**? CM
o Q
•§ o" -J uj
U" ^3 ^f ""C
^f ^D i ^^
u, — " tn P
	
O
UJ
~p -»•
TRACK
275,000 (3.7°
ALWAYS STX
Q
Z
uj 0
a: Z
i5
Z Q

-------
                               SECTION V

                         WASTE CHARACTERIZATION



INTRODUCTION

Animal feedlot wastes generally includes the following components:

1.  Bedding or litter (if used) and animal hair or feathers
2.  Water and milking center wastes
3.  Spilled feed
U.  Undigested or partially digested food or feed additives
5.  Digestive juices
6.  Biological products of metabolism
7.  Microorganisms from the digestive tract
8.  Cells and cell debris from the digestive tract wall.
9.  Residual soil and sand

The  greatest  influences on waste characteristics are animal type, type
of facility used and diet.  The latter two  considerations  are  usually
the  only  factors  which  lead  to  any  substantial variation in waste
characteristics  for  any  given  animal  type.   For  example,  bedding
materials  used  in  certain  facilities,  or amount of roughage used in
various feeds will affect the character of waste loads.  In the case  of
diet,  variations  encountered in manure constituents for one particular
type of animal are not usually significant although solids  content  can
be increased due to high roughage feeds,  some of the trace elements and
all  of  the  Pharmaceuticals  present  in  the  wastes  are a result of
additives in the diet obtained from other than  natural  sources   (i.e.,
other than crops used for feed).

Explanation_of_Tabular^Data

This  section  details  the  waste  outputs  of  the industry categories
defined in Section IV.  The information for each category includes:

1.  Brief narrative description and explanation of waste characteristics
2.  Industry waste identification figures
3.  Generalized category flow diagrams
4.  Detail waste characteristic tables.
The narrative in each case provides a  brief  explanation  of  types  of
wastes  involved  and  also  describes  the  assumptions  and methods of
estimation used where adequate waste data were not available.   In  some
cases,  data  were so sparse that reasonable estimates could not be made
as shown by the entry of  "No  data"  in  the  tables.   To  the  extent
practicable,  however, data are shown or are estimated by compositing as
many specific sources of information as could be gathered  and  reviewed
                                  51

-------
 (with	final_review_bY_cgnsultants)  to show exgected characteristics for
the entire industry and segments  thereof  on  a  national  basis.   The
industry  waste  identification  figures  are  similar  to  the industry
structure figures shown in  Section  III;  however,  they  also  provide
reference  to  detailed  waste  characteristic tables.  Generalized flow
diagrams are included for each category which show  the  origin  of  the
wastes.  The waste characteristic tables define the waste outputs of the
industry  in detail, and in some cases, the same table suffices for more
than one category.  The data used by the consultants in establishing the
waste characteristics tables has been assembled from the literature  and
from  the  results  of unpublished investigations.  These data represent
information originally generated over a substantial period of time  from
animals  being  produced  or raised on a variety of diets and management
practices.  The available information has a high degree  of  variability
and  in  many  instances the conditions of animal breed, size, and diet,
location as well as sample collection and analysis  technique  were  not
available.  Therefore, it was necessary for the consultants to utilize a
significant amount of engineering judgment in the preparation of some of
these tables.

The characteristics reported under the heading of average, represented ;
consultants  best  judgment  of  the  values typical of the animal type,
size, and conditions of management as indicated on  the  table  heading.
Characteristics  reported  under  the  heading  of  maximum  and minimum
represented the reasonable extremes to be encountered for each parameter
and therefore they are not  representative  of  the  characteristics  or
integrity  of  a  single  sample.   Where  no  conclusive test data were
available the characteristics had been estimated and are so indicated by
the use of an "e" following the  estimated  number.   If  the  estimated
number  has  been  based  upon  test  data  tabulated elsewhere in these
charts, it is generally shown with  an  "e"  and  a  reduced  number  of
significant  figures.  In some cases the maximum value reported is based
upon data for fresh voided waste while the minimum  and  average  values
were  not available and these were therefore estimated and reported with
an "e".  Where data were available for waste characteristics in  "pounds
per  day  per animal" and concentrations in "milligrams per liter", both
are reported.  In many  instances  one  waste  characteristic  has  been
calculated  from  the  other,  and  in other cases both values have been
estimated separately.  The values shown as "pounds per head per inch  of
runoff"  have in general been calculated from measured concentrations in
the runoff from animal pens, or are based upon estimated percentages  of
the  deposited  waste  which  will  wash away each year and the national
average annual runoff.  This information is based upon  a  very  limited
existing  amount  of  runoff  documentation and defines the runoff waste
load for the particular  set  of  conditions  present  at  the  time  of
documentation  including;  the size and intensity of the rainfall event,
the past history of  rainfall  events,  the  history  of  pen  cleaning,
temperatures,  slope of lots, animal density, animal weight, etc.  These
data do not necessarily represent the waste load which will runoff for a
                                  52

-------
different, set of circumstances and conditions.  In cases  where  only  a
portion  of  the  time  is  spent  in confinement housing the values are
reported on a per day basis taking into consideration the percentage  of
confinement.  This percentage is indicated on the table where applicable
and corresponding reductions are made in the wastes collected outside of
the confinement area.

BEEF_CATTLE

Categgry__l

As  shown in Figure 19, Category I includes dirt-flat to moderate slope,
dirt-steep slope, and paved open lots.  All of these facilities  require
scraping  to remove accumulated wastes denoted "manure" on Figure 19 and
the flow diagram, Figure 20.  In addition, rain falling  on  the  waste-
covered  surface  carries  away  a  portion  of  wastes  as runoff.  The
characteristics of the scraped manure are given by Tables 1 and 2.   The
characteristics of the manure depend on whether it is removed frequently
or  infrequently.   Frequently  removed  manure  undergoes  little or no
biodegradation and is essentially the same as freshly deposited  manure.
This  type  is  defined  by  Table  1.   Infrequently removed manure may
undergo considereable biodegradation, and is defined by Table 2.   These
two tables represent the expected extremes for manure characteristics as
removed from open lot surfaces.

The  greater  amount  of runoff from dirt-steep slope surfaces over that
from flat to moderate slope surfaces is  due  simply  to  the  increased
slope.   Runoff from paved lots may vary from dirt lots since paved lots
tend to dry out faster, thus preventing biodegradation and the  movement
of  soluble  pollutants  such  as  nitrates  down  into the manure pack.
Runoff from these three types of open lots is defined in Tables 3, 4 and
5.
Category_II

A generalized flow diagram for Category II is shown in Figure  21.   The
shallow  pit system is normally operated on a basis of frequent  (usually
daily)  cleaning.  As a result, the waste  output  is  essentially  fresh
manure and, therefore, is defined by Table 1.

Deep  pits  are  generally  used  for  long  term storage and may not be
cleaned more than twice each year.  No actual test  data  are  available
which  defines  the  waste output of such a system.  The values for this
system, shown in Table 6 are based on the following assumptions:
                                  53

-------
I"


LJ
1-
u
L.
UJ
UJ
m
a
UJ
UJ
u.
O
o
o
o
o"
o
o
   S
O S
X to
        8
      eg
      -1 o
      Q m
      (7) to
            Q
            Z
            2 a _i
            z Q m
            < ui <
            5 m i-
      CC
      O
      O
      i- o
      H O
      q o
      -I in
      W  O
a. -


LJ _ N
^ UI LJ
Z fp ffl
2tt
1

U. in
L. u
z m
o: i-
1
a.
UJ
UJ

£?ujg
I- Q. o
DC O o

Q (/) m
             UJ U
             -I -1
UJ - (M
tt:
D
Z
< < <
2l-l-

J	
             fe LJ
             2-1
             z m
             3 <
             K H
                               O


                               5
                               U.
                               H

                               UJ
                               Q

                               UJ
                            Q


                            UJ

                            H

                            <
                            O
                            U.
                            Id
                            UI
                            m
                Ul
                K.

                (D

                Lu
DIRT-NORMAL
SLOPE
1 3,000,000
-MANURE
TABLE 1
TABLE 2
— RUNOFF
TABLE 3
i	LJ__:	i

-------
1.   No less than ten percent of all input moisture would  be  evaporated
  in a storage period of 120 - 150 days.

2.    No less than ten percent of the solids in the fresh manure would be
  liquified during same period.

3.   About forty percent of the volatile solids would be degraded  during
  a normal storage period.
       Volatilization  of
     Organics  and  Evaporation
            (no  data)      f
J
Rain and Snow
 (Variable)
     Feed	»»
     7.7-10.4  kg/head/day
     (17-23  Ib/head/day)
     Water	»-
     38-114  lit/head/day
     (10-30  gal/head/day)
                                OPEN LOT
                                FEEDLOT
                            Runoff:
                              Dirt Normal Slope:

                              Dirt Steep Slope:

                              Paved:
     186.2 kg/head/cm avg.
     (1040 Ib/head/in avg.)
     214.1 kg/head/cm avg.
     (1196 Ib/head/in avg.)
     46.5 kg/head/cm avg.
     (260 Ib/head/in avg.)
                            Manure:
                              3.6 -  21.8  kg/head/day
                              (8-48  Ib/head/day)
                  BEEF  CATTLE  CATEGORY I  FLOW DIAGRAM
                               FIGURE 20
                                  55

-------
            ANIMAL TYPE:  Beef Cattle
ANIMAL WEIGHT:  360 kg Average (800 Ibs Average)
                 TYPE OF WASTE:
Fresh Manure and Slotted Floor/Shallow Pit Manure
Parameter
Total (wet solids)
Moisture
Dry Solids
Volatile Solids
pH
BOD5
COD
Ash
Total Nitrogen
Ammonia Nitrogen
Nitrate Nitrogen
Total Phosphorus
Total Potassium
Magnesium
kg/head/day
(Ib/head/day)
Minimum
18.2
(40.0)
14.5
(32.0)
1.9
(4.3)
1.4
(3.0)
7.2
0.4
(0.8)
0.73
(1.6)
0.59
(1.3)
0.073
(0.16)
0.03
(0.07)
0.01
(0.03)
0.03
(0.06)
0.073
(0.016)
0.018
(0.039)
Average
21.8
(48.0)
18.5
(40.8)
3.3
(7.2)
2.6
(5.8)
7.3
0.45
(1.0)
1.6
(3.5)
0.77
(1.7)
0.12
(0.263)
0.04
(0.08)
0.017
(0.038)
0.031
(0.068)
0.0831
(0.183)
0.0192
(0.0192)
Maximum
29.1
(64.0)
25.3
(55.7)
5.81
(12.8)
3.2
(7.0)
7.6
0.73
(1.6)
2.0
(4.4)
1.3
(2.8)
0.14
(0.30?)
0.04
(0.09)
0.02
(0.04)
0.03
(0.07)
0.091
(0.20)
0.020
(0.020)
                     TABLE  1
                        56

-------
            ANIMAL TYPE:  Beef Cattle
ANIMAL WEIGHT:  360 kg Average (800 Ibs Average)
                 TYPE OF WASTE:
Fresh Manure and Slotted Floor/Shallow Pit Manure
Parameter
Sodium
Diethylstilbestrol
kg/head/day
(Ib/head/day)
Minimum
0.02
(0.05)
-
Average
0.0365
(0.0803)
-
Maximum
0.082
(0.18)
Trace
               TABLE 1  (Continued)
                        57

-------
            ANIMAL TYPE:  Beef Cattle
ANIMAL WEIGHT:  360 kg Average (800 Ibs. Average)
        TYPE OF WASTE:  Biodegraded Manure
Parameter
Total (wet solids)
Moisture
Dry Solids
Volatile Solids
PH
BODs
COD
Ash
Total Nitrogen
Ammonia Nitrogen
Nitrate Nitrogen
Total Phosphorus
Total Potassium
Magnesium
Sodium
kg/head/day
(Ib/head/day)
Minimum
1.5
(3.3)
0.45
(1.0)
1.0
(2.3)
0.82
(1.8)
5.1
0.2
(0.5)
0.91
(2.0)
0.23
(0.50)
0.03
(0.07)
0
(0)
0
(0)
0.02
(0.05)
0.03
(0.07)
0.009
(0.02)
0.01
(0.03)
Average
3.6
(8.0)
1.03
(2.26)
2.61
(5.74)
1.80
(3.96)
7.6
0.31
(0.68)
1.09
(2.40)
0,.808
(1.78)
0.082
(0.18)
0.03
(0.07)
0.01
(0.03)
0.039
(0.086)
0.059
(0.13)
0.0192
(0.0423)
0.0365
(0.0803)
Maximum
7.81
(17.2)
3.9
(8.6)
3.9
(8.6)
2.9
(6.4)
9.4
0.4
(0.9)
1.8
(4.0)
1.8
(3.9)
0.11
(0.25)
0.064
(0.14)
0.045
(0.045)
0.050
(0.11)
0.086
(0.19)
0.03
(0.06)
0.059
(0.13)
                     TABLE  2
                       58

-------
            ANIMAL TYPE:  Beef Cattle
ANIMAL WEIGHT:  360 kg Average  (800 Ibs. Average)
    TYPE OF WASTE:  Dirt-Moderate Slope-Runoff
AREA:  18.6 meter square/head  (200 feet  square/head)
Parameter
Total (wet solids)
Moisture
Dry Solids
Volatile Solids
Suspended Solids
pH
BOD5
COD
Ash
Total Nitrogen
Ammonia Nitrogen
Nitrate Nitrogen
Total Phosphorus
kg/head/cm runoff
(Ib/head/inch runoff).
Minimum
—
183.40
(1024.4)
1.11 •
6.24
0.707
(3.95)
0.186
(1.04)
5.1
0.186
(1.04)
0.558
(3.12)
0.372
(2.08)
0.004
(0.02)
0
0
0.002
(0.01)
Average
186.16
(1040.0)
184.67
(1031.7)
1.49
(8.32)
0.745
(4.16)
0.47
(2.6)
7.6
0.279
(1.56)
0.652
(3.64)
0.782
(4.37)
0.029
(0.16)
0.01
(0.06)
0.005
(0.03)
0.01
(0.08)
Maximum
—
185.16
(1034.4)
2.79
(15.0)
1.49
(8.32)
0.931
(5.20)
9.4
1.12
(6.23)
5.58
(31.2)
1.4
(7.8)
0.204
(0.14)
0.093
(0.52)
0.022
(0.123)
0.039
(0.22)

Minimum
—
985,000
6,000
3,800
1,000

1,000
3,000
2,000
20
0
0
14
rag/1
Average
—
992,000
8,000
4,000
2,500

1,500
3,500
4,200
150
60
25
80

Maximum
—
994,000
15,000
8,000
5,000

5,000
20,000
7,500
1,100
500
120
200
                     TABLE 3
                    59

-------
            ANIMAL TYPE:  Beef Cattle
 ANIMAL WEIGHT:  360 kg Average  (800 Ibs. Average)
     TYPE OF WASTE:  Dirt-Moderate Slope-Runoff
AREA:  18.6 meter square/head  (200 feet squre/head)

Parameter
Total Potassium
Magnesium
Sodium
kg/head/cm runoff
(Ib/head/inch runoff)
Minimum
0.004
(0.02)
0.01
(0.07)
0.01
(0.07)
Average
0.063
(0.35)
0.018
(0.10)
0.043
(0.24)
Maximum
0.2
(0.9)
0.021
(0.12)
0.1
(0.7)
rag/1
Minimum
20
70
65
Average
340
95
230
Maximum
900
120
700
                TABLE 3  (Continued)
                      60

-------
             ANIMAL TYPE:  Beef Cattle
 ANIMAL WEIGHT:  360 kg Average (800 Ibs. Average)
     TYPE OF WASTE:  Dirt-Steep Slope-Runoff
AREA:  18.6 meter square/head (200 feet square/head)
Parameter
Total (wet solids)
Moisture
Dry Solids
Volatile Solids
Suspended Solids
PH
BODs
COD
Ash
Total Nitrogen
Ammonia Nitrogen
Nitrate Nitrogen
Total Phosphorus
kg/head/cm runoff
(Ib/head/inch runoff)
Minimum
-
210.0
(1175.0)
1.6?
(9.33)
0.813
(4.5^)
0.215
(1.20)
5.1
0.215
(1.20)
0.643
(3.59)
0.428
(2.39)
0.0041
(0.023)
0
0
0.00206
(0.0115)
Average
214.08
(1196.0)
212.29
(1186.0)
1.71
(9.57)
0.856
(4.78)
0.535
(2.99)
7.6
0.320
(1.79)
0.750
(4.19)
0.900
(5.03)
0.0329
(0.184)
0.012
(0.069)
0.00474
(0.0265)
0.0185
(0.104)
Maximum
-
213.01
(1190.0)
3.20
(17.9)
1.71
(9.57)
1.07
(5.98)
9.4
1.29
(7.18)
6.43
(35.9)
1.61
(8.97)
0.234
(1.31)
'0.107
(0.598)
0.00618
(0.0345)
0.0453
(0.253)
™g/l
Minimum
-
982,750
9,200
4,370
1,150

1,150
3,450
2,300
23
0
0
16
Average
-
990,800
9,200
4,600
2,875

1,725
4,025
4,830
173
69
29
92
Maximum
-
990,800
17,250
9,200
5,750

5,750
23,000
8,625
1,265
575
138
230
                      TABLE 4
                     61

-------
             ANIMAL TYPE:  Beef Cattle
 ANIMAL WEIGHT:  360 kg Average (800 Ibs. Average)
     TYPE OF WASTE:  Dirt-Steep Slope-Runoff
AREA:  18.6 meter square/head  (200 feet square/head)
Parameter
Total Potassium

Magnesium
Sodium

kg/head/cm runoff
(Ib/head/inch runoff)
Minimum
0.00412
(0.0230)
0.0144
(0.0805)
0.0144
(0.0805)
Average
0.0721
(0.403)
0.0206
(0.115)
0.0494
(0.276)
Maximum
0.186
(1.04)
0.0247
(0.138)
0.144
(0.805)
mg/1
Minimum
23

81
75
i
Average
391

109
265

Maximum
1,035

138
805

                TABLE 4  (Continued)
                       62

-------
            ANIMAL TYPE:  Beef Cattle
ANIMAL WEIGHT:  360 kg Average (800 Ibs. Average)
        TYPE OF WASTE:  Paved Lot Runoff
AREA:  4.6 meter square/head (50 feet square/head)
Parameter
Total (wet solids)

Moisture

Dry Solids

Volatile Solids

Suspended Solids

PH
BOD5

COD

Ash

Total Nitrogen

Ammonia Nitrogen

Nitrate Nitrogen

Total Phosphorus

kg/head/inch runoff
(Ib/head/inch runoff)
Minimum
_

45.795
(255.88)
0.569
(3.18)
0.279
(1.56)
0.093
(0.52)
5.5
0.093
(0.52)
0.23
(13.)
0.186
(1.04)
0.02
(0.1)
0.0047
(0.026)
0

0.002
(0.01)
Average
46.54
(260.0)
45.982
(255.84)
0.745
(4.16)
0.387
(2.16)
0.279
(1.56)
6.6
0.15
(0.83)
0.331
(1.85)
0.358
(2.00)
0.052
(0.29)
0.01
(0.08)
'0.02
(0.09)
0.005
(0.03)
Maximum
_

45.61
(254.8)
0.93
(5.2)
5.93
(3.12)
0.47
(2.6)
7.5
0.558
(3.12)
1.86
(10.4)
0.70
(3.9)
0.073
(0.41)
0.023
(0.13)
0.0558
(0.312)
0.01
(0.08)
mg/1
Minimum
_

980,000

12,000

6,000

2,000


2,000

5,000

4,000

370

100

0

20

Average
—

984,000

20,000

8,300

6,000


3,200

7,100

7,700

1,100

325

360

110

Maximum
—

988,000

160,000

12,000

10,000


12,000

40,000

15,000

1,580

500

1,200

305

                     TABLE 5
                     63

-------
            ANIMAL TYPE:  Beef Cattle
ANIMAL WEIGHT:  360 kg Average (800 Ibs. Average)
        TYPE OF WASTE:  Paved Lot Runoff
AREA:  4.6 meter square/head  (50 feet square/head)
Parameter
Total Potassium
Magnesium
Sodium
kg/head/inch runoff
(Ib/head/inch runoff)
Minimum
0.002
(0.01)
0.004
(0.02)
0.005
(0.03)
Average
0.02
(0.09)
0.005
(0.03)
0.021
(0.12)
Maximum
0.075
(0.42)
0.00?
(0.04)
0.045
(0.25)
ing; /I
Minimum
30
80
120
Average
350
100
450
Maximum
1,600
140
950
               TABLE 5  (Continued)

-------
                  Volatilization of
                  Organics and
                  Evaporation
                  (Variable)
For Deep Pit
and Solid Floor
Units Only
Foot	
7.7 - 10.4 kg/head/day
(17 - 23 Ib/head/day)
Water	
38 - 114 lit/head/day
(10 - 30 gal/head/day)
Bedding	^
1.21 kg/head/day average
(2.66 Ib/head/day average)
(For Solid Floor Units Only)
                                 HOUSED FEEDLOT
                       Wastes:

                         Slotted Floor

                           Shallow Pit - 21.8 kg/head/day avg.
                                         (48 Ib/head/day avg.)

                           Deep Pit - 19.6 kg/head/day avg.
                                      (43.2 Ib/head/day avg.)

                         Solid Floor

                           7.6 kg/head/day avg.
                           (16.8 Ib/head/day avg.)
             BEEF CATTLE CATEGORY II FLOW DIAGRAM
                          FIGURE 21
                               65

-------
            ANIMAL TYPE:  Beef Cattle
ANIMAL WEIGHT:  360 kg Average (800 Ibs. Average)
 TYPE OF WASTE:  Slotted Floor - Deep Pit Manure

                  e = estimate
Parameter
Total (wet solids)

Moisture

Dry Solids

Volatile Solids

ph
BOD5

COD

Ash

Total Nitrogen

Ammonia Nitrogen

Nitrate Nitrogen

Total Phosphorus

kg/head/day
(Ib/head/day)
Minimum
No Data

No Data

l.Oe
(2.3e)
0.82e
(1.8e)
5.1e
0.2e
(0.5e)
0.91e
(2.0e)
0.2e
(0.5e)
0.03e
(0.07e)
Oe

No Data

0.02e
(O.OSe)
Average
19. 6e
(43. 2e)
16. le
(36. 7e)
3.0e
(6.5e)
1.6e
(3.5e)
5.8e
0.3e
(O'.6e)
l.le
(2.4e)
0.95e
(2.1e)
O.lle
(0.25e)
O.O^e
(0.09e)
No Data

O.OSe
(0.07e)
Maximum
29. le
(64. Oe)
25. 3e
(55. 7e)
5.81e
(12. 8e)
3.2e
(7.0e)
7.6e
0.73e
(1.6e)
2.0e
(4.4e)
1.3e
(2.8e)
O.le
(0.3e)
0.05e
(0.12e)
0.02e
(0.04e)
0.03e
(0.07e)
                   -TABLE 6
                        66

-------
            ANIMAL TYPE:  Beef Cattle
ANIMAL WEIGHT:  360 kg Average (800 Ibs. Average)
 TYPE OF WASTE:  Slotted Floor - Deep Pit Manure

                  e = estimate
Parameter
Total Potassium
Magnesium
Sodium
Diethylstilbestrol
kg/head/day
(Ib. head/day)
Minimum
O.OSe
(0.07e)
0.009e
(0.02e)
O.Ole
(0.03e)
Oe
Average
O.OSe
(0.19e)
0.02e
(0.04e)
0.04e
(0.09e)
Oe
Maximum
0.09e
(0.02e)
0.020e
(0.045e)
0.082e
(0.18e)
Trace
               TABLE 6  (Continued)
                        67

-------
              ANIMAL TYPE:  Beef Cattle
  ANIMAL WEIGHT:  360 kg Average (800 Ibs. Average)
TYPE OF WASTE:  Housed-Solid Floor Manure and Bedding

                 e = estimate
Parameter
Total (wet solids)
Moisture
Dry Solids
Volatile Solids
PH
BOD5
COD
Ash
Total Nitrogen
Ammonia Nitrogen
Nitrate Nitrogen
Total Phosphorus
Total Potassium
Magnesium
Sodium
kg/head/day
(Ib/head/day)
Minimum
5.77e
(12. 7e)
2.6e
(5.7e)
3.2e
(7.0e)
1.6e
(3.5e)
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
Average
7.63e
(16. 8e)
3.8e
(8.4e)
3.8e
(8.4e)
1.8e
(4.0e)
7.3e
0.4e
(O..7e)
l.le
(2.5e)
2.0e
(4.4e)
0.082e
(0.18e)
0.03e
(0.07e)
O.Ole
(0.03e)
0.031
(0.068e)
0.183e
(0.183e)
0.019e
(0.042e)
0.04e
(O.OSe)
Maximum
20. 2e
(44. 4e)
16. 5e
(36. 4e)
9.08e
(20. Oe)
2.5e
(5.5e)
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
                       TABLE  7
                          68

-------
4.   Approximately  forty  percent of the BODS would be satisfied during
  the storage period.

5.  Approximately one-third of the COD would  be  satisfied  during  the
  storage period.

6.   Because of degradation, the concentration of ash would be increased
  about 25 percent.

7.  Small losses  of  nitrogen   (as  ammonia)  would  occur  during  the
  digestion process.

8.    No  losses  of  phosphorus,  potassium, magnesium, or sodium would
  occur, and the resulting concentrations would  be  increased  slightly
  over concentrations found in fresh manure.

Maximum  values  were  estimated  on the basis of fresh manure.  Minimum
values were estimated on the basis of biodegraded manure (Table 2) .

The waste  output  of  a  solid  floor  unit  could  not  be  completely
documented  because of the variability of bedding used.  To estimate the
characteristics given in Table 7 it was assumed that bedding amounts are
based on absorbing moisture from the  wastes  such  that  an  acceptable
moisture  content  could  be  reached  that would be comfortable for the
cattle for walking.  An average number for this is 1.21 kg  (2.66  Ibs.)
of  bedding  per  animal  per  day.   Furthermore, it was assumed that a
substantial quantity of moisture  would  evaporate,  that  the  material
added  would  be  relatively  inert,  and that no substantial amounts of
readily degradable organic pollutants would be added to the  feedlot  as
bedding   material.    Amounts   of   inorganic  materials  (phosphorus,
potassium, magnesium and sodium)  are shown to be approximately equal  to
the concentrations in raw manure.

Data on maximum and minimum variations was not available for most of the
characteristics.

DAIRY_CATTLE

Category._lll

As  shown  in  Figure  22,  this  category  comprises only one method of
production, stall barns with milkrooms, and is depicted  in  Figure  23.
The collectable wastes from this system are the milkroom wastes,  (Tables
8)  from  the  washdown of the milking equipment, and manure and bedding
(Table  9)  which  is  mechanically  removed  from   the   stall   area.
Experimental  data  on  milkroom  wastes  is extremely sparse.  For this
reason,  only the average value is shown.
                                  69

-------
               r











Q
UJ
UJ
CO U.
O Z
u °
Eg
<*
tO
Q co
ID

^
















1
1
1
1



























1
I
I
L
I *
S™
5 Z
gS
 1 CM
O ~ °>
U 2 CM


E ^> 1
" g >
z n £|
Hi °
U rr < m to 01
0 - ^ ~ ^ ~ tf 1
UJ UJ it UJ rf
v -j 9 -j 9 -1 u l
i QQ ^* QQ ^ CQ 1
= < « 3 <
2 H >• 1- Qi H |
1 1 1
III l
	 1

1




1
l
I
i
i


i §
< ,0
m 0t,o
i fc. ^
^ j •!.« l—
Si"g
UJ T 1-
UJ H Z
o: - uj
u_ 5 u



















1 	
1

f — — — — — — - i
10 1
z |


1
1
1
1

1
L

M
0
o
z E

^ «— I
ffl ^ §
^ I 8
< (_ O
co 5 to*

CO Q 1
UJ Q _
I- uj - I
< ^ >\
S Q QC 1
_ z o
2  1- ^
j w 2
= < o
2 5 J
1











UJ
0.
<
o:
t_>
CO
_l
<
u
? °
Z 0
< 0
I to*
U co
UJ to
2^*


o:
Ul
>-
z
UJ
u
o
0 -
Z UJ UJ
V H _1
d^?
2 5 H
1



CO
UJ
_J
CQ
<
H



CM
UJ
_l
CQ
<
H








CM
UJ
_I
DQ
<
H

0
Z
0
Q
UJ
OQ
Q
Z
*v
UJ H
MANUR
TABLE
1
•«•_« ^iOOlaB>B» >B^^B^
I
0

u
                                                               O
                                                               o

                                                               iL.

                                                               H


                                                               UJ
                                                               Q


                                                               UJ
                                                               fe

                                                               te
                                                               D
                                                               Q
                                                               Z

                                                               UJ

                                                               H


                                                               5
                                                               CM

                                                               CM


                                                               UJ
                                                               O

                                                               C
70

-------
                              Volatilization of Organics
                              and Evaporation  (No Data)
Feed	
14.5 - 25.0 kg/day
(32 - 55 Ib/day)
Water	
64 - 110 lit/head/day
(17 - 29 gal/head/day)
Bedding	
1.1 - 3.2 kg/head/day
(2.5 - 7.0 Ib/head/day)
STALL BARN

   WITH

MILK ROOM
                                  I
Milk
9.1-250 kg/head/day
(20-55 Ib/head/day)
                         Milk Room Waste:

                              7.6 kg/head/day average
                              (16.8 Ib/head/day average)

                         Manure and Bedding:

                              47.7 kg/head/day average
                              (105 Ib/head/day average)
           DAIRY CATTLE CATEGORY III PLOW DIAGRAM
                          FIGURE 23
                             71

-------
            ANIMAL TYPE:  Dairy Cattle
ANIMAL WEIGHT:  590 kg Average (1300 Ibs. Average)
    TYPE OF WASTE:  Stall Barn - Milk Room Waste
Parameter
Total (wet solids)
Moisture
Dry Solids
Volatile Solids
Suspended Solids
PH
BOD5
COD
Ash
Total Nitrogen
Ammonia Nitrogen
Nitrate Nitrogen
Total Phosphorus
Total Potassium
Magnesium
Sodium
kg/head/day
(Ib/head/day)
Minimum
No Data
ii
it
ii
n
ii
ii
n
n
n
n
ii
n
n
ii
n
Average
7.63
(16.8)
7.54
(16.6)
0.059
(0.13)
No Data
0.005
(0.01)
8.0
0.005
(0.01)
No Data
n
0.00077
(0.0017)
0.000039
(0.000085)
No Data
0.000064
(0.00014)
No Data
n
n
Maximum
No Data
n
ii
ii
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
rag/1
Minimum
—
No Data
it
ii
n
-
No Data
n
n
M
n
M
n
n
n
n
Average
—
988,000
7,740
No Data
595
-
595
No Data
ii
101
5
No Data
8
No Data
n
»
Maximum
—
No Data
n
it
n
-
No Data
ii
n
n
ii
n
n
n
n
n
                       TABLE 8
                      72

-------
            ANIMAL TYPE:  Dairy Cattle
ANIMAL WEIGHT:  590 kg Average (1300 Ibs. Average)
  TYPE OF WASTE:  Stall Barn, Manure and Bedding
              PERCENT CONFINED:  46%
Parameter
Total (wet solids)

Moisture

Dry Solids

Volatile Solids

PH
BOD5

COD

Ash

Total Nitrogen

Ammonia Nitrogen

Nitrate Nitrogen

Total Phosphorus

Total Potassium

Magnesium

Sodium
kg/head/day
(Ib/head/day)
Minimum
18.8
(41.4)
14.2
(31.3)
2.1
(4.6)
1.73
(3.82)
5
0.0396
(0.873)
1.67
(3.68)
0.146
(0.322)
0.0749
(0.165)
0.021
(0.046)
0

0.0167
(0.368)
0.021
(0.046)
0.021
(0.046)
No Data
Average
21.9
(48.3)
(17.8
(39.1)
4.2
(9.2)
3.55
(7.82)
7
0.459
(1.01)
2.92
(6.44)
0.355
(0.782)
(0.115
(0.253)
0.0708
(0.156)
0.042
(0.092)
0.021
(0.046)
0.0731
(0.161)
0.0251
(0.0552)
No Data
Maximum
26.5
(58.4)
24.0
(52.9)
7.31
(16.1)
6.67
(14.7)
9
0.627
(1.38)
6.27
(13.8)
0.731
(1.61)
0.167
(0.368)
0.125
(0.276)
0.0835
(0.184)
0.0835
(0.184)
0.136
(0.299)
0.0292
(0.0644)
No Data
                      TABLE 9
                        73

-------
CateggrY_IV

This category, as seen in Figure 22, includes four types of  free  stall
barn systems:

1.  Mechanical Scrape
2.  Liquid Storage
3.  slotted Floor
4.  Liquid Flush

Figure  24  is  a  flow  diagram  for the most common free stall system,
mechanical scrape.
     Feed 	»,
     15-25 kg/head/day
     (32-55 Ib/head/day)
     Water	»
     106-132 lit/head/day
     (28-35 gal/head/day
     Bedding
      (1-2 Ib/head/day)
                                   Volatilization of Organics
                                   and Evaporation  (No Data)
                              FREE STALL BARN
      WITH
MILKING CENTER
                            \
                       Milk
                       9.1-25.0 kg/head/day

                       (20-55 kg/head/day)
Milking Center Wastes:  15.3 kg/head/day
                        (33.6 Ib/head/day)

Manure and Bedding:  47.7 kg/head/day
                      (105 Ib/head/day)
                 DAIRY CATTLE CATEGORY IV FLOW DIAGRAM


                               FIGURE 24
                                   74

-------
The wastes for the mechanical scrape system are shown in Tables  10  and
11.   As  with the previous category, the data for milking center wastes
is sparse and only the average value is indicated (even  this  value  is
uncertain) .
Table  12  provides rough estimates of the average values for the liguid
storage and slotted floor waste systems based on the wastes of Table  10
and  limited  data  on the characteristics of fresh manure.  Table 13 is
based on Table 10, fresh manure and an increased water usage.  Real data
are insufficient for estimating minimum and maximum values for Tables 12
and 13.

Category V

Cow yards with milking centers are depicted in Figure 25 and have  three
types  of  waste  streams  as  shown in Tables 14, 15 and 16.  As in the
previous cases, milking center wastes are very rough estimates  of  only
the  average values because of a lack of data.  Yard manure is the waste
scraped from the floor of the cow yard and is estimated on the basis  of
the  biodegraded  wastes  of  beef  feedlots  since  actual  data is not
available.  Runoff from the cow yard is likewise estimated on the  basis
of beef feedlot runoff.  In these cases, only certain average values can
be estimated.
                                  75

-------
   Volatilization of    1
Organics and Evaporation!
        (no data)        I
             1
Rain and Snow
 (Variable)
Feed	».
14.5-25.0 kg/head/day
(32-55 Ib/head/day)
Water	*
120-320 lit/head/day
(32-85 gal/head/day)
Bedding -
0-1.4 kg/head/day
(0-3 Ib/head/day)
   COW YARDS

     WITH


MILKING CENTER
   Milk
   9.1-25.0 kg/head/day
   (20-55 Ib/head/day)
                       Milking Center Wastes:
                              38.1 kg/head/day average
                               (84 Ib/head/day average)

                       Yard Manure:
                              5.897 kg/head/day  average
                               (12.99 Ib/head/day average)
                       Runoff:
                               472 kg/head/day  average
                               (1040  Ib/head/day  average)
            DAIRY CATTLE CATEGORY V FLOW DIAGRAM
                          FIGURE  25
                              76

-------
             ANIMAL TYPE:  Dairy Cattle
 ANIMAL WEIGHT:  590 kg Average (1300 Ibs. Average)
TYPE OF WASTE:  Free Stall Barn - Milking Center Waste
Parameter
Total (wet solids)
Moisture
Dry Solids
Volatile Solids
Suspended Solids
pH
BOD5
COD
Ash
Total Nitrogen
Ammonia Nitrogen
Nitrate Nitrogen
Total Phosphorus
Total Potassium
Magnesium
Sodium
kg/head/day
(Ib /head/day)
Minimum
No Data
"
n
"
"
••
"
"
n
"
"
n
"
"
"
"
Average
15.3
(33.6)
15.2
(33.4)
0.077
(0.17)
No Data
0.04
(0.08)
8.0
0.059
(0.13)
No Data
No Data
0.0068
(0.015)
0.0020
(0.0044)
No Data
0.0009
(0.002)
No Data
n
n
Maximum
No Data
"
"
"
"
"
11
»
"
11
"
"
"
"
"
"
mg/1
Minimum
—
No Data
"
"
11
"
No Data
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
ii
"
Average
—
995,000
5,060
No Data
2,380
No Data
3,870
No Data
No Data
446
131
No Data
60
No Data
"
"
Maximum
—
No Data
11
"
"
"
No Data
"
"
"
"
»
"
"
"
"
                      TABLE 10
                      77

-------
            ANIMAL TYPE:  Dairy Cattle
ANIMAL WEIGHT:  590 kg Average (1300 Ibs. Average)
TYPE OF WASTE:  Free Stall Barn - Manure and Bedding
              PERCENT CONFINED:  90%
Parameter
Total (wet solids)

Moisture

Dry Solids

Volatile Solids

pH
BOD§

COD

Ash

Total Nitrogen

Ammonia Nitrogen

Nitrate Nitrogen

Total Phosphorus

Total Potassium

Magnesium

Sodium
kg/head/day
(Ib/head/day)
Minimum
36.7
(80.9)
27.8
(61.3)
4.1
(9.0)
3.39
(7.47)
5
0.776
(1.71)
3.27
(7.20)
0.286
(0.629)
0.143
(0.314)
0.041
(0.090)
0

0.033
(0.072)
0.0695
(0.153)
0.041
(0.090)
No Data
Average
42.9
(94.5)
34.7
(76.4)
8.2
(18)
6.95
(15.3)
7
0.899
(1.98)
5.72
(12.6)
0.695
(1.53)
0.225
(0.495)
0.138
(0.305)
0.082
(0.18)
0.041
(0.090)
0.143
(0.315)
0.0490
(0.108)
No Data
Maximum
52.2
(115)
47.2
(104)
14.3
(31.5)
13.1
(28.8)
9
1.23
(2.71)
12.3
(27.1)
1.43
(3.15)
0.327
(0.720)
0.245
(0.540)
0.16
(0.36)
0.16
(0.36)
0.266
(0.585)
0.0572
(0.126)
No Data
                     TABLE 11
                         78

-------
                 ANIMAL TYPE:  Dairy Cattle
        ANIMAL WEIGHT:  590 kg Average (1300 Average)
TYPE OF WASTE:  Free Stall Barn-Liquid Storage and Slotted Floor
                   PERCENT CONFINED:  100%
Parameter
Total (wet solids)

Moisture

Dry Solids
Volatile Solids
PH
BOD5
COD
Ash
Total Nitrogen
Ammonia Nitrogen
Nitrate Nitrogen
Total Phosphorus
Total Potassium
Magnesium
Sodium
kg/head/day
(Ib/head/day)
Minimum
No Data

ii

H
it
ii
H
ri
ii
ii
it
n
n
ii
n
n
Average
43.5
(95.8)
38.3
(84.4)
5.162
(11.37)
No Data
n
0.885
(1.95)
No Data
n
0.228
(0.503)
0.0627
(0.304)
n
n
n
n
ii
Maximum
No Data

ti

ii
ii
n
ii
ii
•t
n
ii
n
n
ii
n
n
                          TABLE 12
                             79

-------
            ANIMAL TYPE:  Dairy Cattle
ANIMAL WEIGHT:  590 kg Average (1300 Ibs. Average)
   TYPE OF WASTE:  Free Stall Barn - Liquid Flush
              PERCENT CONFINED: 100%

                   e = estimate
Parameter
Total (wet Solids)
Moisture
Dry Solids
Volatile Solids
PH
BOD5
COD
Ash
Total Nitrogen
Ammonia Nitrogen
Nitrate Nitrogen
Total Phosphorus
Total Potassium
Magnesium
Sodium
kg/ he ad /day
(Ib/head/day)
Minimum
No Data
n
"
»
"
11
"
"
"
11
"
"
"
"
"
Average
284. 6e
(626. Oe)
279. 2e
(615. Oe)
5.162
(11.37)
No Data
"
0.885
(i.95)
No Data
"
0.228
(0.503)
0.138
(0.304)
No Data
••
"
"
n
Maximum
No Data
"
11
«
it
11
"
"
11
"
"
"
it
"
"
                      TABLE  13
                         80

-------
           ANIMAL TYPE:  Dairy Cattle
ANIMAL WEIGHT:  590 kg Average (1300 Ibs. Average)
 TYPE OF WASTE:  Cow Yard - Milking Center Waste
Parameter
Total (wet solids)
Moisture
Dry Solids
Volatile Solids
Suspended Solids
pH
BOD5
COD
Ash
Total Nitrogen
Ammonia Nitrogen
Nitrate Nitrogen
Total Phosphorus
Total Potassium
Magnesium
Sodium
kg/head/day
Minimum
No Data
"
11
»
"
"
"
n
«t
n
tr
II
ii
II
If
II
Average
38.1
(84.0)
37.8
(83.2)
0.4
(0.8)
No Data
0.10
(0.22)
8.0
0.17
(0.38)
No Data
"
0.068
(0.15)
0.02
(0.05)
No Data
0.0068
(0.015)
No Data
»
••
Maximum
No Data
"
"
n
it
n
11
"
n
"
"
n
ii
ti
ti
n
mg/1
Minimum
—
No Data
"
it
"

No Data
"
"
"
11
"
11
"
"
"
Average
—
990,500
9,530
No Data
2,620

4,530
No Data
»
1,790
596
No Data
179
No Data
••
ii
Maximum
—
No Data
11
"
"

No Data
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"

                    TABLE 14
                     81

-------
            ANIMAL TYPE:  Dairy Cattle
ANIMAL WEIGHT:  590 kg Average (1300 Ibs. Average)
       TYPE OF WASTE:  Cow Yard - Yard Manure

                   e = estimate
Parameter
Total (wet solids)
Moisture
Dry Solids
Volatile Solids
PH
BOD5
COD
Ash
Total Nitrogen
Ammonia Nitrogen
Nitrate Nitrogen
Total Phosphorus
Total Potassium
Magnesium
Sodium
kg/head/day
(Ib/head/day)
Minimum
No Data
it
ii
n
it
n
n
n
n
n
ii
ii
n
n
ii
Average
5.897e
(12.99e)
1.67e
(3.67e)
4.23e
(9.32e)
2.92e
(6.43e)
No Data
0.499e
(l.lOe)
1.77e
(3.90e)
1.31e
(2.89e)
0.133e
(0.292e)
No Data
n
0.063e
(0.140e)
0.095e
(0.211e)
No Data
ii
Maximum
No Data
it
n
n
n
ii
n
n
n
n
n
ii
ii
n
n
ii
                     TABLE 15
                         82

-------
              ANIMAL TYPE:  Dairy Cattle
  ANIMAL WEIGHT:  590 kg Average (1300 Ibs. Average)
           TYPE OF WASTE:  Cow Yard - Runoff
AREA 18.6 meter square/head (200 feet square/head)

                     e = estimate
Parameter
Total (wet solids)
Moisture
Dry Solids
Volatile Solids
Suspended Solids
PH
BOD5
COD
Ash
Total Nitrogen
Ammonia Nitrogen
Nitrate Nitrogen
Total Phosphorus
Total Potassium
Magnesium
Sodium
kg/head/cm Runoff
(Ib/head/inch runoff)
Minimum
No Data
ii
ii
ii
ii
ii
it
ii
ii
H
H
n
M
n
n
n
Average
186e
(1040e)
184.67e
(10317e)
1.49e
(8.32e)
0.707e
(3.95e)
No Data
n
0.279e
(1.56e)
0.652e
(3.64e)
0.782e
(4.37e)
0.029e
(0.16e)
No Data
n
O.Ole
(O.OSe)
0.063e
(0.35e)
No Data
n
Maximum
No Data
ii
n
n
n
»
n
ii
n
n
ii
ii
n
n
n
ii
mg/1
Minimum
—
No Data
ii
n
n

No Data
n
••
ii
ii
ti
ii
ii
M
»
Average
—
992fOOOe
8,000e
4,000e
No Data

l,500e
3,500e
No Data
150e
No Data
it
80e
340e
No Data
ii
Maximum
—
No Data
n
n
n

No Data
ii
n
n
n
n
n
ii
ii
n
                       TABLE 16
                       83

-------
SWINE

Figure   26  identifies  the  types  of  wastes  for  each  of  the swine
categories.
                               SWINE
                               61,600,000 ON FEED
                               15% BREEDER
                               85% MARKET
        SOLID CONCRETE
        FLOOR
        15,400,000
                        1  f
         WATER WASHED
         WASTE
         TABLE 17
         CATEGORY VI
                        J  L
SLOTTED
FLOOR HOUSES
9,200,000
               1  T
•MANURE PIT
 TABLE 18
 OX. DITCH
 TABLE 19
 LAGOON
 TABLE 20
 CATEGORY VII
          DIRT LOT OR
          PASTURE
          37,000,000
         •MANURE
         TABLE 21

         RUNOFF
         TABLE 22
J  L.
         CATEGORY VIII
                FIGURE 26.  SWINE INDUSTRY WASTE IDENTIFICATION

-------
Category VI

As shown in Figure 27, the only waste emanating from the solid  concrete
floor  units is water washed waste, which has been hosed from the floor.
It is defined in Table 17.  Estimates were made for the amount of  water
used and amount of biodegradation which would occur.
    Food 	
    2.3 kg/head/day
    (5 Ib/head/day)
    Water
    0 - 11.4 lit/head/day
    (0-3 gal/head/day)
                               1
Volatilization of Organics
and Evaporation (no data)
SOLID CONCRETE
                                  FLOOR FACILITY
                                         T
                                  Water Washed Waste:

                                    41 kg/head/day average
                                    (90 Ib/head/day average)
                   SWINE CATEGORY VI FLOW DIAGRAM
                              FIGURE 27
                                   85

-------
Category VII

Slotted  floor  units  depicted
options built into the system:
in  Figure 28 have one of the following
     a.  Pit Storage      (Table 18)
     b.  Oxidation Ditch  (Table 19)
     c.  Lagoon           (Table 20)
For the pit system the maximum value is based on freshly voided
manure.  The average value assumes 20% biodegradation of the
degradable constituents while the minimum value assumes 40%
biodegradation.  Biodegradation of volatile solids in the oxidation
ditch were assumed to be a minimum of 50%, an average of 80%
and a maximum of 90%.  These values are estimated since data on
oxidation ditches which includes a complete material balance is
not available.  Lagoon values are estimated on the basis that
in the minimum case there is no overflow of liguid from the
lagoon.  The flow and biodegradation for the average and maximum
values are estimates.  The smallest volatile solids reduction
is assumed to be 60%.

                                  Volatilization of Organics
                                  and Evaporation  (no data)
    Food          —
    2.3 kb/head/day
     (5 Ib/head/day)
    Water	1
    0-23 lit/head/day
     (0-6 gal/head/day)
 SLOTTED

 FLOOR

 HOUSES
                                  Wastes:

                                    Pit Manure -  7.7 kg/head/day avg.
                                               -  (17 Ib/head/day avg.)
                                    Oxidation Ditches  -
                                       5.9 kg/head/day  average
                                       (13 Ib/head/day  average)
                                    Lagoons  - 4.1 kg/head/day  average
                                             -  (9  Ib/head/day average)
                    SWINE CATEGORY VII  FLOW  DIAGRAM

                              FIGURE 28
                                  86

-------
              ANIMAL TYPE:  Swine
ANIMAL WEIGHT:  45 kg Average (100 Ib. Average)
 TYPE OF WASTE:  Solid Floor Waterwashed Waste

                 e = estimate
Parameter
Total (wet solids)

Moisture

Dry Solids

Volatile Solids

Suspended Solids

pH
BOD5

COD

Ash

Total Nitrogen

Ammonia Nitrogen

Nitrate Nitrogen
Total Phosphorus

Total Potassium

kg/head/day
(Ib/head/day)
Minimum
20e
(50e)
20e
(50e)
O.le
(0.3e)
O.lle
(0.25e)
O.le
(0.3e)
6
0.068e
(0.15e)
0.16e
(0.35e)
0.02e
(O.OSe)
O.Olle
(0.025e)
0.0068e
(0.015e)
0
0.0064
(0.014)
0.0095
(0.021)
Average
40e
(90e)
40e
(90e)
0.2e
(0.5e)
0.2e
(0.4e)
0.2e
(0.5e)
7
0.09e
(0.2e)
0.25e
(0.55e)
0.05
(O.le)
0.02e
(0.04e)
O.Olle
(0.025e)
0
0.0064
(0.014)
0.0095
(0.021)
Maximum
50e
(HOe)
50e
(HOe)
0.29
(0.64e)
0.21
(0.47)
0.29
(0.64)
8
0.13
(0.28)
0.32
(0.71)
0.077
(0.17e)
0.022
(0.048e)
0.012
(0.027)
0
0.0064
(0.014)
0.0095
(0.021)
mg/1
Minimum
—

987fOOOe

3,000e

2,500e

3,000e


3,500e

3,000e

450e

250e

150e

0
150e

200e

Average
-

995,000e

5,500e

4,500e

5,500e


12,000e

6,0006

l,000e

450e

300e

0
150e

250e

Maximum
-

997,000e

13,000e

9,500e

13,000e


35,000e

14,000e

3,500e

l,000e

600e

0
300e

400e

                   TABLE 17
                   87

-------
              ANIMAL TYPE:  Swine
ANIMAL WEIGHT:  45 kg Average (100 Ib Average)
TYPE OF WASTE:  Solid Floor Waterwashed Waste

                   e = estimate
Parameter
Magnesium

Sodium
Chlortetracycline
Copper
kg/head/day
(Ib/head/day)
Minimum
2.0 x
ID'3
(4.5 x
10-3)
2xlO-3
(4x10-3)
0
3xlO~5
(6x10-5)
Average
2.0 x
10-3
(4.5 x
10~3)
2xlO"3
(4xlO-3)
4xlO-5
(8xlO-5)
3x10-5
6x10-5)
Maximum
2.0 x
10-3
(4.5 x
10~3)
2xlO-3
(4xlO~3)
0.5x10-4
(IxlO'4)
4xlO-4
(8x10-4)
mg/1
Minimum
40e

35e

0.5e
Average
50e

45e

le
Maximum
lOOe

80e

15e
              TABLE 17  (Continued)
                     88

-------
               ANIMAL TYPE:  Swine
ANIMAL WEIGHT:  45 kg Average (100 Ibs. Average)
    TYPE OF WASTE:  Slotted Floor - Pit Manure

                  e = estimate
Parameter
Total (wet solids)
Moisture
Dry Solids
Volatile Solids
Suspended Solids
PH
BOD5
COD
Ash
Total Nitrogen
Ammonia Nitrogen
Nitrate Nitrogen
Total Phosphorus
Total Potassium
kg/head/day
(Ib/head/day)
Minimum
4e
(9e)
3.9
(8.5)
0.2e
(0.4e)
O.le
(0.3e)
0.05e
(O.le)
6
0.068e
(0.15e)
0.2e
(0.4e)
0.02e
(O.OSe)
O.Ole
(O.OSe)
0.009e
(0.02e)
0
0.0064
(0.014)
0.0095
(0.021)
Average
7.7e
(17e)
7.49e
(16. 5e)
0.2e
(0.5e)
0.2e
(0.4e)
0.068e
(0.15e)
7.5
0.09e
(0.2e)
0.25e
(0.55e)
O.OSe
(O.le)
0.02e
(0.04e)
O.Olle
(0.025e)
0
0.0064
(0.014)
0.0095
(0.021)
Maximum
19e
(42e)
18. 8e
(41. 5e)
0.29
(0.64e)
0.21
(0.47e)
0.09
(0.2)
9
0.13
(0.28)
0.32
(0.71)
0.077
(0.17)
0.022
(0.048)
0.012
(0.027e)
0
0.0064
(0.014)
0.0095
(0.021)
mg/1
Minimum
—
923,000e
9,500e
7,000e
2,500e

3,500e
9,500e
If200e
700e
450e
0
350e
500e
Average
—
970,000e
30,000e
25,000e
9,000e

12,000e
35,000e
6,000e
2,500e
l,500e
0
850e
l,300e
Maximum
—
990,000e
77,000e
56,000e
25,000e

35,0006
85,000e
20,000e
5,800e
3,300e
0
l,700e
2,500e
                    TABLE 18
                    89

-------
               ANIMAL TYPE:  Swine
ANIMAL WEIGHT:  45 kg Average  (100 Ibs. Average)
    TYPE OF WASTE:  Slotted Floor - Pit Manure
                   e = estimate
Parameter
Magnesium

Sodium
Chlortetracycline
Copper
kg/head/day
(Ib/head/day)
Minimum
2.0 x
10-3
(4.5 x
10-3)
2xlO-3
(4xlO-3)
0
3x10-5
(6xlO~5)
Average
2.0.x
10~3
(4.5 x
10-3)
2xlO-3
(4x10-3)
4xlQ-5
(8 x
lO-5)
3xlO"5
(6xlO~5)
Maximum
2.0,x
ID'3
(4.5 x
10-3)
2x10-3
(4x10-3)
0.5x10-4
(1 x
10-5)
4xlO~4
(8xlO~4)
mg/1
Minimum
lOOe

lOOe
0
le
Average
250e

250e
5e
5e
Maximum
550e

500e
lOe
lOe
              TABLE 18  (Continued)
                     90

-------
               ANIMAL TYPE:  Swine
ANIMAL WEIGHT:  45 kg Average  (100 Ibs. Average)
  TYPE OF WASTE:  Oxidation Ditch Mixed Liquor

                  e = estimate
Parameter
Total (wet solids)

Moisture

Dry Solids

Volatile Solids

Suspended Solids

PH
BOD5

COD

Ash

Total Nitrogen

Ammonia Nitrogen

Nitrate Nitrogen

Total Phosphorus

Total Potassium

kg/head/day
(Ib/head/day)
Minimum
2e
(4e)
1.6e
(3.5e)
0.068e
(0.15e)
0.02e
(O.OSe)
0.068e
(O.lSe)
6
0.0068e
(O.OlSe)
0.03e
(0.07e)
0.02e
(O.OSe)
0.0009e
(0.002e)
0

O.OOOSe
(O.OOle)
0.0064
(0.014)
0.0095
(0.021)
Average
5.9e
(13e)
5.68e
(12. 5e)
0.09e
(0.2e)
0.04e
(0.09e)
0.09e
(0.2e)
8
O.Ole
(0.03e)
0.09e
(0.2e)
O.OSOe
(O.lle)
O.OOSe
(O.Ole)
O.OOle
(O.OOSe)
O.OOle
(O.OOSe)
0.0064
(0.014)
0.0095
(0.021)
Maximum
7.7e
(17e)
7.49e
(16. 5e)
O.le
(0.3e)
O.lle
(0.25e)
O.le
(0.3e)
9
0.068e
(0.15e)
O.le
(0.3e)
0.068e
(0.15e)
O.Olle
(0.025e)
O.OOSe
(O.Ole)
0.009e
(0.02e)
0.0064
(0.014)
0.0095
(0.021)
mg/1
Minimum
-

900,000e

9,000e

3,0006

9,000e


900e

4,000e

3,000e

lOOe

Oe

50e

850e

l,300e

Average
-

985,000e

15,000e

7,000e

15,000e


2,500e

15,000e

9,000e

800e

250e

250e

l,000e

l,700e

Maximum
-

991,000e

100,000e

75,000e

100,000e


45,000e

100,000e

45,000e

7,500e

3,000e

6,000e

4f500e

6,500e

                    TABLE 19
                    91

-------
               ANIMAL TYPE:  Swine
ANIMAL WEIGHT:  45 kg Average (100 Ibs. Average)
  TYPE OF WASTE:  Oxidation Ditch Mixed Liquor

                  e = estimate
Parameter
Magnesium

Sodium
Chlortetracycline

Copper
kb/head/day
(Ib/head/day)
Minimum
2.5 x
10-3
(4.5 x
10-3)
2xlO-3
(4x10-3)
0

3xlO~5
(6xlO-5)
Average
2.5 x
10~3
4.5 x
ID'3)
2x10-3
(4x10-3)
0

3x10-5
(6x10-5)
Maximum
2.5 x
ID'3
4.5 x
10-3)
2x10-3
(4x10-3)
0.5 x
10-4
(lxlO~4)
4x10-4
(8xlO~4)
mg/1
Minimum
250e

250e
0

5e
Average
350e

300e
0

35e
Maximum
l,400e

1,2006
30e

250e
              TABLE 19  (Continued),
                     92

-------
              ANIMAL TYPE:  Swine
ANIMAL WEIGHT:  45 kg Average (100 Ibs. Average)
   TYPE OF WASTE:  Unaerated Lagoon Effluent

                 e = estimate
Parameter
Total (wet solids)
Moisture
Dry Solids
Volatile Solids
Suspended Solids
PH
BOD5
COD
Ash
Total Nitrogen
Ammonia Nitrogen
Nitrate Nitrogen
Total Phosphorus
Total Potassium
kg/head/day
(Ib/head/day)
Minimum
Oe
Oe
Oe
Oe
Oe
6
Oe
(0.04e)
Oe
Oe
Oe
Oe
0
Oe
(0.007e)
Oe
(O.Ole)
Average
4e
(9e)
3.9e
(8.5e)
0.068e
(0.15e)
O.OSe
(0.07e)
0.068e
(0.15e)
7
0.02e
(0.15e)
O.OSe
(O.le)
0.04e
(O.OSe)
0.009e
(0.02e)
0.0068e
(O.OlSe)
0
0.003e
(0.013e)
O.OOSe
(0.02e)
Maximum
54e
(120e)
52. 2e
(115e)
O.lle
(0.25e)
0.091e
(0.20e)
O.lle
(0.25e)
8.5
0.068e
O.le
(0.3e)
O.OSe
(O.le)
O.Ole
(O.OSe)
O.Olle
(0.025e)
0
0.0059e
0.009e
mg/1
Minimum
-
970,000e
Oe
Oe
Oe

Oe
Oe
Oe
Oe
Oe
0
Oe
Oe
Average
-
991,000e
9,000e
9,000e
9,000e

2,500e
6,000e
5,000e
l,200e
900e
0
400e
600e
Maximum
-
l,000,000e
30,000e
30,000e
30,000e

20,000e
40,000e
12,000e
3,600e
3,000e
0
l,500e
2,500e
                   TABLE 20

                   93

-------
                             ANIMAL TYPE:   Swine
              ANIMAL  WEIGHT:   45  kg Average (100 Ibs.  Average)
                  TYPE OF WASTE:   Unaerated Lagoon Effluent

                               e = estimate
Parameter
Magnesium

Sodium

Chlortetracycline
Copper

kg/head/day
(Ib/head/day)
Minimum
Oe

Oe

0
Oe l

Average
0.9 x
10~3e
(2 x
10~3e)
0.9 x
10~3e
(2 x
10~3e)
0
0.5 x
10-5
(1x10-5)
Maximum
2 x
I0~3e
4 x
10-3e)
2 x
10-3e
(4 x
10-3e)
0
0.5 x
10-4
(IxlO-4)
mg/1
Minimum
Oe

Oe

0
Oe

Average
lOOe

lOOe

0
5e

Maximum
500e

500e

0
lOe

                            TABLE 20  (Continued)
CateaQry_yiII

As depicted in Figure 29, dirt lots have two types of wastes:

a.  Manure  (scraped from the surface)
b.  Runoff.

The maximum value for the manure  (Table 21) is based on swine

-------
                              Volatilization of Organics
                              and Evaporation  (no data)
Rain and Snow
(Variable) 	
Food	
2.3 kg/head/day
(5 Ib/head/day)
Water	
0-23 lit/head/day
(0-6 gal/head/day)
DIRT LOT
                              Manure:  2.3 kg/head/day  average
                                        (5 Ib/head/day average)

                              Runoff:  409 kg/head/cm of  Runoff  avg,
                                        (900 Ib/head/inch  of  R/anoff,
                                                             avg.)
              SWINE CATEGORY VIII FLOW DIAGRAM
                         FIGURE 29
                             95

-------
manure as voided.  The average is based on 50% biodegradation
of volatile solids.  The minimum values of zero are based on a
stocking density low enough not to require scraping of the surface.
Runoff (Table 22) is based on 10% of the wastes being washed away
at most,  5% on the average and none for very low stocking densities
and dry climates.


CHICKENS

Category IX

As discussed in Section IV, the entire broiler industry is in
one category.  Both the breeding flocks and the growing birds
are kept on litter.  Litter is a highly variable item both in
terms of guantity and quality.  The following is a list of some
of the materials used as litter:

pine straw
peanut hulls
pine shavings
chopped pine straw
rice hulls
pine stump chips
pine bark and chips
pine bark
corn cobs
pine sawdust
clay

Obviously these materials vary considerably in their  composition.   The
amount  of  litter used is likewise quite variable depending on the type
of litter, its ability to absorb  moisture  and  its  availability.   In
breeding  flock houses the litter usage is approximately 0.9 kg  (2 Ibs.)
of litter per bird per year.  In the broiler house the  value  is  about
2.7  kg   (6  Ibs)  of litter per bird per year.  These values are highly
dependent  on  individual   management.    Another   variable   is   the
biodegradation of the wastes.  Virtually no data is available along this
line.  Because of the lack of test data available and because the type
                                  96

-------
              ANIMAL TYPE:  Swine
ANIMAL WEIGHT:  45 kg Average (100 Ibs. Average)
              TYPE OF WASTE:  Manure

                  e = estimate
Parameter
Total (wet solids)
Moisture
Dry Solids
Volatile Solids
PH
BOD5
COD
Ash
Total Nitrogen
Ammonia Nitrogen
Nitrate Nitrogen
Total Phosphorus
Total Potassium
Magnesium
kg/head/day
(Ib/head/day)
Minimum
0
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Average
2e
(5e)
2e
(4e)
0.15e
(0.32e)
O.lOe
(0.23e)
-
0.064e
(0.14e)
0.16e
(0.35e)
0.04e
(0.09e)
O.Olle
(0.024e)
0.0064e
(0.014e)
0
0.0064
(0.014)
0.0095
(0.021)
2.0x10-3
(4.5x10-3;
Maximum
4
(9)
4
(8)
0.29
(0.64)
0.21
(0.47)
-
0.13
(0.28)
0.32
(0.71)
0.077
(0.17)
0.022
(0.048)
0.012
(0.027)
0
0.0064
(0.014)
0.0095
(0.021)
2.0x10-3
(4.5x10-3)
                     TABLE 21
                           97

-------
               ANIMAL TYPE:  Swine
ANIMAL WEIGHT:  45 kg Average  (100 Ibs. Average)
              TYPE OF WASTE:  Manure

                  e = estimate
Parameter
Sodium
Chlortetracycline
Copper
kg/head/day
(Ib/head/day)
Minimum
0
0
0
Average
2xlO-3
(4xlO~3)
0
(1x10-4)
3x10-5
(6xlO~5)
Maximum
2xlO-3
(4x10-3)
0.5x10-4
(4xlO~4
(8x10-4)
              TABLE 21  (Continued)
                           98

-------
               ANIMAL TYPE:  Swine
ANIMAL WEIGHT:  45 kg Average (100 Ibs. Average)
         TYPE OF WASTE:  Dirt Lot Runoff
AREA:  124 - 618 head/hectare (50 - 250 head/acre)

                  e = estimate
_ _ 	
Parameter
Total (wet solids)
Moisture
Dry Solids
Volatile Solids

Suspended Solids
PK
BOD5
COD

Ash

Total Nitrogen
Ammonia Nitrogen
Nitrate Nitrogen
Total Phosphorus
Total Potassium

kg/head/cm runoff
(Ib/head/inch runoff) mg/1
Minimum
Oe
Oe
Oe
Oe

Oe
6e
Oe
Oe

Oe

Oe
Oe
Oe
Oe
Oe

Average
161e
(900e)
161e
(900e)
0.21e
(1.2e)
0.16e
(0.09e)
0.21e
(1.2e)
7e
0.09e
(0.5e)
0.23e
(1.3e)
O.OSe
(0.3e)
0.016e
(0.09e)
O.OOTe
(0.04e)
O.OOSe
(0.03e)
0.004e
(0.02e)
0.007e
(0.04e)
Maximum
806
(4500e)
806e
(4500e)
0.41e
(2.3e)
0.30e
(1.7e)
0.41e
(2.3e)
8e
0.18e
(l.Oe)
0.47e
(2.6e)
O.lle
(0.6e)
0.032e
(0.18e)
0.18e
(l.Oe)
0.032e
(0.18e)
0.009e
(O.OSe)
0.014e
(O.OSe)
Minimum
—
997,400e
Oe
Oe

Oe

Oe
Oe

Oe

Oe
Oe
Oe
Oe
Oe

Average
•~
999,700e
260e
200e

260e

lOOe
!300e

20e

20e
lOe
5e
5e
lOe

Maximum
~*
l,000,000e
2,600e
2,000e

2,600e

l,000e
3,0006

200e
«
200e
lOOe
200e
50e
lOOe

                    TABLE 22
                    99

-------
              ANIMAL TYPE:  Swine
ANIMAL WEIGHT:  45 kg Average  (100 Ibs. Average)
         TYPE OF WASTE:  Dirt Lot Runoff
AREA:  124 - 618 head/hectare  (50 - 250 head/acre)

                  e = estimate
Parameter
Magnesium

Sodium

Chlortetracycline
Copper

kg/head/cm runoff
(Ib/head/inch runof
Minimum
Oe

Oe

Oe
Oe

Average
1.4 x
10-3
(8x10-3)
1.3 x
10-3
(7x10-3)
Oe
0.2 x
10-4
(1x10-4)
Maximum
2.9.x
10-3
(16x10-3)
2.7 x
10-3
(15x10-3)
Oe
0.5 x
ID-3
(3x10-3)
f) mg/1
Minimum
Oe

Oe

Oe
Oe

Average
2e

2e

Oe
0.05e

Maximum •
20e

20e

Oe
3e

              TABLE 22  (Continued)
                     100

-------
             ANIMAL TYPE:  Chicken
ANIMAL WEIGHT:  1 Kg (1 Ib.) (Normalized Value
          TYPE OF WASTE:  Fresh Manure
Parameter
Total (wet solids)
Moisture
Dry solids
Volatile Solids
PH
BOD5
COD
Ash
Total Nitrogen
Ammonia Nitrogen
Nitrate Nitrogen
Total Phosphorus
Total Potassium
Magnesium
Sodium
kg/kg/ or bird/day
(Ib/lb of bird/day)
Minimum
No Data
ii
ii
n
n
n
n
••
••
n
ii
••
ii
ii
n
Average
0.059
0.0416
O.U174
0.0129
No Data
0.0044
0.0157
No Data
O.Ollb
No Data
No Data
0.0098
O.Oli
0.0003
0.0003
Maximum
No Data
ii
ii
ii

••
n
n
n
ii
n
n
n

n
                    TABLE 23
                          101

-------
of litter cannot be readily determined, no detailed waste definition can
be  presented.   Instead a table (Table 23)  of the known characteristics
of fresh chicken manure is included with no estimation made for  litter,
biodeqradation  or  evaporation.   For purposes of generality the values
are reported in kq/kg of bird/day (Ib/lb of bird/day).

Categories X and XI

As developed in section IV, the layer industry comprises two categories.
The same difficulties in defining waste  loads  for  broilers  apply  to
laying  chickens.   In  addition,  the  laying chicken industry includes
types of housing in both categories which do not use litter.   There  is
no  definitive data as to the waste outputs of such systems nor is there
sufficient information about management  techniques  which  would  allow
estimation  of  the  waste  loads.    Cages over dry pits with or without
ventilation involve drying and possibly biodegradation of the wastes  to
an  unknown  extent.  Cages over wet pits involve the added complication
of water addition which is also not documented by test data.  Because of
these reasons waste characteristics for laying hens and  the  respective
breeding flocks cannot be estimated.  The waste characteristics of fresh
manure given in Table 23 are also applicable to layers.
                                  102

-------
 r
   Q


  «X»
     Ul
 6 Hi?
^i;
I < Z
tn -i O
  o o
  o o
a. o o
LJ O T~
UJ rs ^

x *i °l
  CM" —"
o >
o
o "

Z Z
   - o

   Z •«
   Ul O
              o
              o
               ~
             Q -
                      W o
                      " »
                      2 o
                      < -.
                                  UJ
                               _
                             z m
                             < <
                             2
                              I   I
                                      [Jr Ul
                                      O _l
                                      z m
                                      D <
                                      a: i-
                      0.8
                      LJ O

                      Ul o"
                      I S
                      W "
                                  UJ to
                                         51
                             5 i- a:
                             J	I
              z
              UJ
              Ul O
            I §5
            a. u 
Ul CM CM
Suiui
Z J J
I??
1




a. 8
U 0
y o
X CM
(/) in



•
Q;
O
O
Ul
L_
s






                                                             D
                                                             Q
                                                             Z

                                                             m
                                                                a
                                                                z
                                                                <
                                                                Q.
                                                                Ul
                                                                Ul
                                                        co

                                                        Ul
                      103

-------
SBEEP

A  substantial  amount of the sheep waste characteristics are estimated.
The basis of these estimates are:

a.   Documented data on the characteristics of fresh manure

b.  Reported values of total quantities and moisture content  of  wastes
  removed from open lots.

c.   Literature  values  of  the maximum and minimum values of Nitrogen,
  Phosphorus and Potassium as well as average BOD1s and COD's for wastes
  removed from open lots.

d.  Estimates of beddinq used in housed facilities.

e.  Estimates of water added in liquid handling systems.

f.  Estimates of expected biodegradation of the wastes.

g.  Maximum and minimum values of the constituents of runoff reported in
  the literature.

h.  Average weights of 68 kg (150 Ib.) for sheep and 39.a kg  (86.7  Ib.)
  for lambs.

Figure  31  identifies  the  wastes  from  each  of  the  sheep industry
categories.

-------
                              Volatilization ot Organics
                              and Evaporation  (no data)
Food .	_	
1.7-3.0 Kg/head/day
(3.8-6.6 Ib/head/day)
Water —	+-
(Solid) 3.J-5.7 kg/head/day
        (7.2-12.5 Ib/head/day)

(Liquid) 7.3-12.7 kg/head/day
        (16-28 Ib/head/day)
Bedding	1
(Solid) 3.9-6.8 Kg/head/day
        (8.7-15 ib/head/day)

(Liquid) 0 kg/head/day
        (0 Ib/head/day)
HOUSED FACILITY
                               T
                              Wastes:
                              Solid Manure:
                                4.1-7.0 Kg/head/day  average
                                (9.0-15.5  Ib/head/day  average)

                              Liquid Manure:
                                7.8-13.5 kg/head/day average
                                (17.2-29.7 Ib/head/day average)
          SHEEP AND LAMBS CATEGORY XII FLOW DIAGRAM
                          FIGURE 32
                              105

-------
Category XII

As seen in Figure 32, two types of waste streams generated  from  housed
facilities  depending  on  whether  solid or liguid handling systems are
used.  In the solid handling system manure and bedding  (usually  straw)
is  removed  mechanically  from the facility.  The waste characteristics
for sheep and lambs are given in  Table  24  and  26  respectively.   In
liguid  handling  systems  water  is  added  to  the manure to produce a
pumpable slurry and no bedding is used.  Tables 25  and  27  detail  the
applicable waste characteristics.

Category XIII

In  partial  confinement  operations,  shown  in  Figure  33, manure and
bedding from the confinement house is essentially the same as that  from
full  confinement buildings except that not all the waste is left in the
confinement building.  Fifty per cent  (50%) confinement is assumed as an
average; conseguently, half the waste is left in  confinement  and  half
outside  (see  Tables  28  and  29).  Runoff from the corral area due to
rainfall and snowmelt is defined by Table  30  which  applies  for  both
sheep  and lambs.  The manure which builds up on the corral surface must
be scraped off periodically and is shown in Table 31 for sheep and Table
32 for lambs (compensated for 50% confinement).  Dirt lots have the same
type of waste characteristics  as  the  partial  confinement  operations
except  that there is not manure from a housed facility.  The applicable
waste tables are:

a.  Tables 33 and 34 for manure scraped from pens.

b.  Table 30 for runoff
                                  106

-------
               ANIMAL TxPE:  Sheep
ANIMAL WEIGHT:  68 kg Average (15u Ibs. Average)
      TYPE OF WASTE:  Housed-Manure (Solid)

                  e = estimate
Parameter
Total (wet solids)
Moisture
Dry Solids
Volatile Solids
PH
BOD5
COD
Ash
Total Nitrogen
Ammonia Nitrogen
Nitrate Nitrogen
Total Phosphorus
Total Potassium
Magnesium
Sodium
kg/ head/aay
(Ib/head/day)
Minimum
3.84e
(8.46e)
2.96e
(6.52e)
0.881e
(l.94e)
0.0708e
(1.56e)
6.5e
0.0495e
(0.109e)
0.708e
(1.S66)
0.22e
(U.48e)
0.039e
(O.u85e)
0. 000039e
(0.00u085e)
Oe
0.00246
(O.u054e)
U.0095e
(0.021e)
0.0035e
(U. 0078e)
O.OOlSe
(0.0029e)
Average
7.02e
(15.48e)
S.Oye
(11.23e)
1.93e
(4.25e)
1.57e
(3.45e)
6.9e
0.16e
(0.35e)
2.2e
(4.8e)
0. J6e
(O.BOe)
0.0631e
(O.lj9e)
0.00563e
(O.ul24e)
0.00326
(u.0070e)
0.018e
(O.u39e)
O.u79e
(0.174e)
0.009be
(u.021e)
O.Olle
(0.02be)
Maximum
».917e
(19.64e)
6.138e
(13.b2e)
2.78e
(6.12e)
2.34e
(S.lbe)
7.4e
O.l^e
(u.27e)
4.20e
(9.25e)
0.44e
(0.97e)
0.25e
(0.55e)
O.u25e
(O.u55e)
0.020e
(u.044e)
0.06226
(O.U7e)
0.024e
(U.52e)
0.016e
(0.036e)
O.u24e
(0.053e)
                    TABLE 24
                           107

-------
               ANIMAL TYPE:  Sheep
ANIMAL WEIGHT:  68 kg Average  (150 L&s. Average)
      TYPE OF WASTE:  Housed-Manure  (Liquid)

                  e = estimate
Parameter
Total (wet solids)
Moisture
Dry Solids
Volatile Solids
Suspended Solids
PH
BOD5
COD
Ash
Total Nitrogen
Ammonia Nitrogen
Nitrate Nitrogen
Total Phosphorus
Total Potassium
xg/head/day
(Ib/heaa/day)
Minimum
3.47e
(7.64e)
2.96e
(6.53e)
O.b04e
ll.lle)
0.39e
(0.87e)
O.lSe
(0.33e)
6.5e
0.032e
(0.070e)
0.39e
(0.87e;
O.lle
(0.24e)
O.OOUSOe
(O.OOlle)
O.u0025e
(0.0u055e)
Oe (
(
0.0003be
(O.OOOSOe)
O.OO^Oe
(0.0043e)
Average
I3.46e
(29.65e)
12.35e
(27.21e)
2.44e
(2.44e)
0.917e
U.02e)
0.434e
(l.OOe)
6.9e
0.091e
(0.20e)
i.3e
(2.8e)
0.21e
(0.46e)
O.Olle
(0.025e)
0.0040e
(O.u089e)
).00u27e)
0.0u059e)
0.0059e
(0.013e;
0.027e
(0.060e)
Maximum
25.be
(56. 3e)
24. Oe
(52. 8e)
J.53e
(3.5Je)
1.36e
(3.uOe)
0.795e
(i.75e)
7.«e
0.16e
(0.35e)
2.5e
(5.4e)
0.24e
(0.53e)
0.0649e
(0.143e)
0.020e
(O.u45e)
(0.0025e)
(O.u056e)
U.035e
(0.076e)
O.lSe
(0.32e)
mg/1
Minimum
—
850,000e
63,ODOe
49,uOOe
i9,000e

3,900e
49,000e
14,OOUe
60e
30e
Oe
94e
500e
Average
—
906,uOOe
84,000e
68,00ue
34,000e

6,800e
95,000e
16,000e
810e
300e
20e
«20e
i,900e
Maximum
—
937,0u0e
150,000e
126,000e
75,000e

lb,000e
225,000e
^4,000e
6,000e
l,000e
lOOe
l,35oe
5,6uOe
                    TABLE  25
                     108

-------
               ANIMAL TxPE:  Sheep
ANIMAL WEIGHT:  68 kg Average (15u Average)
     TYPE OF WASTE:  Housed-Manure (Liquid)

                  e = estimate
Parameter
Magnesium
Sodium
kg/ head/day
llb/head/aay)
Minimum
0.002ue
(0.0045e)
0.000749e
(0.00165e)
Average
0.0059e
(O.OlSe)
0.00676e
(0.0149e)
Maximum
O.OlOe
(U.023e)
O.Ole
(0.03e)
mg/1
Minimum
280e
llOe
Average
480e
540e
Maximum
980e
l,k!80e
                    TABLE 24
                    109

-------
                ANIMAL TYPE:  Lambs
ANIMAL WEIGHT:  3y.4 kg Average (86.7
       TYPE OF WASTE:  Housed-Manure

                   e = estimate
 IDS.  Average)
(Solid)
Parameter
Total (wet solids)
Moisture
Dry Solids
Volatile Solids
PH
BOD5
COD
Ash
Total Nitrogen
Ammonia Nitrogen
Nitrate Nitrogen
Total Phosphorus
Total Potassium
Magnesium
Sodium
kg/head/day
(Ib/head/day)
Minimum
2.2J6
(4.91e)
1.72e
(3.78e)
O.SUe
(1.13e)
(0.41e)
(O.yOe)
6.5e
U.029e
(0.063e;
0.41e
(u.90e)
0.13e
(0.28e)
0.022e
(U.049e)
0. 000022e
(0.0u0049e)
Oe
0.00l4e
(O.OuSle)
0.0054e
(U.012e)
0.0020e
(O.u045e)
0.00073e
(0.00l6e)
Average
4.08e
(8.98e)
2.96e
(6.51e)
1.12e
(2.47e)
(0.908e)
(2.00e)
6.9e
0.0922e
(0.203e)
1.^6e
(2. /8e)
0.2le
(0.46e)
O.OJ7e
(O.OSle)
0.0033e
(0.0072e)
O.OOuSe
(0.004e)
O.OlOe
(0.023e)
0.0459e
(O.lOle)
0.0055e
(O.Ul2e)
0.00658e
(0.0i45e)
Maximum
5.l8e
(il.4e)
3.56e
(7.84e)
l.ble
(J.55e)
(i.36e)
(2.99e)
7.4e
0.071-ie
(O.l57e)
2.44e
(5.37e)
0.25e
(0.56e)
0.15e
(0. J2e)
0.015e
(0.032e)
0.012e
(u.026e)
0.0366
(0.07ye)
O.le
(O.Je)
0.0095e
(O.O^le)
0.014e
(O.OJle)
                      TABLE  26
                            110

-------
                ANIMAL TYPE:  Lames
ANIMAL WEIGHT:  39.4 kg Average (86.7 Ibs. Average)
      TYPE OF WASTE:  Housed-Manure (Liquid)

                   e = estimate
Parameter
Total (wet solids)
Moisture
Dry Solids
Volatile Solids
Suspended Solids
PH
BOD5
COD
Ash
Total Nitrogen
Ammonia Nitrogen
Nitrate Nitrogen
Total Phosphorus
Minimum
2.01e
(4.43e)
1.72e
(3.79e)
0.29e
(0.64e)
0.229e
(0.505e)
0.26e
(0.58e)
6.5e
0.019e
(0.041e)
0.229e
(0.505e)
0.0631e
(0.139e)
0.00029e
(0.00064e)
O.OOOlSe
(0.00032e)
Oe
0.00021e
(0.00046e)
Average
7.Ble
(17. 2e)
7.17e
(15. Be)
0.645e
(1.42e)
U.531e
(I.l7e)
O.J^63e
(1.02e)
6.9e
0.0527e
(0.116e)
0.740e
(1.63e)
0.121e
(0.267e)
0.0068e
(O.OlSe)
0.0024e
(0.0052e)
O.OOOlSe
0.00034e)
O.u034e
(0.0075e)
Maximum
14. 8e
(32. 7e)
13. 9e
(30. 6e)
0.931e
(2.05e)
0.7yOe
(1.74e)
0.86?e
(1.91e)
7.4e
0.0922e
(0.203e)
1.42e
(3.13e)
0.139e
(0.307e)
0.038e
(0.083e)
0.012e
(0.026e)
O.OOlSe
(0.0032e
0.02ue
(0.044e)
Minimum
—
850,000e
b3,000e
49,000e
19,000e

3,900e
49,000e
I4,000e
60e
30e
Oe
94e
Average
—
916,000e
84,000e
68,000e
34,000e

6,800e
95,000e
16,000e
810e
300e
20e
420e
Maximum
—
9J7,OOOe
150,0006
1^6,000e
75,000e

15,000e
225,000e
24,000e
£,OOUe
l,000e
lOOe
i,350e
                     TABLE 27
                      111

-------
                ANIMAL TYPE:  Lambs
ANIMAL WEIGHT:  39.4 kg Average  (86.7 Ibs. Average)
      TYPE OF WASTE:  Koused-Manure  (Liquid)

                   e = estimate
*
Parameter
Total Potassium

Magnesium
Sodium

kg/head/day
(ib/head/day)
Minimum
O.OOlOe
(U.0023e)
0.0ul2e
(0.002be)
0.00044e
(0.00096e)
Average
0.0l6e
(u.035e)
0.0034e
(O.OOVbe)
O.u039e
(u.0086e)
Maximum
0.0844e
(0.186e)
0.0059e
(0.013e)
0.00/90e
(U.0174e
mg/1
Minimum
500e

/80e
HOe

Average
l,90ue

480e
540e

Maximum
5,600e

9«0e
I28e

               TABLE 27  (Continued)
                      112

-------
               ANIMAL TYPE:  Sheep
ANIMAL WEIGHT:  68 kg Average  (150 IDS. Average)
    TYPE OF WASTE:  Partial confinement Manure
             PERCENT CONFINED:  r>0%

                  e = estimate
Parameter
Total (wet solids)
Moisture
Dry Solids
Volatile Solids
PH
BOD5
COD
Ash
Total Nitrogen
Ammonia Nitrogen
Nitrate Nitrogen
Total Phosphorus
Total Potassium
Magnesium
Sodium
kg/head/clay
(Ib/head/day;
Minimum
1.92e
(4.23e)
1.48e
(3.26e)
0.44e
(0.97e)
0.35e
(0.78e)
6.5e
0.025e
(0.055e)
0.35e
(0. /8e)
O.lle
(u.24e)
0.020e
(0.043e)
0.00002Ue
(0.000043e)
Oe
0.0012e
(0.0027e)
0.00477e
(O.OlOSe)
O.OOlSe
(0.0039e;
0.000658e
(0.00l45e)
Average
3.3le
(7. /4e)
2.5be
(5.62e)
0.967e
(2.i3e)
0.785e
(1.73e;
6.9e
0.07y5e
(O.i75e)
l.le
(2.4e)
O.^e
(0.4e)
0.0316e
(O.U695e)
0.0028e
(0.0062e)
0.0016e
(0.003be)
0.0u885e
(0.0195e)
O.u39e
(0.087e)
0.004/7e
(O.OlOSe)
0.00568e
(O.OlOSe)
Maximum
4.46e
(9.82e)
3.07e
(6.76e)
1.39e
(3.06e)
1.176
(2.58e)
7.4e
0.0613e
(U.135e)
2.10e
(4.63e)
0.220e
(0.485e)
0.125e
(0.275e)
U.0125e
(0.0275e)
O.OlOe
(0.022e)
0.014le
(0.068be)
0.12e
(u.26e)
0.0082e
(O.OlBe)
0. Ol^JOe
(0.0265e)
                    TABLE
                          113

-------
                ANIMAL TYPE:  Lamfcs
ANIMAL WEIGHT:  39.4 kg Average  (86.7 Ibs. Average)
    TYPE OF WASTE:  Partial Confinement - Manure
               PERCENT CONFINED:  5U%

                    e = estimate
Parameter
Total (wet solids)
Moisture
Dry Solids
Volatile Solids
PH
BOD5
COD
Ash
Total Nitrogen
Ammonia Nitrogen
Nitrate Nitrogen
Total Phosphorus
Total Potassium
Magnesium
Sodium
kg/heaa/day
(Ib/head/day)
Minimum
l.lle
(2.45e)
0.858e
(1.89e)
0.256e
(0.563e)
0.205e
(0.452e)
6. be
O.Olbe
(0.032e)
0.205e
(0.452e)
0.06Jle
(O.l39e)
O.Olle
(0.025e)
O.OOOOlle
(0.00002be)
Oe
0.000713e
(0.0157e)
0.0028e
(0.006le)
O.OOlOe
(O.u023e)
0.00038e
(0.00084e)
Average
2.04e
(4.4ye)
1.47e
(3.23e)
O.b63e
(1.24e)
0.454e
(l.OOe)
6.9e
0.0463e
(O.i02e)
0.63le
(I.j9e)
O.lOSe
(0.2!32e)
O.OlSJe
(U.0403e)
O.OOlbe
(0.003be)
0.00092^6
(0.00203e)
0.00513e
(O.OI13e)
O.u229e
(O.OSObe)
0.0028e
(O.u061e)
0.0033e
(0.0073e)
Maximum
2.58e
(5.69e)
1.78e
(3.92e)
0.804e
(1.77e)
0.676e
(1.49e)
7.4e
0.0355e
(0.0783e)
1.22e
(2.69e)
0.128e
(0.28le)
0.0722e
(0.159e)
0.00722e
(O.OlSye)
0.00581e
(0.0128e)
O.ul73e
(0.382e)
0.0686e
(O.lSle)
O.U0472e
(0.0l04e)
0.006996
(0.0154e)
                      TABLE 29
                           114

-------
           ANIMAL TYPE:  Sheep and Jbambs
ANIMAL WEIGHT:  &8 and 39.4 Kg Average Kespectively
                (150 and 86 ibs. Average Respectively)
         TYPE OF WASTE:  Open Lot - Runoff
        AKEA:  2.8 meter square/head  (Sheep)
               (30 feet square/head)  (Sheep)

               1.4 meter square/head  (Lambs)
               (15 feet.square/head)  (Lambs)

                   e = estimate
Parameter
Total (wet solids)
Moisture
Dry Solids
Volatile Solids
Suspended Solids
pH
BOD5
COD
Ash
Total Nitrogen
kg/head/cm runoff
(ib/head/inch runoff)
Minimum
27.9
(156)
26.5
(148)
0.07
(0.4)
0.029
(0.16)
0.030
(0.17)
5.8
0.011
(0.062)
(0.036)
(0.20)
0.039
(0.2^)
(0.0014)
(0.0078)
Average
27.9
(156)
27. 6e
(154e)
0.43
(2.4)
0.18e
(0.98e)
0.13e
(0.70e)
6.9e
0.084e
(0.47e)
(0.279e)
(1.56e)
0.17e
(0.97e)
(0.029e)
(0.16e)
Maximum
27.9
(156)
27.9
(156)
1.4
(7.8)
0.39
(2.2)
0.38
U-1)
8.0
0.335
(1.87)
U.18)
(12.2)
0.474
(2.65)
(0.16)
(O.yO)
ing /I
Minimum

950,000
2,400
1,000
1,100

400
1,300
1,400
50
Average

987,000e
12,500e
fa,200e
4,500e

3,000e
10,000e
6,200e
I,u00e
Maximum

987,600
bO,000
14,UOO
13,500

12,000
7«,000
I/, 000
5,000
                      TABLE  3U
                     115

-------
           ANIMAL TYPE:  Sneep and Lambs
ANIMAL WEIGHT:  68 and 39.4 kg Average Respectively
                (150 and 86.7 Ibs. Average Respectively)
         TYPE OF WASTE:  Open Lot - Runotf
        AREA:  2.8 meter square/head  (sheep)
               (30 teet square/head)  (Sneep)

               1.4 meter square/head  (Lambs)
               (15 feet square/nead)  (Lames)

                  e = estimate
Parameter
Ammonia Nitrogen
Nitrate Nitrogen
Total Phosphorus
Total Potassium

Magnesium
Sodium

Chloride

kg/head/cm runotf
(Ib /head/inch runoff)
Minimum
0
0
0.00014
(0.00078)
0.0011
(0.0062)
0.0017
(0.0093)
0.0017
(0.0093)
0.0055
(0.031)
Average
0.0029e
(O.Ul6e)
0.00055e
(0.0031e)
0.00224e
(0.0125e)
0.020e
(O.lle)
0.0029e
(0.016e)
0.014e
(0.078e)
0.013e
(0.072e)
Maximum
0.055
(0.31)
0.00224
(0.0125)
0.021
(0.12
0.057
(0. 32)
O.Ull
(0.062)
0.045
(0.25)
0.021
(0.12)
mg/1
Minimum
0
0
5
40

60
60

200

Average
lOOe
20e
80e
700

lOOe
500e

460e

Maximum
2,000
80
750
2,100

400
1,600

780

               TABLE  3U  (Continued)
                    116

-------
               ANIMAL TYPE:  Sheep
ANIMAL WEIGHT:  68 kg Average (150 xbs. Average)
TYPE OF WASTE:  Partial Confinement-Corral Manure
            PERCENT CONFINEMENT:  50%

                  e = estimate
Parameter
Total (wet solids)
Moisture
Dry Solids
Volatile Solids
pH
BOD5
COD
Ash
Total Nitrogen
Ammonia Nitrogen
Nitrate Nitrogen
Total Phosphorus
Total Potassium
Magnesium
Sodium
kg/nead/day
Ub/nead/day)
Minimum
0.477e
(l.OSe)
0.184e
(0.405e)
0.24e
(0.53e)
0.0477e
(O.lOSe)
6.5e
O.OlOe
(0.023e)
O.u34e
(O.u75e)
0.19e
(0.42e)
0.00167e
(O.u0368e)
0.000ul7e
(0.000037e)
Oe
0.00024e
(0.00053e)
0.00u40e
(0.00089e)
0.000717e
(0.00158e)
0.00038e
(O.OOOSJe)
Average
0.73e
(1.6e)
0.2le
(0.47e)
0.504e
(l.lle)
0.17e
(0.37e)
6.9e
0.024e
(0.053e)
0.17e
(0.37e)
0.325e
(0.715e)
0.0116e
(0.0255e)
0.000b68e
(0.0ul25e)
O.OuOOSOe
(O.OOulle)
0.00215e
(U.00473e)
0.00749e
(0.0165e;
0.00184e
(0.00405e)
0.00279e
(0.006l5e)
Maximum
0.9^2e
(2.03e)
0.24e
(U.53e)
0.7356
(1.62e)
0. J7e
(0.81e)
7.5e
0.034e
(0.075e)
0.443e
(0.975e)
0. J7e
(O.Sle)
0.0222e
(0.0488e)
0.002u7e
(O.u0455e)
0.00l2e
(0.0u26e)
U. 0040e
(0.0089e)
0.012e
(0.027e)
0.0037e
(U.OOSle)
0.006276
(O.OUSe)
                    TABLE Jl
                          117

-------
                ANIMAL TYPE:  Lambs
ANIMAL WEIGHT:  39.4 kg Average (86.7 Ibs. Average)
TYPE OF WASTE:  Partial Continement - corral Manure
             PARTIAL CONFINEMENT:   50%

                   e = estimate
Parameter
Total (wet solids)
Moisture
Dry Solids
Volatile Solids
PH
BOD5
COD
Ash
Total Nitrogen
Ammonia Nitrogen
Total Phosphorus
Total Potassium
Magnesium
Sodium
kg/head/day
(Ib/head/day)
Minimum
0.276e
(O.b09e)
0.1 08e
(0.273e)
0.13ye
(0.3u7e)
O.U28e
(0.061e)
6.5e
0.00604e
(0.0133e)
0.0197e
(0.0435e)
O.llle
(0.244e)
0.000967e
(0.00213e)
O.OOOOU95e
(0.000021e)
O.OOUl4e
(0.00031e)
0.00024e
(0.00052e)
0.00042e
(0.00092e)
0.00022e
(0.00048e)
Average
0.421e
(0.928e)
O.lAe
().31e)
0.292e
(0.644e)
0.097be
(0.215e)
6.9e
0.013ye
(0.0307e)
0.0976e
(0.2l5e)
0.188e
(0.4l5e)
0.00672e
(O.ul48e)
O.OOOJ29e
(0.000725e)
O.OOl^e
(0.0027e)
0.0044e
(0.0096e)
O.OOlOe
(0.0023e)
0.0016e
(0.0036e)
Maximum
0.536e
(1.18e)
2.631e
(6.235e)
0.426e
(0.939e)
0.213e
(0.470e)
7.5e
0.0197e
(0.0435e)
0.0257e
(0.566e)
0.213e
(0.470e)
O.ul28e
(O.u283e)
0.001l9e
(0.00263e)
0.0024e
(0.0052e)
0.0073e
(0.016e)
0.0021e
(0.0047e)
0.004e
(O.OOSe)
                     TABLE  32
                             118

-------
               ANIMAL TYPE:  Sheep
ANIMAL WEIGHT:  68 kg Average (150
        TYPE OF WASTE:  Dirt Lot -

                  e = estimate
Ibs. Average)
Manure
Parameter
Total (wet solids)
Moisture
Dry Solids
Volatile Solids
pH
BOD5
COD
Ash
Total Nitrogen
Ammonia Nitrogen
Nitrate Nitrogen
Total Phosphorus
Total Potassium
Magnesium
Sodium
kg/head/day
(Ib/head/day)
Minimum
0.95e
(2.1e)
0.37e
(O.Sle)
0.477e
(l.OSe)
0.095e
(0.21e)
6.5e
0.020e
(0.045e)
0.068e
(0.15e)
0.38e
(0.84e)
0.00334
(0.00735)
0.000034e
(0.000074e)
Oe
0.000477
(O.OOlOe)
0.000808
(0.00178)
0.00143e
(0.00315e)
0.000749e
(0.00165e)
Average
1.43
(3.15)
0.43e
(0.94e)
l.OOe
(2.21e)
0.34e
(0.74e)
6.9e
0.0477
(0.105)
0.34
(0.74)
0.649e
(1.43e)
0.023e
(O.OSle)
O.OOlle
(0.0025e)
0.00022e
(O.OOOlOe)
0.00429e
(0.00945e)
0.015e
(0.033e)
0.0037e
(O.OOSle)
0. 000558e
(0.00123e)
Maximum
1.84e
(4.05e)
0.477e
(l.OSe)
1.47e
(3.24e)
0.735e
(1.62e)
7.5e
0.068e
(0.15e)
0.885e
(1.95e)
0.735e
(1.62e)
0.0443
(0.0975)
0.0041e
(0.0091e)
0.0052e
(0.0024e)
0.00808
(0.0178)
0.025
(0.054)
0.00735e
(0.0162e)
0.0125e
(0.0276e)
                    TABLE 33
                           119

-------
                ANIMAL TYPE:  Lambs
ANIMAL WEIGHT:  39.4 kg Average (86.7 Ibs. Average)
         TYPE OF WASTE:  Dirt Lot - Manure

                   e = estimate
Parameter
Total (wet solids)

Moisture

Dry Solids
Volatile Solids

PH
BOD5
COD

Ash

Total Nitrogen
Ammonia Nitrogen
Nitrate Nitrogen
Total Phosphorus
Total Potassium

Magnesium
Sodium

kg/head/day
(Ib/head/day)
Minimum
0.554e
(1.22e)
0.2le
(0.47e)
0.28e
(0.61e)
0.054e
(O.l2e)
6.5e
U.012e
(U.026e)
O.u39e
(0.087e)
0.22e
(U.49e)
O.OU20
(0.0043)
0.00u020e
(0.000043e)
Oe
0.00028
(0.00061)
0.000468
(O.U0103)
0.00082e
(O.OOlSe)
0.00044e
(0.00096e)
Average
0.831
(1.83)
0.2be
(0.55e)
0.58le
(1.28e)
0.20e
(0.43e)
6.9e
0.028
(0.061)
0.20
(0.43)
0. j8e
(O.b3e)
O.Ole
(0.03e)
0.00u68e
(O.OOlSe)
0.000059e
(0.00013e)
0.00256
(0.0055e)
0.0086e
(0.0l9e)
0.0021e
(0.0047e)
0.00326
(0.0071e)
Maximum
1.07e
(2.35e)
0.28e
(0.61e)
0.854e
(l.SOe)
0.43e
(0.94e)
7.5e
0.039e
(0.0«7e)
0.513e
(1.13e)
0.43e
(0.94e)
0.026
(0.057)
0.00246
(0.0053e)
O.OOle
(0.003e)
0.00468
(0.0103)
0.014
(0.031)
0.00436
(0.0094e)
0.0073e
(0.0166)
                     TABLE 34
                             120

-------
Food 	•
1.7-3.0 kg/head/day
(3.8-6.6 Ib/head/day)
Water	»~
3.3-5.7 kg/head/day
(7.2-12.5 Ib/head/day)
Bedding 	
1.8-3.6 kg/head/day
(4-8 Ib/head/day)
(Confinement only)
                              Rain and Snpw
                              (Variable)
                                           Volatilization of
                                           Organics and
                                           Evaporation  (no data)
OPEN LOT
                              Wastes:
                              Partial Confinement:
                                Manure - 2.0-3.6 kg/head/day  average
                                          (4.5-8 Ib/head/day average)
                                Runoff - 70.8 kg/head/day  average
                                          (156 Ib/head/day  average)
                              Corral Manure:
                                0.4-0.7 kg/head/day average
                                 (0.9-1.6 Ib/head/day  average)
                              Dirt Lot:
                                Manure - 0.8-1.5 kg/head/day  average
                                          (1.8-3.2  Ib/head/day average)
                                Runoff - 70.8 kg/head/day  average
                                          (156 Ib/head/day  average)
         SHEEP AND LAMBS CATEGORY XIII FLOW DIAGRAM
                          FIGURE 33
                              121

-------
Turkeys

Figure 31 identifies the wastes from each of the turkey categories.

Category XIV

The wastes from this category are a mixture of manure and litter.  There
are, however, two types of wastes, manure and litter from breeding birds
and that from market birds.  These two types are estimated in Tables  35
and  36  respectively.  The data are estimated on the basis of a limited
amount of data on fresh turkey waste  and  some  data  on  laying  hens.
Biodegradation  of  the  wastes,  evaporation  and  litter usage are not
considered due to the lack of actual test data.
                                TURKEYS
                                90,200,000
                                ON FEED
             CATEGORY XIV
                                           	j
	

HOUSED
19,700,0(
	 1


1
— MANURE AND 1
r~


i
LITTER • |
TABLES 35 & 36 |



•
1
1
i
i
i
—

OPEN
	

LOT
70,500,000
-MANURE
SEE TEXT


-RUNOFF
SEE TEXT
I

I       CATEGORY XV
             FIGURE 34. TURKEY INDUSTRY WASTE IDENTIFICATION
                                  122

-------
 Category^xy

 In  open  lot operations where  animal   densities  are  high,   removal  of
 accumulated  solids may  be required.   There  is no data  available  on this
 type  of  waste,   similarly there  is  no runoff data available.

 Manure and  runoff  characteristics are  dependent  on  stocking  density,
 vegetative  cover and  land use practices.   Land use varies  from  about  10%
 to  30%   of  the year.   This low usage is  a  result of the  sensitivity of
 turkeys  to  disease.   Since there is an undefined variability  in open  lot
 practices and since no actual manure  or runoff  data   is  available  no
 tables   of   waste  characteristics are included.  This is not  to say that
 manure and  runoff  are not present in  some  cases but  that  documentation
 of  such  wastes  does not  exist.

 DUCKS

 Figure 35 identifies  the wastes  for each duck category.

 Category XVI

 Dry  lots  operate with  no water except for  drinking and,  in  some cases,
 washing  out the wastes.  This type  of system is relatively new  and  no
 test  data   on   waste outputs   are  available.   As  a result, no waste
 characteristic  tables are included  for this  category.

 Category_XVII

 Some  waste  water characteristics have been measured for Long  Island duck
 farms and are given in Table 37.  The characteristics   of  solid  manure
 and  litter  removed  from the confinement house have not  been  measured.
 The degree  of biodegradation and the  amount  of bedding  used are unknown;
 consequently,  a table defining this waste  is not included.

'HORSES

 Category^jCVIII  The wastes from this category are a mixture of manure  and
 bedding.  The quantities and variations of quantities   are based on a
 survey   of   several   racetracks  conducted  by  the  Thoroughbred Racing
 Association.  Quantities for some specific constituents  were  from   the
 literature.   Inorganic salts were estimated  on the basis of a similarity
 to  the wastes of beef cattle.  The  characteristics are  detailed in Table
 38.
                                   123

-------
                        DUCKS
                        1,800,000 ON FEED
                        95% MARKET
                        5% BREEDER
       DRY LOT
       380,000
                                          r
   — WASTE WATER
      SEE TEXT

   — MANURE AND
      LITTER
      SEE TEXT
L
CATEGORY XVI
                                              WET LOT
                                              1,480,000
   	WASTE WATER  i
       TABLE 37       I

   — MANURE AND
       LITTER        I
       SEE TEXT       I

I   CATEGORY XVII    |
               FIGURE 35. DUCK INDUSTRY WASTE IDENTIFICATION
                              124

-------
              ANIMAL
ANIMAL WEIGHT:  11.4
     TYPE OF WASTE:
TYPE:  Turkeys
kg Average (25 Ibs. Average)
Breeding - Fresh Manure
                  e = estimate
Parameter
Total (wet solids)
Moisture
Dry Solids
Volatile Solids
PH
BOD5
COD
Ash
Total Nitrogen
Ammonia Nitrogen
Nitrate Nitrogen
Total Phosphorus
Total Potassium
Magnesium
kg/head/day
(Ib/head/day)
Minimum
No Data
ii
0.147e
(0.323e)
0.0876e
(0.193e)
6.4e
O.OlSe
(0.033e)
0.0844e
(0.186e)
0.034e
(0.075e)
0.0073e
(0.0l6e)
O.OOle
(O.OOSe)
No Data
0.002e
(0.005e)
O.OOle
(0.003e)
O.OOOle
(0.0003e)
Average
0.681e
(l.SOe)
0.5108e
(1.125e)
0.170e
(0.375e)
O.llOe
(0.243e)
6.7e
0.039e
(0.85e)
O.llSe
(0.259e)
O.U40e
(0.089e)
0.0082e
(O.OlSe)
0.004e
(O.OOSe)
No Data
0.0068e
(O.OlSe)
0.003e
(0.006e)
O.OOOle
(0.0003e)
Maximum
No Data
ii
0.216e
(0.476e)
0.131e
(0.288e)
7.0e
0.0822e
(O.lSle)
0.147e
(0.323e)
0.0477e
(O.lOSe)
0.0086e
(0.019e)
0.0059e
(0.013e)
No Data
O.Olle
(0.025e)
0.004e
<0.009e)
o.ooeie
(0.0003e)
                 TABLE 35
                        125

-------
              ANIMAL TYPE:  Turkeys
ANIMAL WEIGHT:  11.4 kg Average (25 Ibs. Average)
    TYPE OF WASTE:  Breeding - Fresh Manure

                  e = estimate
Parameter
Sodium
Arsenic
kg/head/day
(Ib/head/day)
Minimum
0.0054e
(0.012e)
No Data
Average
0.0054e
(0.012e)
0.0003
(0.0007)
Maximum
0.0054e
(0.012e)
No Data
           TABLE 35 (Continued)
                        126

-------
ANIMAL WEIGHT
      TYPE OF
 ANIMAL TYPE:   Turkeys
:   6.8  kg Average  (15 Ibs.  Average)
 WASTE:  Growing - Fresh Mnaure

     e  = estimate
Parameter
Total (wet solids)

Moisture

Dry Solids

Volatile Solids

PH
BOD5

COD

Ash

Total Nitrogen

Ammonia Nitrogen

Nitrate Nitrogen
Total Phosphorus

Total Potassium

kg/head/day
(Ib/head/day)
Minimum
No Data

ii

0.0881e
(0.194e)
0.0527e
(0.116e)
6.4e
0.0091e
(0.020e)
0.0508e
(0.112e)
0.020e
(0.045e)
0.0045e
(O.OlOe)
O.OOle
(0.002e)
No Data
O.OOle
(0.003e)
O.OOle
(0.002e)
Average
0.41e
(0.90e)
0.306e
(0.675e)
0.102e
(0.225e)
0.0663e
(0.146e)
6.7e
0.023e
(O.OSle)
0.0708e
(0.156e)
0.025e
(0.054e)
O.OOSOe
(O.Olle)
0.002e
(O.OOSe)
No Data
0.004e
(0.009e)
0.002e
(0.004e)
Maximum
No Data

H

0.130e
(0.286e)
0.0785e
(0.173e)
7.0e
0.0495e
(0.109e)
O.OSSle
(0.194e)
0.029e
(0.063e)
0.0054e
(0.012e)
0.004e
(0.008e)
No Data
0.0068e
(0.015e)
0.003e
(0.006e)
                 TABLE  36
                       127

-------
             ANIMAL TYPE:  Turkeys
ANIMAL WEIGHT:  6.8 kg Average (15 Ibs. Average)
    TYPE OF WASTE:  Growing - Fresh Manure

                 e = estimate
•
Parameter
Sodium

Arsenic

kg/head/day
(Ib/head/day)
Minimum
O.OOSe
(0.007e)
No Data

Average
0.003e
(0.007e)
O.OOOSe
(0.0007e)
Maximum
0.003e
(0.007e)
No Data

             TABLE 36 (Continued)
                       128

-------
ANIMAL WEIGHT:
       TYPE OF
ANIMAL TYPE:  Ducks
 1.6 kg Average (3.5 Average)
WASTE:  Wet Lot Waste Water
Parameter
Total (wet solids)
Moisture
Dry Solids
Volatile Solids
Suspended Solids
PH
BOD 5
COD
Ash
Total Nitrogen
Ammonia Nitrogen
Nitrate Nitrogen
Total Phosphorus
Total Potassium
Magnesium
Sodium
kg/head/day
(Ib/head/day)
Minimum
18.2
(40)
18.2
(40)
0.012
(0.026)
No Data
0.005
(0.01)
6.2
0.0050
0.0086
(0.019)
No 'Data
0.0021
(0.0047)
No Data
ti
0.001
(0.003)
No Data
it
H
Average
No Data
ii
0.044
(0.096)
No Data
0.0248
(0.0546)
6.9
No Data
0.037
(0.082)
No Data
H
H
H
H
ii
H
n
Maximum
454
(1000)
454
(1000)
0.15
(0.32)
No Data
0.108
(0.237)
8.0
0.030
0.12
(0.26)
No Data
0.0029
(0.0064)
No Data
n
0.010
(0.022)
No Data
n
it
mg/1
Minimum
—
993,000
330
No Data
17

26
140
No Data
7
No Data
n
9
No Data
H
II
Average
—
998,000
1,010
No Data
337

No Data
810
No Data
n
n
it
n
n
n
n
Minimum
—
999,670
6,340
No Data
4,630

490
7,520
No Data
50
No Data
ii
73
No Data
n
M
                    TABLE 37
                    129

-------
              ANIMAL TYPE:  Horses
ANIMAL WEIGHT:  454 kg Average (1000 Ibs. Average)
        TYPE OF WASTE:  Manure and Bedding
                  e = estimate
Parameter
Total (wet solids)

Moisture

Dry Solids

Volatile Solids

pH
BOD5
COD

Ash

Total Nitrogen

Ammonia Nitrogen

Nitrate Nitrogen
Total Phosphorus

Total Potassium

Magnesium

Sodium

kg/head/day
(Ib/head/day)
Minimum
23.4
(51.5)
15.0
(33.0)
8.40
(18.5)
6.31e
(13. 9e)
6.0e
0.16e
(0.36e)
0.899e
(1.98e)
2.1e
(4.6e)
0.114e
(0.252e)
0.029e
(0.063e)

0.0197e
(0.0433e)
0.12
(0.26)
0.0157e
(0.0345e)
0.0126e
(0.0278e)
Average
37.2
(82.0)
20.0
(44.0)
17.3
(38.0)
12. 9e
(28. 5e)
7.0e
0.4e
(0.8e)
2.0e
(4.5e)
4.3e
(9.5e)
0.261
(0.574)
0.068e
(0.15e)
NEGLIGIBLE
0.045
(0.10)
0.24
(0.52)
0.04
(0.08)
0.03e
(0.06e)
Maximum
51.08
(112.5)
24.5
(54.0)
26.6
(58.5)
19. 9e
(43. 8e)
8.0e .
0.663e
(1.46e)
3.65e
(8.05e)
6.67e
(14. 7e)
0.463e
(1.02e)
0.116e
(0.256e)

0.0799e
(0.176e)
0.38
(0.84)
0.0636e
(0.141e)
0.05108e
(0.1125e)
                    TABLE 38
                           130

-------
                               SECTION VI

                   SELECTION OF POLLUTANT PARAMETERS


DEFINITION OF POLLUTANT

This  study  deals  with  animal  feedlot  waste,  which  is one of many
different types of agricultural wastes.  In accordance with Section  502
of  the  "Federal  Water  Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972", all
agricultural wastes are defined  as  pollutants,  hence  animal  feedlot
wastes are pollutants in a legal sense.

In  the  context  of  this  investigation  the  main parameters of water
pollution to be considered are grouped as follows:

1.  Total Solids content
2.  Oxygen Demand
3.  Color and Turbidity
H.  Odor
5.  Bacteriological
6.  Total Dissolved Solids

There is no question that animal wastes can cause water  pollution  from
any  one  or  all  of the groups listed.  The exact degree of pollution,
however, will be different for each set of circumstances.  For instance,
the ratios of the concentrations of  animal  waste  constituents  remain
constant  to  a  practical  extent throughout the wide range of types of
animal waste; however, in one in-stream situation phosphorus  may  be  a
limiting  nutrient  for  excessive  algae growth and nitrogen may be the
limiting nutrient in another.  These differences vary  with  the  normal
characteristics  of  the  water in question and can only be specified by
studying  each  situation  individually.   Moreover,  even  though   the
available  data  shows  a  number  of  specific pollutant parameters are
contained in animal wastes, the degree of specificity  is  not  absolute
since waste flows (particularly runoff) have apparently not been sampled
and analyzed for some types of animal feeding operations (e.g., turkeys,
sheep,  low  density  swine  lots)  as shown by the estimates provided in
Section V.  The following  general  discussion  therefore  centers  upon
those parameters for which data provides confidence in requiring control
of  discharges  and  (conversely)  the lack of data highlights a need for
concern that is not as completely well documented.

TQTAL_ SOLIDS CONTENT AND OXYGEN DEMAND

The primary solid constituents of animal waste are best described by the
following terms which are not mutually exclusive,  but  which  represent
significant classifications from the pollutional standpoint.
                                  131

-------
1.  Biological Material
2.  Nitrogen
3.  Phosphorus
4.  Dissolved solids and trace constituents.

These  represent specific pollutants since they supply nutrients, viable
organisms and other contaminants  to  surface  waters.   Each  group  is
described in more detail below.

Biological_Material

Animal  wastes  contain both plant and animal biological materials.  The
composition of this biological material is as follows:

1.  Undigested and partially digested feed.
2.  Partially broken-down organic matter resulting from body
metabolism.
3.  Expired and viable micro-organisms from the digestive tract.
1.  Cell wall material and other organic debris from the
digestive tract.
5.  Excess digestive juices.
6.  Any other organisms which may have grown in the wastes after leaving
the animal.

All of these components can biodegrade further and in so  doing  deplete
the oxygen level of surface waters thus killing fish.

The most common standard measure of biodegradability or degree of oxygen
depleting  activity  due to bacterial digestion of wastes is the fiveday
biochemical oxygen demand, designated BODS, expressed  as  either  total
kilograms  (pounds)  of oxygen required or parts per million (mg/1) oxygen
concentration required.  Another measure is chemical oxygen demand  (COD)
which provides an indication of the total amount of oxidizable carbon in
a  waste.   It  is also expressed as either kilograms (pounds)  of oxygen
required or  parts  per  million  oxygen  concentration  required.   COD
likewise  gives  an indication of the biological strength of a waste but
it also incorporates depletion of  chemically  bound  oxygen.   This  is
evident since lignified cellulose (from partially digested animal forage
feeds)  has a high COD and a low BODS because, although it is biological
in nature, it is not easily broken down by bacteria.   In  either  case,
both  BOD  and  COD  have been used extensively in characterizing animal
wastes and feedlot runoff, and both parameters are found  in  such  high
concentration  in  these waste flows as to suggest immediate concern for
the adverse impact upon waterbodies.

Another important aspect of the biological nature of  animal  wastes  is
the  microorganism  content.   Potentially  harmful microorganisms  (e.g.
pathogenic bacteria, viruses,  parasites)   are  commonly  found  in  raw
animal  wastes  and  have  been shown to persist in some manure handling
                                  132

-------
systems for some ill-defined periods of time.  However, once voided from
the animal, the  manure  fails  to  provide  a  viable  environment  for
sustaining these microorganisms and no data appears to exist which shows
microorganisms  persist  through  runoff  containment  structures,  land
utilization  or  other  sound  waste  handling  system.   However,   the
potential for contamination should not be dismissed and tests (involving
coliform   bacteria   indicator   organisms)   do  exist  to  check  for
contamination if any possible question arises.

Nitrogen

Another important pollutional waste constituent  other  than  biological
content  is nitrogen.  The three most common forms of nitrogen in wastes
are organic, ammonia, and  nitrate.   Organic  nitrogen  compounds  will
break  down  into  ammonia  nitrogen,  and  nitrates  which in turn will
promote the growth of aguatic plants and bacteria thereby increasing the
oxygen demand upon  the  receiving  water  body.   In  addition,  unused
ammonia  nitrogen  may  be  converted  into  additional nitrate nitrogen
which, along with the original nitrates, may create high  concentrations
which are potentially hazardous.
Phosphorus  is  also a significant component of animal wastes and can be
directly linked to the eutrophication process of lakes and streams.   As
such,  phosphorus must be considered to be a pollutant.  When applied to
soil, however, phosphorus usually does not exhibit  a  runoff  potential
because  it  usually  becomes  fixed  by  minerals  adsorbed in the soil
particles.   In  this  case,  movement  to  groundwater  is  essentially
precluded  and  runoff t can  only occur if actual erosion of the soil is
involved.  When soil particles reach watercourses as sediment,  however,
the  potential  exists for the phosphorus to be chemically released into
solution as an available nutrient.

Dissolved Solids andiirTrace Constituents

Inorganic salts such  as  potassium,  calcium,  sodium,  magnesium,  and
organic  materials such as Pharmaceuticals and pesticides fall into this
group.  some of these are required in trace amounts for  the  growth  of
aguatic  plants;  however, they are usually present in natural waters in
sufficient quantities and therefore are not commonly limiting nutrients.
There is no reliable data which shows the persistence of Pharmaceuticals
(e.g. growth hormones or antibiotics)  in runoff or manure.   Recognition
of  a  potential  is  offered here in a precautionary context only since
adverse effects on water quality may exist  if  the  presence  of  these
substances  (copper,  arsenicals,  estrogens) in runoff is documented in
the future.  With respect to the  mineral  salts,  usually  measured  as
salinity  or  "total  dissolved  solids," high levels sometines found in
animal wastes and runoff can  aggravate  salinity  in  watercourses,  or
                                  133

-------
adversely affect water supplies for drinking water (such as sodium which
can  be  harmful to humans in high concentrations) .   Pesticides used for
sanitation and animal dissease control are also potential contaiminants.
Compounds such as toxaphene used in cattle dipping tanks  are  hazardous
and may persist in small amounts in runoff from pen areas.

COLOR AND TURBIDITY

Color  and  turbidity  may  readily  be  caused  by  manure  runoff into
watercourses particularly lakes, ponds or  sluggish  streams  where  the
influence  of the runoff from areas other than the feedlot is not great.
Both  parameters  particularly  affect   the   aesthetic   benefits   of
waterbodies and should therefore be controlled.


ODOR

The odor of animal waste is mainly a function of how it has been stored,
its  moisture  content and its relative degree of biodegradation.  Odors
in some cases can be extremely strong especially if putrefaction  is  in
process and may be "carried over" into watercourses in runoff.
                                  134

-------
                              SECTION VII

                    CONTROL AND TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY

GENERAL

To  put  each  of  the  technologies  into proper perspective within the
framework of total feedlot waste management, a series of  groupings  and
classifications  has been performed.  The first logical grouping step is
to differentiate between "in -process" and "end-of-process" technologies.
In-process technology is discussed in detail under the heading  "FEEDLOT
ANALYSIS".   End-of-process  technology is discussed in detail under the
heading    "END-OF-PROCESS    CONTROL    AND    TREATMENT     TECHNOLOGY
IDENTIFICATION",  and  each  technology  is then discussed under its own
heading.

In -Process Technology

This term refers to the physical and operational characteristics of  the
feedlot  and  their  impact  on waste management.  Specific elements are
feed formulation and utilization, water utilization, bedding and  litter
utilization,  site  selection,  housekeeping, and selection of method of
production.  All of these elements are directly concerned with  what  is
happening  within  the  feedlot itself, although they all have an direct
effect on the waste  materials  leaving  the  feedlot.   Facilities  for
collection  and storage of waste that are physically part of the feedlot
and are closely associated with the livestock are considered  in-process
technology.   Therefore,  pen  design, pen or stall cleaning, underfloor
manure pits, and manure  stockpiling  are  included  in  this  category.
Settling basins, lagoons, and remote waste treatment processes are not.
These  technologies  affect  the  waste  materials  after they leave the
feedlot proper.  A considerable number  of  end-of-process  technologies
are   evaluated   later .in  this  section.   In  preparation  for  that
evaluation, it is helpful to classify those processes.

As presented in section V, waste materials are either raw  or  partially
degraded  manure  or  contaminated  runoff.  The technologies for manure
treatment may be classified as  either  partial  or  complete,  although
classification  of  some  of the experimental technologies is uncertain.
For the purposes of this report, partial treatment  is  defined  as  one
that  produces a product that is neither sold nor completely utilized on
the feedlot or is one that produces a byproduct, residue, or waste water
stream of questionable economic value.  A  complete  treatment,  on  the
other  hand, produces a readily marketable product or a product that may
be entirely reused on the feedlot,  and has  no  appreciable  byproducts,
residues,  or  polluted  water.   some  examples  will  illustrate these
                                  135

-------
definitions.  The Dehydrate and Sell technology is a complete treatment.
The Dehydrate and Feed technology is an  incomplete  treatment  because/
taking laying hens as an example, only half of the manure (corresponding
to about 15 percent of the dry feed ration) can be utilized efficiently.
At  higher  refeeding rates, egg production drops off and other problems
arise.  The Fly Larvae Reduction  technolgoy  is  a  partial  treatment.
Although  all  the  manure   can  subseguently  be  utilized  as  a feed
supplement growth medium, disposal of  the  byproduct  composted  manure
must  be  accomplished,  requiring  an  additional' activity such as land
spreading or a marketing program.  Gasification is a  partial  treatment
because  although  the  gas may be marketable, a significant quantity of
ash must be disposed of.

Treatment of runoff also can be classified as partial or  complete,  but
an  additional  function  is  required:   containment.   Containment  is
covered largely under the heading "RUNOFF CONTROL".  However, it is also
mentioned under "LAGOONS FOR WASTE TREATMENT" and "EVAPORATION", both of
which serve the dual purposes  of  containment  and  partial  treatment.
These technologies are classified under partial treatment because lagoon
effluent  is  generally not suitable for discharge, and both lagoons and
evaporation ponds generally require sludge disposal.  Most of the  other
technologies classified under runoff are also partial treatments.  Thus,
even  if algae and hyacinths are entirely feedable, the water from which
they derive their nutrients remains significantly  polluted.   Trickling
filters  and  the  rotating contractor leave an algae mat or sludge that
requires disposal, and spray runoff requires disposal of the grass.  The
"Barriered Landscape Water Renovation System" (BLWRS)  may prove to be  a
complete treatment.

This  classification  of waste treatment technologies is important to an
economic analysis, because it assures  that  the  analysis  will  be  as
complete  as  available data permits.  A feedlot generally requires some
management of both manure and runoff.  If  the  selected  treatment  for
either  manure  or  runoff falls in the "partial" category, a "complete"
treatment —  probably  land  utilization  —  will  be  required  as  a
supplement.

FEEDLOT_ANALYSIS

The  process  of feedlot operation can be diagramed very simply as shown
below.  In addition to feed formulation  and  usage,  water  usage,  and
bedding  or litter utilization, three other factors should be considered
as in-process parameters:  site  selection,  housekeeping  practice  and
selection of method of production.
                                  136

-------
Feed
                   In-Process
                   Technology-
Water
Feedict
•End-of-Process
 Technology
                                          Wastes
 Waste Utilization
 or Disposal
Bedding
  or
Litter
           Products
       Meats, Eggs, etc,
Feed_Formulation_and_ytilization

The  two  most  important  factors  which  determine  the  character and
guantity of wastes voided by an animal are the type of  animal  and  the
type of feed.  However, for a given type of animal, the feed formulation
is relatively fixed. * The causes for this are as follows:

a.  Each animal has a general set of dietary needs.

b.   An  animal  feeder  must  use  an "optimum" diet in order to remain
economically competitive, and this diet is then essentially the same  at
each facility.

The  actual ingredients of a diet may vary depending on the market price
variations of different ingredients; however, the  nutrient  content  of
the  diet  in terms of protein, fat, fiber, etc., will remain relatively
fixed.

It is interesting to note that different types of animals  have _a  wide
range  of feeding efficiencies  (kilograms or pounds of feed reguired for
each kilogram or pound of weight gain).  This  gives  an  indication  of
what  percentage  of  the  feed  passes through the animal without being
absorbed  or  utilized   (digested).   The  following  are  typical  feed
efficiencies for growing animals:
                                   137

-------
Beef:
gain

Swine:

Chickens:

Sheep:

Turkeys:

Ducks:
 7-9 kilograms	(pounds)  of feed kilograms (pound)  of


3-4          "

2-3          "

5-7          "

3-4          "

2-3          "
For purely economic reasons, it is in the interest of the animal  feeder
to  keep  these  numbers  as  low  as  practical.   It  is possible that
improvements can be made by breeding, but this process of improvement is
slow.

It is evident that although the feed formulation has a major  effect  on
the  character and quantity of the wastes, there is very little room for
in-process changes in this area which could reduce pollutional loads.

W§ter_Uti1i zat i on

As evidenced by the waste tables in Section  V,  water  is  the  largest
variable in feedlot waste loads.  This is due to two reasons:

a.  Climate (specifically precipitation versus evaporation)

b.  Water use practices.

Climate  is best discussed under the topic of site selection, so remarks
here will be limited to a discussion of water use practices.

Water is not a pollutant, however, it has a marked effect  on  pollution
control.  If wastes are to be biodegraded, water is a necessity.  On the
other hand, if the organic content of the wastes is to be processed into
a useful product, biodegradation may not be advantageous.  In this case,
the  wastes  should  be  stored  in a relatively dry form.  In addition,
odors and flies  are  reduced  by  keeping  the  wastes  dry.   However,
handling  of  wastes  by  "dry"  handling  practices  such  as  scraping
equipment, bucket loaders,  etc.,  is  often  more  expensive  than  the
practice of flushing out pens and pumping the resulting slurry in or out
of storage tanks.  It is general practice in many feedlots, particularly
dairies, to add water to the wastes in order to allow them to be pumped,
and  thus reduce the cost or labor requirements of handling.  Of course,
in an area where water is at a premium, such a practice is not suitable.
                                  138

-------
Reuse of water is a possible  means  of  water  savings  which  in  turn
decreases the gross pollutional load to be handled.  There are two major
arguments against water reuse.  Where water is abundant and inexpensive,
it  is  not  economical  to  reuse  water because it requires additional
equipment.  In addition, many commercial feedlot operators fear  disease
problems  caused by recycled water.  This is especially true for poultry
and swine,  although  experiments  at  universities  and  at  least  one
commercial  swine  facility  have involved reuse of processed waste wash
water, and no problems have yet been encountered.  Since the presence of
large quantities of water in  the  wastes  may  or  may  not  present  a
problem, it is necessary that each situation be reviewed individually.

Be dd in g_or _L it ter_ Utilization

Litter  is  a  term  for  various  absorbent  materials  used as a floor
covering in many types of poultry houses.   It  provides  both  moisture
absorbing  capability  and  a  medium  for biodegradation of the wastes.
Bedding is used for larger animals; swine (to a minor  extent),  cattle,
sheep,   and   horses.    The  bedding  provides  a  moisture  absorbing
capability, a medium for biodegradation of the wastes, and in some cases
protects the animals from hard or' cold floors.  The use  of  bedding  or
litter  results in increased waste output of a feedlot; however, it aids
in biostabilization of the wastes, minimizes odors,  helps  control  fly
problems,   and   sometimes  helps  control  disease.   Some  users  add
commercial enzymes to the bedding or litter to aid in the biodegradation
of the wastes.

Bedding and litter materials are becoming more expensive  and  difficult
to  obtain.   As  a result, their use is kept to a minimum, and reuse of
litter is becoming more prevalent, especially in confinement housing  of
turkeys .

Site, Selection

Although  site  selection  would not be considered an in-process control
for most other industries, the  feedlot  industry  depends  to  a  great
extent   on  weather  and  other  environmental  factors  for  efficient
operation.  Efficient site selection can minimize the adverse effects of
nearly all environmental factors including  runoff,  odor  or  dust.   A
recent  EPA  report  on  beef cattle site selection stated:  "The actual
application of good site selection principles  is  a  matter  of  common
sense. . .  There  are  no  standard numerical guidelines and mathematical
formulas applicable  to  each  site  selection  in  every  part  of  the
country,"   This  statement  holds true for the entire feedlot industry.
However,  major  consider eat ions  are:  climate  (general  and   local) ,
geography and geology.
         -  These  considerations  include rainfall, snowfall, winds and
temperature.  Variations, both local and national can  be  quite  large.
                                  139

-------
Rainfall  and snowmelt relate directly to runoff problems;  consequently,
open feedlots in areas of  high  rainfall  and  snowmelt  will  have  to
provide more extensive runoff diversion and collection facilities,   with
proper  feedlot  layout,  this  can be accomplished, but it represents a
cost which a housed feedlct does not have to consider.  Prevailing winds
have an effect on open feedlots  in  that  odors  may  be  carried  long
distances  to  populated centers.  Here, of course,  the best solution is
to locate downwind from  population  centers  or  at  a  distance  which
provides sufficient dilution of the odors.  Furthermore, odors from open
feedlots are likely to be stronger in wet areas of the country.

Geography  -  Important  mainly  to  open  feedlots,  major geographical
considerations are:

a.  Slope of land for good drainage.
b.  Streams running through or adjacent to the feedlot.
c.  Proper grading to prevent puddles in low spots.
d.  Topography of surrounding land in reference  to  adding  to  feedlot
runoff  and  also isolating the feedlot as far as wind-carried odors are
concerned.

Good drainage is essential if feedlot surfaces  are  to  dry  guickly  A
slope of at least 2% is recommended for beef feedlots.  This may have to
be  accomplished by earth moving, which will also take care of low spots
and puddles.  Ditches and  holding  ponds  for  collecting  and  holding
runoff are also necessary.  Streams running through the property or land
uphill of the feedlot complicate the problem by reguiring extra dikes to
isolate  the  feedlot  from  such  features,  thereby  preventing stream
pollution and preventing excess runoff water from crossing the  feedlot.
The  proximity  of  hills,  mountains,  and  wooded  areas  can  provide
isolation of the feedlot from population centers but can also complicate
the determination of wind direction.
Geoi23Y ~ Geological considerations relate mostly to  the  pollution  of
groundwater;  however,  some  soil  and  rock  formations  may transport
polluted seepage water directly to surface water.  In some areas of  the
country,   it   is   virtually   impossible   to   prevent   groundwater
contamination.  A good example of this is Florida, where groundwater  is
essentially  at  the surface.  Such an area does not lend itself well to
open concentrated feedlots.  Local geology should always  be  considered
in   site  selection  to  prevent  water  pollution.   A  clay  soil  is
advantageous  as  it  tends  to  hold  water  and  prevent  seepage   of
pollutants.   some  states  have  required  that holding ponds have clay
bottoms in order to prevent seepage.

Housekeeping Practices

Housekeeping  in  a  feedlot  generally  involves  the  maintenance  and
cleaning  of  equipment  and the removal of animal wastes.  Cleanina and
                                  140

-------
pest control compounds are an  insignificant  addition  to  the  feedlot
waste load.  Proper maintenance of equipment, such as waterers, can have
a significant effect on feedlot waste loads, since leakage from watering
equipment can add large quantities of water to the feedlot wastes.   This
is particularly true of continuous overflow waterers.

The  removal of animal wastes from feedlot surfaces can have significant
effects on the total waste load both from the standpoint  of  how  often
the  wastes  are  removed  and  how  they  are removed.  The practice of
infrequent cleaning allows both biodegradation and evaporation to occur.
On the other hand, a greater volume of  solids  and  pollutants  may  be
carried off these lots in a given runoff event.  In addition, infrequent
cleaning  may  be the cause of odor and fly problems.  Biodegradation of
wastes on a beef feedlot which is cleaned  only  once  each  six  months
generally  results  in a 20% decrease in total solids, while evaporation
may decrease water content from 85%  to  about  30%.   In  view  of  the
possibility  of  increased  amounts of pollutants in runoff and odor and
fly problems, the question of how often to clean a  feedlot  depends  on
the following considerations:

a.  Climate
b.  Type of facility
c.  Economics
d.    -Method   of   ultimate  disposal  or  utilization  of  the  wastes
(biodegradation may decrease  the  value  of  the  wastes  as  a  useful
product)
e.  site location
f.  animal husbandry requirements

The  method of waste removal can likewise be significant.  Some feedlots
will scrape dirt pens only down to the  point  where  a  thin  layer  of
compacted  wastes  remain.  This is most prevalent in the beef industry.
The layer of manure remaining is often a good barrier  to  moisture  and
nutrient  infiltration  into  groundwater.   Where potential groundwater
contamination is not a problem,removal of all wastes and some underlying
soil is sometimes practiced.  This then  requires  back  filling.   This
method  of cleaning has no particular advantage except that the pens are
kept cleaner and the soil then absorbs  more  of  the  moisture  in  the
wastes.   As  a  result  of  this,  however,  the  feedlot waste load is
somewhat higher and  usually  contains  a  higher  percentage  of  inert
solids.   This  may  be  a  disadvantage  to  some processes of ultimate
disposal but in all probability will not affect the use of the wastes as
fertilizer other than to increase spreading costs slightly.

Selection of Method of Production

The type of production method selected for use on a feedlot can  produce
large differences in the type of wastes to be handled as well as smaller
differences  in  the  quantities of waste solids to be handled.  In each
                                  141

-------
case, sufficient storage capacity must be provided to contain the wastes
during the period of time when they cannot be utilized.  The basic types
of facilities and their respective waste outputs are listed below:

TYE§_of_FacilitY              Type,.Qf Waste

Open Lot                      Manure scrapings and runoff

Housed Solid Floor            Manure (liquid or solid)
                              with or without bedding or litter

Housed Slotted Floor          Manure (liquid or solid)
                               biodegraded or fresh
Housed in Cages               Manure (liquid or solid)
                              biodegraded or fresh

Description of these types of facilities and the wastes  emanating  from
them are given in detail in Sections IV and V of this report.

Facility  choice  is  usually determined by one or more of the following
factors:

a.  Type of animal
b.  Climate
c.  Cost of land
d.  Cost of construction
e.  Cost of labor
f.  Availability of water

Enclosed facilities are generally best suited to  areas  where  rainfall
exceeds evaporation and areas of cooler weather.  These facilities offer
the  ability  to  control  the  wastes better and also control secondary
pollution such as flies and odors.  However, the cost of such facilities
is very high compared to open lots, and in dry, mild climates away  from
population  centers,  open  feedlots  do not generally present pollution
problems that can justify  the  cost  of  housed  facilities.   This  is
especially  true  in  view  of  the  fact  that  in spite of potentially
increased feedlot waste loads (runoff)  open facilities thus located  may
readily  manage  waste  problems.   It  simply becomes a question of the
relative cost of land and the handling of increased waste loads, such as
runoff, as compared to the high cost of housed facilities.   Other  than
pollutional  or  cost aspects, the type of facility is usually chosen on
the basis of  the  type  of  animal  involved  and  individual  cultural
practices.

END-OF-PROCESS CONTROL AND TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY IDENTIFICATION

As  discussed earlier, the end-of-process technologies can be classified
in  terms  of  their  applicability  to  manure  or  runoff,   and   the
                                  142

-------
completeness  of  the process.  Table 39 presents this classification of
all the technologies  studied,  by  indicating  whether  the  technology
applies  to  manure  or  runoff,  and whether it represents containment,
partial treatment, or complete treatment.  It also indicates whether the
technology is "Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available;,
(BPCTCA), "Best Available Technology Economically  Achievable",  (BATEA,
or  experimental,  as  discussed  in Section IX, X and XI.  Finally, the
table indicates whether the technology is primarily a  biological  or  a
physicalchemical process.

The  discussion  which  follows in this Section deals first with the two
major technology concepts being  used  by,  and  available  to,  feedlot
operators—land  utilization  and  runoff control.  Following these, the
technologies are presented as two subgroups as shown in Table  39--those
alternatives related to treatment as control of manure solids, and those
alternatives  related  to  treatment  and  control of runoff.  Except as
offered in Table 39, no preference  is  intended  to  be  conveyed  with
respect  to  either  the  order  of  presentaticn or degree to which any
technology may be implemented.


LAND UTILIZATION OF ANIMAL WASTES

The use of animal waste as fertilizer is a long standing  practice.   At
normal  (i.e.,  commensurate with recommended fertilization requirements
of crops)  application rates it is beneficial  to  soils  and  crops  and
provides  an  excellent  means for the utilization of wastes from animal
feedlots.   Although  experience  with  normal  application   rates   is
extensive,  no  specific  rules for such applications can be formulated.
Each situation must be reviewed for nutrient requirements  in  order  to
establish  proper  application  rates.   Application of animal wastes to
croplands at higher rates for the purpose of disposal is a new idea  and
does  not  have  a long history.  Disposal rates of application has many
problems which still need to be solved such as poor crop  response.   In
addition,  it  has  a  higher  potential for secondary pollution such as
seepage or runoff of nutrients and odor.

Land  utilization  of  animal  wastes  in  any  form   has   a   natural
applicability  to feedlot pollution abatement since equipment is readily
available and the system is generally  understood  by  the  agricultural
community.

Technical Description

Two approaches to land utilization of animal wastes have been considered
in this study:

a.  Land spreading for crop fertilization and irrigation
b.  Land spreading for waste disposal.
                                  143

-------
O
H
EH
<
U
H
En
H
W
CO

a
u
ffi
CJ
w
EH

CO
03
H
U
ft
 I

o
 I
a

13

 i


n

W

m

EH
CO
CO
w
u
o

ft

&4
o
w
ft
>H
EH








CO

EH
EH
to










s
o
H
EH
U

£3
En









O
H
<
U
H
,J)
ft
ft




rH H
(0 fO
O 0
•H -H
W g
>1 (U
,G X3
ft U



1
1 g-H
O CD nJ
•H .G 0
CQ 0 -H
1
•H rH
M 
-P i CO !> C
(COO) O
^ U Q U





X X X X X X X







XXXXXXXXX X







XXXX XXXXXXXXX X



*Q
X <1) X X
(U
Hi
'O
(0
X 0) X
SH
CO



X XXXXXXXXXXX






XXXX X






X




X X





XXXXX XXXXXXXXXXX


G G
0 O
G -H -rl
O -P -P G
-H O O O
-P 3 3 -HO) G
OT3rC3 ^- W-PrH O
;3OO T3 nJOUrH -H
T3 SH SH (U QJ O 3 >i-H -P
Oftft ^(L)C7> TJOO U
SH oti'd'Hoa) (O-n
ft-pft -P 13 CUMCtlO MO
WU•= G ^ T3 0)O^5OO-PU)-P -H O
•H O' O (C Q) Cn-H > -H -H (d -H (0 CQ rH U
OOrQ(l)-H(l)-PfClX!SHgCQOCQSH >ifO
•H-riOdH-PSHnJr-HOrtiQJSHTHI^iCDrHUm
Xi 43 J-l f(3Qjt>(l)>-lK],C(DtWrHCOT-llwm
OOOrOrC5CO-H-PCU Oj>-HO-"H>HgOO^
SnSHrtiiD-H — •-PcnrO>tOCCQSHUrCiCl)ClS
CUQJGCUX CJ(OGrH-pHOf3>(G>i-G3i^
<;<;ri;cL,o f^^^PnpqooftHWocticQ





X







X XX XXX







XX XXX









X X





XXXX XXX













X X




XXXX XXX











-p
G
(1) rH
g rt
-P CQ O
«j SH -H
a) a) cri w
SH -P O ,G
LH rH rH 4J
-H m o G
SH G En MH -H SH -ri
O O O CQ O 0
"•H -rl t7> G -P ft!
-P G 3 C7> O >i
CQ i -P G M O ;
O Pi U fO fd O CD (tS '
tj> n3 '"H SH -P C_ ) -P cT1
J W EH CO C4 5 <_ [

-------
Land  spreading  for  fertilization  and  irrigation  encompasses  those
situations where no more waste matter is applied than that necessary  to
provide  the  optimum  crop  growth  conditions.  Land spreading for the
purpose of waste disposal encompasses those situations where wastes  are
applied  to  cropland  at  a  rate  in  excess of that reguired for crop
fertiliztion or irrigation.   Both  systems  of  waste  utilization  are
schematically  the  same.   The  utilization system encompasses only the
loading, hauling and application of the wastes  since  the  removal  and
storage of the wastes is considered a normal part of feedlot operations.

Land utilization of animal wastes can be schematically shown as:
Animal Wastes from Feedlot-
                                          t
         Evaporation and volatilization of
         organics and inorganics
Land

Harvested Crop
                                   Seepage and runoff of nutrients
 Due  to  the  variability of waste characteristics, the type of crop, soil,
 the   climate,   etc.,  no numerical values are assigned to the inputs and
 outputs.   It is aqain necessary to note that a  separate analysis must be
 made for  each  situation in  order to  set up a properly  balanced  system.
 Seepage  and runoff from cropland receiving fertilization and irrigation
 rate applications  are not considered to be  excessive.   In  any  event,
 land would be fertilized with inorganic fertilizers if the animal waste
 was  not available.  Disposal  rate application   may  not  have  excessive
 seepage and runoff losses either but there is not enough experience with
 this system to prove it.   In any case, these losses can be minimized by
 proper  land manaaement such as proper site selection,  contour  plowing,
 and  tail  water collection.
 Fertilization_and_lrriHation  -  Conceptually  speaking,  land  spreading  for
 crop "utilization  is  simple;   however,   each   situation is  unigue.   In
 general,  the amount applied and method of  application  is dependent  upon
 the following:
 a.   Physical and chemical characteristics  of  the waste as  applied
                                   145

-------
b.  Chemical and physical characteristics of the soil
c.  Type of crop.

Waste  Characteristics - The variation in character of wastes as removed
from the feedlot has a marked effect on the rate at which the wastes are
applied to the land.  Major considerations are type of animal, amount of
litter or bedding used, moisture content of the  waste,  residual  salts
content,  nutrient  content, and the amount of dirt or sand which may be
included in the wastes  when  pens  are  scraped.   Stockpiling,  liguid
storage or treatment of the collected wastes can change the character of
the wastes.  A review of waste characteristics in Section V gives a good
indication  of  how difficult it is to generalize about waste outputs of
different feedlots.   However, should it be reguired,  chemical  testing
can  be  done  by commercial or government laboratories to determine the
character of wastes from a particular feedlot.  A few  states  have  put
out  publications  which  provide basic characteristic data about animal
wastes  and  on  this  basis  recommend  certain  levels   of   cropland
application.   These recommendations, however, may not always be optimum
and  individual  crop,  soil  and  waste  considerations  need   careful
attention before any "design" is implemented.

The  significant  characteristic  which  generally governs the method of
application of feedlot wastes to  cropland  is  moisture  content.   The
three major means of application are:

1.  Solid spreading (for wastes which cannot be pumped)
2.  Liguid spreading  (for thick waste slurries which can be pumped)
3.  Irrigation (for thin waste slurries).

Eguipment   for   hauling  and  spreading  animal  wastes  are  commonly
available.  Liguid hauling and spreading are usually accomplished by the
same piece of eguipment (usually a tank truck or trailer with a built in
spreader).  Hauling and spreading of solid wastes may be accomplished by
the manure spreader  itself;  however,  in  cases  where  large  hauling
distances  are  involved,  trucks  are usually used with transfer of the
wastes to a spreader at the application site.

Removal of the wastes from a feedlot prior to  land  spreading  is  also
accomplished  on  a solids or liguids handling basis.  Typical of solids
handling eguipment are bucket loaders, bulldozers, etc.  Liguid handling
eguipment can be anything from gravity feed piping or ditching  to  high
pressure, high volume pumping equipment.

Removal  and land application are integrated in some feedlots.  A number
of dairies, for instance, pump liquids directly from lagoons or  holding
tanks to irrigation systems for pasture irrigation.

Soil  Characteristics  -  Chemical and physical characteristics of soils
vary greatly from one  area  of  the  country  to  another.   The  major
                                  146

-------
characteristics  are  the  natural  nutrient  content  of  the soil, its
ability to hold applied nutrients, its water holding  capacity  and  its
ease of cultivation.

Relatively  simple tests can be made to determine these characteristics.
The ability of a soil to hold  nutrients  and  water  and  its  ease  of
cultivation  can almost always be improved or at least maintained by the
addition of organic matter.  If, in addition, the organic matter applied
has a significant nutrient content, the nutrient level of the  soil  can
likewise be improved.  Animal wastes indeed have both of these gualities
and therefore can be used advantageously on cropland.

Each  crop  has  a  given  ability  to  remove  nutrients from the soil.
Usually, the major  nutrients   (micronutrients)   to  be  considered  are
nitrogen,   phosphorus   and  potassium.   The  approximate  application
requirements in kilograms/hectare/crop  (pounds/acre/crop)  for  corn  and
wheat  are  given  below  to provide indication of the wide variation in
crop requirements.

             Nitrogen	(NJ_      Phosphorus	[P2O51   Potassium	tK2OJ_

Corn         202  (180)         78  (70)             157 (140)
Wheat        78 (70)           22  (20)             28 (25)

This utilization is  not  totally  efficient  even  under  the  best  of
circumstances.  For instance, the uptake of nitrogen from soil by a crop
is  typically  only  50% of what is applied.  The remaining nitrogen (in
the form  of  nitrates,   nitrites  or  ammonia)   is  lost  by  means  of
volatilization,  seepage, or surface runoff.  Phosphorus usually becomes
fixed by minerals in the soil  and  therefore  is  not  generally  lost.
Potassium on the other hand, usually remains soluable and can be lost by
runoff or seepage.  Other elements (micronutrients)  are also reguired by
crops  but usually only in trace amounts.  Animal wastes usually contain
much of the necessary trace elements and more than enough phosphorus and
potassium.  The  limiting  nutrient  is  usually  nitrogen.   Therefore,
fertilization  rates are normally based on nitrogen requirements and due
to normal losses, the actual application rate is usually about twice the
theoretical reguirement of the crop.    Of  course,  crops  also  reguire
water  for growth.  Runoff water  (and other thin slurry waste) from open
feedlots can be and is used as irrigation water.  It has  an  additional
advantage  of containing nutrients such as nitrogen; however, the wastes
may contain high levels of salts  (sodium chloride, etc)   which  must  be
considered to preclude excess salt accumulation in soils which can occur
even at application rates based upon nutrient and moisture needs.  It is
a  frequent  practice  to  run  fresh water through an irrigation system
after the waste slurry has been applied.   This  cleans  the  irrigation
eguipment and washes plant surfaces of harmful salt residues.
                                  147

-------
In order to determine the proper application rate a full analysis of the
above  parameters  must  be  made  and reviewed by experienced personnel
(usually state or federal personnel involved  in  agriculture).   It  is
virtually  impossible  to  generalize  although  fertilization rates are
typically less than 34 kkg (dry basis) per hectare (15  tons  dry  basis
per  acre)  for fresh manure,   in many instances where this type of waste
utilization is being practiced,  the  actual  application  rate  is  not
monitored  and  is determined by experience.  No doubt, in some of these
cases, the proper application rate may actually  be  exceeded.   In  any
case,  it  is  evident  that  land  spreading for crop fertilization and
irrigation is a technically sound means for animal waste utilization.

Disposal - The spreading of animal wastes on land  for  the  purpose  of
disposal  is conceptually identical to spreading for fertilization.  The
main difference is that disposal application of animal waste is  a  high
rate  application  in  terms  of metric tons (tons)  of waste per hectare
(acre) .   In some cases, this requires special equipment  for  spreading.
A  number  of  experiments are underway to prove the feasibility of this
concept.  Some of the problems encountered are as follows:

1.  Crop response problems due to salt toxicity
2.  Lack of commercial equipment capable of applying large quantities of
waste per hectare (acre)
3.  Odor problems
4.  Reduced economic value of the wastes as fertilizer
5.  Increased cost of application
6.  Excess nitrates for given moisture levels in growing crops
7.  Possible  indiffuse  (nonpoint)   pollution  runoff  and  groundwater
co nt am in at i on
8.  Improper nutrient balance
9.  Fly control problems.

Experiments  so  far  have  been  limited  to  determining  the  maximum
allowable application rate of animal wastes on the basis of  whether  or
not  the  crop  growth  is  diminished.   Some  plants, such as corn and
coastal  bermuda  grass,  have  shown   high   tolerances   to   intense
applications of animal waste.  Others show low tolerances with the major
problem being late or no germination due to salt or ammonia toxicity.

Application  rates  have run as high as 2000 kkg  (wet)/hectare  (900 tons
(wet)/acre) or about 1400 kkg per hectare (630 tons per acre)  on  a  dry
basis.   Except  for irrigation eguipment, commercially available manure
spreaders are designed for maximum application rates of  22  to  45  kka
(wet)/hectare   (10  to  20  tons  (wet)/acre)  on a one-pass basis.  As a
result, some experimenters have built their own special  eguipment.   In
addition,  some  equipment  has  been  built for deep plowing methods of
manure application which offers two potential advantages:
                                  148

-------
1.  The roots can be isolated  from  high  waste  concentrations  (i.e.,
salts) and still receive an adequate supply of nutrients.

2.   Objectionable  odors  are  reduced  due  to the depth of soil cover
especially if the furrow or ditch is covered simultaneously  with  waste
application.

It  is evident from the experiments that the value of manure in terms of
dollars per kkg (ton)  is  decreased  significantly  when  applied  at  a
disposal  rate  because  the return in crop yield is not increased above
that experienced when the wastes are applied at a fertilization rate.

Secondary Pollution

The potential for secondary pollution, aesthetic or actual,  is  similar
for  both  fertilization  and  disposal  schemes.  These include runoff,
seepage, odor, and possible soil  contamination.   The  differences  are
mainly  a  question  of  degree.   It is evident that fertilization rate
application of animal wastes generally does not have secondary pollution
characteristics in excess of inorganic fertilization.  To  some  extent,
it  may  have  less  since  the  ability of the soil to hold moisture is
usually increased by the application of animal  wastes.   Disposal  rate
application,  on  the  other  hand,  has  an  undetermined potential for
pollutional runoff or seepage and  for  adverse  soil  effects.   Future
experiments  may  show  this  question  to  be  insignificant  if proper
procedures are followed; however, due to a present lack  of  information
to  the  contrary,  the  secondary  pollution potential of disposal rate
application of animal wastes must be considered to be in excess of  that
encountered with normal crop fertilization.

Development _Status
               ~  For  tne  most  part,  the  use  of  animal  wastes as
fertilizers is governed by the same considerations which govern the  use
of   inorganic   fertilizers.    Some   states  publish  guidelines  for
fertilization of crops grown  in  their  agricultural  regions  and  all
states  have  the capability of determining fertilization rates based on
crop and soil characteristics.  Although the use  of  animal  wastes  as
fertilizer  is  not  practiced as extensively as it could be, there is a
history of successful use extending far back before the introduction  of
inoraanic  fertilizers.   It  must  be  concluded that the use of animal
wastes as fertilizer is developed to the point of full scale  operation.
There are innumerable examples of such practice.

Disposal  -  Seven  references were reviewed that discussed experimental
work applying animal wastes at disposal rates.   These  experiments  are
only  beginning to answer the many questions involved.  As a result, the
status of disposal rate application of animal wastes is considered to be
experimental at this time.
                                  149

-------
Reliability and_ABBlicability

Reliability. - Due to the extensive history  of  fertilization  of  crops
with   animal   wastes   and  the  present  analytical  capabilities  of
agriculturists to determine proper fertilization rates, the  reliability
of  this  system  of  animal  wastes  utilization  is  considered  to be
excellent.

Experiments with disposal have been underway for only a few  years  with
only  a  limited  number  of  parameters  having  been  considered.  The
reliability of the system as a valid scheme  for  waste  utilization  is
therefore questionable.  This is especially true if one considers asking
a  farmer  to  practice  this method on a crop which represents his only
income.
              - There is no definable limit due to  climate,  geography,
size  of  operation,  crop,  etc.,  which may preclude the use of animal
wastes on cropland.

However, these factors will influence  the  amount  of  wastes  and  the
period  of  time  they  must  be  stored prior to land utilization.  The
storage facilities required must be determined on  an  individual  basis
due to the variability of the factors discussed above.

RUNOFF_CONTROL  •

Runoff   control  undoubtedly  constitutes  the  single  most  important
technology available to the feedlot industry for preventing discharge to
navigable water bodies.  The uniqueness of each feedlot  operation  adds
enormously  to  the  entire  task  of  implementing  satisfactory runoff
control schemes for each situation.  Each runoff control problem must be
addressed  separately  and  may  require  the   attention   of   several
organizations,  generally  including  the  state  agency responsible for
pollution  control,  the  Environmental  Protection   Agency,   ,   Soil
Conservation  Service,  Agricultural Extension Service of the applicable
state university, or possibly consultants hired to  design  the  system.
At  present,  only  a relatively small percentage of the total number of
feedlot operators have instituted runoff controls, but the situation  is
improving at an increasing rate.

The majority of large operations for all animal types, for example, have
installed or are now building runoff control facilities.

To  better  understand  the runoff control problem, a look at the nature
and extent of runoff from  animal  feedlots  is  required.   First,  the
runoff  from  feedlots  is  not readily amenable to classical methods of
treating water borne  wastes  from  a  pipe  or  similar  very  discrete
conveyance.   Second, the waste flow is almost completely dependent upon
rainfall or snowmelt for  conveyance  from  the  lot  and  is  therefore
                                  150

-------
unpredictable  in duration and quality.  Third, the wastes are extremely
variable in quality  while  remaininq  consistently  stronq  in  orqanic
constitutents.   Fourth,  the  raw wastes vary widely in characteristics
dependinq upon many factors, amonq which  are  the  type  of  feed,  the
ambient  temperature,  the  species  and  aqe of the animal, the type of
housinq, and many other factors.

Animal waste not controlled and permitted  to  enter  streams,  such  as
rainfall  runoff or snowmelt, can cause stream pollution, result in fish
kills, upset the  ecoloqical  balances  of  the  stream,  and  seriously
deqrade  the  water  for  further  domestic  and  recreational  uses.  A
potential also exists for pollution of underqround water by  percolation
of  contaminants  throuqh  the  soil  to  the  qround  water.  In actual
practice, however, only a relatively small percentaqe of the waste,  10%
or  less, actually leaves the lot area.  This percentaqe could qrow with
the increased practice of confined animal feedinq if pollution abatement
is not implemented.

With respect to the Water Quality Act of 1965, all states  are  required
to  have,  by  Federal law, approved water quality standards.  This is a
fact reqardless of whether or not the state has a specific law qoverninq
animal waste storaqe, transport, or disposal.  A number of states  have,
however,  either  enacted animal waste pollution leqislation or proposed
laws dealinq with feedlot construction and/or operation.   A  review  of
some  of  the  states  havinq  specific animal waste control requlations
reveals a qreat deal of difference in the  content  of  the  requlations
because  of variances in livestock types, climatic reqimes, and drainaqe
conditions from reqion to reqion.  Uniformity is  the  exception  rather
than the rule.

Most of the requlations contain information on water pollution abatement
facilities.   They  establish  a  procedure for determininq the need for
such facilities, their desiqn requirements, operation, and upkeep.    The
beef  feedinq  states qenerally require that a complete retention system
(i.e., terraces, ponds, etc.)   for  the  entire  feedinq  area  must  be
capable  of  holdinq  the runoff from a 10 year to 24 hour storm.  These
rules emphasize that these pond systems are  not  treatment  structures.
Rather,  as  soon  as possible after an occurance, the liquids should be
pumped or irrigated onto the land and the solids  removed  in  order  to
maintain  the required capacity for subsequent runoff activity.  In most
instances, diversion of "clean" or "foreiqn" waters around the  yard  is
also required.  Diversion of outside runoff is one of the more important
considerations for any qiven feedlot location.  Effective site selection
may  obviate  the need for structural diversions.  On the other hand, if
diversion  (e.q. ditches and berms)  are  required  they  help  to  offset
total  storaqe  requirements  and  qenerally  aid in reducinq land areas
needed for control structures.
                                  151

-------
The economic impact of installing proper runoff controls can vary widely
depending upon many factors for any specific  feedlot  site.   The  fact
that  many  existing  feedlot  operation sites were selected for reasons
other than runoff control may compound the problem.  Permitting drainage
of large areas of land through the confinement area, for  instance,  can
result  in fairly elaborate, hence expensive, runoff control structures.
At the other extreme, a feedlot located such that, all runoff is confined
to a natural low spot, wholly within the properties of the operator  and
not  involved  with any state water course, will require little, if any,
runoff controls.  Many of the runoff  control  structures  presently  in
existence  were  completed  on  a  cost  sharing  basis  under the Rural
Environmental Assistance Program (REAP).

Complete runoff  control  goes  beyond  that  associated  with  confined
feedlot  operations.  Runoff controls are not a waste treatment facility
in themselves and subsequent treatment or  disposal  of  the  wastes  is
required.  While treatment may be incorporated within the runoff control
structure  (e.g. aerators on the holding pond), ultimate disposal usually
involves   land  spreadina  of  the  liquids  and  solids.   Again,  the
implementation of these controls is dependent upon the specific  set  of
conditions involved with the operation in question, as they are with the
confined   animal   facility.    The   controls  may  include  retention
structures, the limitation of land spread rates,  or  a  combination  of
these factors.

Proper  management  is  the  key  to any waste control system and runoff
control is no  exception.   With  an  adeguate  design  and  disciplined
maintenance,  a  runoff control system should give long life and trouble
free results.

Technical Description

Runoff controls apply to any feedlot with a pollution  potential.   This
pollution  potential  may  be  the  result  of  land  slope, location or
management and may be related to surface or  subsurface  water.   Runoff
control  from  feedlots should be an integral part of the feedlot design
and operation.

There is a variety of  alternatives  for  the  handling,  treatment  and
disposal of runoff carried wastes as shown in the diagram below.
                                  152

-------
I Precipitation
                      Wastes
             Runoff|
       I Pen Drainage 1
    [Collection Drainsl
fsolids RemovalJ — 1

Con


'
tinuous Flow!

- 	 -
Settling Basins!
1
1
Batch j


Broad
Basin
Terraces


Low
Slope
Ditch


c

Solids Remova]j-

Detention
Resevoir
I
i i
Irrigation]


Anaerobic
Lagoon

Evaporation!
Pond 1


-^Solids RemovalJ Playa

I
Series of
Anaerobic
Lagoons
Aerobic
Lagoon
1


jIrrigation!
                    IEvaporationj
     153

-------
The system consists of the pen drainaqe system, collection and transport
drains,  solids  settling  area  for  some designs, holding or treatment
area, and ultimate disposal, chiefly by irrigation or evaporation.

There are many variables which  influence  feadlot  runoff  both  as  to
volume  of  water  and amount of waterborne wastes.  Factors include the
size of the lot, the density of livestock in the pens,  the  cleanliness
of  the  lot,  general  topography  of the area, antecedent moisture and
slope of the lot, the amount and intensity of rainfall, and  the  nature
of the drainage basin.


Pollution  control,  therfore,  reguires  a system that prevents feedlot
runoff from entering the streams, helps stabilize  the  runoff,  returns
the  waste  to  the  land,  or  some  combination of these methods.  The
solution for runoff control consists essentially of retaining the runoff
and returning the collected  runoff  to  cropland  by  irrigation.    The
design  of  a  feedlot runoff control facility reguires knowledge of the
hydrology of the geographical area  and  the  application  of  hydraulic
principles to the specific lot.

Precipitation  and  evaporation  are two climatic variables that must be
known for the particular site.  The site selection of the feedlot  is  a
very  ma-jor  consideration  when  designing  the  collection  and runoff
control facilities.  As noted above, it is  recommended  that  diversion
terraces  be  constructed  above  (uphill  side)   the feedlot to prevent
runoff from adjacent land from traversing the  feedlot.   This  practice
will  allow  smaller  collection and disposal facilities.  Of particular
importance is the cleanliness of the pens.  A regular program of  solids
removal  will  often  help  lessen  the  amount  of  solids flushed into
internal drainage facilities and overall runoff control  facilities  and
reduce the amount of dissolved organics in a liguid runoff.  However, it
should  be  pointed  out  that  according  to seme studies, it is a good
practice to leave a thin layer of manure on the lot surface  during  the
cleaning  operation  in  order  to reduce the possibility of movement of
nitrates  and  other  pollutants  into  the  ground  water.    This   is
particularly  advantageous  in  humid  areas  wherein the residual layer
maintains a physical/chemical barrier to subsurface pollution.

A number of considerations enter into the location  and  design  of  the
retention facilities.  Some of these considerations are the availability
of  a suitable site, the terrain, the feedlot runoff conveyance systems,
accessability and allowance for expansion.  The optimum capacity of  the
retention  facility  will  be  determined essentially by the size of the
feedlot, climatic conditions, and  terrain.   Properly  designed  debris
basins  make  the  removal of the solids that have been flushed from the
feedlot surface easier than cleaning the bottom of a large volume pond.

Development Status
                                  154

-------
The development status of runoff control systems is well established  by
virtue  of  the  relatively larqe number of commercial applications that
have  been  designed  and  installed  in  the  feedlot  industry.    The
development of runoff control techniques has been a learninq process for
all  concerned,  the  system  desiqner  as well as the feedlot operator.
Vast amounts  of  design  data  have  been  developed  and  are  readily
available to the aqricultural community.


Reliability and_Applicability

Properly  desiqned and managed runoff control systems are very reliable.
No movinq parts are involved with the exception of the  waste  servicinq
and disposal equipment.

The   runoff  ' control  system  is  applicable  to  nearly  all  feedlot
applications where potential runoff pollution exists and  adequate  land
is available to construct the necessary runoff control structures.

Runoff Containment Requirements

In  the  feedlot  industry the amount of discharqe from open lots in the
form of runoff is dependent on uncontrolled  weather  phenomena.   Since
weather  data  are  statistical  in  nature,  the  sizinq of containment
systems must likewise be based  on  statistics.   No  matter  what  size
containment  facility  is constructed there is always some finite chance
or probability that it will overflow under some  extreme  condition.   A
qood  example  of  such  a  situation  is the "25 year 24 hour rainfall"
criteria for runoff containment  used  in  Texas.   Texas  feedlots  are
required  to  have runoff retention ponds which can hold the runoff from
that 24 hour rainfall which has a 4% probability of  being  exceeded  in
any  one year.  Under these conditions the feedlot is said to meet "zero
discharge" requirements.  However, the amount of  pollutants  discharged
in   the   improbable   case  when  the  capacity  is  exceeded  remains
undetermined.

In the South, where application of runoff liquids on land can be done at
virtually any time of year, it miqht be  sufficient  to  base  retention
pond  capacity  on  a  particular  worst  case rainfall and require that
runoff holding ponds be emptied  by  irrigation  of  cropland  within  a
specified  number  of  days  after  a  rainfall  event.   In  the North,
conditions are not so simple.  Cropland irrigation may be  prevented  by
frozen  ground,  low  air  temperatures or muddy field conditions due to
spring rains.  It may be necessary in the North to contain the runoff or
snowmelt  from  several  months   of   precipitation.    Much   of   the
climatological  data  reguired  for  setting up requirements for various
areas of the country already exists in one form or  another.   Even  so,
other data, such as that for the muddy field conditions mentioned above,
does not exist at present.   These conditions vary across the country and
                                  155

-------
dividing  lines between one dominant criterion and another are extremely
difficult to determine purely  on  the  basis  of  available  data.   In
addition,  establishing  the  requirement in terms of animal live weight
represents a further  complication  because  of  the  different  feedlot
management techniques used for different animals.

Therefore,  the  formulation of equitable waste containment requirements
which are uniform for the whole country  is  impractical.   Due  to  the
great  variation  in  conditions affecting containment requirements, the
real answer is to determine the proper  requirements  on  an  individual
basis at the local level.

COMPOSTING

Composting is a biochemical method of solid, organic waste.decomposition
which  can  be  effected  by microorganisms of the aerobic,  thermophilic
variety.  Aerobic thermophilic composting has advantages because  it  is
hygienically  effective  and  produces  a humus-like product that may be
recycled into the environment as a soil  additive.   If  oxygen  is  not
available  within  the material, anaerobic microorganisms take over, and
some of the  decomposition  compounds  have  objectionable  odors.   The
aerobic  process  does  not  produce  offensive  odors,  is  faster, and
produces more heat.  Other important environmental factors  that  affect
the  rate  and  type  of  decomposition  include  particle  size  of the
material, moisture content, aeration, temperature, pH,  initial  carbon-
nitrogen ratio, and size and shape of the mass.

Two  major  methods are presently being used to implement the composting
process for animal waste — turned compost windrow and  aerated  compost
windrow.   Both  concepts  are  presently  active  on a fullscale basis.
Costs of from $0.55 to $13.25 per kkg   ($0.50  to  $12.00  per  ton)  of
composted material have been reported.

Thus,  composting is an available technology practiced on a large scale.
Air pollution by ammonia is minor.  To be economical, a reliable  market
is reguired.  This market exists, but it is limited in size.

Technical_Descriptign

Manure  is  scraped  from  the  floor  of  the  pen areas and loaded for
transportation to the composting  site.   Here,  the  manure  is  either
spread  in  windrows  three  to  four feet high or deposited in tanks or
bins.  Often, the manure will contain sawdust, woodchips, or straw  from
bedding, or else these substances or previously composted manure will be
added  to  aid  in the compost process.  Figure 36 schematically depicts
the process.

Aeration of the manure is accomplished by turning the windrow over  with
a special machine or pumping air through the tank containing manure.  In
                                  156

-------
addition,  periodic  agitation is required to break up chunks, provide a
uniform mixture, and prevent channeling  of  circulating  air.   Initial
temperature  of  the  manure  is  usually  near ambient.  The mixture is
subjected to an aerobic, thermophilic composting  process.   Temperature
within  the pile climbs to the 140° to 175°F range for rapid composting.
The heat for maintaining the temperatures is  released  by  thermophilic
organisms.   Lower temperatures may result, depending on the composition
of the manure, and time  for  biodegradation  will  increase.   Moisture
content  is an important criterion for the composting process and should
be maintained between 40%  and  60%.   Lower  moisture  will  delay  the
process,  and  higher  levels  may  allow  anaerobic  organisms to form,
causing malodorous gas release.  Moisture levels  above  75%  will  also
result in lower temperatures and longer process times.

The  products  of  the  composting  process are carbon dioxide, ammonia,
water vapor, and humus, and a  mass  balance  is  shown  in  Figure  36.
Process  times  are  from  7  to 14 days for forced aeration in tanks to
about 30 days for windrowing.  A post-composting cure  time  is  usually
incorporated  prior to bagging for sale.  Location of an adeguate market
for the composted material may be a problem with this process.

Development status

Composting is a relatively well established concept for handling  animal
waste  products.  Full-scale commercial operations have been in business
for many years.  More recent developments in rapid composting,  effected
by  mechanical  aeration,  have  also  been demonstrated in a commercial
operation.

Reliability^and^Applicability

Basically, composting is a very simple system with high reliability.

The primary restraint for large-scale composting operations is  location
of  an  adeguate market for the final product.  Otherwise, composting is
applicable to all animal waste.   At  facilities  where  the  composting
occurs  out of doors, control of the process due to rainfall may be more
difficult.

DEHYDRATION

Drying of animal waste is a practiced, commercial  technology  with  the
dehydrated  product  sold  as fertilizer, primarily to the crarden trade.
It is an expensive process which can only be economical where the market
for the product exists  at  a  price  level  necessary  to  support  the
process.   Recent  experimental work has been directed towards refeeding
the dried waste back to the animals as a feed ingredient.   Due  to  the
higher  value  of animal feedstuffs, the cost to dry can be more readily
borne when utilized as  a  feed  ingredient.   A  major  university  has
                                  157

-------
908KG (2000#)MANURE
499KG (1100#)H2O
409KG (900#)SOL1DS
                                                     CO2 GAS  H2O

/ \
/ SCRAPE \
\ MANURE /
\ /



1 i
1 1
\
HAUL TO X 	 X
SITE v y
f
H2O
/ \
1
AIR
(Q2)

V / >. 	 S
                                 SCHEMATIC


THERMOPHILIC
DECOMPOSITION


F       \
                                CO,
       H2O
                                690KG (1520#)
                                MASS BALANCE



                          FIGURE  36. COMPOSTING
218KG (480#)COMPOST
 50KG (111#)H2O
168KG (369#)SOLIDS
                                    158

-------
demonstrated  this  refeeding  technique  by incorporating dried poultry
waste at several levels to a 400 bird flock of laying hens for over  one
year.  . The  best  results were obtained at the 10 to 15% feed level for
all the poultry  tests  reviewed,  which  represents  only  about  fifty
percent  of  the  total  waste produced.  Thus, the remaining waste must
still be disposed of in some  other  manner.   Also,  the  lack  of  FDA
approval  for the use of manure as a feed ingredient is a restraint upon
the large-scale commercial acceptance of this technology.

Full-scale drying operations have been established with  animal  manure,
in  some  cases for over eight years.  Size of units reported range from
small portable units  to  systems  capable  of  processing  136,000  kkg
(150,000  tons)  per year.  Costs for the drying operation of from $16 to
$39 per kkg  (15  to  $35  per  ton)  have  been  reported.   As  a  feed
ingredient, a value of up to $70 per kkg ($70 per ton)  has been assigned
to dried poultry waste based on nutritional value of the product.

Tgchni calT Description
Feedlot  manure  is collected and dried from an initial moisture content
of about 75% to a moisture content of  from  10%  to  15%.   The  drying
process  is  usually  accomplished  utilizing  a  commercial drier shown
typically in Figure 37.   The  input  requirement  for  most  commercial
driers  requires  that  the  raw material be mixed with previously dried
material to reduce the average moisture content of the input mixture  to
less than 40% water.  This is required to facilitate process handling of
the material to be dried.

The mixture is fed into a hammermill where it is pulverized and injected
into  the  drier.   An  afterburner is generally incorporated to control
offensive odors.  The resultant dried material is either  stockpiled  or
bagged, depending on the ultimate method of disposal selected.

The  output  material  (dried  to  less than 10% moisture content)  is an
odorless, fine, granular material.  With a moisture content of from  10%
to 15%, a slight odor may be noted.  Crude protein levels of from 17% to
50%  have been reported in dried poultry waste.  When utilized as a feed
ingredient, the dried waste is blended with selected  feed  ingredients,
with  the dried waste material supplying from a portion to a majority of
the crude protein in the feed ration, and fed directly to the animals.

Fiqure 38 presents a mass balance based on a  refeed  program  for  1000
laying hens.  A refeed portion of the ration has been arbitrarily set at
12-1/2% on a dry weight basis.
                                  159

-------
                                        2
                                        o
                                        ro
                                        U
                                        U.
160

-------
Development Status
The  status  of  dehydrating  animal manure is well  established.   A number
of manufacturers offer a  line  of  dehydration  equipment   specifically
designed for this purpose.   Some drying  operations
                     RAW MANURE
      87KG (192#)DAY
      26. 1KG (57.6#)/DAY SOLID
      61.0KG (134.4#)/DAY WATER
                              DRIED MANURE (14%)
                                    (HAMMER
                                      MILL
                             232.4KG(512#)/DAY
                             151. OKG (332. 8#)SOLIDS
                             81.3KG(179.2 WATER)
       125#/DAY WATER
      'TO AMBIENT
                                       145.3KG(320#)/DAY
                                       20. 3KG (44. 8#)WATER
                                       124.9KG (275.2#) SOLIDS
                                              • 175.7KG (387#)/DAY
                                               24. 6KG (54. 2#)WATER
                                               151. 1 KG (332. 8#)SOLIDS
                                                   •26.1KG(57.6#)SOLIDS
                                                    4.3KG(9.4#)WATER
     DRY RATION
        90.3KG
      (199#)/DAY
13. 1 KG (28. 9#)/DAY
 DPW
30. 4KG
 67 #
     EXCESS
11.3KG(24.8#)SOLIDS
1.9KG(4. 1#)WATER
12.5%
    (TO LAND
    DISPOSAL)
-17.3KG (38. 1#)/DAY
 14.9KG (32. 8#)SOLIDS
 2.4KG (5.3#)WATER
                     FIGURE 38.   DEHYDRATION-MASS BALANCE
                                     161

-------
have  existed  for  over  eight years,  some brands of commercial dryers
have experienced development problems but generally  reliable  operation
has  been  reported.   Sizes range from small portable models to systems
capable of processing 136,000 kkg  (150,000 tons) per year.

Operating efficiencies of  from  37%  to  69%  are  reported,  based  on
kilograms  (pounds)  of  water  removed  per  kilogram-calorie   (BTU) of
thermal energy.  These units are high consumers of fuel oil  or  natural
gas,  the  usual  soruces  of  thermal  energy.  Energy reguirements are
highly dependent on the initial moisture content of  the  raw  manure.
Refeeding in pilot lot guantities, under controlled conditions, has been
achieved  on  numerous  occasions  for  ruminents,  swine,  and poultry.
Operations for herds of up to 75 steers has been reported from  Denmark,
where  dried  poultry  waste  constituted up to 40% of the total ration.
For poultry,  the optimum reported from most tests is 10% to 15%  of  the
ration.

In  general,  good results were obtained from these refeed programs, both
in terms of economics and  performance.   Carcass  inspections  of  test
animals  revealed  no  reported indications of problems from having been
fed a partial animal waste diet.  The primary restraint  for  full-scale
operation  in  the  United  States  appears  to be lack of Food and Drug
Administration  (FDA) approval.

Reliability and Applicability

Reliability  of  the  dehydration  process  is  fairly  good.    Routine
maintenance of the eguipment is reguired.

Dehydration  is generally applicable to all feedlot programs; however, a
majority of refeed developemnt effort has been directed  toward  poultry
litter  with  subsequent  refeed  of the dried material to ruminants and
poultry.  Extended periods of reprocessing the same waste and  refeeding
has reportedly resulted in a gradual reduction in protein content.  This
may be due to loss of ammonia during the drying process.

CONVERSION TO INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTS

Manure  has  been  pyrolyzed  at  temperatures exceeding 300°C to form a
black powder.  The developer calls the product TCD (Treated  Cow  Dung).
The  powder  is  being  promoted  as  a  substitute  for lampblack, with
potential application in tire and printing ink manufacture.  Other  uses
for  the  TCD  have also been developed, based on mixing the powder with
melted, recycled glass.  Mixing the powder with an egual weight of glass
results in a  high guality ceramic tile.   Mixing  the  powder  (5  -  10
percent)   with  glass (90 - 95 percent) and aerating the mixture results
in a product  similar to styrofoam  (at low density)  or brick  (at  higher
density).   These processes are applicable to solid wastes from any type
of livestock.  Two pilot plants are now operating, one  to  produce  the
                                  163

-------
powder and the other to produce the tile or foamed products.  The powder
plant  processes  9  kkq  (10  tons)  of stockpiled manure per day.  The
ceramic plant produces .23 cubic meters (100 board-feet)  of foamed glass
per day.  Manufacturing cost is estimated  at  $12.86  per  cubic  meter
(three  cents  per  board-foot),  or  five cents per unit for the denser
brick.

The value of the process will be based on the  ability  to  establish  a
market at a price greater than the production cost.  Until a good market
and  large  scale production have been established, the approach must be
considered experimental.


AEBOBIC_jPRgpyCTION_gF_SINGLE_CELL_PROTEIN

Aerobic treatment of animal waste to produce a colony  of  proteinaceous
single   cell   microorganisms  has  reached  the  demonstration  phase.
However,  difficulties  ensued,  and  these  latest  efforts  have  been
unsuccessful.    Consequently,   the   technology   must  be  considered
experimental.

The process produces a valuable product  (protein)   with  little  or  no
pollutional discharge.

Technical_Description

The  nutrient reclamation system utilizes selected thermophilic bacteria
to treat waste material.  Figure 39 is  a  schematic  of  this  process.
Entering  manure  stock  is  shredded and weighed.   The material is then
directed to a slurry tank where both recycled and,  when necessary, fresh
make-up water are added.  Sand is separated at this point.  The  fibrous
mixture is then screened to separate the liquid fraction from the fiber.
The  liquid  fraction  then  qoes  to  a "solubles treatment tank" where
additions of nitrogen are made,  dilution  to  volume  occurs,  and  the
temperature  is  increased  to  the thermophilic ranqe.  This mixture is
then piped directly to the last fermentation tank to provide a  nutrient
broth for the propagation of bacteria.

The  fiberous  material,  on  the other hand, is treated with alkalai to
assist in the breakdown of the fibrous  material,  thereby  facilitating
microbial  attack  of  its  structure.  The alkalai is then neutralized,
before nitrogen additions and volume dilutions occur.  The material then
flows through a series of connected fermentation tanks where  oxygen  is
added  and  microbial conversion of the materials to additional bacteria
occurs.  The time required for this fermentation to occur is reported to
be three days.  At each staqe, a portion of the soluble fraction is sent
to the final fermentation tank to provide additional  nutrient  material
to aid growth of the bacterial colony.
                                  164

-------
FIGURE 39.  AEROBIC PRODUCTION OF SINGLE CELL PROTEIN
                          165

-------
The  effluent,  from  the final fermentation tank is collected in a surge
tank before transfer to a vacuum filter where -the bacterial  product  is
removed  as a wet cake.  This product is delivered to a drum dryer where
the remainder of -the water is evaporated.  Dried, the  product  is  then
ready  for  use  as  an  animal  feed supplement.  The bulk of the water
removed by filtration is recycled to the beginning of the process.   Air
compressors  and  a  steam generator are reguired to maintain the proper
environment in each of the fermentation tanks  for  the  growth  of  the
bacteria.

The  end product would be utilized as a refeed ingredient by acting as a
substitute for a  portion  of  the  protein-providing  feed  ingredients
(e.g.,  soybean  meal).   Early  indications  are that the product has a
protein content of 50% to 55% (versus 44% for a common soybean meal)  and
a 70% digestibility.

Available quantitative information is insufficient for a  mass  balance.
Overall  227  kilograms  (500 pounds) (dry basis) of manure input to the
system results in 113.5 kilograms (250 pounds) of output, which  is  50%
protein.

Development Status

A  pilot  plant  utilizing this concept of nutrient reclamation has been
built and operated at Casa Grande Arizona, with the  goal  of  gathering
enough  information  to  proceed  with full-sized production facilities.
Besides the anitcipated production of  proteinaceous  material,  factors
such   as  costs  involved  and  the  results  of  feeding  trials  were
anticipated.  However, since late 1972, the facility has been shut down.
Available information indicates that the reasons  for  the  closing  are
complex  and include dififculties with maintenance of the pure bacterial
cultures utilized in the process.

A suggestion has been made that the fermentations  might  be  adequately
performed  in  ditches  rather  than  the  fermentation  tanks currently
envisioned.  This concept  has  not  yet  been  investigated  and  would
reguire  extensive  effort  to  maintain  the proper environment for the
culture medium.

Discussions with the program technical director have indicated that  re-
opening   of   the   pilot  plant  is  not  expected  until  late  1973.
Investigations are currently underway back at the laboratory facilities.

News releases have  indicated  that  clearance  by  the  Food  and  Drug
Administration  for  use of the product would be required.  The original
timetable estimated that enough information concerning the product would
have been reviewed by the FDA to allow an  opinion  by  mid-1973.   That
timetable  has been extended for some indefinite time due to the closure
of the Casa Grande facility.
                                  166

-------
Reliability and Applicability

While much  of  the  equipment  utilized  appears  to  be  standard  and
commercially  available,  the  use  of  "pure"  bacterial  cultures as a
processing mechanism presents problems.  Maintenance of the "purity"  of
the environment is foremost among these.  Depending upon the sensitivity
of  the  particular cultures used, "invasion" by other species may prove
highly damaging.

All efforts to date have centered around beef cattle waste products.  It
should be a relatively easy matter to extend the process to cover  dairy
cattle  manures,  too.   However,  use  of swine and poultry manures may
prove a problem due to their relatively low  fiber  level.   A  facility
built  along the lines of the pilot plant should eliminate geography and
climate as  potential  difficulties.   If,  however,  use  of  oxidation
ditches  instead  of  fermentation tanks is developed, some care must be
exercised in their placement and operation.

AEROBIC PRODUCTION OF YEAST

A process for the growing of yeast  is  in  the  preliminary  laboratory
stage  of development.  Basically, the process includes separating swine
waste  into  solid  and  liguid  fractions.   The  liquid  fraction   is
concentrated  and  is  added  directly  to the yeast fermentation system
while the solid fraction is treated by various chemical, microbial,  and
enzyme  hydrolysis techniques to produce substrates which are then added
to the fermentation system.  The yeast is harvested and  its  cell  wall
disintergrated to improve digestibility before use as a feed supplement.

Insufficient  effort  has  been  performed  to economically evaluate the
process.  Discussions with the program microbiologist indicate that  the
approach  taken  was one of sophisticated laboratory exploration without
consideration of engineering practicalities.  The system  utilizes  many
stages  for  processing,  advanced separation techniques, etc., and will
have to be engineered into a practical system once the  technical  basis
has been established.

Te. c hni cal^Description

The  laboratory  facility is a fourteen liter fermentation tank, and the
steps in the operation are shown in Figure 40.   The  separations  occur
continuously  and  utilize  membrane filters.  After initial separation,
chemical hydrolysis utilizing a 2% HCL solution is  employed  to  remove
any hemicellulose present.

This  is  followed  by  several  microbial  hydrolysis  steps  utilizing
specific cultures (Trichoderma viride QM 9123, Puria subacida FP  94457-
SP,  and  Streptomycetes  Sp.).   Use of culture extracts instead of the
actual microorganism is now under consideration.
                                  167

-------
RAW MATERIAL |
|
SEPARATION [-••]
t
CHEMICAL HYDROLYSIS |
{
| SEPARATION |-*-j
|
MICROBIAL HYDROLYSIS |
t
SEPARATION |-»-]
jl
MICROBIAL HYDROLYSIS |
t
SEPARATION j-»{
|
| MICROBIAL HYDROLYSIS j
|
SEPARATION }-*4
f
| BALL-MILLED |
*
ENZYME HYDROLYSIS |
|
SEPARATION j-*-{
|
| ENZYME HYDROLYSIS ]
t
SEPARATION |-*-|
J
ENZYME HYDROLYSIS |
f
SEPARATION j— »-j
*
DELIGNIFICATION |
jf
| WASHING |
*
ENZYME HYDROLYSIS J
f
SEPARATION j-»^
t
| KOJI CULTURE |

LIQUOR \

LIQUOR]

LIQUOR |

LIQUOR \

LIQUOR |

LIQUOR]

LIQUOR]

LIQUOR |

LIQUOR]

                                YEAST FERMENTATION
                                   COLLECTION
                               \
      WASHING
                                       I
]
                               I ENZYME HYDROLYSIS |
L
                                     DRYING
FIGURE 40. AEROBIC PRODUCTION OF YEAST
                    168

-------
After ball milling, several enzymatic hydrolysis steps  occur  utilizing
specific enzymes such as cellulase to aid in the total solubilization of
the  material.   Through use of the membrane filters, the enzymes remain
in the active feed and are reuseable.  After additional separation,  the
remaining  material  undergoes  deliguification.   This  is accomplished
through the use of peracetic acid (highly corrosive, explosive at 43.3°C
±110°F1,  and  a  strong  oxidizing  agent).   Additional  washing   and
separation then precede use of a Kojiculture.  This is a continuous-type
culture mechanism which proceeds at a slow rate.

After liguid portions from all the separation stages are sent to a yeast
fermentation tank.  After collection and washing, the material undergoes
another  hydrolysis  step to aid in the disintergration of the cell wall
and an aid to digestibility of the material.  The remaining material  is
then dried prior to use as a feed supplement.

Development Status

The  system described is still in a preliminary laboratory stage.  After
deciding on a purely microbiological basis what processes  are  reguired
to  perform  the  various functions and coming up with a rather unwieldy
system, the investigators involved are giving the system another look to
determine where steps could be modified or eliminated.

No economic analysis work has been performed mainly due to the fact that
the system is not really completely  defined.   The  process  developers
judge  that  at  least  three  more  years  are reguired before a system
capable of being shown to interested parties is available.

Reliability andnApplicability

An  analysis  of  reliability  must  await  better  system   definition.
Although  swine waste is the only material tried so far, it would appear
that the process  (from a technical standpoint)   could  be  utilized  for
cattle  wastes.   In  fact,  due  to  the higher fiber content of cattle
wastes, the process would probably work better.

ANAEROBIC PRODUCTION OF SINGLE CELL PROTEIN

This experimetal technology recycles cattle waste by means of  anaerobic
fermentation  into  a  proteinaceous  feed  ingredient  and  a  fuel gas
(methane).  The process has been operated successfully in the laboratory
and some limited evaluations of the nutrient guality of the material  as
a  feed  ingredient  have  been  performed.   Analyses indicate that the
process can be profitable for cattle feedlots 5000 head or larger.   The
processing utilizes relatively little power which, in fact, is generated
during  the  fermentation.   Since  all  process materials are recycled,
there is a zero pollutional discharge.  Investigations  of  the  process
                                  169

-------
and  improvement  in  the nutritional quality of the effluent solids are
still under active investigation.

Technica1_Description

Anaerobic fermentation is usually considered to be a biological two-step
process.   Firstly,   a   solubilization   process   occurs   in   which
carbohydrates  are  enzymatically  reduced  to sugars.  These sugars are
then capable of absorption through the cell wall of  the  microorganism.
The  products  of  the  first state of fermentation consist primarily of
simple acids and alcohols as well as hydrogen and carbon  dioxide.   The
materials then act as substrates for the second phase of the process, in
which methane and carbon dioxide are formed.  The usual nomencalture for
these phases are "acid-forming" and "methane-forming" respectively.  The
process  of  anaerobic  fermentation  may  be directed towards maximized
growth of the bacterial colony (for "harvesting" and  use  as  a  refeed
ingredient)  or maximized fuel (methane)  production.

The  system,  as  practiced,  utilizes  cattle manure slurry at a solids
concentration of 10%.  Manure is  mixed  with  water  and  ground  in  a
blender in an attempt to achieve a solids concentration of approximately
20%. '  The  material is then frozen until needed.  Before use, additonal
water is added to achieve a 10% solids concentration.  Use of a  maximum
of  10%  solids  mixture has been dictated by the size of the laboratory
eguipment.  The material is then automatically fed to the fermenters  at
levels  as  high  as 16.2 kilograms volatile solids/cubic meter/day  (1.0
pound volatile solids/cubic foot/day).   During  the  fermentation,  the
microbial  colony  present  (no  specific  culture  is used)  reduces the
original mass while producing methane and carbon dioxide.  The  effluent
liguid  is  discharged at a solids concentration of 5% indicating a mass
destruction rate of  50%.   The  material  is  then  dewatered  and  the
proteinaceous microbial colony "harvested".

A  schematic  for  a full-size plant utilizing anaerobic fermentation of
cattle wastes is shown in Figure 41.  The entering material is mixed  in
the  slurry  tanks,  with  water  that has been separated from the output
material by centrifuges.  The solids content inside the slurry tanks  is
maintained   at   10%.    Within  the  slurry  tanks,  the  material  is
recirculated to assure thorough homegeneity.  After leaving  the  slurry
tanks,  the material is passed through a heat exchanger in order to heat
the incoming material to the operating  temperature  of  the  fermenter.
Some additional heat must also be provided to compensate for heat losses
from  the  surface of the fermenter.  Within the fermenter, the contents
are  mixed  continuously.   The  microbial  population  is  capable   of
utilizing  the  raw  materials  in  its  metabolic activities and, in so
doing,  additional  microorganisms  are  produced  as  well  as  gaseous
discharge  consisting  of  methane  and  carbon  dioxide.   This gaseous
effluent is burned to provide all the heat reguired for the process and,
                                  170

-------
through the use of an engine-generator, all  of  the  electrical  energy
required.

The  liquid/solid  effluent  discharged from the fermenter contains half
the solids of the incoming material, the other half having been utilized
in the digestion process.  This material then passes into  a  centrifuge
for dewatering.  The excess moisture is pumped back for use in slurrying
the  incoming  material.  The solids cake leaving the centrifuge is then
sent to a rotary kiln dryer for final processing.  The finished  product
may then be stored for future use.

Due to conservation of nitrogen, the product contains twice the nitrogen
concentration  of  the incoming material.  Laboratory analysis has shown
that  the  amino  acid  concentration  has  guadrupled,   indicating   a
substantial    conversion   of   non-protein   nitrogen   sources   into
proteinaceous material.   The quality of the  product's  amino  acids  is
similar  to that of soybean meal, which it can replace in a diet.  Chick
feeding trials utilizing the product have indicated that the material is
neither toxic  nor  inhibiting.   An  analysis  of  utilization  of  the
material  as  a  refeed ingredient for cattle has indicated that an iso-
nitrogeneous and iso-energy ration can be formulated using this product.
The diet would contain sightly more mass than the standard diet but this
amount is small enough not to be a problem.

In the mass balance, shown in Figure 42, rates  are  shown  on  a  daily
basis.   The waste material is indicated as entering the system at 53.8%
moisture, because this is the value  that  conserves  water  within  the
system.  At higher moisture levels, facilities for tempporary storage of
excess  water  must  be  provided.  Makeup water facilities will also be
needed.  A water storage lagoon could fulfill both of these needs.

Development Status

The system  is  currently  in  the  laboratory  stage.   A  pilot  plant
operation  is  needed to establish operational and design specifications
regarding actual cattle feed systems.

ReliabilitY_and_Applicability

The laboratory test program has shown the anaerobic fermentation process
to be stable  and  reliable.   Changes  in  temperature,  loading  rate,
residence  time and addition of various minerals have not led to failure
conditions.   The  components  used  in  the  system  are  off-the-shelf
hardware.

Since  the  waste  material is being processed, climate and geography do
not bear on the applicability of the concept.  However, some  care  must
be  taken  with  the  input material.  Poultry manure having a high uric
                                  171

-------
                      I

                      X
                      Ul
                         LUO
                         HO.
 CM

8
o:
o
CL
Q:
u
<
i
x
LU

                         z
                         Ul

                       il
                                  a:
                                  Q
            z
            o
z
Ul
z

8
       5

       "1
                      o:
                      u
                                  UJ
                                  Q
                      Ul
              W)
              <
              O

                      Z
                      LU
                                  Ul
                                  U.
                    Ul LU
                    * H
                                     o:
                                     LU
                                     H-
Ul
_I
u
>-
u
ui
o:
                                   cc
                                   o:
                                   V)
                     LU


                     (/)
                                           Ul
                                                      Z
                                                      Lu

                                                      g
_


LU
O

LU
_I
O
Z

55

LL
O

Z
O

H
U
D
Q

2
Q.

O

5
o
cc
LU
                                                       1

                                                       LU
                                               2
                             172

-------
acid concentration, for  example,  could  lead  to  adverse  effects  on
organisms in the fermenters.

FEED RECYCLE PROCESS

The  Feed Recycle Process is a proprietary process which has undergone a
number of recent modifications.   The  process  separates  nondigestible
sand  and  fiber  from the digestible portion of the manure by physical-
chemical means with reported 89% protein  recovery;  the  value  of  the
protein is not reported.  The process is not yet fully developed and is,
therefore, regarded as experimental.

Technical Description

Figure  43  represents the latest simplified version of the Feed Recycle
Process.  Raw manure enters a settling tank.  If the raw manure contains
less than 50% moisture, it is first broken up in a mill.  After  a  one-
hour  residence  time  in  the settling tank, where sand is removed, the
material is centrifuged.  This centrifugation separates fibrous material
from  protein,  fats,  and  sugars,  which  are  liquified  or  held  in
suspension.   The  liguid  next  goes  through a floculation step, which
involves pH adjustment and iron  solubilization.   The  slurry  is  then
dewatered in a rotary drum vacuum filter.  The liguid is recycled to the
settling  step. .  The  filter  cake is delivered to a rotary drying unit
operating at 121 - 126 °C (250  -  260°F).   The  resulting  product  is
granular  and  sterile.  It consists of 20% protein, 6% fats and sugars,
19% starch, 37% cellulose and lignin, 6% salts, and 12% salt-free ash.

Based on 0.9 kkg (one ton)   (dry basis)  of manure scraped  from  a  sandy
feedlot  91  kilograms  (200  pounds)  of  sand  will  be removed in the
settling tank, and 91 kilograms (200 pounds) of fiber will be removed by
the Tolhurst centrifuge.  This leaves 726 kilograms (1600 pounds)  of dry
product.  This product  (composition listed earlier) contains 89% of  the
protein  in  the  raw  manure.   These  figures  appear  to  be somewhat
optimistic because they imply that the raw manure is  18%  protein,  and
they also neglect biological reduction of some of the material to gases,
which occurs to some extent.

Development Status

A  pilot  plant  has  been  operating for several months at a California
feedlot.  Capacity has been estimated at 13.6 kkg  (15 tons)  per day (dry
basis).  One  series  of  feeding  trials  resulted  in  elimination  of
molasses  extraction  from the fiber, simplifying the process.  A second
set of feeding trials  is  now  underway.   In  these  trials,  recycled
material constitutes from 5% to 13% of the feed ration.

Reliability and Applicability
                                  173

-------
45,400KG(100,000#)S
52.936KG (116,600#)L
98,336KG(216,600#)M
                45,400KG(100.000#)S
                408.600KG(900.000#)L
                454, OOOKG (1, 000, 000#)M
                           (10.0% SOLID)
ELECTRIC
GENERATOR
 MANURE BLURRY
           TANK
                               PUMP
                    PUMP
           22.700KG (50,000#)S
          408,600KG (900.000#)L
          431,300KG(950,000#)M
                                       I
                                355.664KG (783,400#)L
                                               CENTRATE
                                          PUMP
                                     22.700KG (50,000#)S
                                     52,936KG (116,000#)L
                                     75.636KG (l66,600#)M
                                          (30% SOLID)
                    /CENTRIFUGE
                    /

                     MOIST
                     SOLIDS
 45.400KG (100,000 LB) DRY WASTE PER DAY
 PRODUCTION FACILITY
 L - LIQUID
 S - DRY SOLIDS
 M- MIXTURE
                PRODUCT
           22.700KG (50,000#)S
            2.542KG (5,600#)L
           25.242KG (55,600#)M
      FIGURE 42.  ANAEROBIC PRODUCTION OF SINGLE CELL. PROTEIN-
                  MASS BALANCE
                                   174

-------
   a:
   O
                 oa:
              u.u
                                O
                                z
                                 a:O
                                 CLU.
                a: DO:
                oy
                HUI-.
                o
-------
Equipment  used  in  the  process  is  moderately  complex.  Malfunction
correction may thus require relatively frequent attention.

The Feed Recycle Process can be used to process manure from any  feedlot
situation.   In  fact,  certain  types of operation (e.g., slatted floor
systems) may permit a high degree of automation  in  manure  collection,
assuring a steady supply to the processing equipment

OXIpATION_DITCH

The oxidation ditch is made up of two principle parts, a continuous open
channel  ditch,  usually shaped like a race track, and an aeration rotor
that circulates the ditch contents and supplies oxygen.   The  oxidation
ditch  is  a  modified  form  of the activated sludge process and may be
classed as an extended aeration type of treatment.  Aerobic bacteria use
the organic matter in the waste deposited in the ditch as food for their
metabolic processes, thus reducing the biologically degradable  organics
to  stable  material  with  carbon  dioxide  and  water as the major by-
products.

The oxidation ditch is a commercially used  technology  in  the  feedlot
industry and offers the primary benefits of near odorless operation plus
reduced  waste  management  labor  and  clean  feeding  facilities  when
incorporated with slotted floor  animal  confinement.   The  system  is,
however, a relatively high rate consumer of electrical power and water.

Although   biological   reduction  of  solids  in  the  ditch  has  been
demonstrated, the removal of solids is reguired in order to  maintain  a
solids concentration of the mixed liquor at a near optimum level to keep
the  aerobic  bacteria  metabolism  more  active.  Sludge removal can be
effected by pumping from a trap constructed for this  purpose,  diluting
by  adding  water  to  the ditch and collecting the overlfow for further
treatment and disposal, pumping from  the  ditch  and  mixing  with  the
ration for refeed use, or a combination of the methods.

The  results  obtained  to date on a refeed program suggests that animal
waste biologically processed through the oxidation ditch system  has  an
acceptable  nutritional  value  and can be used effectively as a partial
protein and mineral supplement in the feed ration of  ruminants.   There
appear  to  be  no  animal  health  or  meat quality problems.  However,
investment in the oxidation ditch for the purpose of  refeeding  is  not
presently  practical  due to lack of FDA approval of the concept.  Costs
of $120 per head of beef  cattle  have  been  reported  for  a  complete
housed,  slotted  floor,  oxidation  ditch  facility.   With other costs
reported for housed, slotted floor facilities of $65 to  $75  per  head,
the  cost  attributed to the oxidation ditch alone is about $50 per head
to install.

Technical Dgscription
                                  176

-------
Raw manure is deposited directly into the oxidation ditch, either  on  a
continuous basis where livestock are confined on slotted floors over the
ditch,  or periodically by collecting and transporting the manure to the
ditch.  Oxidation ditches have been shown to be  relatively  insensitive
to  batch  loading.   A rotor, immersed from 5 cm (2 inches)  to 15 cm (6
inches)  in the mixed ligucr, rotates at sufficient  speed  to  circulate
the  ditch  contents  so  that solids will be kept in suspension and not
settle.   The rotor also supplies the oxygen  to  the  mixed  liquor  for
biological  oxidation  in  which  residual plant material and intestinal
bacteria are broken down.  Figure 44 shows this system schematically.

Water is added to maintain the depth in the ditch at a  constant  level,
in  conjunction  with  an  overflow device, and to maintain a relatively
constant solids percentage in the ditch by diluting the  ditch  contents
and  carrying  entrained  solids  out  the  overflow.  Effluent from the
oxidation ditch is piped to a settling tank or or  lagoon  where  solids
can  be  periodically  removed  and  spread on land for fertilizer.  The
biological oxidation product, CO2, is released to the atmosphere.

For animal refeed, the liguid animal waste material is  pumped  directly
from  the  oxidation  ditch  into a mixing wagon containing the adjusted
control ration, thoroughly mixed and then augered into  the  feed  bunk.
The feed mixture is prepared and fed on a twice daily basis.

The  data  for the mass balance in Figure 45 were supplied by one of the
principal developers of the oxidation ditch  concept  for  beef  feedlot
application.   The  balance  is  based  on  one 384 kilogram (845 pound)
steer.

Development Status

The oxidation ditch is in a relatively advanced  stage  of  development.
Over  400  installations are reported with a significant number in full-
scale operation.  The oxidation ditch is one of the simplest and easiest
to maintain of all waste treatment systems.  However, every system  must
Have  regular  maintenance  and  good  management  if  it is to function
properly over an extended period of time.
                                  177

-------
                J-
                z
                Ul
                         8
                         0
                                                 .18
  o:
  e
  o
 CM
O
                      I
                      u
                      H
                      Q

                      Z
                      O
                                X
                                O
                                                     I
                                                     O

                                                     Q

                                                     Z
                                                     O

                                                     H

Ul
K
D
O
iZ
-I tfl
< LU
          z <
          < 5
                     z
                     o
                       UJ
           D
           =!'<
           Q5
                      178

-------
The most critical  period of operation  is  system  start-up.   Excessive
foaming,  qases  and  odors  have  been reported,  especially when septic
manure is present.   Periods of up to 12 weeks have been reported  before
a  ditch  becomes  acclimated to the waste loading.   Also,  when the ditch
contents  approach   freezinq   temperatures,    oxidation    rate   slows
considerably and heat may have to be added.  Once proper operation of an
oxidation ditch has  been established, the contents should  probably never
be  completely  pumped  out,  but rather a portion of the  ditch contents
should  be  replaced  with  tap  water  when  the  solids    or   mineral
concentration becomes too hiqh.  A properly operated oxidation ditch has
been  shown  to  be   effective  for  odor  control,   manure  handlinq in
conjunction with
         STEER
     CO
     o
       in
       Q
       00
             u
         Q -
    8.24KG
(18. 15#)DRY WT./
   DAY/HD.
                                    FEED
               LU
                 4.50KG(9.92#)
                 WATER/DAY/HD.
                    p25.6KG (56.4#)DILUTION WATER/
                     DAY/HD.
	8.15KG(17.95#)
     FEED/DAY/HD
                                               (H
                                               3£
                                               to
                                     I
                                     I
                                     I

                                   I
                                   =tel
                                   Sil
                           1.04KG(2.29#)SOLIDS/
                                DAY/HD.       _1	
                                    I

                                    ' 0. 78KG (1. 73#)SOL1DS/
                                    -i—t DAY/HD.
                 1 8. 16KG (40. 0#)WATER/DAY/HD
                              | REFEED |
                             i	r
                     23. 26KG (51. 23#)WATER VAPOR.

                  C02. NH3. OTHER WASTES/DAY/HD.
                                                       13. 66KG
                                                (30.08#)WATER/
                                                      DAY/HD.
  TO ATMOSPHERE
                                           TO LAGOON
                                           AND
                                           LAND DISPOSAL
                 FIGURE 45. OXIDATION DITCH-MASS BALANCE
                                 179

-------
slotted floor installations, and reported solids  reduction  of  3U%  to
90*.

Extensive  research  data  are  still  needed to adequately evaluate the
systems as an approved feeding concept.  Additional feeding  outlets  or
methods  of concentrating the effluent material are needed if feeding is
the desired procedure for utilizing all  the  animal  waste  production.
The  simplicity  of  recycling  the  material  from  the  ditch  and the
potential economic value makes the oxidation ditch system  a  worthwhile
concept  for  further  study.   To date, over 500 cattle have been fed a
diet supplemented  with  oxidation  ditch  effluent  in  five  different
experiments.

Reliability and Applicability

The  reliability  of  the  oxidation ditch is relatively high as it is a
fairly simple system if it is operated properly.

The oxidation ditch is generallly applicable to all feedlot  operations.
The   concept   has   been  utilized  for  cattle,  poultry,  and  swine
applications as an odor and waste management technique.  Refeed of ditch
effluent has been experimentally demonstrated for beef cattle.    On  the
other  hand,  maintenance requirements, power and water Use can be quite
high, and release of harmful gases can occur during  shutdown  (such  as
following a mechanical failure).

ACTIVATED_SLUDGE

For  this discussion, these processes are defined as bacterial digestion
in an aerated tank.  Most of the currently  active  programs  are  on  a
demonstration scale, and are summarized below.

These  processes  are  relatively  complex, but they greatly reduce land
spreading, and they can be operated in  winter  conditions.   Power  and
operating  costs are high.  Activated sludge, as developed in Program E,
is considered ready for commercial application and is,  therefore  BATEA
technology.
                                               Main      Post
Program   Waste   operation   Pretreatment  Treatment   Treatment   Reference

  A       dairy   Batch       Grit removal  Aeration-   Aeration -    113
          flush   (2U hour)                  setting    chlorination
          and
          wash

 B       flushed  Continuous  None          Aeration   Evaporation    114,115,
         swine                                                        120,124
         manure                                                       125,126
                                  181

-------
         beef     continuous  None
         feedlot
         runoff
         dairy
         manure,
         etc.

         dairy
         manure
         etc.
Continous
Semi-batch
   or
continuous
Comminu-
tion
None
                          Aeration   Clarification
Aerated    None
thermophilic
digestion
Aerated
thermo-
philic
digestion
Flotation
                                        121,122,
                                        127
               116,123,
               128
117,118,
119,129
Technical Description

Some  activated sludge processes are more sophisticated than others, and
each has some distinguishing characteristic.  The Location  A  operation
is  conducted  batchwise,  with an aeraation phase and a settling phase.
Following the settling phase, liquid is drawn off to another tank, where
it aerated and chlorinated before being recycled as  flush  water.   The
Location  B  treatment  is the simplest consisting of a single tank with
floating aerator.  The effluent goes to an evaporation pond,  ultimately
leaving  an  odor-free  mass  of  dead  bacteria  (sludge)   suitable for
spreading on cropland.  The  Location  C  approach  is  closest  to  the
standard  municipal  activated  sludge  process.  Liquid is continuously
transferred from an  aerated  mixed  liquor  tank  to  a  conical-bottom
clarifier.   Liquid  drawn  off  the  clarifier  goes to a lagoon, while
sludge is continuously  air  lifted  back  to  the  aerated  tank.   The
Location  D  installation  provides continuous, multistage, temperature-
controlled,  aerated  digestion  of  liquid  wastes.   The  Location   E
operation is similar but adds  (when desired)  a flotation tank and drying
bed  for  sludge  removal  and  dewaterinq,  a  settling tank for liquid
clarification, a chemical precipitation stage for  decolorizing,  and  a
chlorination stage for sterilization.

The  Location E approach is shown in Figure U6 because it is a flexible,
modular concept  that  contains  the  elements  of  most  of  the  other
approaches.   The  one  exception is the concept of sludge recycling (by
means of the aeration compressor) used at Location C.  Depending on  the
type of waste and the degree of treatment desired, the Location E system
may  comprise anything from a single aerated tank to the complete system
shown  in  Figure  46.    Mass  balance  information  is  available  for
operations  at  Locations  A,  B  and  E.   The  Location  B information
represents actual data, whereas the other information may be  actual  or
projected.  In general, the mass balance represents:

Input:     animal waste, oxygen, chlorine  (optional)
Output:    carbon dioxide, ammonia, renovated water, sludge
                                  182

-------
INFLUENT
WASTE
           DIGESTION
           TANK
         NEUTRALIZER
         CHLORINE
CHEMICAL
PRECIPITANT
        CHLORINAT1ON
        TANK
                                                                    X A A. X
        SETTLING
        TANK
SETTLING
TANK
PERIODIC
SLUDGE
RECYCLE
                  LIQUID
                  EFFLUENT
                             FIGURE 46.  ACTIVATED SLUDGE
                                             183

-------
Operation  A  handles  wastes  associated  with  175 dairy cows.  System
inputs are as follows:
                                      FLOW                BOD
INPUT                         LITERS  (GAL)/DAY      KG  (LB)/DAY

Waste:

    Flush Water               33,120  (8,750)
    Manure                     4,540  (1,200)          51  (112)
    Wash Water*               75,700  (20,000)           6  (13)
    Domestic                     190  (50)               -  (1)
    Total                    113,550  (30,000)         57  (126)

Rain                         0-156,700  (0-41,400)
Oxygen                       113.50  (250)**

*From milking parlor and processing plant.
**Oxygen absorbed in kg/day  (Ib/day).  Reguires  9260 liters/min
  (327)/cfm)  air throughput.


System output is not defined, except that dissolved oxygen must exceed  5
mg/liter and residual chlorine must exceed 1.0   mg/liter.   Operation   B
has  a  stated  capacity  of  1000 90 kilogram  (200 pound) hogs, but the
available data represents 750 hogs during a 14   week  period  where  the
average weight increased from 23 to 80 kilograms (50 to 175 pounds).  In
the  following  table, the influent represents manure diluted with flush
water, while the effluent represents the average of  conditions  in  the
aeraation  tank before and after waste addition.  The manure was flushed
with 5700 to 10,200 liters  (1500 to 2700 gallons)  of   water,  generally
three times each week.


                                 CONCENTRATION,  MG/LITER
WASTE COMPONENT                     INFLUENT        EFFLUENT

BOD                                 46,400          1,680
COD                                 99,100          8,210
Suspended Solids                    75,800          8,130
Total Nitrogen                        6,760            703


Location  E  mass  balance  information is presented on the basis of 100
dairy cows:
WASTE COMPONENT               INPUT                  OUTPUT
OR SOURCE              L/DAY        KG/DAY     L/DAY       KG/DAY
                      GAL/DAY       LB/DAY    GAL/DAY      LB/DAY

Milkhouse              2540         2550
                                   184

-------
Manure

Liquid

Fibrous Matter

O2, CO2, NH3

Total


BOD

COD

Organic Notroqen
                        (670)
                       4540
                       (1,200)
                       7080
                       (1,870)
(5,620
 4585
(10,100)
 7135
(15,720)

  98
 (215)
  128
 (281)
   9
   (20)
                                                 3140
                                                 (830)
                                                 300
                                                 (80)
3440
 (910)
                        3170
                       (6,980)
                         300
                         (670)
 3470
(7,650)

  5.2
 (11.5)
  10.6
 (23.3)
   2.7
   (6)
      (20)   (6)

The output figures represent processing without  chemical   posttreatment.
Based  on  the  output  values,  the  following  mass   balance  for  the
precipitation-neutralization-chlorination  step can  be  written:
                               INPUT             OUTPUT
                        KG/DAY  (LB/DAY       KG/DAY  (LB/DAY)
COMPONENT

Liquid
Chlorine
BOD
Ammonia
                            3170  (6,980)
                              1.1  (2.4)
                              5.1  (11.5)
                              Unknown
             3170 (6,980)
             Unknown
             0.09 (0.2)
             0.009 (0.02)
Development status

For the most part, the activated sludge processes   are   operating  on  a
medium  scale demonstration level in the  field.  The  size or capacity of
installations currently operating has already been  indicated.   Status of
the  Location  E  approach  is  perhaps   most    advanced,   with   three
demonstration   units   operating   in    the    field  and  several  more
installations planned for the near  future.   The   largest  handles  500
dairy cows.

Reliability and Applicability
                                   185

-------
The  activated  sludge processes are moderately complex and malfunctions
may, therefore, be relatively frequent until a firm foundation of design
experience is built.   Municipal  sewage  installations  are  relatively
trouble-free,  but  units processing animal waste have had a significant
number of breakdowns.

The activated sludge processes have been applied  to  several  types  of
animal waste.  They permit waste treatment in all weather conditions and
minimize or eliminate the'need for land spreading.

WASTELAGE

Beef cattle waste collected from livestock reared in confinement is used
as  animal  feed.  The use of feedlot manure as an ingredient for animal
rations  has  been  under  experimental  evaluation  at   a   university
agricultural  experiment station for over eleven years.  The concept has
evolved from feeding a ration mixed with fresh, washed, or cooked manure
to the present technique of mixing corn, corn  silage,  and  manure  and
ensiling  this  mixture  for  ten days prior to feeding.  The results of
published feeding trials generally indicate a benefit in feed efficiency
for animal weight gain by including manure in the mixture.  The  ensiled
mixture  has  been fed to beef cattle, breeding cattle, and ewes.  It is
not feasible to return all the manure to the  steer  from  which  it  is
collected,  so that disposal of from 1/2 to 2/3 of the unused portion is
required.  Wastelage  is  available  for  use  on  commercial  feedlots,
although FDA approval has not been received.

Technical Description

Raw  manure  is  scraped  either daily or 2 to 3 times per week from the
floor of confined cattle pens to a conveyor.  The waste  is  transported
to  a  common  storage facility or directly to the mixer.  The ration is
prepared by mixing 42 parts of corn, 18 parts corn silage and  40  parts
of  manure  on a wet weight basis.  The mixture is then blown to the top
of an oxygen controlled silo and allowed  to  age  for  ten  days.   The
wastelage  is  unloaded  from  the bottom into a feed delivery wagon and
deposited in the feed bunkers.

Development,, Status

The wastelage refeed concept has been under  development  for  about  10
years.   A series of pilot lot operations has been conducted during this
period.  The pilot lot tests conducted to date have shown the  wastelage
ration  to  be  readily consumed by cattle.  Feed and cost effectiveness
have been indicated.  The first full-scale operation, consisting of  200
head  of  beef  cattle,  is  about  to  get  underway  at an undisclosed
location.

geliabilitY^and Applicability
                                  186

-------
Wastelage is basically a simple process, so reliability should be  good.
Care is required to maintain consistent wastelaqe quality.

Application  is  limited  to  ruminants  maintained  on  hard surface or
slotted floors.

ANAEROBIC_PRODUCTION_OF_FDEL_GAS

The production of methane fuel gas by anaerobic fermentation  of  animal
wastes  is  currently  under  investigation at several locations.  While
considerable laboratory work has been performed, no field  demonstration
plant is yet in operation.  Economic projections for the various systems
indicate that fuel production is economically practical only for systems
that   are  sized  for  the  largest  commercial  feedlots.   Therefore,
profitable operation is available only to  processing  plants  that  are
regional  in  nature.   This would, in turn, invite additional costs for
purchase and transportation of the raw material.   Economic  utilization
of  the  remaining  sludge  is  necessary  to avoid the added expense of
sludge removal and disposal.

Technical Description

A schematic of one version of the process is shown in Figure  47,  which
also  indicates  a  mass  balance.   The manure enters a feed tank after
having been slurried.  This material then  enters  primary  fermentation
tanks  for  partial  digestion.   Fermentation  of the effluent material
continues in secondary fermenters.

The liguid effluent from these secondary units is then  thickened  using
"flotation"  techniques  before  being  sent  to dewatering beds.  Waste
water from the thickening process is  sent  to  an  oxidation  pond  for
storage.   The  dewatered  solids  are  then  dried  for  use  as a soil
conditioner.

The effluent gases from the fermenters are sent to a compressorscrubber.
Here, the carbon dioxide and  hydrogen  sulfide  are  removed,  and  the
resultant  methane-rich  gas  is  compressed  for  introduction  into  a
pipeline.  Estimates of methane production range from 374 liter/kg  (6.0
cubic foot/pound)  volatile solids to 480 liter/kg (7.7 cubic foot/pound)
volatile solids.

Figure  48  depicts an alternative version of the process.  It should be
noted that this system is based on utilizing municipal  waste;  however,
utilization  of  animal  manures  would  lead  to  essentially  the same
processing.

Development Status
                                  187

-------
ce
LJ
o.-


















CQ
1
o
in
CO
' 2585K




a
u
a
'
DEWATERING
i
ft
u
2
U
*
5
K


DARY
Z
0
U
LU
Ul
,
'

a:
2
o:
0.
D
Q
UJ
U.
'
MANURE


i
1
Q
LU
CD

j
i


U
I-
l/l
UJ
o
Q
1
1


H
UI
(3
Q

l/J
y.
t-
1
STOCKPILE
\ "m
X ^ Q
10 "o
^ *~ S-^
x x < „
co g \ UJ
in CD Z
Co" i ^ S
^1

ce
u
g
S 1
S i-
* si
§1
>-
Q
<^< —9
r~L 0 ^
O i — Q
^ 0 !~ T liJ

I^HI m ^>
ce *" cey
3 So: So
(5 LU ^ o:
5 	 "~ Lt OQ S
< % 3 <-> <


- Q CO Z (S y
x£ ct
a
X
in




                                                                                         cn
                                                                                         <
                                                                                         CD
                                                                                         J
                                                                                         III
                                                                                         U.
                                                                                         o
                                                                                         z
                                                                                         o

                                                                                         o

                                                                                         Q
                                                                                         Q.

                                                                                         O
                                                                                         5
                                                                                         LJ
                                                                                         <
                                                                                         UJ
                                                                                         a:
                                  188

-------

1-
u
a
o
a.

LJ
Z
I
H
2

rv
GAS SEPARATOF
1

«
Q
CM
O
U


UJ
o: -, i-
e
-I
J
D
/l
j_
O
Zi
0
H-
1-
K
2
t/)
z
<
g
H











_,
^
—• 1 1
< U ;

LU

DIGESTER SLUDG
PROCESSING OR
DISPOSAL
i_t
i

i-
z
LU
^ -i

L.
U.
LJ















Z
i- < }ij o
U. Z Q
to Q < uj
z z a:
H



_l
<
0.
O
z
3
2










z
o
i-
^
a:
^
Q.
LJ
to



i
L.
OH
o <
— - H
H <
< 7
U o
* L^
~ O
[ 1^
- o
^ _
tS J
a: D
D fc
a.


a:
LU

0





: v
< O K
g O a; u.
»n — » •.

Q
LU ^
uj i- •*
t- t/J -
i ^»
i w ?"
"j (0 < O ^ "A
o < s H o a

S

                                                               u
                                                               z
                                                               <


                                                               UJ
                                                               o
                                                               H
                                                               (/)
                                                               LJ
                                                               D
                                                               L-
                                                               O
                                                               Z
                                                               o
                                                               in
                                                               cc
                                                               UJ
                                                               >
                                                               z
                                                               o
                                                               o

                                                                 •
                                                               CO
                                                               •=3-

                                                               LU
                                                               o:
                                                               D
                                                               O
                                                               U.
189

-------
The  process  has  not  yet  progressed  to  the  pilot   plant   stage.
Arrangements  are  in  the  formulation  stage to build a pilot plant in
either New Mexico or Texas, because both areas have high  concentrations
of  feedlot waste available.  An estimate of 18 months before completion
of the plans is anticipated.  A pilot plant may be part of a large waste
water treatment facility at the site.  A verbal agreement with  the  gas
company  for  purchase  of  all  substitute natural gas (SNG) or methane
produced has been made, but a legal contract has yet to be executed.

Obtaining sufficient manure from  local  feedlot  owners  is  proving  a
problem.   The  preferred  set-up  is  use  of feedlot eguipment to load
trucks which would then deliver the manure to the processing plant.   In
this  manner,  no "purchase" is necessary.  However, long-term contracts
are reguired before a plant can be built, and  the  feedlot  owners  are
reluctant to sign any agreements, believeing that their manure pile will
soon  "turn  to  gold".   Most  likely,  if  contracts  are signed, some
purchase price will be involved.

The process developer indicated last year that estimates of construction
and operating costs of the scrubbing eguipment  had  been  substantially
incorrect.   It  also indicated that based on gas sales alone (no credit
for byproduct  sales)  the  sale  price  reguired  for  the  SNG  to  be
profitable had doubled from the original figure.

Before  constructing  a  full-size  production facility, extensive pilot
plant development work is necessary.
Rg liability. ,and Applicability

Almost all of the components used in the system are standard items.  The
"thickener" is the one non-standard hardware item  and  may,  therefore,
tend to be a potential trouble spot.

Location  of  a SNG plant is limited to a relatively small area close to
feedlots.  Haulage rates can drastically affect  production  costs.   If
credits  are  to  be  taken  for sale of byproducts, shipping costs also
become a factor.  Access to significantly  more  than  100,000  head  of
cattle  within  a  relatively  small  radius  is  necessary for economic
production of SNG.

REDUCTION WITH FLY LARVAE

Utilization of livestock manure as a growth  substrate  for  fly  pupae,
which  would  be  used  as  a  high  protein  feed supplement, is in the
experimental stage.  Work  in  the  laboratory  on  poultry  manure  has
produced  a product with an attractive nutrient analysis.  Economics are
uncertain, and feed utilization needs  to  be  demonstrated  in  feeding
trials.   The  residual  waste  solids should be marketable as composted
manure .
                                  190

-------
Technical Description

Manure is placed in a rotating drum resembling a  cement  mixer  and  is
innoculated with house fly eggs.  As the drum rotates, air is sparged in
through  the perforated shaft.  The air is pre-heated to 25-35°C, and is
pre-dried to less than 40% relative humidity.  During a period of  about
five days, fly larvae hatch from the eggs and tunnel through the manure,
promoting  thorough  aeration  and rapid biodegradation.  The mixture is
then removed and spread on a screen.  The top of the screen  is  exposed
to  a  bright  light,  which drives the larvae through the screen into a
dark box, where they pupate.  The pupae are then ready  for  drying  and
grinding  to  form  a  high protein meal.  The material remaining on the
screen may be used for land fill or as a soil conditioner.  Air emerging
from the processor passes through an acid bath, an alkaline bath, and  a
dehumidifier,  before  recycling  through  the  processor.   These steps
remove  ammonia,  volatile  acids,  and  moisture.    The   process   is
represented in Figure 49.

Each  fly  produces  200 to 300 eggs in a batch.  These eggs are used at
the rate of 3.0 eggs per gram  of  manure.   Then,  one  ton  of  manure
requires  10,000  - 14,000 flies to produce about 2.7 million eggs.  The
process results in 23 to 27 kilograms (50 to 60 pounds)  of protein  feed
supplement  (dried, ground pupae)  and 450 to 540 kilograms (1000 to 1200
pounds)  of "semi-dry practically odorless soil conditioner11.   About  0.6
kilograms  (1.4  pounds)   of  the  pupae  produced  may be saved for fly
breeding.  Most of the balance of the original .9 kkg  (ton)   of  manure
will  have  been  removed  in  the  air stream as water vapor and carbon
dioxide, along with some ammonia and small guantities of volatile acids,
ketones, skatol, etc.  The resulting  protein  meal  is  63.1%  protein,
15.5%  fat,  3.9%  moisture,  5.3% ash,  and 12.2% nitrogen free extract,
fiber, and other.  It contains many amino and fatty acids.

Development Status

All work thus far has been on a  laboratory  scale.   However,  a  small
automatic  demonstration  unit is nearly ready for operation.  This unit
will process a 1.8 kkg (two ton)  batch of manure.   In  the  laboratory,
the  process  has been successfully applied to manure from several types
of animals.

Beliability and Applicability

Equipment may be rather conventional,  but  it  is  uncertain  how  much
complexity  the air scrubbing operation adds.  In addition, good control
of paramenters such as temperature, humidity, processing  duration,  and
innoculation  rate  is  required.   Thus, unexpected problems  in reliable
operation may arise.
                                  191

-------
               ^
               13
               SE
               Q Q
BAGGER
      ui
      z


      ^
      ^ UI
      -IOC
      

£
LU
H
         (/)
         <
         O


         ttf
               92
               U(K
(/)
O

ui
                                          o:
                                          ui
                                          z
                                          o
                                         oo
                                         tnu
                            K
                            UI
                            Q
                            Z

                            5
                            o
D;
ui

O
      C£ I
      nl
    Xui
    uu,
    t-o
    
-------
Although most effective for swine manure, the process may  be  used  for
any  animal  manure.  The developers claim that a single processing unit
would require only part-time attention (a few  hours,  once  every  five
days)  from  someone  with  no  special  skills.   A  large,  multi-unit
installation would probably need full-time attention.

BIOCHEMICAL RECYCLE PROCESS

The Biochemical Recycle  Process,  designed  for  flushed  dairy  waste,
produces  roughage  or  bedding,  fertilizer, and good purity water from
liquid manure.  The process is essentially biological (aerobic)  and  is
carried out in chemical processing equipment.  The value of the fiber as
a  feed  roughage  has not been established, and the fertilizer is a wet
product not suitable for transportation to market.

The process is proprietary, and available information was not sufficient
to substantiate the developer's  claims.    The  process  appears  to  be
complex  and expensive, with no demonstratable payback.   The first full-
scale demonstration is now being started.

Technical Description

The Biochemical Recycle Process is described in  Figure  50.   From  the
manure pit, liquid manure is pumped to two countercurrent classification
stages.  In the primary classifier, water from reaction stage  (described
later)  is  added,  and the fibrous solids are separated from the liquid
and sent to the final classifier.

In the final classifier, water from the second settler (described later)
is used to rinse the fibers, which are separated, squeezed-dried to  not
more  than 2555 moisture, and collected for later use as feed roughage or
bedding.  Liquid from the final classifier and from the squeeze-dryer is
sent to the flocculation step  (described later).

Liquid from the primary classifier is  discharged  into  the  top  of  a
reaction tower.  Also entering the top of the reaction tower are air and
recycled  liquid.  In the tower, the liquid passes down through a series
of sieve trays (perforated plates), and foaming occurs,   saturating  the
liquid  with  oxygen and promoting growth of aerobic bacteria.  The base
of the tower is called the  reaction  vessel  and  provides  80  minutes
holdup  time  for  aerobic digestion of the waste.  The liquid overflows
from the reaction vessel  to  an  "enzyme  vessel",  which  provides  an
additional  80  minutes holdup time.  Liquid flows through this reaction
system at a net rate of about 3.8  liter  per  minute  (one  gallon  per
minute)  but  liquid from the reaction and enzyme vessels is recycled to
the top of the reaction tower at a rate of about 380  liter  per  minute
(100  qallon  per  minute).  Some of this liquid is also recycled to the
primary classifier for fiber rinsing.
                                  193

-------
                                       RINSE WATER
                                                             FIBER FOR
                                                             ROUGHAGE
                                                             OR BEDDING
FLOCCULATION
CHEMICALS
WATER T
FURTHE1
TREATM
                                                              FERTILIZER
                                            LIQUID
                FIGURE 50. BIOCHEMICAL RECYCLE PROCESS
                                    191

-------
From  the  biochemical  reaction  stage,  the  liquid  overflows  to   a
flocculation  tank,  where  chemicals   (alum,  ferrous  sulfate,  ferric
chloride, and/or polyelectrolytes) are added to form the floe and adjust
the pH to between 4.5 and 5.0.  The resulting slurry is then transferred
to a two-stage settling operation.  The first settler overflows into the
second settler, which is vented to the atmosphere.  Part of  the  liguid
from  the  second  settler is recycled to the final classifier for fiber
rinsing.  The rest of the liquid is discharged for use as flushing water
or treatment with ion exchange resins and charcoal before release  to  a
natural  waterway.   This settler effluent has a BOD of less than 20 ppm
and 1000 - 2000 ppm dissolved solids, mainly sodium salts.

Floe is emptied from the two settlers once or twice a week into  a  sand
filter.   The  filtrate  is  returned to the manure pit.  The solids are
removed for use as fertilizer.

The following mass balance is for a 100 cow system:

Input;  Total manure - 4240 - 5750 kg/day
                       (9330 - 12,670 Ib/day)
        Solids       - 658 - 1070 kg/day
                       (1450 - 2350 Ib/day)
        Alum         - 1.3 - 1.6 kg/day
                       (3-3.5 Ib/day)
    >uti  Roughage (3)25% H2O)  - 110 - 200 kg/day
                               (240 - 440 Ib/day)
         Fertilizer          - unknown
         Specification water - unknown
         NH3 and CO2         - unknown
The system manufacturer stated that the first  full-scale  unit  is  now
ready  to  begin  operation  but  would not divulge the location of this
system.   The  device  is  being  built  for  100  cow  size  units  (45
kg/cow/day)   (100 Ib/cow/day) and has been under development for several
years.  The system still requires full-scale  verfification  and  refeed
data.

Reliability andApplicability No reliability data are available, but the
system  is  relatively  complex,  so  that  above average maintenance is
anticipated.

This system was designed and sized specifically with a  dairy  operation
in  mind.   However,  this system would problably be applicable to other
                                  195

-------
feedlot operations.  No limitations due  to  geography  or  climate  are
apparent.   Sizing  accomodation  would reguire installation of multiple
units based on specific requirements.

CONVERSION_TO_OIL

Manure is predried to 20% water and dispersed in recycled  product  oil.
The  reaction mixture is then heated with synthesis gas (carbon monoxide
and hydrogen)  to 325°C at a pressure of more than 205 atmospheres  (3000
psi)   for about 15 minutes.  Manure conversion is roughly 90%, forming a
thick oil that must be heated to make it flow.  Heating value  is  about
8,800  kg/cal/kg   (16,000 Btu per pound).  Operating costs are high,  and
the value of the oil is low.  Consequently, this experimental process is
not economically attractive at this time.

The  basic  problem  is  that  under  economically  practical  operating
conditions   (synthesis   gas  reactant,  no  catalyst,  relatively  low
temperature) the  properties  of  the  product  limit  its  application.
Viscosity and oxygen content are very high, and the quantity of water in
the  raw  manure  makes  separation  of  the  product oil difficult.   In
addition, high pressure (272 atmospheres)  (4000 psi)  is needed to obtain
even fair yields.

GASIFICATION

Manure is partially  oxidized  in  the  presence  of  steam  to  form  a
synthesis  gas that can be used as an intermediate in ammonia production
by conventional manufacturing plants.  The ammonia plants would  produce
fertilizer.   A  thorough economic evaluation has not been made to date.
Classified as experimental  technology,  development  is  in  the  early
laboratory  stage.  Product value is moderately high, but the relatively
complex process  has  a  high  power  requirement  and  is  economically
restricted to a centralized location with regard to feedlots.

Technical Description

The  concept  is  based  on  coal  gasification, where coal is partially
oxidized in the presence of steam to form carbon monoxide and  hydrogen,
with  additional  coal  burned  to provide the heat of reaction.  Manure
gasification is similar, except that air is used instead of pure oxygen,
because nitrogen is needed to react with the hydrogen  to  form  ammonia
rather than pipeline gas.  In essence, the gasification process extracts
hydrogen from manure and nitrogen from air for subsequent combination to
form  ammonia.    Gasification is the first of three steps in the ammonia
production process:

a.  Manure plus air plus water equals carbon monoxide plus hydrogen plus
nitrogen
                                  196

-------
The remaining two steps are carried  out  in  the  conventional  ammonia
production  plant, with addition of water and physical removal of carbon
dioxide formed in the shift reaction:

b.  Carbon monoxide plus hydrogen plus nitrogen plus water equals carbon
dioxide plus hydrogen plus nitrogen.

c.  Hydrogen plus nitrogen equals ammonia.

Thus, the first reaction, which converts manure to synthesis gas, is  of
primary  interest  here,  with  the synthesis gas regarded as a saleable
product.

Manure is partially oxidized with a controlled quantity  of  air  at  an
elevated  temperature.   Water  for the reaction is already contained in
the manure.  The temperature range used for thus far is  370°C  -  400°C
(700°F  -  750°F) ,  but  higher temperature as well as a catalyst may be
needed to obtain a practical reaction rate.   Atmospheric  pressure  has
been  used  thus  far,  but a higher pressure may be desirable.  Heat to
drive the endothermic reaction is supplied by burning additional  manure
in air.  Figure 51 represents the entire process schematically.

The  objective  is  to  control  the  process  to obtain a 3:1 hydrogen:
nitrogen mole ration for Step c.  This is done by using just enough  air
in  Step  a.  to  result in the following molar balance (where the first
term representa manure) :


                e?  + 0.4902  +  1.96N2   +  0. 49H2O     =  3.14  CO   +
1.96N2  +  2.79H2  + residue

Step b. adds additional water to obtain:

b.  3.14 CO  plus 3.14H2O  equals 3.14CO2 plus 3.14H2

This brings the total moles of hydrogen  (per mole of manure) from a. and
b.  to  5.93,  which  is  roughly three times the 1.96 moles of nitrogen
liberated from the air.

Assuming that the effective molecular  weight  of  manure  averages  100
(including  sand  and other inorganics) , the mass balance for Step a. is
as follows:
                      Kilograms Reacted        Kilograms Formed
                       (Pounds Reacted)          (Pounds Formed)

Manure  (Dry basis)         45.4  (100.0)
Air                        32.0  (70.6)
Wacter                       4.0 (8.8)
Carbon monoxide                —                39.9  (87.9)
                                  197

-------
                          o
                          o
                          jl


                          0
                           •
                          If)
                          UJ
198

-------
Nitrogen                       —                24.9  (54.9)
Hydrogen                       —                 2.5  (5.6)
Residue                        —        •        14.1  (31.0)

Total                      81.4  (179.4)          81.4  (179.4)

In the  ammonia  plant,  the  carbon  monoxide  would  be   reacted  with
additional  water  to  form  2.9  more  kiligrams   (6.3  more pounds) of
hydrogen, and the total of 5.4 kilograms  (11.9 pounds) of hydrogen would
be reacted with the 24.9 kilograms  (54,9 pounds)  of  nitrogen  to  form
30.3 kilograms  (66.8 pounds) of ammonia.

However,  because  the  heat of reaction is 1806 kg cal/kg  (3254 Btu/lb)
manure reacted and the heat of combustion is about 3330 kg  cal/kg   (6000
Btu/lb)  manure  burned,  1806/3330   =   0.542  kilograms  (3254/6000   =
0.542 pounds)  must  be  burned  as  fuel  for  every  kilogram   (pound)
converted  to  synthesis gas.  Hence, the gasification process generated
(71.4-14.!)/(!. 542 x 100)  = 0.44 kilograms 179.4-31.01/1.542 x   1001   =
0.96  pounds) of synthesis gas for every kilogram (pound) of manure  (dry
basis)   consumed.   Ultimately,  the  three-step  process   results   in
30.3/(1542xlOO)   =  0.19 kilograms  (66.8/(1.542 x 100)  =  0.43 pounds)
of ammonia per kilogram  (pound) of manure  (dry basis) consumed.

The dry basis  used  for  these  values  is  somewhat  misleading.   For
example,  if  the  manure  contains  only  2595  moisture, every kilogram
(pound)  (dry basis)  of manure consumed  (as reactant and  fuel)  actually
results  in  0.41  kilograms   (0.91  pounds)  of  synthesis gas and 0.19
kilograms (0.41 pounds) of ammonia.  As the moisture content  increases,
the process rapidly becomes less attractive.

Development status

A  tremendous  amount  of  work  has  been  done  on  coal  gasification.
However, coal and  manure  gasification  each  have  their  own  special
problams,  and  they  are  not  the  same.  The gasification process, as
applied to manure, is in the earliest laboratory stage.  Initial work on
feasibility of the conversion is in progress.  No work has  been done  on
the combustion aspect or on conversioncombustion integration.

Reliability and Applicability

If  this  manure gasification becomes commercial, eguipment is likely to
be relatively complex.   It  will  need  careful  control   and  constant
attention to achieve a reliable operation.

The  process  would  probably be economically limited to areas with high
concentrations of feedlot animals,  where  an  ammonia  plant  could  be
assured  a  predictable  and adequate supply of manure.  Disposal of the
granular, inert byproduct (largely sand) would be necessary.
                                  199

-------
PYROLYSIS

Wastes may be decomposed by heating to hiqh temperatures  in  an  oxygen
deficient  atmosphere.   Pyrolysis of animal manure has been carried out
as an offshoot of application of the process to municipal and industrial
wastes.  However, ash disposal is necessary and air  pollution  must  be
controlled.   Product  value  is  low.   A recent experimental study has
concluded that "The pyrolysis process applied to cattle  feedlot  wastes
is uneconomical...".  Work now in progress is strictly experimental.

Technical_DesicriBtion

Waste  material is dried and is then heated to a hiqh temperature (UOO°C
- 900°C)  in an atmosphere deficient in oxygen.  Under these  conditions,
the  solid waste decomposes to form gases, liguor (oil), and char (ash).
These gases include  hydrogen,  water,  methane,  carbon  monoxide,   and
ethylene.   They  are  recycled  and  burned to provide fuel to heat the
pyrolyzer.   Hence  the   process   is   sometimes   called   pyrolysis-
incineration.   A proposed system is shown in Figure 52.  A material and
enrgy balance is shown in Figure 53.

Deyelopment^status

Two developers have pyrolyzed animal manure using laboratory  glassware.
In  addition, research groups from two large corporations have run small
scale experiments and have proposed large scale processing plants.   The
Bureau  of  Mines  has  done  related work on pyrolysis of municipal and
industrial wastes.

ReliabilitY^and Applicability

The  pyrolysis  process  is   highly   complex,   and   reliability   is
questionable.   However,  definitive  data are not available, due to the
experimental nature of the process.

If developed, pyrolysis could obviate -the need  for  land  spreading  of
animal waste.  It can operate in any weather and (assuming efficient use
of  solid,  liquid,  and  gaseous products as fuels)  is potentially non-
polluting.

INCINERATION

Incineration requires supplemental fuel  to  evaporate  water  from  the
manure.   It  destroys  any  useful  value  the  waste may have, and the
secondary  air  pollution  problem   requires   considerable   ancillary
equipment.  Incineration of pyrolysis gases to supply heat for pyrolysis
is  covered  under  "PYROLYSIS".   The  most recent experimental work on
simple incineration of manure appears to have  been  done  in  1966  and
further work does not appear to be justified.
                                  200

-------
                                                      RECOVERABLE OILS
                                                                             AJCONDENSATE OUT

                                                                             U       RECIRCULATION
                                                                                      GAS 93°C (200°F)
                                           CONCENTRATED
                                           SOLUTION
                                       DESTRUCTIVE
                                       DISTILLATION

           FLUE
           GAS
    870°C (1600°F)
INCINERATOR
CHAMBER

   CHARRED
   MANURE
 COMBUSTION


TRAVELING
GRATE
AIR LOCK
           RECIRCULATION
           FAN
                                    FIGURE 52.  PYROLYSIS
                                               201

-------
908KG (2.000 LB) FRESH MANURE
   80% MOISTURE, 2% ASH      *"
   504KG CAL/KG
   (1.816.000)
   (BTU/TON)
   FOR DRYING
   40. 3EOKG CAL
   (160.000 BTU)
   FOR PYROLYSIS
                                  PYROLYSIS
                                   PROCESS
                                              CHAR - 64.9KG(143 LB)
                                                ASH- 16.7KG (36.8 LB)
                                                CARBON - 46. 8KG (103 LB)
                                                285,OOOKG CAL (6100KG CAL/KG)
                                                1.133.000 BTU (11.000 BTU/LB)
                                              LOW BOILERS - 13. 3KG (29. 2 LB)
                                              73, 600KG CAL (5550KG CAL/KG)
                                              292,000 BTU (10,000 BTU/LB)
TARRY VOLATILES - 25. 8KG (56. 8LB)
186,200KG CAL (7200KG CAL/KG)
739,000 BTU (13,000 BTU/LB)
EVAPORATED MOISTURE
726KG (1.600 LB)
REACTION WATER -
30.3KG (66.8 LB)
EXHAUST GASES- 47. 4KG (104.4 LB)
                                             C2H6
    N2. CO. C02. CH4. C2H4
1 10.400KG CAL (2330KG CAL/KG)
438,000 BTU (4.200 BTU/LB)
                     FIGURE 53.  PYROLYSIS-MASS BALANCE
                                      202

-------
HYDROLYSIS AND CHEMICAL TREATMENT

Hydrolysis,  especially  when aided by treatment with a chemical such as
sodium hydroxide, makes animal waste used for refeeding more digestible.
The process is experimental and has the potential of  producing  a  more
digestible  feed  supplement than simple drying, but cannot compete with
it economically at this time.

Technical Description

Hydrolysis is reaction of a material with water, breaking chemical bonds
that block digestibility.  This discussion has been extended to  include
chemicals  used  at  lower  temperatures  for the same purpose.  Work on
hydrolysis has been performed  at  a  number  of  locations,  summarized
below.


PROGRAM    SOURCE OF WASTE         TREATMENT         REFERENCES

   A       Poultry Manure          Pressurized       170, 179,
                                   Steam             180, 181

   B       Sewage Sludg.e           Sulfur Dioxide    171

   C       Poultry Manure          Pressurized       172, 182,
                                   Steam           183,174

   D       Forage, Crop Residue    Sodium Hydroxide  173, 17U,
                                                     175;185

   E       Cow Manure              Sodium Hydroxide  175, 176, 186

   F       Beef Cattle Manure      Enzyme            177

Most  of  the  programs  were directed either at feeding or at refeeding
various waste materials following physical  and/or  chemical  treatment.
The  Location  A  program  emphasized  commercial scale development of a
hydrolysis  process  for  refeeding  poultry  manure  to  poultry.   The
Location  B  program  concerned the effects of chemical treatment on the
properties of activaged  sludge  and  the  effect  of  including  sludge
molasses  in the diets of rats.   The Location C program demonstrated the
acceptability of feeding either dried or hydrolyzed  poultry  manure  to
lambs and beef cattle, using material processed by commercial hydrolysis
equipment.   The  Location  D  program  emphasized the effect of feeding
chemically treated forage and crop residue to sheep, and the Location  E
program  did  the  same  thing with cow manure.  Finally, the Location F
program  investigated  the  influence  of  enzymatic   pretreatment   on
biological stabilization of manure to facilitate disposal.
                                  203

-------
A schematic, based on Reference 170, is shown in Figure 54.

Mass  balance  information  on the hydrolysis of manure is generally not
avialable.  However, Reference 173  compares  hydrolyzed  poultry  waste
with  dried poultry waste.  For dried, hydrolyzed material crude protein
is 35.44%, while for  dried  material  it  is  24.8856.   The  hydrolyzed
material  is  correspondingly  lower in crude fiber, ether extract, ash,
and nitrogen-free extract.

A mass balance on hydrolysis  of  cattle  feces  can  be  determined  by
comparing  an  analysis  of untreated feces with an analysis of chemical
treated feces.  The following data are based on chemical treatment  with
3  grams  sodium  hydroxide per 100 grams of wet feces, using feces from
cattle on two different feeds.  Cell walls include  some  of  the  other
constituents, so that the percentages are not additive.

                                      Percent of Dry Matter	
                         Untreated Feces	Treated Feces
Component                Orchard    Alfalfa              Orchard    Alfalfa
                         Grass                           Grass

Cell Walls               64.2        68.7                39.5        43.2
Hemicellulose            18.4        13.0                 2.8         2.1
Cellulose                25.4        28.4                23.0        21.9
Lignin                  , 14.7        27.1                10.1        18.9
Insoluble Ash             5.7          —                 3.1

Development Status

Much  of the work in the hydrolysis and chemical treatment area has been
directed toward the effects of refeeding poultry  and  steer  manure  to
either  lambs  or  steers.   In  general,  this  work has shown that the
concept is technically practical.  Refeeding has generally  resulted  in
good weight gains, carcass characteristics, and eating characteristics.

The  process  has been operated commercially as a sideline, but this was
discontinued due to odor and handling  problems  and  interference  with
marketing  of  other product lines.  Chemical treatment with enzymes has
been used as the first step in the microbial  breakdown  of  manure  for
disposal but is not applicable to refeeding.

Reliability and Applicability

Eguipment  is  moderately complex with many moving parts.  Corrosion and
errosion are  problems.   Considerable  routine  mechanical  maintenance
should be expected.
                                  204

-------
                                                 >•

                                                 o
                                                 DC
                                                 Q
                                                 kl

                                                 C/)
                                                 in

                                                 U
                                                 o:
205

-------
Hydrolysis  and  chemical  treatment  apply to preparation of manure for
refeedinq  to  livestock.   The  process  may  result  in  digestibility
advantages over drying alone.

CHEMICAL EXTRACTION

Of  the  two  major exponents of chemical extraction treatment of animal
waste, one has been  investigating  processing  of  poultry  manure  for
approximately  1-1/2  years.   This  process  involves a separation step
(proprietary)  during which the uric acid, soluble  proteins,  etc.,  are
removed  as  a  liguid,  leaving  a  material containing, primarily, the
undigested food.  These solids are then dried  at  a  sufficiently  high
temperature  for  pasteurization  or about 65°C  (150°F)  to sterilize the
mixture.  This material is then to be utilized in the poultry diet.   An
economic  analysis  of this experimental process has been performed, but
the results are still proprietary.  The other exponent feels  that  this
process  is  neither  "usable  in  practice  with commercially avialable
enzymes nor economically feasible".  These chemical extraction processes
are not now available for general use.

Technical Description

The raw material for this process  is  poultry  manure  which  has  been
collected  as  soon as possible after deposition for processing on a 24-
hour basis.  As shown in Figure 55, separation (involving a  proprietary
process)  is  used  to  isolate  the  solid  from  the liguid fractions.
According to the developer, the "true" excretory  products  produced  by
the  chicken  are  removed  with the liguid protion.  The solid material
remaining is primarily food that was not utilized by the chicken  during
its  first  ingestion.   In  addition,  some  feather protein, egg shell
calcium and mucoid protein are included.   Most  of  the  heavy  metals,
antibiotics, soluble material salts, and small molecular material of all
types will be in the liguid fraction.  The solid material thus separated
is then dried at approximately 65°  (150°F)  to sterilize the end product.
It  is  this  dried material that is to be incorporated into the poultry
diet.  An analysis of this material is as follows:

Nutr,ie.nt_   Content

Ash  31.4%
Carbohydrate 30. 4%
Fiber  17.6%
Protein 11.7%
Fat   4.9%
H20   3.6%
Other   0.4%
Calories   2.84 cal/gm

Development Status
                                  206

-------
o
Ul
 0
 z
   §25|
Iz
|2

I <
I £
18
L-r^iu
                                        z
                                        g

                                        o
                                        H
                                        X
                                        U
                                        O
                                        i
                                        u
                                        I
                                        o
                                        in
                                        in

                                        U
                                        a:
           I	
-------
Development of the proposed system has been underway at a relatively low
level for approximately 1-1/2 years.  The laboratory  facility  must  be
quite  limited  in size since they have been able to collect only enough
material for a feeding trial utilizing rats.  A recycling scheme feeding
poultry their own  manure  after  processing  has  not  been  attempted.
During  the  rat  feeding  trials  the  diet  was  composed  entirely of
processed waste material.  The only conclusion drawn from this trial was
that the rats were  able  to  extract  some  nutritive  value  from  the
material.   However,  at  the  100%  level,  ration  nutrient  balancing
problems were evident.

A limited number of amino acids analyses have been performed,  resulting
in  data  which indicates that while some of the amino acids are present
in guantitites corresponding to  a  standard  reference  diet  (leucine,
isoleucine,  lysine,  histidine,  valine, threonine, glycine, arginine),
others   were   very   deficient    (methionine,    cystine,    tyrosine,
phenylalanine).    This   material   obviously   could  not  be  fed  at
exceptionally high levels without  upsetting  the  ration  balance.   In
fact,  approximate feedback rates of only 20% are anticipated.  Although
chemical  analysis  indicates  carbohydrate   present,   there   is   no
information  as  to  whether  or  not  any  or all of this is liquified.
Additionally, it would appear to be very  difficult  to  digest  feather
protein.   Considering  the  high  ash  content (more than half of which
comes from the egg shell  calcium) ,  dumping  of  the  entire  batch  to
prevent build-up on a regular basis is anticipated.

While  the  system  may  technically work on a small laboratory scale, a
large amount of effort in the areas of chemical analyses of the  product
and extensive feeding trial results are needed before the process may be
considered  commercially  applicable.  Effort is still being expended in
choosing the various methods for each of the processing steps involved.

Reliability. and Applicability

While the  drying  operation  probably  utilizes  standard  commercially
available  equipment, the technique for the separation of the liquid and
solid fractions is  unknown.   An  estimate  of  total  reliability  is,
therefore, not possible.

Use  of this process is probably limited to animals fed a relatively low
fiber roughage diet.   Only  in  this  way  can  the  excrement  contain
nutrients  worth  reclaiming  as opposed to material utilizable only for
roughage.

BARRIERED LANDSCAPE WATER RENOVATION SYSTEM

The Barriered Landscape Water Renovation System, or BLWRS, is a modified
soil plot for treating waste water.  Effluent water may be recycled  for
flushing  or  allowed to dissipate.  The approach permits waste disposal
                                  208

-------
at  rates  significantly  above  the  limits  for  spray  irrigation  of
cropland.  Cost is low, although economics are not well defined.

BLWRS is classified as experimental, although the concept is ready for a
realistic  field  demonstration at a feedlot.  Its potential lies in low
power, decreased land use, and  an  effluent  with  very  low  pollution
potential.   It is applicable only to sprayable wastes and is limited by
soil and climatic conditions.

Technical Description

Waste water sprayed on a mound of modified soil or sand is  purified  as
it  flows  through  aerobic and anaerobic zones of the mound.  Figure 56
describes a typical BLWRS.  There is no specific practical limitation on
size.  Waste water sprayed on the top of the mound  percolated  downward
to  the plastic sheet  (barrier)  and then flows laterally to the edges of
the sheet.  Effluent water may be collected for recycle back to the land
or for manure flushing.

In the aerobic zone, organic materials are oxidized to water and  carbon
dioxide,  organic  nitrogen  and  ammonia are converted to nitrates, and
phosphates are absorbed by the lime or the soil.  In the anerobic  zone,
nitrates  are denitrified to form nitrogen gas.  When needed, energy may
be injected into the anaerobic zone in  some  convenient  form  such  as
molasses.   The  BLWRS  or  each section of a large BLWRS must be rested
periodically  to  allow  drying.   Waste  water  application   rate   is
hydraulically  limited to 1.0 to 2.0 centimeters (0.4 to 0.8 inches) per
day, based on mound area.  Typical data for an application rate  of  2.1
centimeters (0.84 inches) per day is:

                              	CONCENTRATJEON^MG/L	
POLLUTANT                        INLET                     OUTLET

Organic N + NH3                   532                       1.5
N03                                 7.0                     1.01
NH4                               438                      69
P04                                11.2                     0.02
BOD                              1200                       3.4
COD                              2300                      57
Development Status

The  process  is  ready for experimental application to a large feedlot.
Two BLWRS were installed in each of two applications: (1)  flush water
manure  mixture  from  80  sows,  collected for recycle; and  (2) milking
parlor holding pen flush water from a 200-300 cow dairy  operation.   At
                                  209

-------
§<
m
   _
Q.DUJ
n°--J
IS2
DUO.
u
i-
O

                        ICQ
                        (UJUJs
UJ
(/)
U)

o


§
o
LJ
a:
DC
                                                       UJ
                                                       a.
                                                       a
                                                       z
                                                       a:
                                                       LU
                                                       E
                                                       a:
                                                       <
                                                       m

                                                       to
                                                       10
                                                       UJ
                                                       G£
                                                       D
                                                       O
                                                       LL
                      210

-------
each  installation,  the  two  BLWRS  are used alternately.  In a larger
installation, which is now planned, a single BLWRS  would  be  operated,
with parts of the mound being rested periodically.

Reliability and Applicability

Equipment  is  simple  and  conventional.  Mechanical breakdown problems
should be minimal. Coarse material may need to be sieved out to  prevent
clogging of the spray equipment.

Application  is limited to wastes that are sprayable.  Thus, the concept
could be applied to flush water, storn runoff, or lagoon effluent.   The
soil  must be permeable.  Rainfall may use all of the hydraulic capacity
(10 to 20  centimeters  U  to  8  inches)  for  any  particular  day  of
operation.   Icing  of the spray nozzle or freezing of the BLWRS surface
prevents waste water disposal during freezing weather.

LAGOONS FOR WASTE TREATMENT

Lagoons are excavated ponds for  biological  treatment  of  waste  water
and/or  manure.  They are used extensively in most parts of the country.
They work well when properly designed and used, but they do not  provide
total  treatment.  Lagoon water is usually used for cropland irrigation,
but it is sometimes given further treatment   (e.g.  final  clarification
and/or  chlorination)   and  discharged  such  as  is encountered on duck
farms.  sludge must generally  be  removed  every  few  years.   Ambient
temperature  influences  design  and  function.   Economics  often favor
anaerobic rather than aerobic lagoons, although  odor  control  requires
close attention.

Technical Description

Naturally aerated lagoons are called oxidation ponds.  They are shallow,
and sizing is based on surface area, since aerobic oxidation takes place
only  in  the  upper  45 centimeters (18 inches)  of water.  Mechanically
aerated lagoons  (aerated lagoons) are much deeper, and sizing  is  based
on  volume  since oxygen (air)  is dispersed throughout the lagoon volume
by a compressed air diffuser or floating aerator.  Anaerobic lagoons are
also deep but contain essentially no  dissolved  oxygen.   Detention  or
holding  ponds and evaporation ponds are not for biological treatment of
wastes, and they are therefore not discussed here.  On the other hand, a
lagoon is often needed primarily for its storage capacity but  is  still
designed to assure maximum treatment before its contents are used on the
cropland.  This reduces odor during irrigation with lagoon water.

Lagoons are biological systems and contain microbial sludges.  Oxidation
ponds  depend  on  warmth,   light,  and  wind.   These factors support a
symbiotic relationship between saprophytic bacteria  and  algae.   Thus,
the bacteria utilize oxygen released by photosynthesis in the algae, and
                                  211

-------
the  algae  utilize  carbon  dioxide  and  other  substances released by
bacterial metabolism of the organic  waste.   In  aerated  lagoons,  the
bacteria utilize oxygen dissolved in the water by action of the aerator.
The  anaerobic  lagoon contains a balance of two main types of bacteria.
The first type converts the waste to  organic  acids  and  related  sub-
stances,  while the second type converts these substances to methane and
carbon dioxide gas.  Intermediate substances are highly odorous.

In general, an anaerobic lagoon decreases BOD by  70%  to  90%,  reduces
settleable  solids  in the supernatant by nearly 100%, removes 60% - 80%
of total solids from the supernatant, does not affect pH, and  increases
nitrate  nitrogen  drastically.   When  an  aerobic  lagoon  follows  an
anaerobic lagoon in series flow, the anaerobic lagoon may be assumed  to
remove  50%  of  the influent BOD, for purposes of designing the aerobic
lagoon.

P§Y§lopment_Status All types of lagoons are in common commercial use.

ReliabilitY_and Applicabilit y.

Serious upsets may occur in each type of lagoon.  The oxidation pond may
generate too much algae growth, upsetting the bacteria  algae  symbiotic
balance.   The  aerated lagoon can guickly turn anaerobic and odorous if
the aerator stops working.  The anaerobic lagoon can  turn  sour   (acid)
and  odorous  if  it  is shock loaded with too much waste at one time or
when it is dredged or disturbed in some  other  manner.   Recovery  from
these  upsets may take weeks.  Oxidation ponds are economical where land
prices are low and can be used in climates where  evaporation  is  slow.
Where  land  is more expensive, anaerobic lagoons, which do not use much
land and require no power, may be the best choice.  Aerated lagoons  are
useful  where  land  is  severly  limited  or  where odors are a serious
problem.  Lagoons provide improved solids,  dewatering,  reduced  solids
volume,  odor reduction of solids spread on cropland, and (for anaerobic
lagoons) pretreatment ahead of aerobic lagoons.
Aerobic  lagoons  or  oxidation  ponds  are  generally  sized  based  on
allowable  loadings  expressed  as kilograms (pounds)  of BOD per day per
hectare (per acre) of surface area.  Detention time is also  used  as  a
supplemental criterion.  Loadings as high as 110 kg BOD/day/hectare  (100
Ib.  BOD/day/acre)  are  given for Southern Florida, but recommendations
for more northern areas generally run from 9 (20) in colder areas to  23
(50)  in  milder areas.  Recommended detention times run from 25 days in
Southern Florida  to  120  days  for  cold  areas.   Loadings  are  also
translated  into  terms  of  specific  animals.   For  example, based on
loading with raw manure:
                                  212

-------
Poultry           0.92 meter square/kg of animal
                  (4.5 foot square/pound of animal)
Swine             0.51 meter square/kg of animal
                  (2.5 foot square/pound of animal)
Dairy             0.31 meter square/kg of animal
                  1.5 foot square/pound of animal)
Beef              0.31 meter square/kg of animal
                  (1.5 foot square/pound of animal)

For mechanically aerated lagoons, allowable loadings are based
on lagoon volume, because oxygen is dispersed throughout.  One
guideline recommends 1700 liter/kg (60 cubic foot/pound)
BOD/day.  Another states that volume should be 50 times the "daily
manure production",  with a 2 - 3 year detention.  The following
guideline for mechanically aerated lagoons is expressed in terms
of specific animals and may be compared with the values given
earlier for oxidation ponds, allowing a depth of 0.9 to 1.2
meters  (3-4 feet)  for oxidation ponds:

Poultry           47 liters/kg of animal
                  (0.75 cubic foot/pound of animal)
Swine             62 liters/kg of animal
                  (1.00 cubic foot/pound of animal)
Dairy             78 liters/kg of animal
                  (1.25 cubic foot/pound of animal)
Beef              47 liters/kg of animal
                  (0.75 cubic foot/pound of animal)


Another reference suggests that the volume of the lagoon be double  that
of  all  the  waste  it  will receive during the five cold months of the
year, assuming the lagoon is half full at the beginning of that period.

Anaerobic lagoon  loadings  are  generally  based  on  volatile  solids,
although  one  reference  suggests 1.6 to 8.2 kg BOD/day/100 cubic meter
(10 to 50 Ib. BOD/day/1000  cubic  foot),  where  the  volume  does  not
include  that  occupied by sludge (e.g., 0.34 cubic meter/ year/hog) (12
cubic foot/year/hog).  Based on volatile  solids,  references  generally
give a loading range of 16 to 160 or 240 grams vs/day/cubic meter  (0.001
to  0.01  or  0.015 Ib. vs/day/cubic foot).  Some specific values are 65
(0.004) for Texas, 80  (0.005)  for the moderate Midwest,  and  115  grams
vs/day/cubic  meter  (0.007  Ib.  vs/day/cubic foot) for Southern Florida
with a 15 day minimum detention time.  The State of  Missouri  guideline
is  120  grams vs/day/cubic meter (0.0075 Ib. vs/day/cubic foot), with a
temperature adjustment factor.  Guidelines are also expressed  in  terms
of  specific  animals,   with a 1.5 multiplier for sever winter, and 0.75
multiplier for mild winter:
                                  213

-------
Swine             78 liters/kg of animal
                  (1.25 cubic foot/lb of animal)
Steer             93 liters/kg of animal
                  (1.50 cubic foot/lb of animal)
Hen               125 liters/kg of animal
                  (2.0 cubic foot/lb of animal)


EVAPORATION

Evaporation is an alternative to disposing of liguid  runoff  wastes  by
land  irrigation.   Under  proper  climate  conditions,  evaporation can
significantly reduce the total quantity of waste  material  and  thereby
help  to  minimize  the waste disposal problem.  However, solids must be
periodically removed  and  disposed  of.   For  proper  operation,  this
process  is  limited  to  those  geographical  regions  where the annual
evaporation rates exceed annual precipitation by  a  reasonable  margin.
To  be  effective,  large  areas  of land are required since evaporation
rates are a function of exposed surface area as  well  as  low  relative
humidity, ambient temperature, air movement and solar energy.

Evaporative pond design must also consider the quality of waste effluent
being discharged.  The accumulation of debris or scum on the evaporative
surface  will  significantly  hinder the process, even under the best of
climatic conditions.

Costs associated with the pond evaporation treatment process  will  vary
widely  depending upon many factors, including climatological influence,
waste characteristics of the effluent,  land  values,  and  geographical
features.

Although  this  natural phenomenon occurs in all geographical regions at
some period during the year, in those areas where  evaporation  is  most
effective,  the  water  usually  represents  a valuable resource for the
irrigation of cropland and is so used.  As a result,  the  applicability
of  evaporation  as  a viable concept for reducing the total quantity of
waste handling is  probably  limited  to  the  more  arrid  regions  not
suitable for raising crops.

TRICKLING FILTER

The  trickling  filter  is  a compact, effective means of treating waste
water that may be applied to  effluent  water  from  a  settling  basin.
Effluent water may be used for flushing or direct discharge to a natural
waterway.  Although large scale application to treating municipal sewage
is  common,  use  in  treating  feedlot  wastes  has been limited to the
laboratory.  The process is, therefore, regarded as experimental.

Technical,^ Description

-------
The trickling filter provides an extended active surface for  biological
stabilization  of  waste water within a small land area and volume.  The
trickling filter is basically a pile of stones, but other materials  and
configurations  are  often  used.   Plastic  media  have  been  used  in
municipal treatment plants,  stones, Douglas fir bark, and a  fiberglass
ramp  or inclined plane have been applied to animal waste.  Operation is
either batch with repeated recycle or continuous with  recycle.   Figure
57 represents a unit sized for one dairy cow.  Settleable solids must be
removed  in  the  primary  sedimentation tank to prevent clogging of the
trickling filter.  A  bacterial  scum  continuously  builds  up  on  and
sloughs  off the stones.  Water is aerobically purified as it flows over
the surface of the  stones.   The  final  sedimentation  tank  separates
sloughed  slime.   The  accumulated  slime is nearly free of odor and is
suitable for spreading on cropland.

Trickling filter effectiveness is variable, depending on such factors as
contact time and recycle rate or duration.  The following representative
data, however, indicate capability:
Type of Trickling        Influent        Effluent         Removal
      Filter           BOD mg/lit       BOD ing/lit       Efficiency  (%)

Stones                   1600             100              94
Bark                      300              30              90
Inclined Plane            —               —              52.4*

*Single pass efficiency
Only partial system mass balance information is available.  For example,
the following  values  are  based  on  data  from  Reference  233.   The
trickling  filter represented by the data contained a 0.9 meter (3 foot)
depth of 3.8 centimeter (1-1/2 inch)  bark with 0.03 square meters   (0.35
square  foot)  superficial  area, and the recycle rate within the system
(through the filter)  was 12.0 kg (26.4 Ib.)  minimum.
                           	Daily Balance - Kilograms  (Pounds)	
Waste Component                   Input                      Output

Total (daily batch)                378 (833)                  378 (833*)
Total Solids                        0.27 (0.60)                0.08  (0.18)
Nitrogen                            0.034 ((0.075)            0.0036  (0.008
BOD                                 0.11 (0.25)                0.014  (0.03)

*Assumed
                                  215

-------
                                        a:
                                        ui


                                        LL

                                        1

                                        jj
                                        a:
                                        H
                                        in

                                        bJ
                                        a:
                                        D
216

-------
Development status Use of -trickling filters for  treating  animal  waste
water  is  limited to the laboratory,  work on the unit using stones was
discontinued several years ago.  The other two  units  are  active,  but
there  are  no  definite  plans  for  larger  scale demonstrations.  The
capacity of the systems operated thus far is indicated in the  following
table:
Trickling Filter
     Type

Stones
Bark
Inclined Plane
  Source of
 Waste Water

One dairy cow

(diluted)


Ppultry

(diluted and
 decanted)


Swine Waste

Lagoon
Characteristic
 Dimensions

  0.6 meter
  (2 ft. diam.)
  1.2 meter
  (4 ft deep)

  20 cm
  (8 in diam)

  0.9 meter
  (3 ft deep)

 0.3 meter
 (1 ft wide)
 2.H meter
 (8 ft long)
System Influent
Rate I/day (gal/day)

    231
    (61)
    378
    (100)
     87
     (23)
Reliability and Applicability

Equipment  is  simple  and basically conventional.
problems should be minimal.
                                Mechanical breakdown
Trickling filters provide waste water treatment using small  land  area.
The  influent  must be free of settleable solids.  Effluent water may be
recycled for flushing and probably can  be  suitable  for  discharge  to
natural  waterways  after  sufficient  recycling.  In cold climates, the
unit must be housed to prevent water temperatures below 7°C  (U5°F).

SPRAY RUNOFF

Spray runoff is an experimental technology.  Waste water is sprayed on a
grass covered slope, and effluent water is collected at the bottom.  The
grass and surface soil particles are covered with films of  aerobic  and
anaerobic microorganisms, which act on the pollutants in the water.  The
process  has been applied to at least three large feedlots, but it is in
an early stage of development.  its potential  lies  in  low  power  and
decreased land use.  Present application is limited to storm runoff.
                                  217

-------
Technical Description

Figure  58  describes  a  typical spray runoff system.  Running downward
from the top of the slope, typical distances are as follows:

Top to first nozzle row      18 - 21 meters (60 - 70 feet)
Nozzle row to terrace        46-76 meters (150 - 250 feet)
Terrace to next nozzle row   18 - 21 meters (60 - 70 feet)


Running across the slope, typical distances are:

Between nozzles              9 meters (30 feet)
Side to Side                 22 meters (UOO feet)

Grading data are as follows:

Slope grade                  1-6 percent
Terrace grade                0.2-1.0 percent

The grass must  be  moisture  and  salt  tolerant.   Selected  varieties
include  Native  Bermuda, Reed Canary, Tall Fescue, and K31 Fescue.  The
spray pattern from each nozzle forms a  30  meter  (100  foot)   diameter
circle.   Waste  water  is  sprayed  on  the  grass covered slope and is
renovated as it runs down the slope.  The  water  is  collected  at  the
bottom  (or  at  intervals)   by  means  of  a terrace  (lateral channel).
Recycl'ing is probably necessary  to  further  purify  the  water  before
release  to  a  natural  waterway, but a recycling technigue has not yet
been worked out.  A mass of microorganisms  (mainly aerobic) builds up on
the grass and on surface particles of the  soil.   These  microorganisms
adsorb  organic  components  of  the  runoff  and convert them to carbon
dioxide and water.  Similarly, organic nitrogen is converted to  ammonia
and  then  to  nitrates.  It has been hypothesized that the nitrates are
either assimilated by the grass or converted  to  nitrogen  and  nitrous
oxide  by  anaerobic bacteria.  Phosphates are either assimilated by the
grass or adsorbed on soil particles.

Application rate is hydraulically limited to  0.15  to  0.5  centimeters
(0.06  to 0.20 inches)  per hour for eight hours, three or four times per
week.  Recommended spray rate is 19 liters per  minute  (5  gallons  per
minute)  per  nozzle.   As the sprayed water runs down the slope, 65% to
75% is lost, mainly by evaporation.  Typical parameters are:
                                  218

-------
   UJ
   uz
u

u
UJ
a:
                                                       u.
                                                       u.
                                                       O


                                                       a:
                                                        a.
                                                        tn
                                                        oo
                                                        in

                                                        U
                                                        ID
             219

-------
                                Influent             Removal
Pollutant                  Concentration (ppm)     Efficiency (%)

Suspended Solids                195                  94
COD                             430                  71
BOD                             63-350               50-80
Phosphate                       13.5                 0-96
Total nitroqen                  28-250               40-81
Ammonia nitroqen                100-125              45-50


Where a range is shown in the. preceding tabulation, two  different  data
sources  are  represented and the lower concentration is associated with
the higher removal efficiency.

Two Kansas installations have operated less than one season, as of March
1973.  Effluent water has not been found satisfactory for direct release
to natural waterways.  An effective recycling technigue has  yet  to  be
worked  out.   An  installation  in  Texas  ran  for six months, but the
feedlot is no longer operating.  Data on this operation are limited  and
unconfirmed.


Reliability and Applicability

Equipment  is  simple  and  conventional.  Mechanical breakdown problems
should be minimal.

Applicability is limited to wastes that are sprayable.   Spray runoff has
been considered only in terms of storm runoff,   but  it  could  also  be
applied  to  flush  water or lagoon effluent.  Freezing weather prevents
use.  It is applicable  to  limited  cropland  situations,  where  spray
irrigation is not practical.

ROTATING BIOLOGICAL CONTACTOR

The Rotating Biological contactor or RBC achieves a very high density of
biologically active surface per unit volume.  It is potentially valuable
only  where  land  availability  is severely limited.  Purchase price is
uncertain but relatively high.   Work on this experimental  approach  has
been discontinued.

Technical_Description

The  RBC  consists  of  a  row  of 104 closely spaced,  3 meter  (10 foot)
diameter, polystyrene discs.  The discs rotate en a horizontal shaft and
dip into a waste water bath.  An aerobic bacterial  film  on  the  discs
removes  and decomposes organic materials from the waste water.  In work
carried out at a university facility, success of  the  RBC  in  treating
                                  220

-------
swine  wast.es  was  limited.  There were indications that increasing the
waste water residence time  (1.2 to 2.5 hours was used)  might  result  in
improved  performance.   In  actual  use, formation of calcium carbonate
deposits resulted in degraded operation and mechanical breakdown.

WATER HYACINTHS

Water hyacinths, when  placed  in  a  series  of  four  lagoons  located
downstream  of  an  anaerobic  lagoon, provided partial treatment of the
effluent from the  anaerobic  lagoon.   The  plants  reguire  relatively
dilute  supernatant  concentrations   (less than 1000 ppm COD)  to provide
proper growth cycles.  The effluent from the last hyacinth lagoon showed
significant reductions in COD, phosphate,  and  nitrogen  content.   The
plant  also  has a high rate of evapotranspiration, with water loss from
the leaves reported to be over  three  times  that  of  the  free  water
surface.  Extrapolating the harvest data reveals a dry matter production
rate  of  approximately  eleven  metric  tons per hectare (five tons per
acre).  A major deterrent to the profitable use of  water  hyacinths  is
the  high  water  content  of  the plant.  Once harvested, this leads to
rapid spoilage and causes handling problems.   The  average  dry  matter
content of water hyacinths is 5.9%.

The  economic feasibility and attractiveness of this system will reguire
that uses for the harvested plants be devised.   Limited  use  has  been
made  of the plants as livestock roughage, although data is insufficient
to  establish  this  as  an  economic  practice  and   palatability   is
guestionable.   Work  on this concept was at the laboratory level and is
no longer being pursued.   Hence,  it  is  classified  as  experimental.
Potential application is to warm climates.

Technical Description

A  series  of lagoons is prepared such that the flow of effluent from an
anaerobic lagoon to the  prepared  lagoons  can  be  controlled.   Water
hyacinths  are  placed in this series of lagoons.  These plants multiply
rapidly, growing on the nutrients contained in  the  effluent  from  the
anaerobic  lagoon,  which is periodically allowed to replenish the level
of supernatant in the initial water hyacinth lagoon.  Effluent from  the
downstream  lagoon, with its lowest level of organic matter, is disposed
of either by application to cropland, where less land  is  reguired  per
unit  volume  discharged,  or  possible  to receiving streams if organic
matter and nutrients are sufficiently lowered.  Sequentially,   the  more
concentrated  supernatant from the lagoon immediately upstream is pumped
or allowed to flow, replenishing the level  of  the  downstream  lagoons
until  the  initial  water  hyacinths  lagoon  is  replensished from the
anaerobic lagoon.

A  portion  of  the  water  hyacinths  from  each  lagoon  is  harvested
periodically.  These plants may be used for livestock roughage, although
                                  221

-------
data  is  lacking  to  establish the feasibility of this practice.  Thse
plants also exhibit a high rate of evapotranspiration so that over three
times the quantity of water evaporated from  a  free  water  surface  is
released by the water hyacinths.
                             •
Development Status

The  water  hyacinths  process  is  in  the  early  stages of laboratory
developemnt.  The process is not presently being pursued as viable waste
treatment concept.

Reliability and Applicability

No mechanical equipment is involved.

Evidence  from  the  reported  experiment  shows  that  dilute  effluent
concentrations from the anaerobic lagoon are required, or stunted growth
will  take  place.   Also,  climatic  conditions  will limit the growing
season, thus limiting utilization of this process to that period.


ALGAE

Growing algae in the supernatant from  a  hydraulically  flushed  animal
confinement  facility  is presently under development on an experimental
basis by  a  major  university.   The  concept  utilizes  photosynthetic
reclamation  of  the  animal wastes in the form of algae production as a
method of waste disposal.  In theory, the water loop is closed; however,
some water is lost in practice and makeup water is required.

Settled solids from the hydraulic flush are discharged to  an  anaerobic
digester  with  digester  supernatant  also  pumped to the algae growing
pond.  The stabilized sludge, reduced from 40% to 50% on a total  solids
basis,  requires  subsequent  disposal  when  removed from the anaerobic
digester.

Effluent from the algae growing pond is  pumped  either  'to  the  animal
facility  for  gutter  flushing  or,  depending  on algae concentration,
processed so the algae are removed.  The harvested algae in  either  the
dried state or as dewatered paste can be used as a protein supplement in
the diet of chickens, ruminants, or swine.  The product could be used as
a high grade fertilizer.

Since  the photosynthetic reclamation system is in the earlier stages of
development and not practiced on a large scale basis, cost data has  not
been  developed.   However, the proponents of this system have estimated
that in a large scale operation,  dried  sewage  grown  algae  could  be
produced for about $0.09 per kilogram ($0.04 per pound).
                                  222

-------
An  obvious  limitation  of the photosynthetic process is the quality of
the environment in which the system is operated.  Abundant sunlight  and
mild  temperatures are necessary ingredients conducive to the goowing of
algae.

Technical Description
             •
Algae is an artificial grouping of plants consisting of  seven  remotely
related phyla of Thallophyla which have attained about the same level of
rudimentary   development   and  which  possess  chlorophyll,  carry  on
photosynthesis, and are therefore independent (able to  make  their  own
food).   The  system  described  here is being developed at a university
research laboratory.  The concept is designed  to  develop  a  partially
closed  system  based  on integration of an anaerobic and aerobic phase,
recycling of water and reclamation of a usable product.  The pilot plant
includes a poultry  enclosure,  a  hydraulic  system  for  handling  the
wastes,  a  heated  anaerobic  digester with ancillary equipment, and an
algae production pond.  Figure  59  shows  the  flow  pattern  for  this
concept.


The  animals'  wastes  are flushed to a holding tank in which settleable
solids are separated from the liquid phase.  The supernatant  is  pumped
directly  to  an algae pond and the settled solids are dischareged to an
anaerobic digester.  Digester supernatant  is  pumped  directly  to  the
algae  pond, and the settleable stabilized sludge (dewatered)  is removed
for disposal.  Depending upon the  algae  concentration,  pond  effluent
either  is  recycled  directly  to  the animal quarters for flushing the
wastes or can be processed so that the algae are removed.  A portion  of
the supernatant from the separation process is pumped to animal quarters
for waste flushing.  The algae are dried for use as a foodstuff.

Two inputs to the system are of significane:  The chicken manure and tap
water  overflow from the drinking troughs.  Outputs are harvested algae,
settled solids from the sedimentation tank, grit, digester gas and  sump
output.   Data  were  compiled  on the input, output, and system changes
with respect to total solids, volatile solids, unoxidized nitrogen,  and
energy  (not  including solar energy).  An analysis of the data in terms
of the system as  a  whole  reveals  that  biological  activity  in  the
sedimentation  tank,  digester, and pond decreased the TS by 60%; the VS
by 62%; the total unoxidized nitrogen by 45%; and  the  energy  by  56%.
Algae  yield  was  extrapolated to be about 45 metric tons of algae (dry
weight per hectare  (20 tons of algae (dry  weight)   per  acre)   of  pond
surface per year on a year-round basis.

Development Status

Although  algae have long been recognized for their biological oxidation
effects, the investigation of their potential use on farm animal  wastes
                                  223

-------
                                       FEED
                           WATER
                                                                 DRY
                                                                ALGAE
         DIGESTER
                        |CH4
                        ijHX
                                                SUPERNATANT
SUPERNATANT
SEDIMENTATION
    TANK
                            ALGAE POND
                           FIGURE 59.  ALGAE
                                 224

-------
is  limited  to the past few years.  Continued development of the system
is still required before it can be prudently tried  on  a  large  scale.
Major technology gaps pertain to the following areas:   (1) the length of
time  in  which  the  system  can  be operated as a closed system, i.e.,
without excessive  build-up  of  salts,  of  toxic   (to  microorganisms)
materials,  of sludge, and of pathogens; (2) the extent of concentration
of toxic substances  (pesticides, trace metals, etc.) by the  algae  when
the  algae  are  harvested;  and (3)  the regional limitations becuase of
climatological factors.

Reliability and Applicability

Reliability is probably lower than average due to the  systems  reliance
on  weather  factors  for  proper,  economical operation.  A supplemental
aeration system is needed for the algae growing pond during  periods  of
inclement weather.

Applicability is limited to geographical regions where abundant sunlight
and warmer ambient temperatures are prevalent.
                                  225

-------
                              SECTION VIII

               COST, ENERGY, AND NON-WATER QUALITY ASPECT
GENERAL

Cost  is  somewhat  related to both energy and non-water quality aspect,
and these topics are discussed under two major  headings.   All  of  the
information  in  this  section  relates  directly  to  the  technologies
discussed  in   Section   VII,   Control   and   Treatment   Technology.
Consequently,  an  examination  of  Section  VII is essential for proper
interpretation of much of the material in this section.

COST

Investment  and  operating  costs  are  classified  according   to   the
technology   with   which  they  are  associated.   Assuming  sufficient
information is  available  for  each  technology,  these  costs  may  be
combined  (as  discussed  in  Section  VII  with  regard to Table 39)  to
estimate the costs of various techniques for managing  the  wastes  from
any of the feedlot categories.

In  general,  any  feedlot  category  can  be  managed  by  a technology
combination  consisting  cf  runoff  control,  a  complete  or   partial
treatment  technology,  and land utilization.  For example, the category
"cow yard with milking  center"  could  be  managed  by  runoff  control
(diversion  ditches  and  lagoon), activated sludge (partial treatment),
and land utilization  (spray irrigation of lagoon water and spreading  of
sludge  on  crops).   Of course, land utilization alone may serve as the
complete treatment.  On the other hand, both land utilization and runoff
control may be unnecessary for a category using total confinement and  a
complete treatment such as dehydration for sale.

Utility  of  the cost data is limited by two major factors.  In the case
of  BPCTCA   (see  Table  39)   technologies,  these  methods  are  widely
practiced,  and  cost data is plentiful.  However, there is a great deal
of  data  scatter  caused  by  differences  in  climate,   soil,   state
guidelines,  implementation  philosophy,  and  other  factors.  The cost
impact of pollution abatement is difficult if not impossible to separate
from the feedlot cost structure.  This is due in part to the  fact  that
those  owners  which  do document their costs may be producing more than
one  animal,  or  are  engaged  in  other  businesses,  agricultural  or
otherwise.   With  the  experimental  technologies,  there  is poor cost
definition due to the relatively undeveloped state  of  the  technology.
As  these technologies become better developed, costs are better defined
but are often proprietary and therefore unavailable.
                                  226

-------
For  BPCTCA  technologies,  the  cost  data  to  follow  were  primarily
collected  £irst-hand during the study.  They are, however, supplemented
by data or correlations from  the  literature  for  comparison  or  were
obtained  by contacting the process developer whenever the data were not
available in the literature.

Land .Utilization

The cost of land utilization of feedlot wastes  is  a  complex  subject.
Unlike  a  specific  chemical  or  biological  process  for  use  with a
particular type of animal wastes, land  utilization  is  applicable,  in
some  degree  to  all types of animal wastes, crops, soils and climates.
All of these factors can vary greatly, with a corresponding variation in
the methods and costs  of  land  spreading.   Although  waste  spreading
systems can be characterized as either liquid or solid handling systems,
both  categories  have  innumerable  variations  depending  oh available
equipment, farm and crop management  schemes  and  personal  preference.
For  all  these  reasons, it is virtually impossible to present economic
data which have a broad applicability.  However, to put the  subject  in
perspective,  the  following  discussion  will  indicate  the major cost
considerations and present  some  actual  fertilization  cost  data  for
specific  situations.   Economic  data  for disposal rate (as opposed to
fertilization rate, which  is  lower)   applications  are  not  presented
because  they would be misleading in that the disposal scheme is only in
the early experimental stages of developement.

Value of Animal^Wagte^as^a Fertilizer - The major factors affecting  the
value of animal wastes as a fertilizer are:

a.  Value and quantity of nutrients in the wastes
b.  Availability of nutrients to crops
c.  Fringe benefits of animal waste utilization.

The value of fertilizer nutrients are generally based upon the increased
value  of the crop produced from fertilized land.  This determination is
difficult to generalize about or even estimate for specific  situations.
This is because of:

a.   The condition of manure in terms of nutrient content and balance as
applied is highly variable.

b.  The type of soil, the method and time of application as well as  the
climate  directly  affect how much of these nutrients will be aviailable
to crops.

c.  The type of crop and requirements for specific nutrients and  ratios
of  nutrients  directly affects actual utilization of fertilizers by the
crop.
                                  227

-------
d.  Each crop has a different value and -therefore will show a  different
return on the basis of nutrients used.

Animal  wastes, unlike inorganic fertiizers, do not release all of their
nitrogen to crops immediately.  This is because much of the nitrogen  in
animal wastes is in an organic form and mast first be reduced to ammonia
before   it   is  converted  to  nitrate  for  crop  uptake.   Inorganic
fertilizers are applied in the form of nitrates or ammonia  thus  making
them available to the crop immediately.

It is generally concended that only half of the nitrogen in animal waste
is  released  in the year of application with only half of the remainder
being released in the next year.  This again complicates determining the
nutrient value of the wastes.

The most common fringe benefits of animal waste utilization on land  are
increased   tilth,  increased  water  retention,  and  decreased  runoff
nutrient losses.  Each of these is difficult to  evaluate  without  data
for each specific instance.

Cost	of	HauJLing_and_A£pJ.icatipn - The general scope of the information
to follow is for transferring the waste from  the  collection  point  to
cropland.   The  collection  point  may  be  a  stockpile, a deep pit, a
lagoon, or some functionally similar facility.  The data are  classified
as:

- Solid manure
- Liquid manure
- Irrigation

The  data  are  presented in both tabular and graphical form and also in
the form of examples.  They are  generalized  to  represent  any  animal
category  whereever  possible.   The  data collected first hand for this
report are supplemented with data from the  literature  for  comparison.
The  correlations  must  be regarded as representing typical rather than
average data, because individual points show wide variation depending on
local economics, state guidelines, type of soil (sand, clay, rocky, wet,
etc.), moisture content of waste, crop management approach, climate, and
other factors.  In addition, the  particular  operation  may  be  barely
adequate or overdesigned.

Solid Manure - Figure 60 represents investment in equipment for loading,
hauling  and  spreading,  often, the same equipment is also used for pen
cleaning.  Most of the data  derives  from  beef  cattle  feedlots.   In
reducing  these data, a partly biodegraded, semi-dry waste rate of eight
pounds per animal per day was assumed.  The correlation is based on work
by Butchbaker extended by data collected for this report.
                                  228

-------
300
                      METRIC TONS SPREAD PER DAY


                           100                      200
250
Jl
O
Q


*

t/)  200
Q



I
O


 -  150

Z
UJ


I     '
UJ

z  100

H

LU

Q.



g   5°
  0
                                                     I

                                NOTE:  CORRELATION REPRESENTS

                                       BUTCHBAKER DATA EX-

                                       TENDED BY HAMILTON

                                       STANDARD DATA.

                                                     I
                         100                    200


                      SHORT TONS SPREAD PER DAY
                                                                         300
   FIGURE 60. LAND UTILIZATION INVESTMENT COST - SOLID MANURE
                                229

-------
The following equipment investment cost ranges for individual pieces  of
equipment were noted:
Loader:

Truck:

Spreader:
$5000 (100,000 turkeys)  to $38,000 (27,000 beef cattle)

$3000 to $7300

$2000
Figure  61  shows  ranges  of  typical  operating costs exclusive of pen
cleaning and stockpiling  (which  are  considered  part  of  the  animal
husbandry  function  rather  than  waste  management).  All of the costs
include loading.  They may be paid either by the feedlot owner  himself,
or by a neighboring farmer to the feedlot owner or to a contractor.

A  surcharge  of 2.8 cents per kilometer (5 cents per mile) is sometimes
added for contract hauling beyond some minimum  distance  such  as  nine
kilometers (five miles) *

Liquid Manure - Investment costs for managing liquid manure are shown in
Figure  62.   These costs include pump, container, and locomotion but do
not include the cost of the manure pit or other waste storage container.
The pump may be an ordinary manure pump or chopper pump.  The  container
may  be a tank spreader, tank truck, or vacuum wagon.  Locomotion may be
self-propulsion or supplied by a tractor.   Individual  equipment  costs
collected for this report are as follows:
Manure pump:
Chopper pump:
Tank Spreader:

Self-propelled spreader:

Vacuum wagon:

Tractor:
                $1450 - $1600
                $1800 - $2000
                $1000 - $3200, 11,355 liters
                 (3000 gal.)
                14,000, 5.44 metric ton
                 (6 ton, all weather)
                $1500 - $3000, 7,949 liters
                 (2100 gal.)
                $2000 - $12,000
Operating costs associated with spreading liquid manure from beef
cattle are shown in Figure 63.

Irrigation - Runoff water collected in holding ponds or lagoons
is often used for crop irrigation.  Investment costs for three
types of irrigation systems are shown in Figure 64 based on the
literature.  In addition, the following data, collected for this
report, may be useful:
                                  230

-------
          QUANTITY HANDLED, THOUSANDS OF METRIC TONS
                        100                  200
    0                  100               '  200
         QUANTITY HANDLED, THOUSANDS OF SHORT TONS
300
FIGURE 61.  LAND UTILIZATION OPERATING COSTS-SOLID MANURE

                           231

-------
<
Q

H*
J
LU
o:
Q.
en
>•
•— (
o
u
o
u
                                                                      LU
                                                                      Z
                                                                      MM
                                                                      <
                                                                      H


                                                                      8
a.
en
D
a
D
O


te
8
H
LJ
LU
S
LJ
e>
<
z
<
2
Ld
                                                                      Si
                                                                        °
                                                                      CM
                                                                      (O

                                                                      LU
                                                     in
                      '1N3W1S3AN1 lN3lMdinO3
                                232

-------
Cfi
OL
U
H
U.
O
(fi
D
Z
<
cn
D
O

F-
UJ
a:
a.
H
Z
a
(0
o
u
o
Z
                                                                             ct
                                                                             Ul
H-
UJ
o
UJ


2


Q
5
g
I]
                                                                             ro
                                                                             (O
                           sav~noa 'J.SQO
                                     233

-------
    6000
in
DC
o
Q
kl

2


U)
111
    5000
    4000
    3000
    2000
    1000
                   200         400         600         800         1000


                     BEEF FEEDLOT CAPACITY, NUMBER OF HEAD
1200
              FIGURE 64.  IRRIGATION EQUIPMENT - INVESTMENT COST
                                     234

-------
Pump system:

Gated Pipe:

Sprinkler System  (including
  pipe valves) :
Travelling gun:

Center pivot system:
                           $5300 - three pumps totalling
                           158 liter/second  (2500 gallons per minute)
                          $0.50, 10 cm diameter  (U in.) to
                          $1.00, 15 cm diameter  (6 in.)

                          $9200  (22,000 beef cattle)
                          $6900  (75 dairy cattle) to
                          $17,000  (3500 hogs)
                          $12,000  (1000 beef cattle) to
                          $32,000  (10,000 beef cattle)
Irrigation  operating  costs,  taken  from  the literature, are shown in
Figure 65.

Examples - Because  the  cost  data  are  sketchy   (from  a  statistical
standpoint), the following examples of actual operations are provided:

1.   Management of Farm Animal Wastes, ASAE, 1966, pub. no. SP-0366, Pg.
122 - Spreading of liguid hog manure from under slotted floors.

Average analysis of manure was:

0.56SS N
0.30X P205
0.25% K20
94* HH20


Waste was spread (application rate not specified)  on cropland  (corn  and
soybeans) for October 15 through June 15 and on non-cropland for June 15
through October 15.  Equipment required was a tank spreader and pump and
a  tractor.   The  cost  of  the tractor was assumed to be chargeable to
normal farm operation and was ignored.   Costs  were  given  as  follows
(1966 figures increased 5X/year to apply to 1973 dollar value).

The return on investment was calculated by comparing it with the cost of
•the  same  amount of nutrients in the form of inorganic fertilizers.  As
stated previously,  this is not considered valid in that the nitrogen  in
manure  is  not immediately nor completely available for crop growth and
the nutrient balance in manure may not be optimum.  For this reason  the
return figures are not included in this report.
2.
126.
Management  of Farm Animal Wastes, ASAE, 1966, pub. no SP-0366, Pg.
                                  235

-------
a:
<
LU
>-

a:
kl
Qu

(/)
Q:
j
o
Q

fc

8
UJ
Q.

O
            1800
            1600
            1400
1200
1000
 800
             600
             400
             200
                       PUMPING RATE, LITERS PER SECOND


                               10              20                 30
                         100       200       300       400        500

                        PUMPING RATE, GALLONS PER MINUTE



            FIGURE 65.  IRRIGATION EQUIPMENT -OPERATING COSTS
                                                        *


                                   236

-------
The economics of this article are based on a  "paper  study"  only,  but
they do include an estimate of the value of manure relative to inorganic
fertilizer  which  attempts  to  account  for the relative fertilization
efficiency of manure versus inorganic fertilizer.

Value^of _Manurg as Fertilizer

a.  Manure nitrogen kg for kg (Ib  for  Ib)   is  SOX  of  the  value  of
inorganic fertilizer nitrogen.

b.   Manure  phosphorus  kg  for  kg  (Ib for Ib) is 67% of the value of
inorganic fertiizer phosphorus.

c.  Manure potassium kg for kg (Ib for  Ib)   is  75%  of  the  value  of
inorganic fertiizer potassium.

Eguifiment_Costs (liguid manure system only)

(1966 figures increased 5%/yr. to apply to 1973 dollar value)


                   Capital       Fixed Annual     Operating Cost
Eguipment          Cost - $      Cost - $         $/kkg spread
                                             ($/ton spread)

Vacuum Wagon
  2839 liters      $1500         262              0.61
  (750 gallons)                                  (0.55)
  5678 liters      $2250         39U              0.37
  (1500 gallons)                                 (0.34)

Tank Wagon S Pump
  5678 liters      $4300         875              0.42
  (1500 gallons)                                 (0.38)


3.   Animal Waste Management, Cornell University, 1969, (conference) Pg.
  393.

  This study incorporates costs  for hauling and spreading  dairy  wastes
  in  New   York  as well as data from experimental plots at the Cornell
  Research Farm.   The study is fairly extensive.  All  test  plots  used
  for  crop evaluation, with or  without manure application,  received the
  same amount of supplementary inorganic fertilization.   The  value  of
  manure  usage  was  based  on   increased  crop  yields  of plots which
  received manure versus those which did not.

  A summary of data from  the study  follows   (1969  figures  increased
  5X/year to apply to 1971 dollar value).
                                  237

-------
  Cost of hauling and spreading

Free stall barns            $2.33/kkg
                            ($2.11/ton)
Stanchion barns             $3.86/kkg
                            ($3. 50/ton)

  Crop increases for manure versus no manure

  Ranged from 0.4X for oats to 6.6% for alfalfa.

  Value ,of crop increases

  Ranged  from  $1.56  return  to  $0.29  deficit.   (The deficit figure
  appears because of compensating estimation to allow for below  average
  crop management) .

4.   A Beef Feedlot in Iowa

  This is a 405 head, slotted floor/deep  pit  beef  facility.   On  the
  average, the pit contents are pumped out 2.5 times per year and spread
  on  24  to  28 hectares (60 to 70 acres)  of corn and alfalfa cropland.
  The data is as follows:
Labor:                         315 man hours/year
Application rate:              82 kkg/hectare/year
                               (37 tons/acre/year)
Capital eguipment
   Pump:                       $1600
   2 tank spreaders:           $4000


  Three $12,000 tractors are used during  this  operation;  however  the
  spreading  task  represents  only  a  small portion of their use.  The
  slotted floor facility cost $27,5000 in 1970.  This is a cost  of  $68
  per head.

5.   A Beef Feedlot in Iowa

  This is a 500 head slotted floor/oxidation ditch beef  facility.   The
  ditch  effluent  flows  into  a pit followed by two lagoons in series.
  Lagoon contents are spread  on  48.6  hectares   (120  acres)  of  corn
  cropland in the spring and fall.  The data is as follows:

Labor:                        100 man hours/year or  (at $2.25/man hour)
                              $225/year
Application rate:             94 kkg/hectare/year
                              (42 tons/a ere/year)
Capital cost:                 $1500 vacuum wagon
                                  238

-------
  The complete facility cost was $60,000 in 1970 or $120/head.

6.   A Beef Feedlot in Texas

  This is an 80,000 head capacity open dirt feedlot.  Pens  are  scraped
  twice each year.  The feedlot pays 55 cents per kkg  (50 cents per ton)
  to  farmers  who spread the manure on cropland at a rate of 11 kkg per
  hectare  (5 tons per acre) or higher.  A private contractor  hauls  and
  spreads the manure at a cost of $1.21 per kkg  ($1.10 per ton) plus 3.6
  cents  per  kkg  per km  (5 cents per ton per mile).  Farmers using the
  manure report higher silage yields of 60.5 versus 44.8 kkg per hectare
  (27 versus 20 tons per acre) .

7.   A Swine Feedlot in Illinois

  This is a 4800 head, slotted floor/deep pit, swine facility.   on  the
  average,  25% of the pit volume (about 15% of the solids) overflows to
  a lagoon.  Manure pumped from the pit is spread on 192  hectares  (475
  acres)  of corn.  The data is as follows:
Labor:                        0.25 man years/year
Application rate:             60,750 I/hectare or 6500 gal/acre/year
                              (135 kg or 120 Ibs of nitrogen per acre)
Capital Cost:
   Vacuum tank wagon          $3000
   Tractor                    $10,000 (50% usage)


8.   A Turkey Feedlot in North Carolina

  This company raises 2.5 million turkeys per year  in  open  lots.   No
  costs  are  available on waste control on the range land; however, the
  company also operated a  few  experimental  full  confinement  houses.
  Litter and manure was removed and spread on farm land by a contractor.
  A house containing 10,000 birds is cleaned once each year at a cost of
  88  cents  per  kkg (80 cents per ton).  The total tonnage is about 45
  metric tons (50 tons).

Composting

Detailed capital and operating costs are not  available.   However,  the
total cost of processing manure by composting was estimated by operators
at  between  $0.55  and  $13.23  per  kkg  ($0.50 and $12.00 per ton)  of
product.

Dehydration

Investment Cost -
                                  239

-------
1.   Purchased Equipment - $30,000 for a rotary drum dryer that produces
  0.22 kkg (0.2 tons)  per hour of dried waste.
2.   Buildings - None required, system usually installed outdoors.
3.   Land - Minimal, 6.1 m x 12.2  m  (20*  x  40')  plot  required  per
  machine.
4.   Site Work - Purchase  price  includes  price  of  dryer,  shipping,
  concrete pad, and auxiliary equipment.

Operating Cost -

1.   Materials and Supplies - None required for refeed program
  unless excess is bagged and sold.  Maintenance costs are
  $0.55/kkg ($0.50/ton).
2.   Utilities -Electrical - 22 KWH/kkg (20 KWH/ton)  at $0.23/KW
                             equals $0.55/kkg  ($0.50/ton)
               -Fuel       - 36.0 lit/hr x 5.5 hr/kkg x $0.05/lit
                             equals $9.90/kkg
                            (9-1/2 gal/hr x 5 hr/ton x $0.20/gal
   equals $9.50/ton)
3.   Labor - 5.5 hr/kkg at $2.50/hr equals $13.78/kkg
             (5 hr/ton at $2.50/hr equals $12.50/ton)
H.   Indirect costs - Depreciation and interest cost based on
  $30,000 purchase price of 5 years at 9-1/2% interest and
  operatinq 60 hours per week for 50 weeks per year is
  $13.89 per kkg ($12.60 per ton).
5.   Total Cost - Cost per kkg  (ton) of dried material is:

Materials and Supplies        $0.55     ($0.50)
Utilities                     11.03     ($10.00)
Labor                         13.78     ($13.50)
Indirect                      13.89     ($12.60)

  TOTAL $39.25 per kkg  ($35.60 per ton)

Conversion to Industrial Products

Processing costs are not available.  Product value has been stated to be
$12.86 per cubic meter  ($0.03 per board foot)  for low  density  material
and $0.05 per unit for brick.

Aerobic Production .of Single Cellu Protein

Cost  information is not avialable.  The maximum value of the product is
about $0.18 per kilogram ($0.08 per  pound)  of  protein  or  $0.09  per
kilogram   ($0.04 per pound) of product,   costs for processing the manure
into reusable nutrients must therefore fall below these figures.

Aerobic Production of Yeast
                                  210

-------
No figures are available, but in its current configuration, the  process
appears to be excessively expensive.

Anaerobic Production of Single Cell Protein

Investment  Cost  -  In  the  45,000 kg/day  (100,000 Ib/day) system, the
capital costs consists of  the  sum  of  the  slurry  system,  fermenter
system,  centrifuges,  dryers  and power generator for a total estimated
capital cost of approximately $550,000.

°.p6r§tinc[_Costs - For labor, supplies, maintenance  and  repairs,  taxes
and  insurance  and  financing,  operating  costs  are  estimated  to be
$168,000/year for an operating cost  of  $20.40/kg  ($18.50/ton)  for  a
product worth $44.10/kkg  ($40/ton)  based on 1971 feed grain prices.

Feed Recycle Process

Investment	Cost  -  Cost of a plant to process 90.7 kkg (100 tons)  (dry
basis)  of manure per day has been estimated at about $250,000.  A  plant
this size would service about 35,000 head of cattle.

Operating	Cost  - Operating cost for a 90.7 kkg (100 ton)  per day plant
was estimated at $1000/day for direct costs and (based on  a  five  year
write-off)  $200/day  indirect costs.  Value of the product is estimated
at $4400/day for the 90.7 kkg (100 ton) per day plant.

Oxidation , Ditch

Investment Cost - Purchased Equipment - $50 per head of cattle
                  Building            - $65-75 per head
                  Land                - Cost of land negligible to other costs
                  Site Work           - Included in cost of equipment

Operating Cost - Based on 10 year equipment depreciation, operating cost
on a non-feed basis is estimated at $0.13 per day per animal.

Investment Cost -

1.  Equipment:  Program A equipment (see Section VII)   is  described  in
detail  in  Reference  113.   Program  B  equipment cost, adjusted for a
recent increase in aeration requirement, if $9700,  based  on  a  maximum
capacity of 1000 hoqs.   The Proqram C cost of $110 (to treat runoff from
0.336  hectare,  0.83 acre, or 166 beef cattle)  is probably hiqh because
of high prototype equipment costs.   Program E equuipment is described in
Reference 117; cost is roughly $155 per cow capacity.

2.  Buildings:  Buildings are not required.
                                  241

-------
3.  Land:  Land  requirements  are  very  low.   The  general  order  of
magnitude for the demonstration units previously described is an area of
7.6 meters by 22.9 meters (25 feet by 75 feet).

4.  Site Work:  Excavation for tank foundations is required.  In some of
these processes, the top of the tank is at ground level.

Operating Cost -

1.   Supplies:   The  only  raw  material  is chlorine, which may not be
needed, depending on the degree of treatment required.

2.  Utilities:  All of the  activated  sludge  processes  need  aeration
power.   Estimated  annual  costs  are  $1255 for Program B and $900 for
Program D.

3.  Labor:  Although these processes are  capable  of  full  automation,
they will require significant attention for monitoring and maintenance.

4.  Total:  Total operating costs are estimated at $0.60 - $0.70 per hog
capacity for the Program B operation (based on 8% ammoritization)  and at
$0.60  per  animal  fed  for  the  Program  C  operation   (based  on  6%
ammoritization).  Figure 66 demonstrates that standard municaipal sewage
treatment costs are not applicable,  because  the  processing  rate  for
feedlot  installations is generally well under 3.785 million liters  (one
million gallons) per day.

Wastelage

Emphasis has been placed on technical evaluation of the concept,  rather
than on cost analysis.

Anaerobic Production of Fuel Gas

Investment  cost for one concept is estimated at $16,500,000 with annual
operating and maintenance costs estimated at $5,812,000.  These  figures
are based upon local experience and manufacturer list price.  Prices are
for  a plant capable of producing 840,000 cubic meters  (30 million cubic
feet) of synthetic natural gas per day and requiring a cattle base  well
in  excess  of  500,000  head.   These values yield a cost to produce of
approximately $2.14/100 cubic meter  ($0.60/1000 cubic foot).

Another system results in production costs  of  approximately  $1.54/100
cubic meter ($0.43/1000 cubic foot).

These  figures  would  place  methane  produced  in  this  fashion  in a
competitive position vis a vis  imported  liquified  gas  and,  possibly
even, domestically produced gas.
                                  242

-------
 §
g
j
I
a:
LJ
Q.
en
5
O
Q
 8
 z
 z
                 PLANT SIZE. MILLIONS OF LITERS PER DAY
                     100            200            300
100
      80
 40
      20
                   NOTE:  BOD AFTER SECONDARY   j|
                      I    TREATMENT IS TYPICALLY 20 PPM
                     "'	    I       'I           "I
                     _|	I    I	A	
                   FOR A 3 . 785 MLD (l . 0 MGD) PLANT

                   PRIMARY TREATMENT  $11. 62/ML ($44/MG)
                   SECONDARY TREATMENT$14. 53/ML($55/MG)
                   SLUDGE HANDLING     $28 . 53/ML ($108/MG)
                   CHLORINATION         $2. 11/ML ($8/MG)
                      T
                    ._.
                   	i	
                                   —r
                                     ,
                                                   .J.
                                                              	J:
                                         	(	
                                    ,   SLUDGE HANDLING
                          (THICKENING AND DEWATER.NG)
                                                  '"I
                        80-90%
                                SECONDARY TREATMENT
                           BOD REMOVAL (CUMULATIVE)
                                II           11
                                   PRIMARY TREATMENT:
                                j    35% BOD REMOVAL
                                I    |
                               CHLORINATION
                                                               20
                                                           	'15 J
                  20         40         60         80
              PLANT SIZE, MILLIONS OF GALLONS PER DAY
                                                          100
FIGURE 66. COST OF SEWAGE TREATMENT UNIT OPERATIONS (1970 BASIS)
                               243

-------
Reduction by Fly Larvae

Cost estimates have not been made.  The value of the protein product has
been  estimated  at  $230/kkq  ($209/ton),  based  on  soy bean meal  (44
percent protein)  at  $176/kkq   ($1607ton) .   Operating  cost  has  been
claimed  to inclde only part time attention from someone with no special
skills.
Biochemical RecYcle_Process

Each 100 cow unit - 4.54 kkq/day (5 ton/day)
including  a  2.4  x  2.4  x  3.0  meter   (8
enclosure.  Land usage is  negligible,  and
concrete slab.
                          sells  for  under  $20,000
                         x 8 x 10 foot)  weatherproof
                         site  work  consists  of  a
Total  operating  cost  is not available.  Materials costs include $0.60
per day for 1.6 kg (3.5 Ibs.) of alum.  The electric  power  requirement
is 50 KWH per day, costing about $1.25 per day.

Conversion to Oil

Aerobic Production^of _Single Cell Protein - Despite use of the Operating
costs  of  this  complex process would be very high, especially with the
pre-drying operation.  The value of the product does  little  to  offset
these  costs.   Consequently,  conversion  to  oil does not appear to be
economically attractive.

Gasification

The gasification process is not developed enough for meaningful  capital
and  operating  cost  estimates.   Synthesis  gas  as  an  ammonia plant
intermediate is estimated to have a value of $13.78/kkg  ($12.50/ton).

Pv.roly.sis

The basis for the following capital and operating costs is as follows:

Reference 154     40,000 head capacity or 907 kkq manure per day
                  (1000 ton manure per day)
Reference 155     181 kkq  (200 ton) per day capacity (40% moisture,
                  30% ash)
Reference 156     30,000 head capacity.
Investment Cost -

1.  Equipment:
    Reference 154:
    Reference 155:
$5,5000,000
$624,000
                                  244

-------
2.  Building and Site Preparation:  These are undefined additional
    costs.

3.  Land:  3.6 - 4.1 hectares  (9 - 10 acres).
Operating Cost -
COST ITEM

Fuel
Labor
Maintenance
Taxes and Insurance
Depreciation
Capita1 Charge s
Other
Total
Offsetting Costs
Net Cost
                                                  :OST
Reference  154

E    182,000
    180,000
    220,000
    275,000
    550,000
    330,000
    110,000
  2,477,000
    464,000
  2,013,000
  (cost)
Reference 155

$        0
   131,000
    25,000
    31,200
    62,400
    75.000
    12,500
   337,100
   379,700
    42,600
     (profit)
Reference 156
$1,148,400
Incineration

There is no activity on this technology as it applies to animal waste.

Chemical Extraction

Economic information is proprietary.

Hydrolysis and Chemical Treatment

Investment Cost - The only avialable capital cost  information  is  that
projected  for  Program  A  operation   (see  Section  VII).   The actual
operation was not implemented  as  intended  and  was  later  suspended.
Projected  system  capacity  was  2,724  kg  (6,000  Ib.) batches of wet
poultry manure, with a processing time of one hour,  or  a  capacity  of
22.7 kkg (25 tons) of raw manure per day.

Installed  equipment cost was estimated at $49,700, including $7,000 for
a  steam  boiler.   Pollution  abatement  equipment  was  an  additional
$10,900.   An  additional  $7900  was  required for an automatic bagging
operation,  including screw conveyer, hopper, and bagging line, and  fork
lift.  Cost of a building was estimated at $25,000.

Operating  Cost  -  Operating  cost  information is not available.  Cost
would include either fuel for the steam boiler  in  the  case  of  steam
                                  245

-------
hydrolysis,  or  a  chemical (probably potassium hydroxide)  for chemical
treatment.

       Control
The major cost item for runoff control is the holdinq  pond.   Costs  of
dikes,  berms, ditches, settling diversion terraces, and settling basins
are small by comparison.  In fact, these features are often included  in
the  cost  data for ponds and lagoons.  The reader is therefore referred
to cost data under the heading "Lagoons".

Barriered Landscape Water Renovation System

Meaningful cost information is not yet available.   Purchased  equipment
includes   pumps,   sprayers,   lines,  valves,  and  plastic  sheeting.
Buildings are not needed, and land requirements are much less  than  for
spray  irrigation.   Site work includes excavation up to 0.6 meters (two
feet), backfill and mound buildup (with soil, sand, or a mixture), and a
collection channel and sump if water is to be recycled.  A  plant  cover
is desireable.

Operation  is  largely  automatic,  and  maintenance is low.  Electrical
power is needed for pumping.  Periodic limestone replacement is  needed,
and  molasses or other supplemental energy source may be used to promote
anaerobic microorganism growth.

Lagoons

Investment cost for lagoons is shown in Figures 67  and  68.   The  data
aPPly  to  all  types  of lagoon, including holding ponds.  In addition,
associated runoff control features such as  settling  basins  are  often
included.  Figure 67 indicates the characteristic data scatter caused by
variations  in  local  economics,  soil characteristics, topography, and
individual state requirements.

An enlargement of the boxed portion of Figure 67 is shown in Figure  68.
The  actual  ASCS  data  points,  which  fall  within the indicated oval
envelopes, were taken from ASCS files and represent  individual  designs
meeting   all   government   guidelines.    The  Butchbaker  correlation
represents an average of typical installations, while  the  data  points
gathered   for   this  report  are  actual  installations.   The  George
correlation represents lagoons built  on  a  slope  by  constructing  an
earthen  dam.   Lagoons  built  on a flat or less ideal topography would
cost more.

Lagoon costs are often presented for specific  animals.   The  following
tabulation  of investment cost is an example from the literature.  Costs
are on a 1966 basis.  The same author suggests  an  annual  cost  of  14
percent to cover depreciation, interest,
                                  246

-------
QL
UJ
O


1
8
LL
O

(/)
Q
Z
<
(I)

5
O
I


LJ
2
D
J
O
>
   o
   CM
   o
   o
   o
   CM
                      \
 a:

 2
 u
 H

 Q


 <
•
                     13
                     to-

 ,
°0
IT
 ^
  \
       ^\
                                                                 O
                                                                 00
                                                                 O
                                                                 (O
                                                                 o I
                                                                 CM Q
                                                                 - o:
                                                  o
                                                  5

                                                  3
                                                  LL
                                                  O
                                                  in
                                                  Q
                                                §
                                                *
                               o

                               \-

                               LJ*
                                                  J
                                                  O
                                   o
                                   o
                                   H

                                   LU


                                   i
                                   LJ
Q


2

Q
Z
<
U)


8
                                                                        (O

                                                                        LJ
    o
    to
                 o
                 co
       o
       CM
                     syvnoa jo saNVsnoHi 'ISOD


                                   2H1

-------
18,000
1 6,000
14,000
12,000
                  LAGOON VOLUME, CUBIC METERS
                 5,000        10,000         15,000
                                                           20,000
                                 I
                     (HAMILTON STANDARD TRIP REPORT-
                     DATA POINTS
                    ASCS DATA
                    K24 BEEF CATTLE HOLDING PONDS
                    2:17 BEEF CATTLE LAGOONS
                    3M2 DAIRY CATTLE HOLDING PONDS
                    4:25 DAIRY CATTLE LAGOONS
                    5:iO HOG HOLDING PONDS
                    6:i 5 HOG AEROBIC LAGOONS
                    7:26 HOG ANAEROBIC LAGOONS
              5,000
                                                        25,000
                10,000      15,000      20,000
                LAGOON VOLUME, CUBIC YARDS
FIGURE 68, LAGOONS AND PONDS — INVESTMENT COST
            (DETAIL OF FIGURE 67)
                       248
30,000

-------
taxes, insurance, maintenance, and repairs.
500
$889
137
120
1146
1500
$2667
219
120
3006
2500
$4445
277
240
4962
                                Hogs Produced Per Year
                         500

Earth Movinq
Fencinq
Sealinq  (tile)
Total

Evaporation

Cost of evaporation ponds is included under "Laqoons".

Trickling Filters

Investment  Cost - No cost estimates have been made for commercial sized
tricklinq filters for treating animal wastes.   Municipal  sewaqe  plant
tricklinq filters can be used as a guide.

Purchased  Equipment  - Sedimentation tanks, trickling filter  (including
distributer), pumps, and valves.  Sizinq is usually based  on  hydraulic
loadinq.   The  following  guidelines  have  been developed based on the
laboratory work.
Trickling
Filter
Type
Stones
Bark
Inclined
Plane
Source
of
Waste
Water
Dairy
Cows
Poultry
Swine Waste
Lagoon
Sizing Guideline
for Costing
21-77 ft3 /cow or
45-170 ft3/lb BOD/day*
14-17 ft3/lb BOD/day
30-250 ftVgpm*
More
Information
Reference 232
Reference 233
Reference 234
* Depending on desired BOD removal efficiency

Sedimentation Source of
Tank Waste Water
Primary Dairy Cow
Barn
Final Flushing

Sizing
Guideline
200 ftS/eow
114 ft3/cow
More
Information
Reference 232
                                  249

-------
Buildings -  Housing  to  maintain  7.2°C   (45°F)  minimum  waste  water
temperature required.

Land - Much less than required for spray irrigation disposal.

Site Work - Equipment foundations and building erection.

Operating	Cost  -  Operation  is  largely  automatic.   Maintenance  is
normally low, but upsets can clog the trickling filter.  Electric  power
is  needed  for  pumps.  Labor costs include periodic sedimentation tank
cleaning.

Spray Runoff

A 4.4 hectare (10.9 acre)  spray runoff  system  incurred  the  following
investment costs:

Earth moving        $1188
Concrete ditch        698
Pipe                 2445
Valves                316
Grass seed            177
Fertilizer            131
Total               $4965

These  costs do not include labor.  In addition, modifications to obtain
recycling capability will cost $1276.  Operating costs include power  or
fuel  for  the  pump  and  harvesting  the  grass.  Operation is largely
automatic, and maintenance is low.

Rotating Biological Contactor

The RBC is potentially valuable only where land availability is severely
limited.  At the present time,  this  not  generally  the  situation  at
feedlot   locations.   Land  spreading,  spray  irrigation,  and  lagoon
treatment are therefore far less expensive than use of an RBC.

Water^Hyacinths

Economic information is not available.

Algae

Proponents of this experimental  technology  claim  that  a  full  scale
operation  could  be implemented for about $0.09 per kilogram  ($0.04 per
pound) of dry algae harvested.
                                  250

-------
ENERGY AND NON-WATER QUALITY ASPECT

Energy and non-water quality aspect  are  separate  considerations,  but
both  are  related  to  cost.   Technologies with high energy input tend
toward high investment costs and high operating costs.  As  pointed  out
in the following discussion, however, a high energy input technology may
be  a low net energy user.  Often, those technologies such as conversion
to oil that have high energy input and low net  energy  consumption  are
expensive,   relatively   complex,   and  potentially  heavy  polluters.
Byproducts can be disposed of without pollution, and air  pollution  can
be controlled, but this requires additional expense.

With  the  exception  of  some  runoff  control  situations,  every non-
polluting waste management technology uses energy from electric power or
consumption  of  a  common  fuel.   For  technologies   such   as   land
utilization,  the energy is used mainly for transferring or transporting
the waste material.  For others, energy provides the mixing or  aeration
needed for efficient biological treatment of the waste.  For still other
technologies  such  as  dehydration  and  pyrolysis, energy input forces
rapid physical or chemical changes in the waste material.

Nevertheless, almost all of these technologies should receive an  energy
credit that tends to offset the energy input.  Thus, land utilization of
wastes  results  in reduced requirements for chemical fertilizer, saving
the energy needed to produce, distribute,  and  spread  the  fertilizer.
Similarly,  technologies  that convert manure to feed supplements reduce
the energy that would otherwise be expended  in  planting,  fertilizing,
harvesting,  and  processing  such crops as soybeans.  Processes such as
gasification can extract the energy they need from the product they make
and still have enough product left to act as an energy source for  other
industries.   Thus,  energy input for the process may be high, while net
energy consumption is low, or the process may actually convert the waste
to an energy producing product.

In  addition  to  useful  products,  many  of   the   waste   management
technologies  produce  byproducts  of  questionable value.  This sludge,
fiber, ash, or other residue often has value as a soil  conditioner  and
 can  sometimes be used in other applications.  Thus these by-products of
the waste management technologies may be disposed of  without  affecting
the water quality of natural waterways.

Technology Characteristics

In the rest of this section, each technology is considred with regard to
energy  usage  and  non-water quality aspect.  Table 41 summarizes these
considerations, noting whether net energy consumption is  high  or  low,
thus providing an indication of the ultimate impact of the technology on
our energy resources.
                                  251

-------
Land Utilization - Energy used for loading, hauling, spreading, pumping,
and  spraying  solid  or  liguid  wastes is offset by reduced fertilizer
needs and conseguent saving in energy for producing,  transporting,  and
spreading the fertilizer.  Net energy usage is therefore low.  There are
no  byproducts, and odor is non-objectionable if suitable technigues are
used.

Composting - Energy is needed for periodic  turning  of  the  composting
material,  but  input  energy is still relatively low.   Porper operation
minimizes odor, and there are no byproducts.  The product  is  a  useful
soil conditioner.

D§hy.dratign  - The product is useful as a fertilizer or feed supplement,
but net energy to remove the water is  still  relatively  high.   Proper
design minimizes odor, and there is no by-product.

Conversion  to  Industrial	Products  -  This  is  basically a pyrolysis
process with a useful product.  The gases evolved in the process may  be
used as fuel to supply the heat reguired, so that net energy consumption
is potentially low.  Positive measures to prevent odor are reguired.

product as a feed supplement, net energy usage is relatively high due to
the number of steps in which forced air aeration is reguired.  There are
no odor or byproduct problems.
                                                                 (
Aerobic	Production	of_Yeast- The comments for the preceding technology
also apply to yeast production.

Anaerobic Production of Single Cell	Protein  -  Energy  input  to  this
process  is  relatively lew, and the feed supplement produced represents
an energy credit.  Even if dehydration of the product is desirable,  the
fuel gas byproduct is adequate to supply the reguired energy.

Feed	B§£y.cle_Process - This process is basically a low energy physical-
chemical separation, and the product represents an energy  credit.   The
process  is free of objectionable odors, but a practical use or means of
disposal for the fiber byproduct must be found.

Oxidation Ditch - Despite potential value of the resulting sludge  as  a
feed  supplement,  net energy for mechanical aeration is high.  There is
no odor problem.

Activated Sludge - Energy for aeration is high.  There is  no  odor  but
byproduct sludge must be used as a soil conditioner or for land fill.

Wastelage - Input energy is very low, there is no byproduct, and odor is
controlled.
                                  252

-------
Anaerobic __ Production  of Fuel^Gas - Input enerqy is relatively low, and
the product has a high enerqy value.  Byproduct sludqe may be used as  a
soil conditioner.

Reduction __ With_Fly_Larvae - Energy input for mixing and air circulation
is moderate, and energy for drying is offset by the high  protein  value
of  the  product.   Pending  further  development,  net  energy usage is
regarded as low.  Byproduct compost may be used as land  fill  or  as  a
soil conditioner.

Biochemical Recycle Process - Expensive equipment is used to achieve low
energy  aeration.   There  is no odor, but a practical use must be found
for the fiber byproduct,

Conversion to Oil - The energy requirement  is  high,  but  the  product
itself  has  a  high  energy  content which can be used for the process.
Thus, net energy usage is potentially low, although practical use of the
product as a fuel is in some doubt.

Gasification ~ High input power  is  offset  by  potential  use  of  the
product  as  a  fuel  and  primary use of the product to save the energy
associated with  a  major  step  in  the  production  of  ammonia.   The
synthesis  gas  product  must  be  considered  toxic,  and byproduct ash
requires disposal.

Pvrolvsis - The endothermic reaction requires high input  energy,  which
may  be  supplied by burning byproduct gases.  The byproduct ash must be
disposed of or used (see "Conversion  to  Industrial  Products") .   Odor
must be controlled.
              ~  Tne  waste  material itself provides much of the energy
required for  incineration  of  wet  waste.   Positive  control  of  air
pollution  is required, and ash requires disposal.  There is no product,
although utilization of the heat released may be possible.

Hydrolysis and Chemcial^Treatment - Energy for steam hydrolysis  can  be
minimized  by use of regenerative heat exchangers and is somewhat offset
by the nutritional value  of  the  product.   Energy  for  the  chemical
treatment  approach  is  low,  except possibly for the energy associated
with producing the chemical.  Pending further  development,  net  energy
usage is regarded as low.

Chemical  Extraction  - This process appears to use low energy physical-
chemical separations.  Energy for drying the product is somewhat  offset
by  its  nutritional  value.   Disposal  of  the  liquid  byproduct is a
problem.
                                  253

-------
      _        ~ No energy is required.  Solid and liquid byproducts are
disposed of by land utilization.  There is a potential  for  qroundwater
contamination or objectionable odor.


Barriered Landgcape Water Renovation System - Enerqy for pumpinq is low.
There is no product or byproduct, and odor is limited.

Laqoons	for  Waste	Treatment - Aerated laqoons are really an activated
sludqe technoloqy.  Other laqoons have  neqlibible  enerqy  requirements
for  maintenance.   Poor  design  or  operation  can  result  in  stream
pollution or  objectionable  odor.   Solid  and  liquid  byproducts  are
disposed of by land utilization.

Evaporation  -  Except for solar enerqy, there is no enerqy input.  Poor
management can result in stream pollution or  odor  generation.   Sludge
generally requires disposal by land utilization.

Trickling  Filter  -  Despite  the  hiqh recycle rate, pumpinq enerqy is
relatively low.  The process should be odor free, but solid  and  liquid
byproducts require disposal.

Spray Runoff - This is essentially a tricklinq filter technoloqy usinq a
living  medium.   Consequently,  grass  must be harvested in addition to
water disposal.  However, due to potential  contaminants  on  the  qrass
surfaces, its use as a feed needs to be demonstrated.

Rotating  Biological Contactor - This is essentially a form of tricklinq
filter.

Water Hyacinths - Enerqy for harvestinq  and  preparation  is  hopefully
offset by nutritional value of the product.

    e - The alqae technoloqy is similar to that of hyacinths.
                                  254

-------
                  ENERGY AND NON-WATER QUALITY ASPECT


Technology                   Net Energy Usage       By-Product


Land Utilization             Low                    None
Composting                   Low                    None
Dehydration                  High                   None*
Conversion to Industrial
  Products                   Low                    None*
Aerobic SCP Production       High                   None*
Aerobic Yeast Production     High                   None*
Anaerobic SCP Production     Low                    None*
Feed Recycle Process         Low                    Fiber
Oxidation Ditch              High                   Sludge, liguid
Activated Sludge             High                   Sludge, liguid
Wastelage                    Low                    None*
Anaerobic Fuel Gas           Low                    Sludge
Fly Larvae Production        Low                    Compost
Biochemical Recycle          Low                    Fiber
Conversion to Oil            Low                    Ash
Gasification                 Low                    Ash
Pyrolysis                    Low                    Ash
Incineration                 Low                    Ash
Hydrolysis                   Low                    None*
Chemical Extraction          Low                    Licruid
Runoff Control               Low                    Liquid, solids
BLWRS                        Low                    None
Lagoons for Treatment        Low                    Sludge, liquid
Evaporation                  Low                    Sludge
Trickling Filters            Low                    Sludge, liquid
Spray Runoff                 Low                    Grass, liquid
Rotating Biological
  Contactor                  Low                    Sludge, liguid
Water Hyancinths             Low                    None*
Algae                        Low                    None*
*Note:  unless otherwise specifically indicated ash, salts or similar system
residuals, if any, are not fully established at full scale.
                                TABLE U1
                                  255

-------
                               SECTION IX

         EFFLUENT REDUCTION ATTAINABLE THROUGH THE APPLICATION
          OF THE BEST PRACTICABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY CURRENTLY
               AVAILABLE—EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES


INTRODUCTION

The  effluent  limitations  which  must  be achieved by July 1, 1977 for
feedlots, is generally based upon  the  average  of  the  best  existing
performance  by  feedlots  of  various  sizes,  ages, and unit processes
within its category or sub-category.  This average is not based  upon  a
broad  range  of feedlots within the feedlot industry, but is based upon
performance levels achieved by exemplary ones.  The  technology  applied
by  these  feedlots to achieve these effluent limitations is termed Best
Practicable Control Technology Currently Achievable.

Consideration has also been given to:

a.  The total cost of application  of  technology  in  relation  to  the
effluent reduction benefits to be achieved from such application.
b.  The age and size of eguipment and facilities involved.
c.  The processes employed.
d.   The  engineering  aspects  of  the  application of various types of
control techniques.
e.  Process changes.
f.    Non-water   guality   environmental   impact    (including   energy
requirements).

Best  Practicable  Control  Technology  Currently  available  emphasizes
treatment technology applied at the end of the normal feedlot  processes
but includes the control technologies within the feedlot itself when the
latter are considered to be normal practice within the industry.

A  further  consideration  is  the  degree  of  economic and engineering
reliability  which  must  be  established  for  the  technology  to   be
"currently  available".   There should be a high degree of confidence in
the engineering and economic viability of the technology, at the time of
commencement of actual construction of the control facilities, resulting
from general use or from pilot plants and demonstration projects.

EFFLUENT ATTAINABLE THROUGH THE APPLICATION OF THE
BEST PRACTICABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY AVAILABLE

For the purposes of this Section,  wastewater  refers  to  (1)  rainfall
runoff,  and  (2) flush or washdown water for cleaning animal wastes from
pens, stalls, milk center areas,  houses,  continous  overflow  watering
systems  or  any similar facility.  Based upon the information contained
                                  256

-------
in Section III throuqh VIII of this report,  a  determination  has  been
made  that  a  total  effluent  elimination  is  attainable  through the
application of the Best
Practicable  Control  Technology  Currently  Available.   The   effluent
limitation shall be "no discharge" of wastewater pollutants to navigable
water  bodies for runoff from any and all precipitation events up to but
excluding the incremental runoff from a climatic event in excess of  the
10  year,  24  hour  rainfall  event  as established by the U.S. Weather
Bureau for the region in which the point source  discharge  is  located;
applicable   to   the   following   animal   types  and  all  identified
subcategories thereof cited in Section IV:  beef cattle,  dairy  cattle,
swine, chickens, turkeys, sheep, and horses.  The animal type, ducks and
the  subcategories thereof, is an exception in that there is an effluent
discharge with pollutant limitations as shown:

Effluent Characteristic                   Limitation

BODJ5                               Maximum for any one day
                                   1.66 kg per 1000 ducks
                                   (3.66 lb/1000 ducks)

                                   Maximum average of daily
                                   values for any period of
                                   30 consecutive days
                                   .91 kg per 1000 ducks
                                   (2.00 lb/1000 ducks)

Coliform bacteria                  At any time not to exceed UOO
                                   fecal coliform per 100 ml
                                   during the months May to October
                                   and 2000 fecal coliform per 100 ml
                                   during the months November to April.


IDENTIFICATION OF THE BEST PRACTICABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY
CURRENTLY AVAILABLE

Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available for the  feedlot
industry is containment of all contaminated liquid runoff resulting from
rainfall,  snowmelt, or related cause, and application of these liquids,
along with the generated solid wastes to productive cropland at  a  rate
which  will  provide  moisture and nutrients that can be utilized by the
crops.  The technology for containment and application to  cropland  can
achieve the stated goal of "no discharge" to navigable water bodies.  TO
implement this technology requires the followinq:
                                  257

-------
a.   Provisions  for  the containment of all contaminated runoff, liquid
manure, and seepage in order to prevent the  uncontrolled  discharge  of
these  liquids  across  the  feedlot  boundaries and through the feedlot
surface.  Among the alternatives for containment may simply be a holding
pond, or perhaps a lagoon or oxidation ditch  that  provides  biological
pre-treatment  to  the  wastes  in order to reduce the land required for
application, or may be, in applicable geographic regions, an evaporation
pond with collection of solid residues for application to the land.

b.  Provisions for applying liquid and solid wastes to cropland for  the
efficient  utilization  of  the  contained moisture and nutrients by the
crop.   The  solid  wastes  may  be  subjected  to  a  pretreatment   of
dehydration   or   composting   where   these  wastes  must  be  stored,
transported, and sold for use on land not immediately available  to  the
feedlot.

c.   As  part  of  the  above containment and land utilization concepts,
where necessary, provisions should be made for efficient site selection;
diversion of outside runoff away from or around the feedlot using berms,
dikes, or ditches; inclusion  of  emergency  dewatering  capability  for
runoff  storage structures to minmize problems encountered with multiple
precipitation events.

The Best Practicable Control  Technology  Currently  Available  for  the
animal  type,  ducks,  consists of primary settling, aeration, secondary
settling, and chlorination prior to discharge.

The technologies described above are all presently found  in  commercial
practice and are described further in Section VII.

RATIONALE FOR THE SELECTION OF THE BEST PRACTICABLE
CONTROL TECHNOLOGY CURRENTLY AVAILABLE

The  Best  Practicable  Control  Technology  Currently Available for the
feedlot industry is dependent upon the ability of avialable cropland  to
receive  feedlot wastes and efficiently recycle them into useable crops.
Both the amount of waste and their strength, as well as the type of crop
produced,  are  direct  functions  of  climatic  conditions  which  vary
exceedingly  with  location  and  time  of year.  In addition, the local
variation in soil condition and topograpny will affect  the  application
of  the technology, as will traditional agricultural practices.  Because
of these highly variable circumstances,  the  application  of  the  Best
Practicable  Control  Technology Currently Available must be tailored on
an individual basis to the local prevailing situation.  This  should  be
done  in  accordance  with  the  advice  of  the knowledgeable technical
experts available to the agricultural community.

Age and Size of Equipment _^nd_Facilities There are no inherent technical
restrictions  in  the  application  of  the  Best  Practicable   Control
                                  258

-------
Technologies  Currently  Available  based  upon feedlot age and/or size.
Regardless of age or size of the facility for any given animal type, the
essential characteristics of both the waste products and their means  of
production  and treatment are the same.  However, smaller sized feedlots
may incur higher costs of implementation per  unit  of  production  than
larger feedlots.  These smaller feedlots may be less profitable and more
affected  by  these  costs;  however,  they do account for a significant
percentage of the industry.

Total Cost of Application in Relation to Effluent Reduction^Benefits

As noted above, because of the total size and diversity of  the  feedlot
industry,  its  geographical distribution, and the associated variations
in climate,  topography  and  soil  conditions,  a  completely  reliable
estimate of total investment costs reguired of the industry in achieving
the   specified  effluent  limitation  is  beyond  the  scope  of  known
information.  However, based upon what may be synthesized from available
information, between $0.5 and $1.0 billion  approximates  the  range  of
total  investment  for the remaining costs to be incurred.  Furthermore,
the selection of  the  Best  Practicable  control  Technology  Currently
Achievable  was  based  upon the existence of feedlots representative of
all sizes and types presently applying this technology in all  parts  of
the  country,  and  the  lack of available alternative technologies.  Of
importance is that among the smaller, less commercial types  of  feeding
operations,  relatively less implementation of runoff controls has taken
place for any type of storm condition.  Consequently, the  10  year,  2U
hour  rainfall  event  serves  as  a  reasonable  baseline upon which to
develop  a  nationally  uniform  runoff  control  requirement  for   all
operations  which conforms to the purposes of the Act ad which available
data indicates  is  economically  within  reason  for  the  industry  to
implement.   There  is,  therefore,  a  high likelihood of achieving the
elimination of pollutant discharge to navigable water bodies which would
warrant this investment.
Processes Employed

The processes employed in the feedlot industry are described in  Section
IV  of  this  report, and result in the industry categorization and sub-
categorization described in that section.  All of the feedlots within  s
sub-category  use the same or similar production methods which result in
discharges which are also similar.   There is no evidence that  operation
of  any  current  production  process  or sub-process will substantially
affect capabilities to implement the Best Practicable Control Technology
Currently Available.
                                  259

-------
For ducks, the treatment technology is based on  processes  employed  at
the  present  time  by  nearly  50% of the industry in response to state
regulations.

Engineering Aspects of Control Technology Applications

These technologies have a long history of application and represent,  to
a  great  extent,  the  prevalent  agricultrural  practices prior to the
1940's.   These  technologies  are  presently  in  full  scale  use   on
commercial  operational  feedlots  with a high degree of reliability and
technical efficiency.

The amount of wastes that must be contained and/or stored  in  order  to
implement  zero^  discharge  is  dependent  upon  the  length of the crop
growing season and the amount of contaminated runoff which occurs during
the storage period and must be determined individually  for  each  local
situation.

With  respect  to  duck  growing  operations, data were insufficient for
detailed effluent analysis of even the most efficient treatment systems.
The limitations therefore are  based  upon  biological  treatment   (with
eguivalent  of  a  five  day  contact  time)   followed  by  settling and
chlorination to a BOD reduction of 90 percent; which when applied to  an
average  raw  waste load of 20 Ib BOD per 1,000 ducks per day results in
an effluent of 2.0 Ibs BOD per 1,000 ducks per  day.   The  current  New
York  State  limiation  of  50  mg/1  BOD  results in a similar effluent
quality when related to a flowrate of 4.0 gallons per duck per  day  (as
currently achieved by several wet lot and dry lot operations).  Coliform
levels  were established following a review of limits recommended by the
National Technical Advisory Committee which was  established  under  the
Water  Quality  Act  of 1965.  The median in-stream coliform limit of 70
MPN (Most Probable Number)   for  shellfish  water  was  the  recommended
level.   The Environmental Protection Agency manual, Recommended Uniform
Ef_fluent Concentration provides for fecal coliform levels of 400  counts
per  100 bml  (months May to October)  and 2,000 counts per 100 ml (months
November  to  April).   The  former  number  particularly  will  protect
watercourses  for  contact  recreation.   The  in-stream limit of 70 MPN
would also afford this protection but  may  reguire  extreme  levels  of
chlorination   of  effluents  which  can  create  problems  if  chlorine
residuals   inhibited   beneficial    in-stream    aguatic    organisms.
Conseguently,  the  effluent  limits  for  fecal coliform were selected.
Process Changes

These technologies are completely end-of-process technologies and  will,
therefore,  not  reguire  any process changes to the feedlots within the
industry.

Certain areas  (particularly nrothern, humid regions) of the country have
climate conditions which are such as to require a runoff control  system
                                  260

-------
which  contains  both  a  peak  event  (specific  storm)  and a period of
precipitation storage during which time ground is frozen or too wet  for
usual  land  utilization  practices.   Other areas (such as the southern
regions)  require more dependence on a specific design event since access
to land for waste disposal is normally available.  In either case, if  a
design  event  is  known,  minimum  runoff  control  requirements can be
readily implemented.

Non-Water Quality Environmental Impact

The application of the waste products from feedlots to the land for  the
efficient  production  of  crops  is judged to have no additional impact
upon the environment than does the use of chemical fertilizers  for  the
same  purpose.   Where  wastes  are  stored  in  an exposed manner under
anaerobic conditions, there will be unpleasant odors and this  situation
should  be  limited  to  circumstances  where potentially affected local
populations are sufficiently removed.
                                  261

-------
                               SECTION X
         EFFLUENT REDUCTION ATTAINABLE THROUGH THE APPLICATION
        OF THE BEST AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY ECONOMICALLY ACHIEVABLE
                    EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES

INTRODUCTION

The effluent limitations which must be achieved by 1 July 1983 has  been
determined  by  identifying  the  very  best  performance  by a specific
feedlot within its category of sub-category.  The technology applied  by
these  feedlots  to  achieve  these  effluent limitations is termed Best
Available Technology Economically Achievable.

Consideration has also been given to:

a.  The age of equipment and facilities involved.
b.  The process employed.
c.  The engineering aspects of  the  application  of  various  types  of
control techniques.
d.  Process changes.
e.   The  cost of achieving the reduction in effluent resulting from the
application of the technology.
f.   Non-water   quality   environmental   impacts   (including   energy
requirements).

In-process  control  options  which have been considered in establishing
the effluent limitations have included:

 - Alternative water used
 - Water conservation
 - Waste stream segregation
 - Water re-use
 - By-product recovery
 - Re-use of waste wa#er constitutents
 - waste treatment
 - Good housekeeping.

EFFLUENT REDUCTION ATTAINABLE THROUGH THE APPLICATIQN_QF_THE
BEST AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY ECONOMICALLY ACHIEVABLE

For the purposes of this section,  wastewater  refers  to  (1)   rainfall
runoff,  and  (2)  flush or washdown water for cleaning animal wastes from
pens, stalls, milk center areas, houses,  continuous  overflow  watering
systems  or  any  similar  facility.  The effluent limitation reflecting
this technology for all animal types and  all  identified  subcategories
thereof cited in Section IV: beef cattle, dairy cattle, swine, chickens,
turkeys,  sheep,   horses,  and  ducks,  is  "no discharge" of wastewater
pollutants to navigable  water  bodies  for  runoff  from  any  and  all
precipitation  events  up  to  but  excluding  incremental runoff from a
                                  262

-------
climatic event in excess of the 25  year,  24  hour  rainfall  event  as
established by the U.S. Weather Bureau for the region in which the point
source discharge is located.
                                                            »
IDENTIFICATION OF THE BEST AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY
ECgNOMICALLY_ACHIEVABLE

In  addition  to  the  technologies  cited  as  Best Practicable Control
Technology Currently Available, there are technologies which are  either
not  fully  available  for  general  use or sufficiently demonstrated to
provide a high degree of confidence in the engineering and viability  of
the  technology.   These technologies are included under the category of
Best Available Technology Economically Achievable because they offer  an
opportunity  for  a future choice toward providing increased flexibility
and economic viability.

These technologies are presently being demonstrated in  field  operation
on  a feedlot or at a university with wastes collected and utilized in a
manner representative of a commercial situation.   Hardware  components,
configuration,  and  controls accurately represent full scale operation.
At the present time, sufficient confidence in  the  systems  appears  to
exist to warrant investment by industry for commercial application.  The
following  technologies  are  thus  designated Best Available Technology
Economically Achievable in addition to those technologies  described  in
Section IX.

Wastelage  -  A  technology in which cattle manure is ensiled along with
standard feed ingredients and  refed  to  cattle.   This  is  a  partial
treatment utilizing 40% - 50% of the available waste.  The required land
for  spreading  of  the  remaining  waste  is  reduced  and there is the
potential for reducing  the  cost  of  production.   The  technology  of
wastelage  has been demonstrated over the past eleven years with a total
of over 300 head of cattle.  The lack of Food  and  Drug  administration
(FDA)  approval  for  the  use of manure or the products from manure for
refeeding is a restraint upon the large scale commercial  acceptance  of
this technique.

Dehydration  With  Refeed  -  A  technology  in  which poultry manure is
thermally dried and used as  a  feed  ingredient  in  the  diet  fed  to
poultry.   This  is  a  partial  treatment  utilizing  50%  - 75% of the
available waste.  The land required for spreading of the remaining waste
is significantly reduced and there is the  potential  for  reducing  the
cost  of  production.  The technology has been demonstrated by refeeding
for over one full year with a 400 bird flock of laying hens.   The  lack
of  FDA  approval  for the use of manure or the products from manure for
refeeding is a restraint upon the large scale commercial  acceptance  of
this technology.
                                  263

-------
Oxidation  Ditch _ With_^Refeed  -  A technology which utilizes the mixed
liquor from cattle  and  swine  oxidation  ditches  as  an  animal  feed
ingredient.   This  is  a  partial  treatment utilizing about 40% of the
oxidation ditch effluent.   The  required  land  for  spreading  of  the
remaining  waste  is reduced and there is the potential for reducing the
cost of production.  This technology of  oxidation  ditch  mixed  liquor
re feed  has  been  demonstrated  over the past two years in five feeding
trials and over 400 animals.
                 - A technology for the treatment  of  dairy  wastes  at
thermophilic   temperatues  with  extended  aeration  which  produces  a
reuseable water and a soil conditioner.  The soil conditioner is  a  wet
product  which must be disposed of by application to the land or further
processed for storage, transportation and  sale  for  use  on  land  not
immediately  available  to  the  feedlot.  This is a proprietary process
which is presently being demonstrated on an 80 head  experimental  dairy
farm.
Comelete _ Confinement Dry_Lot Duck^Process - A technology in which ducks
are produced in complete  confinement  with  the  entire  growing  cycle
within  one  building.  There are no outside duck runs.  The water usage
is a minimum, and water is recycled.

The housing is partially solid floor with waste gutters under  a  screen
floor.   Gutter  wastes  are  flushed  out  of the building with recycle
water, and solid wastes with litter are scraped for removal.  The  flush
water  passes  through  a  "clarifier"  where the solids are settled and
pumped to holding ponds.  The liquid  effluent  from  the  clarifier  is
treated  in an aerated lagoon and then in a settling pond prior to being
used for recycle flush water.  The excess recycle flush water is used to
irrigate pasture or cropland.  The solids from the manure holding  ponds
and  the  scraped  solids  from  the  houses  are spread on cropland for
fertilizer.  This system has been practiced by a commercial duck  grower
without  the flush recycle and will be expanded to include recycle flush
in some buildings if state authorities approve the plans.

BgSYSli^Water Wetlot_Duck Proces s - A  technology  in  which  ducks  are
produced  on  outside  duck  runs  with  the effluent water subjected to
treatment and then reused.  The treatment consists of  primary  settling
followed  by aeration and final settling.  Subsequent to final settling,
the water is chlorinated and pumped to a storage pond which is  used  to
feed  the  duck  runs.  Make-up water from wells is added to the storage
pond as necessary.  Once a year the duck  run  and  settling  ponds  are
dredged  to  recover  settled solids for land spreading.  This system is
presently being implemented by a commercial duck  producer  in  a  major
duck production region.

RATIONALE FOR THE SELECTION OF BEST AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY
ECONOMICALLY_ACHIEVABLE
                                  264

-------
The  factors  considered  in  selecting  the effluent limitation for the
animal types, beef  cattle,  dairy  cattle,  swine,  chickens,  turkeys,
sheep, and horses, is the same as described in Section IX.

With  respect  to  runoff,  a number of feedlot operations have controls
which serve not  only  to  implement  the  concepts  addressed  as  Best
Practicable  Control Technology Currently Available, but also accomplish
a higher degree of control than normally encountered.  That  is,  runoff
controls  are  sufficient  to eliminate discharge of runoff from a storm
equivalent to a 25 year, 24 hour event.  As a matter of initial  design,
consideration  of  the runoff from this event is about 10.0 percent more
than for a 10 year, 24 hour storm.  As with control requirements for the
smaller event, however, practical application is such that any one of  a
number  of  in-place  systems  would  meet the storage requirement:  (1)
design for the 25 year event;  (2)  design  for  net  storage  structure
performance  to control the 25 year event, e.g., a design storage period
and a peak flow storage;  (3)  an extended  (one to several months)  design
storage period.

The  additional  degree  of  runoff  controls  thus  reguired  for  Best
Available Technology Economically  Achievable  will  provide  a  logical
endpoint  for  pollution control of runoff.  Beyond the 25 year, 24 hour
situation, rainfall is likely to fall into the area of "natural diaster"
or outright flooding for which practical application of controls at  the
individual  farm  level  is  neither  economical nor technically viable.
Moreover,  the  relatively  modest  additional  storage  or  containment
requirement  further enhances the likelihood that "slug" flow discharges
from a series of very small rainfall events will be minimized.

The effluent limitation of "no discharge" to navigable water bodies  for
the  duck  feedlot  industry  is  based upon the existence of commercial
operations presently  in  the  process  of  implementing  the  described
technologies on a commercial basis.  These examples include both dry and
wet  lot  production  which  are  the  major  processes practiced by the
industry.   There  is  some  technical  risk   associated   with   these
technologies which will be resolved when they are in complete operation.
These  technologies are being implemented by these commercial operations
by changes to existing facilities.
                                  265

-------
                               SECTION XI

                    NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS


NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

Introduction

A new source is defined to mean "any source, the construction  of  which
is commenced after the publication of proposed regulations prescribing a
standard of performance".  Technology to be utilized for new sources has
been  evaluated  by  considering  the best in-process and end-of-process
control technology identified as Best Available Technology  Economically
Achievable  in  Section X and considering the utilization of alternative
production processes and operating methods.

The following specific factors have been taken into consideration in the
determination of performance standards for new sources:

a.  The type of process employed and process changes
b.  Operating methods
c.  Recovery of pollutants as byproducts.

New,Source_Effluent_Limit ation

For the purposes of this section,  wastewater  refers  to  (1)   rainfall
runoff,  and (2) flush or washdown water for cleaning animal wastes from
pens, stalls, milk center areas,  houses,  continous  overflow  watering
systems  or  any  similar  facility.   The  effluent  limitation for new
sources is no discharge of wastewater  pollutants  to  naviagable  water
bodies  for  runoff  from  any  and  all  precipitation events up to but
excluding the incremental runoff from a climatic event in excess of  the
25  year,  24  hour  rainfall  event as established by the U.S.  Weather
Bureau for the region in which the point source discharger is located.

End-of-Process Technology

The initial end-of-process technology utilized should be that defined as
Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available for  all  animal
types except ducks, for which the Best Available Technology Economically
Achievable  should  be  utilized.   It  should be kept in mind that at a
future  time  some  of  the  technologies  defined  as  Best   Available
Technology   Economically   Achievable   and   those   listed  below  as
Experimental Technologies, may provide a more effective  and  economical
production-treatment system:

 - Aerobic Fermentation and Refeed
 - Algae Culture and Refeed
                                  266

-------
 - Anaerobic Fermentation and Refeed
 - Anaerobic Production of Fuel Gas
 - Barriered Landscape Water Renovation System
 - Biochemical Recycle Process
 - Chemical Extraction and Refeed
 - Conversion to Industrial Products
 - Conversion to Oil
 - Fly Larvae Production and Refeed
 - Gasification
 - High Rate Land Disposal
 - Hyacinth Culture and Refeed
 - Hydrolysis and Chemical Treatment
 - Oil Pooduction by Pyrolysis
 - Spray Runoff Treatment
 - Trickling Filter Treatment

The above technologies are further described in Section VII.

In-Process Technology

The  in-process  features which should be considered for all new sources
should include:

Site Se1ection - considered on a national and local basis,  the  factors
to  be  considered  are:   suitability  of  the  geographic area for the
production of specific animals, local topography, climate,  location  of
receiving  surface  waters,  availability  of cropland, soil conditions,
sub-surface water location and quality, population  locations,  and  the
prevailing wind direction.

Method  of  Production  - The method should be best suited to the animal
type and site location.  This involves choice between open  or  confined
housing,  liquid  or  solid  waste  management  systems,  type  of waste
management pre-treatment, good housekeeping practices, and  the  use  of
recycled water.  The above technologies are described further in Section
IV and Section VII of the report.
                                  267

-------
                              SECTION XII

                            ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The  Environmental  Protection  Agency  expresses  appreciation  for the
support  in  preparing  this  document  provided  by  Hamilton  Standard
Division,  United Aircraft Corporation which program was directed by Mr.
Danield J. Lizdas, Project Manager, assisted by Mr. Warren B. Coe,  Lead
Project Engineer.  The major contributing Project Engineers were Messrs.
Eric  E.  Auerbach, Arthur K. Davenport, Donald R. McCann and Michael H.
Turk.

Special  recognition  is  offered  to  the  consultants   who   provided
invaluable technical assistance as cited:

Dr. Dan M. Wells, P.E.
Director, Water Resources Research Center
Texas Tech University
Lubbock, Texas             (Beef Cattle)

Dr. Raymond C. Loehr, P.E.
Diector, Environmental Studies Program
Cornell University
Ithaca, New York           (Dairy Cattle)
                           (Chickens)
                           (Ducks)

Dr. Frank J. Humenik
Professor, Department of Agricultural Engineering
North Carolina State University
Raleigh, North Carolina    (Swine)

Dr. John M. Sweeten
Agricultural Engineer
Animal Waste Management
Agricultural Extension Service
Texas A and M University
College Station, Texas     (Sheep)

Dr. Joseph G. Berry
Department of Animal Sciences
Purdue University
West Lafayette, Indiana    (Turkeys)

Appreciation  is  expressed  to  Mr.  Jeffery  D.  Denit,  Chief, Impact
Analysis Branch, Technical Analysis  and  Information  Branch,  Effluent
Guidelines   Division,  who  served  as  Project  Officer  and  provided
supervision, guidance and  assistance  throughout  the  conduct  of  the
project.
                                  268

-------
Irvtra-agency  review,  analysis,  and  assistance  was  provided  by the
Feedlots Industry  working  Grou/Steering  Committee  comprised  of  the
following EPA personnel:

Mr. Ernst P. Hall, Effluent Guidelines Division
(Committee Chairman)

Mr. Lynn Shuyler, Office of Research and Development
Mr. William LaVeille, Office of Research and Development
Mr. Donald Anderson,  Office of Research and Development
Mr. Ronald R. Ritter, EPA, Region VII
Mr. Norman Klocke, EPA, Region VII
Mr. Osborne Linguist, EPA, Region VI
Mr. Gary Polvi, EPA,  Region VIII
Mr. John Rademacher,  Office of Enforcement and General Counsel
Mr. Robert McManus, Office of Enforcement and General Counsel
Mr. Harold Trask, Office of Solid Waste Management

Countless   feedlot  owners  and  managers,  university  professors  and
proponents of a  variety  of  waste  management  technigues  contributed
significantly  to the project by hosting site visits or discussing their
areas of specialty.  Although listing all of their names  would  be  too
lengthy, their assistance is gratefully acknowledged.

The Agency further expresses appreciation to the secretaries and support
staff  of  the Effluent Guidelines Division who contributed immeasurably
in producing this report:  Jane Mitchell, Linda Rose, Kit  Krickenberger
and Gary Fischer.

Acknowledgement   and  appreciation  is  also  given  to  the  following
individuals who played a  vital  role  in  the  site  visits  by  making
detailed  visit  arrangements  and  accompanying  the  Hamilton Standard
personnel and Project Officer on most of the visits:

Brad Nicolajsen, Region IV EPA
Ozzie Linguist, Region VI EPA
Paul Glasscock, County Agent, Hillsbourough County, Florida
Dr. Larry Baldwin, University of Florida
Dr. Roger Nordstedt,  University of Florida
James Frank, Illinois EPA
James Hunt, Indiana Department of Health
Norman Klocke, Region VTI EPA
Gary Polvi, Region VII EPA
Norbert Thule, Kansas Department of Health
Bob George, University of Missouri Agricultrural Extension Service
Ubbo Agena, Iowa Department of Environmental Quality
Lanny Icenogle, Nebraska Department of Environmental Control
Leland Jackson, Nebraska SCS
Phillip O'Leary, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
                                  269

-------
Dr. Lynn Brown, University of Connecticut
Dr. R. G. Light, University of Massachusetts
Dr. W. Urban, Cornell University Duck Research Facility
Ken Johanson, Cornell University Duck Research Facility
                                  270

-------
                        SECTION XIII

                         REFERENCES

                      STATISTICAL DATA

1.    Milk - Production,  Disposition and Income 1970 - 72,
     Da 1-2(73) ,  Statistical Reporting Service,  U.S. Department
     of Agriculture, April,  1973.

2.    Chickens and Eggs - Production, Disposition, Cash Receipts
     and Gross Income 1970-72 By States, Pou 2-3  (73), Statistical
     Reporting Service,  U.S.  Department of Agriculture, April,  1973.

3.    Changes In Farm Production and Efficiency -  1972 - A Summary
     Report, Statistical Bulletin No. 233, Economic Research
     Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture.

4.    Meat Animals, Farm Production, Disposition and Income
     1970-1971-1972, MtAn 1-1 (73), Statistical Reporting Service,
     U.S. Department of Agriculture, April, 1973.

5.    Livestock Slaughter, Annual Summary 1972, MtAn 1-2-1 (7J),
     Statistical Reporting Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture,
     April, 1973.

                      LAND UTILIZATION

6.    1973 Cornell Recommends  for Field Crops, New York State
     College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Cornell University,
     Ithaca, New York.

7.    Waste Handling and Disposal Guidelines for Indiana Poultrymen,
     Cooperative Extension Service, Purdue University, Lafayette,
     Indiana.

8.    Butchbaker, A. F.,  Feedlot Runotf Disposal on Grass and Crops,
     Oklahoma Agricultural Experiment Station, Oklahoma State
     University, Stillwater,  Oklahoma.

9.    Overman, A. R., Hortenstine, C. C., Wing, J. R., Land Disposal
     of Dairy Farm Waste, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York.

10.  Smith, G. E., "Land Spreading as a Disposal  Process", from
     2nd Compendium of Animal Waste Management, U.S. Department
     of the Interior, June,  1969.

11.  Shuyler, L.,  "Design for Feedlot Waste Management Using Feedlot
     Wastes", ibid.
                             271

-------
12.  Butchbaker,  A.  F.,  Groton,  J.  E.,  Mahoney,  G.  W.  A.,  and
     Pain, M.  D., Evaluation of  Beef Cattle Feedlot Waste  Manage-
     ment Alternatives,  Prepared for U.S.  Environmental Protection
     Agency,  November,  1971.

13.  Maine Guidelines for Manure and Manure Sludge  Disposal on
     Land, Report No. 142, University of Maine,  July 1972.

14.  Hileman,  L.  H., "Pollution  Factors Associated  with Excessive
     Poultry  Litter   (Manure) Application in Arkansas", from
     Proceedings  of  the  1970 Cornell Agricultural Waste Management
     Conference,  Rochester, New  York, pp.  41-48.

15.  Symposium on Animal Waste Management, USDA Southwestern
     Great Plains Research Center,  Bushland, Texas, 1973.
16.  Management of Farm Animal Wastes,  Proceedings National
     Symposium on Animal Waste Management,  Michigan State Univ
     E.  Lansing, Michigan,  ASAE Publication No.  SP-0366,  1966.
17.  Proceedings of the 1972 Cornell Agricultural Waste Management
     Conference, Syracuse, New York.

18.  Livestock Waste Management and Pollution Abatement, The
     Proceedings of the International Symposium on Livestock
     Wastes, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, ASAE Publication
     No. PROC-271, 1971.

19.  Proceedings of the 1969 Cornell Agricultural Waste Management
     Conference, Syracuse, New York.

20.  Management of Nutrients on Agricultural Land for Improved
     Water Quality, prepared by Cornell University, Ithaca,  New
     York, for the Environmental Protection Agency, Project  No.
     13020 DPB, August, 1971.

21.  McKenna, M. F., Clark, J. H.,  "The Economics of Storing,
     Handling and Spreading of Liquid Hog Manure for Confined
     Feeder Hog Enterprises", Proceedings of the 1970 Cornell
     Agricultural Waste Management Conference, Rochester, New York,
     pp. 98-111.

22.  Beef and Swine Waste Handling System - Land Application
     Considerations, prepared by Dale H. Vanderholm, Regional
     Extension Specialist, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa.

23.  "The Price Tag to Stop Feedlot Runoff", Beef, April, 1972.
                             272

-------
                         COMPOSTING


24.   Schecter, S.  M.,  "Manure for Retail Sale:,  The Ohio Farmer.
     October 7, 1972,  pp. 47, 63.

25.   Anon.,  "Composting:   One Solution to Feedlot Waste Disposal",
     Feedlot Management,  May, 1972, pp. 32,  33,  36, 43.

26.   Martin, J. H.,  Decker,  M.,  Das, K. C.,  "Windrow Composting
     of Swine Wastes", Proceedings of the 1972 Cornell Agricultural
     Waste Management  Conference, Syracuse,  New York, pp. 159-172.

27.   Willson, G. B.,  Hummel, J.  W. "Aeration - Rates for Rapid
     Composting of Dairy Manure", ibid., pp. 145-158.

28.   Grimm,  A., "Dairy Manure Waste Handling Systems", ibid.,
     pp. 125-144.

29.   Snell,  J. R., A New Economic Approach to the Treatment and
     Utilization of Cattle Feedlot Wastes, Report - Cobey Environ-
     mental Controls Company Inc., Crestline, Ohio.

30.   Gunnerson, C. G., Demonstration of Composting Dairy Manures
     in Chino, California, Report - Terex Division General
     Motors Corporation,  Hudson, Ohio.

31.   Caller, W. S.,  Davey, C. B., "High Rate Poultry Manure
     Composting with Sawdust",  Livestock Waste Management and
     Pollution Abatement.  The  Proceedings of the International
     Symposium on Livestock Wastes, Ohio State University,
     Columbus, Ohio,  ASAE Pub.  No. PROC. -271, 1971, pp. 159-163.

32.   Willson, G. B.,  "Composting Dairy Cow Wastes:, ibid., pp. 163-165,

     Telecons;

33.   Sawyer, J., Orleton Farms,  London, Ohio and Hamilton Standard
     March 21, 1973.

34.   Kell, W., Terex Division of General Motors, Hudson, Ohio, and
     Hamilton Standard, April 5, 1973.

35.   Kinney, G., Grove Compost  Company, Grafton, Wisconsin,
     and Hamilton Standard,  April 11, 1973.

36.   Boyd, L., Robers  and Boyd  Inc., Burlington, Wisconsin and
     Hamilton Standard, April 10, 1973.
                             273

-------
                         DEHYDRATION


37.  Flegal,  C.  J.,  Zindel,  H.  C.,  "Dehydrated Poultry Waste
     (DPW)  as a  Feedstuff in Poultry Rations", Livestock Waste
     Management  and  Pollution Abatement/  The Proceedings of the
     International  Symposium on Livestock Wastes,  Ohio State
     University, Columbus,  Ohio, ASAE Publication  No.  PROC -271,
     1971,  pp.  305-307.

38.  Bucholtz,  H. F.,  Henderson, H.  E.,  Thomas, J. W., Zindel,
     H.  D., "Dried Animal Waste as  a Protein Supplement for
     Ruminants", ibid.,  pp.  308-310.

39   Hodgetts,  B.,  "The  Effects of  Including Dried Poultry Waste
     in  the Feed of  Laying Hens", ibid.,  pp. 311-318.

40   Surbrook,  T. C.,  Sheppard, C.  C., Boyd, J. S., Zindel, H. C.,
     Flegal,  C.  J.,  "Drying Poultry Waste",  ibid., pp. 192-194.

41.  Berdgoll,  J. F.,  "Drying Poultry Manure and Refeeding the
     End Product",  Proceedings of the 1972 Cornell Agricultural
     Waste Management Conference, Syracuse,  New York,  pp. 289-294.

42.  Flegal,  C.  J.,  Sheppard, C. C., Dorn, D.  A.,  "The Effects of
     Continuous  Recycling and Storage on Nutrient  Quality of
     Dehydrated  Poultry  Waste (DPW)", ibid., pp. 295-300.

43.  Nesheim, M. C., "Evaluation of Dehydrated Poultry Manure
     as  a Potential  Poultry Feed Ingredient",  ibid., pp. 301-310.

44.  Bucholtz,  H. F.,  Henderson, H.  E.,  Flegal, C. J., Zindel, H. C.,
     "Dried Poultry  Waste as a Protein Source for  Feedlot Cattle",
     Michigan State  University.  Publication AH-BC0700.

45.  Johansen,  V.,  "Recycling of Dehydrated Poultry Manure as a
     Feed Component  in Cattle Rations",  A/S ATLAS, Copenhagen,
     Denmark.

46.  Typical Operating Data and Production Costs of Rotary Manure
     Drier in United Kingdon, 20,000 to 40,000 Bird Capacity.
     Colman Corp.,  Rotary Organic Manure Dryer, November 1969.

47.  Kiesner, J., "F.D.A. Will Develop Policy on Poultry Waste
     for Rations",  Feedstuffs, Date unknown.

48.  Technical Statistics for OPCCO Organic Waste  Conversion  Dryer,
     Organic Pollution Control Corporation,  Grand Haven, Michigan,
     December 9, 1971.
                           274

-------
49.  Drying and Processing Machinery,  American Dryer and
     Equipment Co., Chicago, Illinois

50.  Jensen EQuipment News, Jensen Fabricating Engineers, Inc.,
     Rockfall, Connecticut.

51.  Ovens and Drying Equipment, AER Corporation, Ramsey, New
     Jersey, Bulletin No. 7B.
52.  Rotary Equipment for Processing Chemical Fertilizers,
     Stansteel Corp., Los Angeles, California, Bulletin Mo. 686A.
53.  Rotary Dryers,  Stansteel Corporation, Los Angeles, California,
     Bulletin No. 618A.

     Correspondence;

54.  Michelson, D. J. ,  Stansteel Corporation and Hamilton Standard.,
     May 14, 1971.

55.  Bergdoll, J. F., Big Dutchman, Zealand, Michigan, and Hamilton
     Standard, January 24, 1973.

56.  Billiard, G. A., Organic Pollution Control Corp., and
     Hamilton Standard, December 9, 1971.

57.  Michelson, K. J.,  Stansteel Corporation and Hamilton Standard,
     September 10, 1971.

58.  Michelson, K. J.,  Stansteel Corporation and Hamilton Standard,
     March 25, 1971.

59.  O'Leary, P. R.,  Wisconsin Department Natural Resources and
     Hamilton Standard, May 3, 1973.

     Telecons:
60.  Deidtrichson, H.,  Western Beef, Amarillo, Texas, and Hamilton
     Standard, January 19, 1973.

61.  Scruggs, R.  S.,  Relco Inc., Amarillo, Texas, and Hamilton
     Standard, February 6, 1973.

62.  O'Leary, P.  R.,  Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
     and Hamilton Standard, May 1,  1973.

63.  Billiard, G. A., Organic Pollution Control Corp., and Hamilton
     Standard, January 25, 1973.

64.  Michelson, K. J.,  Stansteel Corporation and Hamilton
     Standard, January 25, 1973.
                             275

-------
65.   Bergdoll,  J.  F.,  Big Dutchman Division of U.S.I.,  and
     Hamilton Standard,  January 23, 1973.

              CONVERSION TO INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTS

66.   "Enterprise:   End Product", Newsweek,  July 26,  1971.

67.   "UCLA Professor Develops Versatile Ceramic Product from
     Glass and Cow Dung", UCLA Release, July 7, 1971.

68.   "UCLA Engineer Develops Decorative Tiles from Sludge  and
     Glass", UCLA Release, July 7, 1971.

69.   "Kershaws give $5000 to UCLA for Research", Calf  News,
     February,  1972.

70.   "Feedlot Manure - The Ecology Inspired Building Material",
     Calf News, September, 1971.

71.   "Monfort Looks at Treated Manure for Tile and Plastic",
     Calf News, August,  1972.

     Telecons:
72.  Mackenzie, J.,  UCLA, and Hamilton Standard, January 22, 1973,

73.  Mackenzie, J.,  UCLA, and Hamilton Standard, April 23, 1973.

            AEROBIC  SINGLE CELL PRODUCTION (SCP)

74.  "Breeding and Training Hot Bacteria to Convert Steer Manure
     into Valuable Protein", Calf News, May,  1972, pp. 4.

75.  "G.E. Enters Manure Recycling Race", Calf News, April, 1972,
     pp. 1.

76.  "General Electric Opens Arizona Pilot Plant for Converting
     Cattle Manure to Protein Supplement", Feedstuffs, September
     11, 1972, pp. 4.

77.  "Manure is Food for Protein", Feedlot Management, October
     1972, pp. 18.

78.  "GE and The Feedlot Waste Problem", Press Release for
     August 31, 1972.

79.  "GE Produces Livestock Feed from Manure". Press Release
     for August 31,  1972.
                             276

-------
80.   Bellamy,  W.  D. ,  "Cellulose As A Source of Single Cell
     Proteins  - A Preliminary Evaluation",  General Electric
     Technical Series Report No. 69-C-35, September,  1969.

81.   "GE Opens Recycling Plant", Calf News, October,  1972, pp.  34.

82.   "Layout of Nutrient Reclamation Plant", Feedstuffs,  April
     24, 1972, pp. 4.

83.   "General  Electric to Recycle Beef Manure Into Protein Feed
     at New Arizona Plant",  Feedstuffs, April 10,  1972,  pp. 4.

84.   "An Environmental Progress Report", Challenge (Quarterly
     published by General Electric Space Division), Fall, 1971,
     pp. 18.

95.   Bellamy,  W.  D.,  U.S. Patent No. 3,462,275, August 19, 1969.

     Telecons;

86.   Shull, J., General Electric Nutrient Reclamation Division
     and Hamilton Standard,  March 23, 1973.

                   AEROBIC YEAST PRODUCTION

87.   "Microbial Protein Production", Abstract of Paper present
     at 73rd Annual Meeting of the American Society of Microbiology,
     Miami, Florida,  May, 1973.

     Correspondence;

88.   Savage, J.,  Stanford Research Institute and Hamilton
     Standard, March 21, 1973.

     Telecons:
89.  Savage, J.,  Stanford Research Institute and Hamilton
     Standard, April 9, 1973.

                   ANAEROBIC SCP PRODUCTION

90.  "Processing  Animal Waste by Anaerobic Fermentation", Paper
     presented at the 164th National Meeting of American Chemical
     Society, New York City, August, 1972.

91.  Hamilton Standard internal study of Anaerobic Fermentation of
     Cattle Wastes.

                        FEED RECYCLE

92.  "The Wittingham Venture:,  Calf News, March 1972.

93.  "The Whittingham Venture", Calf News, September,  1972.
                            277

-------
94.   "Feed REcycling Showing Promise",  Calf News,  January,  1973.

     Telecons:

95.   McCain,  J.,  Desert Ginning and Hamilton Standard,  March 22,  1973

96.   Westing, T.,  California Polytechnic and Hamilton Standard,
     April 19,  1973.

                       OXIDATION DITCH

97.   Vetter,  R.  L.,  Christensen, R. D., Feeding Value of Animal
     Waste Nutrients From a Cattle Confinement Oxidation Ditch
     System,  Iowa State University Publication A.  S.  Leaflet R170,
     July 1972.

98.   Frankl,  G.,  Masch, W.  R.,  Progress Report on  Confinement
     Feeding  Research,  Iowa Beef Processors, Inc., June 1972.

99.   Jones, D.  D., Day, D.  L.,  Dale, A. C., Aerobic Treatment
     of Livestock Wastes, University of Illinois Bulletin 737,
     May, 1970.

100.  Tanganides,  E.  P., White,  R.  K., "Automated Handling and
     Treatment of Swine Wastes", Proceedings of the 1972 Cornell
     Agricultural Waste Management Conference, Syracuse, New
     York, pp.  331-340.

101.  Jones, P.  H., Patni, N. K., "A Study of Foaming Problems in
     an Oxidation Ditch Treating Swine  Waste", ibid., pp. 503-517.

102.  Mulligan,  T.  J., Hesler, J. C., "Treatment and Disposal of
     Swine Waste", ibid., pp. 517-536.

103.  Hegg, R. 0.,  Larson, R. E., "Solids Balance on a Beef Cattle
     Oxidation Ditch",  ibid., pp.  555-562.

104.  Dunn, G. G. ,  Robinson, J.  B., "Nitrogen Losses Through
     Denitrification and Other Changes  in Continuously Aerated
     Poultry Manure", ibid., pp. 545-554.

105.  Bridson, R.,  "Iowa Beef Processors Researching Confinement
     Feeding, Recycling Waste", Feedstuffs, Volume 44,  Number 33,
     August 14,  1972, pp. 35-36.

106.  Muehling,  A.  F., Oxidation Ditch for Treating Hog Wastes,
     Bulletin No.  AEng-878, University  of Illinois Cooperative
     Extension Service, August, 1969.
                              27a

-------
107.  Loehr,  R.  C.,  Anderson,  F.  F.,  Anthonisen,  A.  C.,  An
     Oxidation Ditch for Handling and Treatment  of  Poultry Wastes",
     Livestock Waste Management and  Pollution Abatement,  The
     Proceedings of the International Symposium  on  Livestock
     Wastes, Ohio State University,  Columbus/ Ohio, ASAE  Publication
     No.  PROC-271,  1971, pp.  209-212.

108.  Windt,  T.  A.,  Eulley,  N. R., Staley,  L.  M., "Design,
     Installation and Biological Assessment of a Pasveer  Oxidation
     Ditch on a Large British Columbia Swine Farm", ibid.,
     pp.  213-216.

109.  Larson, R. E., Moore,  J. A., "Beef Wastes and  the  Oxidation
     Ditch Today and Tomorrow",  ibid., pp. 225-228.

110.  Pos, J., Bell, R. G.,  Robinson, J. B., "Aerobic Treatment
     of Liquid and Solid Poultry Manure",  ibid., pp. 220-224.

111.  Robinson,  K.,  Saxon, J.  R., Baxter, S. H.,  "Microbiological
     Aspects of Anaerobically Treated Swine Waste", ibid., pp.
     225-228.

     Telecons:
112. Vetter, R. L.,  Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa and
     Hamilton Standard, March 19, 1973.

                      ACTIVATED SLUDGE

113. Kappe, D. S., "Development of a System and a Method for the
     Treatment of Runoff from Cattle Holding Areas",  Proceedings
     of the 1972 Cornell Agricultural Waste Management Conference,
     Syracuse, New York, pp. 353-365.

114. Schuster, L. R.,  "Treatment of Swine Wastes", ibid., pp.
     267-271.

115. Park, W. R., Ninth Quarterly Progress Report, MRI Project
     No. 2449-C, Midwest Research Institute, August 31, 1972.

116. Montgomery Research Proposal for Liquid Aerobic  Composting
     of Cattle Wastes  and Evaluation of Byproducts to Environmental
     Protection Agency, June 21, 1971.

117. Crauer, L. S.,  and Hoffman, B., Technical Aspects of Liquid
     Composting, De  Laval Corporation, 1972.

118. Braun, D., "Breakthrough in the Fight Against Pollution",
     Farm Journal/ December, 1972.
                             279

-------
119.  Riemann,  U.,  "Aerobic Treatment of Swine Waste by Aerator-
     Agitators (Fuchs)",  Proceedings of the 1972  Cornell Agricultural
     Waste Conference,Syracuse,  New York,  pp.537-545.

120.  Park, W., and Ellington,  G.,  New Waste Management System
     for Confined  Swine Operations,  Midwest Research Institute,
     Kansas City,  Missouri.

121.  McGhee, T.  J., and others,  "Laboratory Sudies on Feedlot
     Runoff",  23rd Annual Sanitary Engineering Conference,
     University of Kansas, February 7, 1973.

122.  McGhee, T.  J., and others,  "Practical  Treatment of Feedlot
     Runoff, Third Annual Environmental Engineering and Science
     Conference, Louisville,  Kentucky, March 1973.

     Telecons:
123. Anderson, D.,  EPA,  and Hamilton Standard,  March 1,  1973.

124. Ellington, G., Schuster Farms, and Hamilton Standard,
     December 18,  1972.

125. Ritter, R.,  EPA and Hamilton Standard, March 16,  1973.

126. McElory, Midwest Research Institute and Hamilton Standard,
     March 23, 1973.

127. McGhee, T. J., University of Nebraska and Hamilton  Standard,
     March 12, 1973.

128. Lynch, M. Jr., Montgomery Engineering and Hamilton  Standard,
     January 30 and March 22, 1973.

129. Hoffman, B.,  De Laval Inc., and Hamilton Standard,
     February 23,  1973.

                          WASTELAGE

130. Anthony, W.  B. , "Cattle Manure as Feed for Cattle", Livestock
     Waste Management and Pollution Abatement,  The Proceedings of
     the International Symposium on Livestock Wastes,  Ohio State
     University,  Columbus, Ohio, ASAE Publication PROC-271,  1971,
     pp. 293-296.

131. Anthony, W.  B., "Utilization of Animal Waste as Feed for
     Ruminants",  Management of Farm Animal Wastes, Proceedings
     National Symposium on Animal Waste Management, Michigan
     State University, E. Lansing, Michigan, ASAE Publication
     No. SP-0366,  1966,  pp. 109-112.
                             280

-------
132. Anthony, W. B., "Cattle Manure Reuse Through Wastelage Feeding",
     Proceedings of the 1969 Cornell Agricultural Waste Management
     Conference, Syracuse, New York, pp. 105-113.

     Telecons:
133. Anthony, W. B., Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama and
     Hamilton Standard, March 29, 1973.

                ANAEROBIC FUEL GAS PRODUCTION

134. Christopher, G., Biological Production of Methane from Organic
     Materials  (Biomethane Project), prepared for the Columbia
     Gas System Service Corporation, United Aircraft Research
     Laboratory  (UARL) Report No. K910906-13, May 1, 1971.

135. Substitute Natural Gas by Methane Fermentation, Ecological
     Research Associates, Inc., Lubbock, Texas.

     Telecons:
136. Ort, F., Ecological Research Associates, Inc., and
     Hamilton Standard, March 15, 1973.

                         FLY LARVAE

137. Calvert, C. C., Morgan, N. 0., and Martin, R. D., "House
     Fly Larvae, Biodegradation of Hen Excreta to Useful Products",
     Poultry Science, March 1970.

138. Calvert, C. C., Martin, R. D., and Morgan, N. 0., "House
     Fly Pupae as Feed for Poultry", Journal of Economic Entomology,
     August, 1969.

139. Morgan, N. O., Calvert, C. C., and Martin, R. D., "Biodegrading
     Poultry Excreta with House Fly Larvae; The Concept and
     Equipment", USDA Agricultural Research Service, Bulletin
     No. 33-136, Febuary, 1970.

140. Calvert, C. C., Morgan, N. 0., and Eby, H. J., "Biodegraded
     Hen Manure and Adult House Flies:  Their Nutritional Value
     to the Growing Chick", Livestock Waste Management and
     Pollution Abatement, The Proceedings of the International
     Symposium on Livestock Wastes, Ohio State University, Columbus,
     Ohio, ASAE Publication PROC-271, 1971, pp. 319-321.

141. Morgan, N.  0.,  and Eby,  H.  J.,  Animal Wastes  Aeration
     Improves Bioreduction by Fly Larvae,  presented at ASAE
     Annual Meeting, June, 1972.
                            281

-------
      Correspondence:

142.  Morgan,  N.  0.,  USDA,  and Hamilton Standard,  January 31,  1973
      and March 20,  1973.

      Telecons:
143.   Morgan,  N.  0.,  USDA,  and Hamilton Standard,  January 17,  1973
      and April 19,  1973.

                     BIOCHEMICAL RECYCLE

144.   Carlson, L.  G. , "A Total Biochemical Recycle Process for
      Cattle Wastes", Livestock Waste Management and Pollution
      Abatement,  The Proceedings of the International Symposium
      on Livestock Wastes,  Ohio State University,  Columbus,
      Ohio, ASAE  Publication PROC-271, 1971,  pp. 89-92.

      Telecons:
145.  Carlson, L.  G.,  Babson Bros. Co.,  Oakbroook,  Illinois and
      Hamilton Standard, March 21, 1973.

                      CONVERSION TO OIL

146.  Fu, Y. C., Metlin, S.  J.,  Illig, E.  G.,  and Wender,  I.,
      "Conversion of Bovine  Manure to Oil",  Agricultural Engineering,
      1972, pp. 37.

147.  Appell, H. R., Fu, Y.  C.,  Friedman,  S.,  Yavorsky,  P.  M.,  and
      Wender, I.,  Converting Organic Wastes  to Oil, U.S. Dept.
      of the Interior, Bureau of Mines,  Report of Investigations
      7560, 1971.

      Telecons:
148.  Appell, R. R., U.S. Bureau of Mines, and Hamilton Standard,
      March 2, 1973.

                        GASIFICATION

149.  Halligan, J. E., and Sweazy, R. M.,  Thermochemical Evaluation
      of Bovine Waste Conversion Processing, Texas Tech. University,
      Lubbock, Texas.

150.  "Another Possible Process for Manure", Calf News, January, 1973

151.  Conversion of Cattle Feed Wastes to Ammonia Synthesis Gas,
      Texas Tech. University, Lubbock, Texas, February, 1972,
      Application to U.S. Dept. of the Interior for Research,
      Development and Demonstration Grant.
                             282

-------
      Correspondence;

152.  Halligan,  J.  E., Texas Tech.  University,  Lubbock,  Texas,
      and Hamilton Standard, December 19,  1972.

153.  Halligan,  J.  E., Texas Tech.  University,  Lubbock,  Texas,
      and Hamilton Standard, January 26,  1973.

                          PYROLYSIS

154.  Garner, W.,  and others, "Pyrolysis  as a Method of  Disposal
      of Cattle  Feedlot Wastes",  Proceedings of the 1972 Cornell
      Agricultural Waste Management Conference, Syracuse, New
      York, pp.  101-125.

155.  Midwest Research Institute:  The Disposal of Cattle Feedlot
      Wastes by  Pyrolysis, EPA-R2-73-096,  January, 1973.

156.  White, R.  K., and Taiganides, E. P., "Pyrolysis of Livestock
      Wastes", Livestock Waste Management and Pollution  Abatement,
      The Proceedings of the International Symposium on  Livestock
      Wastes, Ohio State University, Columbus,  Ohio, ASAE Publication
      PROC-271,  1971,  pp. 190-192.

157.  Mallan, G. M., and Finney,  C. S., "New Techiques in the
      Pyrolysis  of Solid Wastes", AIChE paper for 73rd Annual
      Meeting, August, 1972.

158.  McCain, J.,  News Release, County of San Diego, Sept. 14,  1972.

159.  Elkins, B.,  News Release, County of San Diego.

160.  "Incinerator May Solve Plastic Problem",  Technology
      Forecasts, PWG Publications,  September, 1970.

161.  Sanner, W. S., and others,  Conversion of Municipal and
      Industrial Refuse into Useful Materials by Pyrolysis,
      U.S. Dept. of the Interior, August,  1970.

162.  Grimm, A., "Dairy Manure Waste Handling Systems",  Procedings
      of the 1972  Cornell Agricultural Waste Management  Conference,
      Syracuse,  New York, pp. 125-145.

      Correspondence;

163.  Green, G.  T., (AiResearch Mfg. Co.)  and Hamilton Standard.

164.  Willard, K.,  (EPA) and Hamilton Standard, March 22, 1973.
                           283

-------
      Telecons;

165.  Willard,  K.,  EPA,  and Hamilton Standard,  March 5,  1973.

166.  Mallan,  G.  S.,  Garrett Corp.,  and Hamilton Standard,
      March 5,  1973.

167.  Anderson, D.  S., EPA, and Hamilton Standard,  March 2,  1973.

168.  Green, G. T., AiResearch, and  Hamilton Standard,
      February 21,  1973.

                        INCINERATION

169.  Sobel, A. T., and Ludington, D.  C., "Destruction  of Poultry
      Manure by Incineration",  Management of Farm Animal Wastes,
      Proceedings  National Symposium on Animal  Waste Management,
      Michigan State University, E.  Lansing, Michigan,  ASAE
      Publication No. SP-0366,  1966, pp. 95-98.

                         HYDROLYSIS

170.  Baccarini,  J.,  "Hydrolyzing Poultry Manure for Recycle as
      Feed", Proposal to FWPCA, October, 1971.

171.  Bouthilet,  R. J.,  and Dean, R. B., "Hydrolysis of Activated
      Sludge",  Paper from Fifth International Water Pollution
      Research Conference, 1970.

172.  Long, T.  A.,  Bratzler, J. W.,  and Frear,  D. E. H., "The
      Value of Hydrolyzed and Dried  Poultry Waste as a  Feed  for
      Ruminant Animals,  Proceedings  of the 1969 Cornell Agricultural
      Waste Management Conference,  Syracuse, New York,  pp.  98-105.

173.  Klopfenstein, T.,  and Koers, W., "Agricultural Cellulosic
      Wastes for Feed",  Paper from 164th National ACS Meeting,
      New York City,  August, 1972.

174.  Gugoltz,  J.,  and others,  "Enzymatic Evaluation of Processes
      for Improving Agricultural Wastes for Ruminant Feeds",
      Journal of Animal Science, 33:1, July, 1971.

175.  Smith, L. W., and others, "Influence of Chemical  Treatments
      Upon Digestibility of Ruminant Feces", Proceedings of  the
      1969 Cornell Agricultural Waste Management Conference,
      Syracuse, Mew York, January,  1969, pp. 88-89.

176.  Smith, L. W., "Nutritive Evaluations of Animal Manures",
      Paper from 164th National ACS  Meeting, New York City,
      August,  1972.
                            284

-------
177.  Elmund, K. G.,  and otners, "Enzyme - Facilitated Microbial
      Decomposition of Cattle Feedlot Manure", Livestock Waste
      Management and Pollution Abatement, The Proceedings of the
      International Symposium on Livestock Wastes, Ohio State
      University, Columbus, Ohio, ASAE Publication PROC -271,
      1971, pp. 174-176.

178.  "Incresing Value of High Fiber Wastes", Calt News, April, 1972

      Telecons:

179.  Baccarini, J.,  True Fresh Farms, Jones, Oklahoma and
      Hamilton Standard, February 23, 1973.

180.  Lomen, J., OPCCO, and Hamilton Standarrd, February 26, 1973.

181.  Mulkey, L., EPA, and Hamilton Standard, March 1, 1973.

182.  Long, T., Penn. State University, and Hamilton Standard,
      March 21, 1973.

183.  Moyer, C., North Bend Hide Co., and Hamilton Standard,
      March 27, 1973.

184.  Flickinger, H., Byproducts, Inc., and Hamilton Standard,
      March 27, 1973.

185.  Klopfenstein, T., University of Nebraska, and Hamilton
      Standard, March 7, 1973.

186.  Smith, L., USDA, and Hamilton Standard, March 17, 1973.

                     CHEMICAL EXTRACTION

      Correspondence;

187.  Olson, R., (Manager, Environmental Protection Systems, Boeing)
      and Hamilton Standard, forwarding information on Poultry
      Food Recovery System, March 22, 1973.

      Telecons:
188.  Olson, R., (Boeing)  and Hamilton Standard, April 11, 1973.

189.  Morrison, S.  H.,  (Colorado State University)  and
      Hamilton Standard,  January 23, 1973.

                       RUNOFF CONTROL

190.  Butchbaker, A.  E.,  et.  al., Evaluation of Beef Cattle
      Feedlot Waste Management Alternatives, Oklahoma State
      University,  Stillwater, Oklahoma, Environmental Protection
      Agency, Water Pollution Control Research Series, Report
      No.  13040 FXG 11-71.
                             285

-------
191.   Gilbertson,  C.  B.,  Nienaber,  J.  A.,  "Feedlot Runoff Control
      System Design and  Installation - A Case Study",  Livestock
      Waste Management System Design Conference for Consulting
      and SCS Engineers,  Nebraska Center,  Lincoln, Nebraska,
      February,  1973.

192.   Swanson, N.  P., Jackson, L. G.,  "Livestock Waste Management
      Systems-Management and Maintenance Design Considerations",  ibid.

193.   Swanson, N.  P., "Typical and Unique Waste Disposal Systems
      Surface Drainage for a Level Feedlot",  ibid.

194.   Swanson, N.  P., "Runoff Control for a Creek Bank Feedlot, ibid.

195.   Johnson, P.  R., "Feedlot Design With the Steer in Mind,  ibid.

196.   Last, D. G., "A Review of Animal Waste Regulations Around
      the Nation", Proceedings of Farm Animal Was.te Conference,
      "Farmer Experiences, Codes, Guidelines, Research Progress,
      Equipment",  University of Wisconsin, Stevens Point, Wisconsin,
      February,  1972, pp. 10-15.

197.   Yeck, R. G., "The  Review of Research Progress in Manure
      Management", ibid.

198.   "The Price Tag to  Stop Feedlot Runoff", Beef, April, 1972,
      pp. 6-7.

199.   Role of Animal Wastes in. Agricultural Land Runoff, North
      Carolina State University at Raleigh, Environmental Protection
      Agency, Water Pollution Research Series, Report No. 13020
      OL X 08/71.

200.   USDA-SCS Technical Guide - Section IV-G, Other Lands,
      November,  1971, Nebraska Transmittal Sheet No. 85.

201.   Department of Natural Resources (Wisconsin) Proposed Animal
      Waste Managemnt Rules, Question - Answer Guideline,
      presented to DNR Board on December 8, 1972.

202.   Rules for the Control of Water Pollution From Livestock
      Confinement Facilities, Colorado Department of Health
      April 10,  1968.

203.   Anderson,  D. F., 'Implications of the Permit Program in  the
      Poultry and Animal Feeding Industry", Proceedings of the
      1972 Cornell Agricultural Waste Management Conference,
      Syracuse,  New York, pp. 27-59.
                             286

-------
204.   Agena,  U.,  "Application of Iowa's Water Pollution Control
      Law to Livestock Operations",  ibid.,  pp. 47-59.

205.   Levi, R.  R.,  "A Review of Public and  Private Livestock
      Waste Regulations",  ibid., pp. 61-69.

                            BLWRS


206.   Erickson,  A.  E., Ellis, B. G., and Tiedje, J. M.,
      Soil Modification for the Denitrification and Phosphate
      Reduction of Feedlot Waste, Annual Report of Project
      13040 FYK.

207.   Erickson,  A.  E., Tiedje, J. M., and Hansen, C. M., "Initial
      Observations of Several Medium Sized  Barriered Landscape
      Water Renovation System for Animal Wastes", Proceedings
      of the 1972  Cornell  Agricultural Waste Management Conference,
      Syracuse,  New York,  pp.405-411."

208.   Erickson,  A.  E., Tiedje, J. M. Ellis, B. G. , and Hansen
      C. M.,  "A Barriered  Landscape Water Revnovation System for
      Removing Phosphate and Nitrogen from Liquid Feedlot Waste",
      Livestock Waste Management and Pollution Abatement, The
      Proceedings  of the International Symposium on Livestock
      Wastes, Ohio State University, Columbus/ Ohio, ASAE Publication
      PROC -271,  1971, pp. 232-235.

      Telecons:
209.  Erickson, A. E., Michigan State University, and Hamilton
      Standard, February 1, 1973 and March 12, 1973.

                          LAGOONS

210.  Baldwin, L. B., and Norstedt, R. A., "Design Procedures
      for Animal Waste Treatment Lagoons in Florida", ASAE Meeting,
      Jacksonville, Florida, January, 1971.

211.  Crowe, R., and Phillips, R. L., "Lagoons for Milking Center
      Wastes", Proceedings of the 1972 Cornell Agricultural Waste
      Management Conference, Syracuse, New York, pp. 563-569.

212.  Humenik, F. J., and others, "Evaluation of Swine Waste
      Treatment Alternatives", ibid. pp. 341-353.

213.  Dale, A. C., and others, "Disposal of Dairy Cattle Wastes
      by Aerated Lagoons and Irrigation", Proceedings of the 1969
      Cornell Agricultural Waste Management Conference, Syracuse,
      New York, pp. 160.

214.  Jones, D. D., and others, "Aerobic Treatment of Livestock
      Wastes", University of Illinois Experiment Station Bulletin
      737, May, 1970.
                             287

-------
215.   Kesler,  R.  P.,  "Economic Evaluation of Liquid Manure  Disposal
      from Confinement Finishing of Hogs",  Management of  Farm
      Animal Wastes Proceedings/ National Symposium on Animal
      Waste Management, Ohio State University,  Columbus,  Ohio,
      ASAE Publication SP-0366,  1969,  pp. 122-126.

126.   Loehr, R.  C., Pollution Implications of Animal Wastes - A
      Forward Oriented View, Cornell University,  July 1968.

217.   Loehr, R.  C., "Liquid Waste Treatment - Oxidation Ponds
      and Aerated Lagoons", Proceedings of the  1971 Cornell
      Agricultural Waste Management Conference, Syracuse,
      New York,  pp. 54-79.

218.   Loehr, R.  C., "Treatment of Wastes from Beef  Cattle Feedlots -
      Field Results",  Proceedings of the 1969 Cornell Agricultural
      Waste Management Conference, Syracuse, New York, pp.  225-242.

219.   Miner, R.  J., Farm Animal - Waste Management, Iowa  State
      University Agriculture Experiment Station,  May, 1971.

220.   Mulligan,  T. J., and Hesler, J.  C., "Treatment and  Disposal
      of Swine Waste", Proceedings of the 1972  Cornell Agricultural
      Waste Management Conference, Syracuse, New York, pp.  517-537.

221.   Nordstedt,  R. A., and Baldwin, L. B., "Lagoon Disposal of
      Dairy Wastes in Florida",  National Dairy  Housing Conference,
      Michigan State University, February, 1973.

222.   Nordstedt,  R. A., and others, "Multistage Lagoon Systems
      for Treatment of Dairy Farm Waste", Livestock Waste
      Management and Pollution Abatement, Proceedings of  International
      Symposium on Livestock Wastes, Ohio State University,
      Columbus,  Ohio,  ASAE Publication PROC =271, 1971, pp. 77-81.

223.   Turner,  D.  0.,  and Proctor, D. E., "A Farm Scale Dairy
      Waste Disposal System", ibid., pp. 85-89.

224.   OKey, R. W., and Rickles,  R. N., "The Conceptual Design of
      an Economically Feasible Animal Waste Disposal Scheme",
      Proceedings of the 1970 Cornell Agricultrural Waste
      Management Conference, Rochester, New York, pp. 85-88.

225.   Person,  H.  C.,  and Miner,  L. R., "An Evaluation of  Three
      Hydraulic Manure Transport Treatment Systems, Including a
      Rotating Biological Contactor, Lagoons, and Surface Aerators",
      Proceedings of the 1972 Cornell Agricultural  Waste  Management
      Conference,Syracuse, New York,  pp.271,289.
                              288

-------
226.  Taiganides, E. P., "Theory and Practice of Anaerobic Digesters
      and Lagoons", Second National Poultry Litter and Waste
      Management Seminar, Texas A & M University, October l, 1968.

227.  Vickers, A. F.,  and Genetelli, E. J., "Design Parameters
      for the Stabilization of Highly Organic Manure Slurries
      by Aeration", Proceedings of the 1969 Cornell Agricultural
      Waste Management Conference, Syracuse, New York, pp. 37-50.

228.  "The Price Tag to Stop Feedlot Runoff, Beef, April, 1972.

229.  Butchbaker, A. F., and others, Evaluation of Beef Cattle
      Feedlot Waste Management Alternatives, Oklahoma State
      University, November, 1971.

      Correspondence;

230.  Peterson, J., Circle E., Feedlot, Potwin, Kansas and
      Hamilton Standard, December 15, 1972.

                         EVAPORATION

231.  Visher, S. S., Climatic Atlas of the United States, Harvard
      University Press, Cambridge, 1966.

                       TRICKLING FILTER

232.  Bridgham, D. 0., and Clayton, J. T., "Trickling Filters
      as a Dairy-Manure Stabilization Component", Management of
      Farm Animal Wastes, Proceedings National Symposium on
      Animal Waste Management, Michigan State University,
      E. Lansing, Michigan, ASAE Publication No. SP-0366, 1966,
      pp. 66-68.

233.  Cropsey, M. G.,  and Weswig, Ph. H., "Douglas-fir Bark as a
      Trickling Filter Medium for Animal Waste Disposal Systems'1,
      Tech, Bulletin 124, Ag. Exp. station, Oregon Suate University
      February, 1973.

234.  Mulkey, L. A., and Smith, R. E., "Inclined Plane Trickling
      Filter for Swine Waste", ASAE No. 72-952, December, 1972.

235.  Mulkey, L. A. and Smith, K. E., "Inclined Plane Liquid Contact
      Time Measure with Radiotracer", ASAh: Transactions, 15-5,
      1972, pp. 935.

      Telecons:
236.  Clayton,  J.  T.,  University of Massachusetts, and Hamilton
      Standard, February 21, 1973.
                            289

-------
237.  cropsey, M.,  Oregon State University,  and Hamilton Standard,
      March 16, 19/3.

238.  Smith, R. E., university of Georgia,  and Hamilton Standard,
      March y, 1973.

                        SPKAY RUNOFF

239.  Anon, Data Sheet on McKinney,  Texas Installation.

      Correspondence;

240.  Peterson, J.  W., Circle E Feealot, Potwin, Kansas, and
      Hamilton Standard, December lt>, 1972.

241.  Eisenhauer,  D. £., Kansas btate University, ana Hamilton
      Standard, March 1, 19/3.

      Telecons:
242.  Thomas, R. ,  Kerr Water Research Center and Hamilton
      Standard, February 28, Iy73.

243.  Eisenhauer,  D.,  Kansas State  University ana Hamilton
      Standard, February 21, 1973.

244.  Reeves, i'.,  Kansas state Div. of Environmental Health,
      and Hamilton Standard, February 28, Iy73.

245.  Peterson, J.,  Circle E. Feedlot, Fotwin, Kansas,
      and Hamilton Standard, December 15, i972.

                ROTATING BIOLOUICAL CONTACTOR

24b.  Person, tt. L., and Miner, J.  R., "An Evaluation of Three
      Hydraulic Manure Transport Treatment systems, Including
      a Kotating Biological contactor, Lagoons,  and Surface
      Aerators", Proceedings of the i972 Cornell Agricultural
      Waste Management Conference,  Syracuse, New YorK, pp.2T1-/89.

247.  "waste Treatment Unit Being Tested at Iowa State", Feeastuffs,
      August 14, 1971.

      Telecons:
248.  Smith, R. J., Iowa State University, and Hamilton Standard,
      March 13, 1972.
                              290

-------
                       WATER HYACINTHS

249.  Miner, J.  R.,  Wooten, J.  W.,  Dodd/  J.  u.,  "Water Hyacinths
      to Further Anaerobic Lagoon  Effluent",  Livestock Waste
      Management and Pollution Abatement, The Proceedings oT the
      International  Symposium on Livestock Wastes,  Ohio State
      University, Columbus, Ohio,  ASAE Publication  PRuC-271,
      19/1, pp.  170-173.

      Telecons:
250.  Miner, J.  R.,  Oregon State University,  Corvallis,  Oregon,
      and Hamilton Standard,  April 13,  197 J.

                            ALGAE

251.  Dugan, G.  L.,  Golueke,  C.  G.,  Oswald,  W.  J.,  Rixford,  C.  E.,
      Photosynthetic Reclamation of  Agricultural Solid and Liquid
      Wastes", Second Progress Report,  University ot Calif.
      Berkley, May,  1970, SERL Report No.  70-1.

252.  Dugan, G.  L.,  Golueke,  C.  G.,  Oswald,  W.  J.,  "Recycling
      System for Poultry wastes", Journal  of Water Pollution
      Control Federation, Vol. 44, No.  37  March, 1972, pp. 432-440.

253.  Bieber, H.,  "Engineering of Unconventional Portein Production",
      Cnemical Engineering progress  Symposium Series, Number 93,
      Volume 65, 19b9.

*:54.  Golueke, C.  G., "Closed waste  Treatment System for High
      Intensity animal Production",  waste  Age,  March/April Iy71,
      pp. 10-11.

255.  McGraw-hill Encyclopedia of science  and Technology, Volume  i,
      pp. 235-238.

                         REGULATIONS

256.  "Water Quality Standards Criteria Digest, A Compilation of
      Federal/State  Criteria on Bacteria", environmental
      Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.  August,  19/2.

      Telecons:
257.  Kaminski, S., New York State Department of Environmental
      Conservation and Hamilton Standard,  May 15, 1973.
                           291/292

-------
                         SECTION XIV

                          GLUSSARY

INTRODUCTION

The terminology listed herein is intended as an efrort to maintain
uniformity of understanding in terms used throughout this report.
Where applicable, terms and definitions from related rieids were
adapted.

Standard procedures determining the analytical terms defined herein
may be found in Standard Methods, American Public Health Association,
New York.

TERMS AND DEFINITIONS

Additives;  Microamounts of drugs included in a ration.

Aeration;  The bringing about of initmate contact betwen air
and a liquid.

Aeration Tank;  A tank in whicn sludge, sewage, or other liquid
waste is aerated.

Aerobic;  Growing only in air or free oxygen.

Aerobic Bacteria;  Bacteria which require the presence or free
(dissolved or molecular) oxygen for their metaoolic processes.
Oxygen in chemical combination will not support aerobic organisms.

Aerobic Decomposition;  Reduction 01 the net energy level of
organic matter by aerobic microorganisms.

Algae;  Primitive plants, one or many-celled, usually aquatic
and capable of synthesizing their foodstufrs by photosynthesis.

Alkalinity;  A quantative measure of the capacity of liquids or
suspensions to neutralize strong acids or to resist the establish-
ment of acidic conditions.  Alkalinity results rrom the presence
of bicarbonates, carbonates, hydroxides, volatile acids, salts,
and occasionally borates, silicates and pnosphates.  Numerically,
it is expressed in terms of tne concentration of calcium carbonates
that would have an equivalent capacity to neutralize strong acids.

Anaerobic Bacteria;  Bacteria that do not require the presence of
free or dissolved oxygen for metabolism.  Strict anaerooes are
hindered or completely blocked by tne presence of dissolved oxygen
and in some cases by the presence of highly oxidized suDstances
such as sodium nitrates, nitrites, and perhaps sulfates.
Facultative anaerobes can be active in the presence or dissolved
oxygen but do not require its presence.  See aerobic bacteria
ror comparison.
                             293

-------
Anaerobic Decomposition;  Reduction of the net energy level and
change in chemical composition of organic matter caused by micro-
organisms in an anaerobic environment.

ASCS;  Agricultural stabilization and Conservation Service.

Backgrounding;   The preparation of calves for feedlot by feeding
a high roughage ration from the weignt o£ from Is2 to 204 kilograms
to 272 to 295 kilograms (sOo to 450 pounds to 60u to b50 pounds).

Bacteria;  Primitive plants, generally tree of pigment, which
reproduce by dividing in one, two, or tnree planes.  They occur
as single cells, chains, filaments, weli-orientea groups or
amorphoous masses.  Most bacteria do not require light, but a
limited number are photosynthetic and draw upon light for energh.
Most bacteria are heterotrophic ^utilize organic matter tor energy
and for growth materials), but a tew are autotrophic and derive
their bodily needs rrom inorganic materials.

Barrow;  Castrated male pig.

Bedding;  Material, usually organic, which is placed on the floor
surface of livestock rmildings tor animal comtort ana to absorb
urine and other liquids, and thus promote cleanliness in the
building.

Beet Concentrate;  A protein supplement that is added to the
cereal grains or other carbohydrate source in the ration to adjust
the protein content to the desired level for the sex and age
of the animal.

Beef Yearling;   Bovine being ted for oeet between 1 year ana
2 years of age.

BOD  (Biocnemicai Oxygen Demana);  An indirect measure of the
concentration of biologically degradable material present in
organic wastes.  It is the amount of free oxygen utilized by
aerobic organisms wnen allowea to attack the organic matter in
an aerobically maintained environment at a specifiea temprature
(^0°C) for a specific time period  (5 days).  It is expressed
in milligrams of oxygen per kilogram of solids present  (mg/kg =
ppm = parts per millions parts).

Biological Oxidation;  The process whereby, through tne activity of
living organisms in an aerobic environment, organic matter is
converted to more biologically stable  (less putritiable) matter.

Biological Stabilization;  Reduction in the net energy  level,
and the tendency to purify, of organic matter as a result of the
metabolic activity or organisms.

Biological Treatment;  Organic waste treatment in which bacteria
and/or biochemical action is intensified unaer controlled conditions.


                             294

-------
Boar;  Male pig.

Bovine;  Member of the tamily Bovidae, whicn are hollow-horned
ruminants tnat have been domesticated and used ror meat and milk
and hides.

Breeding Herd:  Animals that are maintained for tne purposes of
producing offspring.

Breeding Stock;  Usually poultry tnat are maintained for production
of hatching eggs.

Broiler;  chickens or either sex specifically bred for meat production
and marketed at approximately 8 weeks of age.

Bull;  Male Bovine.

Bulk;  Fibrous portion of the ration.

Bunk Feeder or Feed Bunks;  A trough that is constructed tor the
purpose of feeding cattle.

Calf;  Young bovine, usually up to weaning or even up to 1 year
old.  May be called short yearlings.

cellulose;  Plant ceil walls that are formed by the combination of
many molecules of giucose.

Cereal Grain;  The seeds of plants that are high in starch and
eigher low or relatively low in fiber.

Chemical Oxidation;  Oxidation of organic substances without ftenefit
of living organisms.  Examples are Joy thermal combustion or by
oxidizing agents such as chlorine.

COD  (Chemical Oxygen Demand);  An indirect measure ot the biochemical
load exerted on the oxygen assets of a body ot water when organic
wastes are introduced into the water.  It is determined r>y tne
amount of potassium dichromate consumed in a boiling mixutre of
chromic and sulturic acids.  The amount ot oxidizabie organic
matter is proportional to the potassium dicromate consumed.
Where the wastes contain only readily available organic bacterial
food and no toxic matter, the COD values can be correlated with
BOD values obtained from the same wastes.

Chick;  Young poultry.
                             2*5

-------
Coagulant;  A material, which, when added to liquid wastes or
water, creates a reaction wnich forms insuluble rloc particles
that absorb and precipitate colloidal and suspended solids.
The floe particles can be removed by sedimentation.  Among the
most common chemical coagulants used in sewage treatment are
ferric sulfate and alum.

Cock;  Male chicken.

Composting;  present-day composting is the aerobic, thermophilic
decomposition of organic wastes to a relatively stable numus.
The resulting humus may contain up to 25% dead or living organisms
and is subject to further, slower decay but should be sufficiently
stable not to reheat or cause odor or fly problems.  in composting,
mixing and aeration are provided to maintain aerobic conditions
and permit adequate heat development.  Tne decomposition is done
by aerobic organisms, primarily bacteria, actinomycites and fungi.

Contamination;  A general term signifying the introduction into
water of microorganisms, chemical, organic, or inorganic wastes,
or sewage, which renders the water unfit ror its intended use.

Crossbreeding;  The crossing of two purebred animals to produce
a hybrid offspring.

Dehydration;  The chemical or physical process wnereby water,
which is in chemical or physical combination with other matter,
is removed from it.

DES;  A synthetic femal sex normone used to improve the feed
efficiency and fattening of steers.

Digestion;  Though aerobic digestion is being used, the term
digestion commonly refers to the anaerobic breakdown of organic
matter in water solution or suspension into simpler or more
biologically stable compounds or both,  organic matter may be
decomposed to soluble organic acids or alcohols, and subsequently
converted to such gases as methane and carbon dioxide.  Complete
destruction or organic  solid materials by bacterial action alone
is never accomplished.

Dissolved Oxygen;  The  oxygen dissolved in sewage, water, or
other liquid, usually expressed as milligrams per liter or as
percent ot saturation.

Droppings;  Animal waste or recal matter.

affluent;  A liquid which flows from a containing space.

Eutrophication;  Applies to a lake or pond - becoming rich in
dissolved nutrients, with seasonal oxygen deficiency.


                             296

-------
Evaporation Rate;  The quantity of water that is evaporated from
a specified surface per unit of time, generally expressed in
inches or centimeters per day, montn, or year.

Evapotranspiration;  Loss of water from tne soil, both by
evaporation and by transpiration rrom the plants growing tnereon.

Excrete;  To throw off waste matter by a normal discharge.

Facultative Bacteria;  Bacteria which can exist and reproduce
under either aerobic or anaerobic conditions.

Facultative Decomposition;  Reduction of tne net energy level of
organic matter by microorganisms which are facultative.

Farrowing;  The act of giving birth to pigs by the sow.

Farrowing Crate;  Equipment to house a sow at tarrowing time
to prevent her from crusning the young offspring.

Feces;  Excrement from tne boweis consisting of food residues,
Bacteria, and intestinal excrement.

Feeder Cattle;  Cattle that are to be placed in teedlots
for the purpose of fattening.

feeder Pig;  Pigs that are to be placed in finishing lots tor
the purpose of tattening.

Feed Supplement;  Materials included in the ration to provide
needed nutrients to balance the ration tor the specific sex and
age of the animal.

Fertilizer Value;  Tne potential worth of the plant nutrients
tnat are contained in tne wastes and could become available to
plants when applied onto the soil.  A monetary value assigned to
a quantity of organic waste represents tne cost of obtaining the
same plant nutrients in their commercial form and in the amounts
found in the waste.   The worth o± the waste as a fertilizer can
be estimated only for given soil conditions and other pertinent
factors such as land availability, time, and nandling.

Filtration;  The process o± passing a liquid through a porous
medium for the removal of suspended or colloidal material contained
in tne influent liquid by a physical straining action.   The trickling
filter process used in waste water treatment is a metnod of
contacting dissolved and colloidal organic matter with biologically
active aerobic slime growths, and is not a true filtration process.
                             297

-------
Finish;  Feeding animals to improve the quality of lean meat,
by storage of fat between the Bundles of ribers, often called
marbling.

Flocculation;  Tne process of forming ±arger flocculant masses
from a large number ot finer suspended particles.

Forage;  A crop that is grown for the feeding or the entire plant
ratner than just the seeds.

Gilt;  Young or immature remale pig.

Hatchery;  A business or building engaged in tne hatcning of chicks
or the production of baby chickens.

Haylage;  Silage made from nay.

Eeifer;  Young or immature female bovine.

Hen;  Mature female chicken.

Hog;  A domestic swine weighing more than 54.5 kilograms (±20 pounds)

Hydraulic Collection and Transport System;  The collection and
transportation or movement of waste material tnrough rhe use of
water.

Incineration;  The rapid oxidation of volatile solids within a
specially designed combustion cnamber.

Infiltration;  The process whereby water enters the environment
of the soil througn the immediate surface.

Infiltration Rate;  The rate at which water can enter tne
soil.  Units are usually inches of water per day.

Influent;  A liquid which flows into a containing space.

Inoculum;  Living organisms, or an amount of material containing
living oragnisms  tsuch as bacteria or other microorganisms)
which are added to initiate or accelerate a biological process
(e. g., biological seeding).

Lagoon;  An all-inclusinve term commonly given to a water impound-
ment in which organic wastes are stored or stabilized, or both.
Lagoons may be described cy the predominant biological cnaracter-
istics  (aerobic, anaerobic, or racultative), by location (indoor,
outdoor), by position in a series  (primary, secondary, or other)
and by the organic material accepted  (sewage, sludge, manure, or
other).


                             298

-------
Lamb;  Young or immature sheep.

Layer;  A mature hen that is producing eggs.

Laying Houses;  Where laying hens are kept.

iiiquif ication;  Any of several processes whereoy solids are con-
verted to liquids.  Suspended solids may be liquified by tne
biochemical action of microorganisms, or by the physical-
chemical process of dissolving.  Liquification is often used as
a term for the operation whereby water or agitation or both are
used to convert semi-solid manure into thick slurries or somewhat
thinner solid suspensions.

Liquid Manure;  A suspension of livestock manure in water, in
which the concentration of manure solids is low enough so the
flow characteristics of the mixture are more like those of
Newtonian fluids than plastic fluids.

Litter;   Particles of solid material, usually organic but not
readily decomposable, used as nolding for poultry.

Manure;  The fecal and urinary defecations of livestock and
poultry.  Manure may otten contain some spilled feed, oedding
or litter.

Manure Pit;  A storage unit in which accumulations of manure are
collected before subsequent nandling or treatment, or both, and
ultimate disposal.  Water may be added in the pit to promote
liquification.

Methemoglobinemia;  Nitrate/Nitrite poisoning.

Milking Parlor;  A confined sanitary area where cows are milked
mechanically.

Milo:  A grain sorghum classed as cereal grain, grown in the more
arid parts of the country.  May tie included in the ration to
replace corn.

Organic content;  Synonymous with volatile solids except for
small traces of some inorganic materials sucn as calcium carbonate
which will lose weignt at temperatures used in determining volatile
solids.

Oxidation Lagoon;   synonymous with aerooic lagoon.

Oxidation Pond;  Synonymous with aerobic lagoon.

Pasture;  An area wnere the animals are premitted to harvest
tne forage freely.
                             299

-------
pH;  The syrrtbol for the logarithm of the reciprocol of the nydrogen
ion concentration, expressed in moles per liter of a solution,
and used to indicate an acid or alkaline condition.  (pH 7 indicates
neutral; less than 7 is acid; greater than 7 is basic.)

Percolation;  The movement or water througn the soil profile.

Percolation Kate;  The rate, usually expressed as a velocity,
at which water moves througn saturated granular material.

Pig;  The young of the hog.

PIaya;  An undrained basin in an aria region that sometimes
becomes a shallow lake on whicn evaporation leaves a deposit.

Pollution;  The presence in a body of water (or soil or air)
of substances of such character and in such quantitiies that the
natural quality of the body of water (or soil or air) is degraded
so it impairs.the water's usetulness or renders it offensive to
the senses of sight, taste, or smell.  Contamination may accompany
pollution.  In general, a puolic healtn hazard is created, but in
some cases only economy or esthetics are involved as when waste
salt brines contaminate surrace waters or when foul odors pollute
the air.

Poult;  A young immature turkey.

Pullet;  An immature female chicken.

Putrefaction;  A process of decomposition in wnicn, as a consequence
of the breakdown of proteins, end products with offensive odors
are formed.

Ram (BucJc) ;  A mature male sheep.

Range;  Open pasture, usually considered to be the western portion
of the United States, where cattle and sneep are raised on native
grasses grown on rather rougn terrain.

uesidues;  Minute amounts of a drug remaining in tissue following
administration of tne drug to an animal.

Roughage;  Foodstuff high in fiber.

Ruminant;  A nerbivore that has three forestomachs that digest
cellulose located anead of the true stomach, or abomasum.

Sedimentation Tank;  A tank or basin in which a liquid  (water,
sewage,liquid manure) containing settleable suspended solids is
retained for a sufficient time so part ot the suspended solids
settle out by gravity.  The time interval that the liquid is
retained in the tank is called "detention period".  In sewage
treatment, the detention period is snort enougn to avoid
putrefaction.
                             300

-------
Seepage:  The movement of water through the ground surface; influent
seepage is movement of water from surface codies of water into tne
soil; effluent seepage is discharge of water from tne soil to
surface bodies of water.

Self Feeding:  The practice of having feed available to the
animal at all times.

Septic Tank;  A single-story settling tank in whicn the organic
portion of the settled sludge is allowed to decompose anaerobically
witnout removal or separation from the milk of the carrier water
flowing through the tank.  Only partial liguifaction and gasification
of the oragnic matter is accomplished, and eventually, the un-
decomposed solids will accumulate to the extent that solids
removal is necessary,

Settleable Solids;  Tnose suspended solids contained in
sewage or waste water that will separate by settling when carrier
liquid is held in a quiescent condition for a specified time
interval.

Settling Tank;  synonymous with "Sedimentation Tank".

Sewage;  Water arter it has oeen fouled by various uses.  From
the standpoint of source it may oe a combination of the liquid or
water-carried wastes from residences, business buildings, and
institutions, together with tnose from industrial and agricultural
establishments, and witn such groundwater, surface water, and
storm water as may r>e present.

Silage;  cellulosic material that is placed in an air-tight con-
tainer and undergoes fermentation.

Slatted  (Slotted) Floor;  A confinement system that has a floor
with openings that permit the teces and urine to be worked through
and into a lagoon or ditch below.

Sludge;  The accumulated settled solids deposited from sewage
or other wastes, raw or treated, in tanks or oasins, and containing
more or less water to form a semi-solid liquid mass.

Sow;  A mature femaleshog.

Steer;  A castrated male bovine.

Suspended Solids;  Solids tnat eitner tloat on the surface ot,
or are in suspension in water, sewage or other liquid wastes,
and which are largely removable by laboratory filtering.

Swine;  Figs or hogs.
                             301

-------
Tilth;  State of soil aggregation.

Total Solids;  The residue remaining when  the  water is evaporated
away from a sample of water, sewage, other liquids, or semi-
solid masses of material and the residue is then dried at a
specified temperature  (usually  10j°C).

Urine;  A watery solution voided by animals.   Urine contains the
end-products of nitrogen and sllfur metacolism,  salts, and pigments

Volatile Acids;  iiow-molecular-weignt organic  acids, used as
control parameters in anaerobic digestion.   A  low rigure for
volatile acids  (400 - ^000 mg/lit), under  normal conditions,
would indicate that digestion is proceeding satisfactorily.
            %
Volatile Solids;  That portion  of  the total or suspended solids
residue which is driven off as  volatile  icombustiolej  gases at
a specified temperature and time  (usually  at 600°C ror at least
one hour).

Wastelage:  A combination of manure and  forage placed in a silo
followed by fermentation.
                              302
                              Protection Agency
                  ;..-,.„ VT.;-.IOIS  t'-t^
                  C.v '- .,- * •"'""

-------