600279059
ANIMAL WASTE UTILIZATION
ON CROPLAND
AND PASTURELAND
A MANUAL FOR EVALUATING
AGRONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL
EFFECTS
U. S. £HVl..:...'.^.V'iL PROTECTION AGEKC?
EDISCH.K.J. CCS17
tP 600/2
79-059 ., DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION USDA UTILIZATION RESEARCH
SRICULTURE AGENCY REPORT NO 6
bOENCE AND EDUCATION OFFICE OF RESEARCH
ADMINISTRATION AND DEVELOPMENT EPA-600/2-79-059
-------
REVIEW NOTICE
This report has been reviewed by the Office of Research and Development and
the Science and Education Administration and approved for publication. Mention
of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recom-
mendation for use.
On January 24, 1978, four USDA agencies—Agricultural Research Service (ARS), Cooperative State
Research Service (CSRS), Extension Service (ES), and the National Agricultural Library (NAL)—merged
to become a new organization, the Science and Education Administration (SEA), U.S. Department of Agri-
culture.
This publication was prepared by the Science and Education Administration's Agricultural Research
staff, which was formerly the Agricultural Research Service.
DOCUMENT AVAILABILITY
While supply lasts, single copies may be requested from:
(1) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Agricultural and Non-Point Source
Management Division (RD-682)
Washington, D.C. 20460
To order please cite
REPORT NO. EPA 600/2-79-059
(2) U.S. Department of Agriculture
SEA Publications Branch, Room 343A
Federal Building
Hyattsville, Md. 20782
To order please cite
NO. URR 6
The public may also purchase this document from the National Technical Infor-
mation Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22151 and from
the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington,
D.C. 20402.
-------
ANIMAL WASTE UTILIZATION ON CROPLAND
AND PASTURELAND
A Manual for Evaluating Agronomic and
Environmental Effects
Authored by scientists of the Science and Education Administration, USDA.
C.B. Gilbertson Project Committee Coordinator
and Agricultural Engineer,
Lincoln, Neb.
F.A. Norstadt Project Committee Coordinator
and Soil Scientist, Fort
Collins, Colo.
A.C. Mathers Soil Scientist, Bushland, Tex.
R.F. Holt Project Committee Administrative
Adviser and Director, North
Central Soil Conservation Research
Laboratory, Morris, Minn.
A.P. Barnett Agricultural Engineer, Watkinsville, Ga.
T.M. McCalla Supervisory Microbiologist, Lincoln, Neb.
C.A. Onstad Agricultural Engineer, Morris, Minn.
R.A. Young Agricultural Engineer, Morris, Minn.
Economic aspects were authored by L.A. Christensen, Agricultural Economist, Broomall,
Pa., and D.L. Van Dyne, Agricultural Economist, Washington, D.C., of the Economics,
Statistics, and Cooperatives Service, USDA.
Prepared under an Interagency Agreement with the Office of Research and Develop-
ment, EPA. L.R. Shuyler, Ada, Okla., was the Project Director.
OCTOBER 1979
U S. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION USDA UTILIZATION RESEARCH
AGRICULTURE AGENCY REPORT NO 6
SCIENCE AND EDUCATION OFFICE OF RESEARCH
ADMINISTRATION AND DEVELOPMENT EPA-600/2-79-059
.7";"'; .-'; rcTiO'S AGENCY
U <4 .0 V -
SDIZ' '
-------
-------
FOREWORD
In the years ahead, U.S. farmers will have to increase food and fiber production
to meet domestic and world needs. Increased production will require use of all
available resources and more intensive management of available cropland. Existing
and new production .technology should be integrated into management systems
that will ensure sustained crop production and simultaneously protect or enhance
the quality of our environment. These management systems should include elements
that maximize beneficial use of animal wastes and minimize potential discharge
of pollutants into our Nation's waters as a result of their production or use. To
assist U.S. farmers in meeting these goals, the Science and Education Administra-
tion (USDA) and the Office of Research and Development (EPA) are issuing
this informational report.
This technical report was designed for use in the development of management
guidelines and should be used in conjunction with local expertise. The scope of
this report is limited by available information on use and pollution potential of
animal waste and is based on current understanding. The scope will be expanded
and the contents updated as additional information becomes available from ongoing
research.
This joint USDA/EPA report is published as partial fulfillment of provisions
of the Clean Water Act (Public Law 92-500 as amended by Public Law 95-217),
which reaffirms the objective of restoring and maintaining the quality of the
Nation's waters.
;<^>w— -yv^
T. W. Edminster, Deputy Director Stephen J. Gage, Assistant Administrator
Agricultural Research, Science and for Research and Development,
Education Administration Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Department of Agriculture
111
-------
CONTENTS
Page
Section 1. INTRODUCTION 1
Section 2. USE OF THE MANUAL 2
Manual Objectives 2
Manual Procedures 3
Area Planning 3
Specific Site Planning 5
Quantity and Characteristics of Animal Wastes 10
Land-Application Planning 10
Water Quality 10
Economic Considerations 10
Sample Problem 1 14
Sample Problem 2 15
Worksheet 1 16
Section 3. QUANTITY AND CHARACTERISTICS OF ANIMAL WASTES 17
Waste-Management System 17
Element Concentration 19
Runoff from Paved and Unpaved Feedlots 19
Worksheet 2 Instructions 22
Worksheet 2 23
Section 4. LAND-APPLICATION PLANNING 24
Site Selection 24
Time and Method of Land Application 25
Effect of Animal Wastes on Soils and Plants 28
Planning Application Rates 30
Nitrogen 30
Animal-Waste Decay Constants 31
Salinity Limitations — 32
Worksheet 3 Instructions 35
Worksheet 3 41
Section 5. WATER QUALITY 44
Runoff Quantity 44
Runoff Quality 48
Percolation Quantity 49
Leaching of Nutrients 49
Worksheet 4 Instructions 77
Worksheet 5 Instructions 79
Worksheet 4 80
Worksheet 5 84
Section 6. ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS 85
Producer Considerations 85
Other Considerations 86
IV
-------
Page
GLOSSARY OF TERMS 87
REFERENCES 93
APPENDIX 101
Runoff Volume 101
Total Dry Solids Transported 101
Parts per Million 101
Animal Waste Equations for Nitrogen Rates 101
Potential Nitrogen Leaching 102
Sample Problem 3 105
Sample Problem 4 115
Blank Worksheets 125
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 1. Suggested procedure for area planners developing animal waste utilization
guidelines 4
Figure 2. Manure production by livestock and poultry after losses from storage and waste-
handling systems in the continental United States, 1974 6
Figure 3. Manure from livestock and poultry which is economically collectible in the con-
tinental United States, 1974 7
Figure 4. Land resource regions and major Land Resource Areas of the continental United
States 8
Figure 5. Master flow chart for evaluating animal waste land application practices 9
Figure 6. Climatic regions of the continental United States 11
Figure 7. Average annual precipitation (in inches) for the continental United States 12
Figure 8. Components of manure-management systems used in livestock and poultry
production 18
Figure 9. Distribution of annual runoff by four-week and monthly intervals for several Land
Resource Areas of the continental United States between pages 20 and 21
Figure 10. Illustrative map for a local area and a site receiving livestock or poultry manure 26
Figure 11. Effect of applied manure (dry-weight basis) on corn forage yield (wet-weight
basis) after three annual applications on irrigated soil 34
Figure 12. Salt buildup in irrigated soil resulting from three annual manure applications.
Manure rates on dry-weight basis 36
Figure 13. Estimated annual livestock or poultry manure application (dry-weight basis)
allowable on cropland to maintain low-salinity level 36
Figure 14. Estimated annual livestock or poultry manure application (dry-weight basis)
allowable on cropland to maintain medium-salinity level 37
Figurfe 15. Estimated dilution factors for feedlot runoff water to maintain low salinity in the
root zone using a 25% leaching fraction 37
Figure 16. Estimated dilution factors for feedlot runoff water to maintain medium salinity
in the root zone using a 15% leaching fraction 38
VI
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 1.
Table 2.
Table 3.
Table 4.
Table 5.
Table 6.
Table 7.
Table 8.
Table 9.
Table 10.
Table 11.
Table 12.
Table 13.
Table 14.
Table 15.
Table 16.
Table 17.
Table 18.
Table 19.
Table 20.
Table 21.
Estimated quantities of nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), and potassium (K)
distributed or available for application to land from livestock and poultry manures
in the continental United States, 1974
Example checklist of information needed by an area planner to identify problems
and recommend guidelines to control agriculturally related, nonpoint pollution
Estimated percentage distribution of livestock- and poultry-management systems
Estimated quantities and characteristics of livestock and poultry manures produced
yearly
Areas per animal used to calculate quantities of runoff for paved and unpaved
feedlots
Maximum average annual precipitation for Land Resource Areas of the continental
United States
5
13
17
20
21
Some estimated quantities and characteristics of livestock and poultry manures at
the time available for land application 22
Evaluation checklist for a livestock or poultry manure application site 25
Most probable months to apply livestock and poultry manures to land in different
climatic regions of the continental United States 27
Selected elemental content found in common crops on an area basis 29
Estimated nitrogen loss within 4 days after application from livestock or poultry
manures with different application methods 31
Multiplication factors to adjust livestock or poultry manure quantities for nitrogen
volatilization and denitrification losses after the wastes are applied to the soil 31
Decay constants used to estimate animal-manure nitrogen availability to crops,
considering the entire cropping year for degradation of the manure 32
Quantity of livestock or poultry manure needed to supply 100 pounds of nitrogen
over the cropping year 33
Tolerance level and effect of salt on yields of crops 35
Seasonal rainfall limits for antecedent moisture conditions used in runoff
calculations
44
Estimated average annual runoff from grass, small grain, and row cropland without
applied livestock or poultry manure by Land Resource Area 45
Estimated concentrations of total nitrogen, total phosphorus, and chemical oxygen
demand dissolved in runoff from land with and without livestock or poultry manure
surface-applied at agronomic rates 48
Total dissolved nitrogen transported in annual runoff from land receiving livestock
or poultry manure surface-applied at agronomic rates 50
Total dissolved phosphorus transported in annual runoff from land receiving
livestock or poultry manure surface-applied at agronomic rates 53
Total dissolved chemical oxygen demand transported in annual runoff from land
receiving livestock or poultry manure surface-applied at agronomic rates 56
Vll
-------
Page
Table 22. Increase in dissolved nitrogen transported in annual runoff from land receiving
livestock or poultry manure surface-applied at agronomic rates 60
Table 23. Increases in dissolved phosphorus transported in annual runoff from land receiving
livestock or poultry manure surface-applied at agronomic rates 62
Table 24. Increase in dissolved chemical oxygen demand transported in annual runoff from
land receiving livestock or poultry manure surf ace-applied at agronomic rates 65
Table 25. Total dissolved nitrogen transported during maximum 4-week period or from annual
snowmelt from land receiving livestock or poultry manure surface-applied at
agronomic rates 68
Table 26. Total dissolved phosphorus transported during maximum 4-week period or from
annual snowmelt from land receiving livestock or poultry manure surface-applied
at agronomic rates 71
Table 27. Total dissolved chemical oxygen demand transported during maximum 4-week
period or from annual snowmelt from land receiving livestock or poultry manure
surface-applied at agronomic rates 74
Table 28. Potential increase in nitrogen leaching loss per 100 pounds of nitrogen content of
crops receiving soil-incorporated livestock or poultry manure or other nitrogen
source 77
Table 29. Economic considerations for assessing alternative guidelines for nonpoint pollution
control 85
Appendix
Page
Table 1. Some estimated quantities of livestock and poultry manures at the time available
for land application 103
Table 2. Some estimated quantities of nutrients in livestock and poultry manures at the time
available for land application 104
Vlll
-------
Section 1
INTRODUCTION
The spreading of livestock and poultry manures1
and bedding on land has been a convenient and
long-used disposal method that benefits the soil. For
proper animal waste management, one must consider
the application methods, type and management of
livestock or poultry, and many land, crop, and
climatic factors. This manual describes and evaluates
some of these variables.
Clean Water Act (Public Law 92-500 as amended
by Public Law 95-217) reaffirms the objectives of
restoring and maintaining the quality of the Nation's
water. Section 208 of that act concerns nonpoint
sources of water pollution such as might result from
livestock and crop production. Increased emphasis
is being placed on establishing guidelines that allow
better use of livestock and poultry manures for crop
production, yet minimize pollution problems. Area
planners are concerned with area-wide analysis and
development of guidelines, whereas farmers and
other animal producers must adjust to area-wide
decisions by choosing an effective and economic
application technology. Farmers cannot make mean-
ingful decisions until planners have developed non-
point-runoff guidelines or designed alternative best
management practices.
Area planners must first determine through water
quality measurements whether an agricultural pollu-
tion water problem exists within any part of their
area. Obviously, for areas where water quality is not
a problem, no action is needed. A scheme for deter-
mining the major water polluting sources due to
animal wastes and suggested procedures for assisting
area planning personnel in identifying problems and
developing recommended guidelines are presented in
Section 2 under the subsection Area Planning.
1 The common, collective term manure denotes the fecal
and urinary excretions of livestock and poultry as well as
those subjected to biological changes and combined with
such material as bedding, feed, soil, and precipitation. The
term animal waste has essentially the same meaning as
manure. These two terms will be used interchangeably in
this manual.
Livestock and poultry industries are a significant
part of the U.S. agricultural economy. Livestock
inventory numbers in 1975 in the continental United
States were about 11.1 million dairy cows, 43.7
million beef cows (144), 10.2 million beef feeders,
49.6 million swine (145), and 13.3 million sheep
(146). Poultry inventory numbers in 1975 were
279.8 million layers, 586.5 million broilers, and
49.7 million turkeys (4).- These livestock and
poultry void annually about 112 million tons of
animal wastes (dry weight) (153). Some of this
material is distributed directly to pastureland by
cattle, sheep, and swine, with the rest, about 52
million tons, available for collection and application
to land. After losses from the manure voided directly
on pasture and rangeland, and from storage and
waste-handling systems about 2.6, 1.0, and 2.3 mil-
lion tons of nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), and
potassium (K), respectively, remain in the manure
available for land application. (Note data in table 1
for 1974.)
U.S. agriculture uses about 9.2 million tons of
chemical fertilizer N annually (31). Nitrogen avail-
able from voided animal manures would provide
about 45% of that amount but only about 28%
after allowing for losses. The amount of N lost de-
pends on manure management practices (9).
Livestock and poultry are produced throughout
the United States, but more intensively in some
areas (126). If all animal wastes were uniformly
distributed on cropland, however, only a few counties
would have enough to meet N fertilizer needs. Where
animal production is concentrated, proper manure
management and application to land can reduce pol-
lution and help maintain ecological balance because
manures return to the soil some fertilizer elements
removed in harvested crops.
Animal manures are beneficial because soil or-
ganisms decomposing the organic matter form humus
- Numbers in parentheses refer to items listed in "Refer-
ences," p. 93.
1
-------
TABLE 1.—Estimated quantities of nitrogen (N), phos-
phorus (P), and potassium (K), distributed or
available for application to land from livestock
and poultry manures in the continental United
States, 1974i
Source
Dairy cows
Beef cows
Beef feeders
Swine
Sheep
Layers
Broilers
Turkeys
Manures
dry
weight
Mi/lion
tons
23.6
40.7
16.0
8.7
3.4
3.3
2.4
1.5
Percent
recover- -
able 2
Elements in manure
N
P
K
Thousand tons
86
5
100
64
50
100
100
64
575
890
263
521
103
92
122
52
138
370
92
220
38
68
37
20
707
807
132
358
163
68
44
26
Total
99.6
— 2,618
983 2,305
1 The United States Agricultural Census for 1974 and esti-
mates of element losses in current management systems were
used to compute the values (153).
2 Includes any areas of production where manure may be
collected for use elsewhere. Does not include manure deposited
directly on pasture and rangeland by cattle, sheep, and swine.
and release various elements essential to plant life.
The decomposing organic matter and humus improve
soil tilth, increase water-holding capacity, reduce
wind and water erosion, improve aeration, and pro-
mote the growth of beneficial soil organisms (115).
The poorer the soil, the more animal waste can
improve soil fertility.
Improper land-application methods may increase
the concentration of nutrients in surface runoff from
agricultural land. Runoff may transport nutrients,
oxygen-demanding materials, and infectious agents
into waterways (164). Excessive manure application
rates may lead to nitrate pollution of both runoff
and ground water or may increase soil salinity
through accumulation of sodium and potassium salts.
Excessive rates can also cause nutrient imbalance,
resulting in poor crop growth or metabolic disorders
such as grass tetany and fat necrosis in grazing ani-
mals (159,160,161,163).
Many interdependent variables must be considered
when developing a management plan for land appli-
cation of livestock and poultry manures. For ex-
ample, climate, soils, cropping systems, soil and
water management, and quantity and characteristics
of manures all interact to affect soil conditions and
plant growth.
Experiments with manure-disposal methods range
from applying high rates on land to treatment proc-
esses (16, 124). Many methods have not proved
economical or practical. High rates on land, for
instance, may cause pollution. Treatment processes,
while stabilizing biological properties, reduce the N
available for plants. A combination of economic and
ecological concerns, therefore, has renewed interest
in land application of animal wastes as fertilizers.
Methods and time of land application, however, must
be carefully selected to balance agricultural, eco-
nomic, and ecological requirements.
Material in this manual is based on the contri-
butions of many persons in the Environmental Pro-
tection Agency and in the Science and Education
Administration; the Economics, Statistics, and Co-
operatives Service; the Forest Service; and the Soil
Conservation Service of the USD A. The Council
for Agricultural Science and Technology, Ames,
Iowa, provided a highly professional and construc-
tive review by 14 scientists and workers in the field
of animal waste management.
Section 2
USE OF THE MANUAL
Manual Objectives
The objectives of this manual are threefold:
• Provide information for applying animal wastes
to land in terms of agronomic benefit and/or
pollution potential.
• Provide basic information to enable planners
to reduce or control nonpoint pollution from
animal wastes applied to land.
Provide sufficient information to enable plan-
ners to integrate the many variables into bene-
ficial land-application systems.
-------
These objectives will be achieved when the proce-
dures provided in this manual are used by planners
in conjunction with groups of specialists to develop
the best management practices for State and local
areas. Specialists include farmers, engineers, agrono-
mists, animal scientists, hydrologists, soil scientists,
and economists.
This manual is to aid planners charged with meet-
ing legal requirements regarding water pollution from
nonpoint agricultural sources caused by use of live-
stock and poultry manures on land // that is a
problem in a particular instance. These planners
could be directly involved in the Section 208 plan-
ning process or with other environmental planning
efforts. Included are guidelines for choosing the most
appropriate manure management practice on specific
crops and soils. It does not establish pollution con-
trol limits or specific criteria for a control plan.
Some land-application practices cause fewer environ-
mental problems than others, but it is not reasonable
to conceive of plans to anticipate all possible risks.
Because manure-management practices vary through-
out the country, no single group of control measures
can be used for every field, nor will the information
presented be useful in all areas.
Manual Procedures
Area Planning
Suggested procedures to help area planning per-
sonnel identify problems and develop recommended
guidelines are given in figure 1, table 2. and Sample
Problem 1. The Section 208 area planner must first
determine, through water-quality measurements,
whether a water-quality problem exists due to agri-
cultural pollution and whether it is from nonpoint
or point sources. In areas where water quality does
not meet minimum standards, the major polluting
sources must be determined (see fig. 1). This manual
does not provide maximum acceptable runoff values
for environmental quality. These limits are to be set
by local or other planners in conjunction with other
pollutant sources in the planning area.
The polluting sources may be point, nonpoint, or
both. This manual provides suggestions and meth-
odology for identifying nonpoint sources. Point
sources, such as large feedlots or dairy farms, which
drain directly into streams, are usually self-evident
and should be handled through existing regulations.
When the pollution source is uncertain, which may
often be the situation, the next step is to examine
the number, type, and size of livestock and poultry
production units in the area. Figure 2 presents total
manure production after losses from storage and
handling and figure 3 the amount of manure eco-
nomically collectible by county for the continental
United States in 1974. More recent county data are
not available for animal numbers for the United
States. Current estimates of manure production can
be made by multiplying local livestock and poultry
numbers by the coefficients in Appendix tables 1
and 2. County units can be summed to Land Re-
source Area size which, along with data on tillable
land use by crops, will give an estimate of the
distribution and concentration of manure. Land
Resource Regions and Land Resource Areas of the
United States are given in figure 4, and details on
their cropping are given in Austin (7). Local data
on land use can be obtained from Soil Conservation
Service and university and extension offices. Table
2 is a checklist of the kinds of information needed
by an area planner to identify problems and recom-
mend guidelines to control agriculturally related,
nonpoint pollution. Current waste handling and treat-
ment practices for an area can be obtained from
university and extension offices, and a summary for
geographic regions is given in table 3 (p. 13).
Given the foregoing information, the area planner
will be able to identify those production units most
likely responsible for a pollution problem. The
planner should then evaluate the environmental and
economic effects of alternative waste-handling prac-
tices that might be specified for these units in new
regulatory guidelines. An evaluation of the environ-
mental effects and some of the manure management
problems are illustrated in Sample Problem 1, be-
ginning on page 14.
Planners should have the goal of minimizing non-
point pollution with the least economic hardship on
the livestock industry, the agricultural community
(farmers, input suppliers, and the processing/
marketing system), and society. Farmers will view
the problem differently. Given limits on surface
runoff or the specification of alternative best man-
agement practices, they will ask: "What is the least
cost technology to obtain maximum utilization of
the manure?" This manual introduces economic con-
-------
Is there a pollution
load from agriculture?
I
Which types of livestock-producing
units contribute major portions
of the load?
(Sections 2, 3, and 4;
Appendix, Tables 1 and 2)
What alternative waste-handling systems
and practices could be adopted to
reduce the load?
(Sections 2, 3, and 4;
Appendix, Tables 1 and 2)
Environmental effects
of each alternative?
(Section 5)
Economic effects of
each alternative?
(Section 6)
Recommendations by
planning groups
Advance to Specific Site
animal waste utilization
FIGURE 1.—Suggested procedure for area planners developing animal waste utilization guidelines.
-------
cepts which need to be considered in the formulation
of animal waste management plans. However, it does
not provide for a complete economic analysis but
lays the groundwork for a subsequent manual of
that nature.
Specific Site Planning
General procedures for use of this manual to
utilize animal wastes on specific sites are shown on
figure 5. The manual contains information and
procedures for estimating quantity and quality of
manures, land application rates, environmental ef-
fects, and the nature but not magnitude of economic
impacts. Values for chemical concentrations in runoff
are based on results from small field studies, and
interpretations must be projected judiciously to large
areas. Worksheets with instructions are used to work
sample problems that illustrate methods of evaluating
utilization of poultry and livestock manures. Each
section contains one or two worksheets. Combined,
they illustrate a solution to Sample Problem 2.
Examination of figure 5, the statement of the Sample
Problem 2, and Worksheet 1 (pp. 9, 15, and 16)
will help the user understand the descriptive nature
and purpose of the worksheets.
TABLE 2.—Example checklist of information needed by an area planner to identify
problems and recommend guidelines to control agriculturally related, nonpoint
pollution
General Information
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
_What are the maximum acceptable runoff values for environmental quality?
_Is there a pollution load from agriculture?
_Is the pollution load from agriculture a significant fraction of the total load?
_Are all point sources of agriculturally related pollution controlled at present?
_What are the major types of livestock and poultry enterprises in the area?
_Which animal enterprises produce collectible manures?
Specific Data
A. Animal Data
1. Major animal types
2. Numbers of each animal type
3. Kinds of manure management
4. Amounts of manure collectible for each animal type and management
5. Kinds of changes possible in manure management
6. Changes possible in amounts of manure collectible for each animal type
and management
D.
B. Land Use Data
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
-Present land uses and maximum areas available for manure utilization
-Areas of land now receiving manure
-Common land application practices and techniques
-Common rates of manure application
-Suggested changes in practices and techniques of manure utilization
-Distances manure would need to be transported to change manure
distribution
C. Environmental Data
1.
2.
3.
4.
-Present water quality
-Water quality standards needed
-Contribution to present water quality by agriculturally related,
nonpoint pollution
-Projected water quality improvement due to change in manure utilization
Economic Data
1. Distances and costs to move and utilize manures at present
2. Distances and costs to move and utilize manures when changes are instituted
3. Changes and costs in allied and supportive industries of the agricultural
community and in society caused by guideline institution
-------
«> o
ex in
i
I
I
3
I
.9
60
.a
1
1
1
1
2
I DE1E3
-------
r—
o\
I
g
1
a
.5
o
I
I
S
.a
1
£
1
-------
-------
Consider a livestock or
poultry manure situation
(Section 2, Worksheet 1)
Quantify and characterize
manure for
(Section 3, Worksheet 2)
DAIRY BEEF SWINE SHEEP LAYERS BROILERS
(Tables 5, 6, 7; Figures 6 and 8)
TURKEYS
OTHER
Consider a change of manure
form (liquid, slurry, solid)
and pretreatment
(Section 3)
Determine agronomic application rates
(Section 2, Figure 4; Section 3, Table 7 and Figure 9;
Section 4, Worksheet 3; Tables 8-15, and Figures 10-16)
Consider:
1. Cropping system (SEA, SCS; Tables 8-11, 14)
2. Crop (Table 10)
3. Application site (Table 8; Figure 10)
4. Soil conditions (Tables 8, 11, 12; SEA, SCS)
5. Salt problems (Figures 11-16, Table 15)
6. Application time and method (Table 9, Figure 9)
Grass
Grain
Row Crop
Plow
Determine surface runoff
(Section 5, Worksheets 4, 5)
Quantity
(Table 17)
N transported
(Tables 19, 22,25)
P transported
(Tables 20, 23, 26)
COD transported
(Tables 21, 24, 27)
Determine leaching below the 4-foot
soil profile (Table 28)
Consider economic effects
(Section 6, Table 29)
FIGURE 5.—Master flow chart for evaluating animal wasteland application practices.
-------
A "Glossary of Terms" and a "Reference Section"
follow Section 6 (Economic Considerations). Par-
ticularly useful references are indicated by asterisks.
The Appendix contains complete sample problems,
explanation of constants and equations, and data on
manure characteristics associated with different types
of manure-handling systems. A set of blank work-
sheets, suitable for copying, is included at the end
of the manual.
Summaries of the remaining sections that follow
may be used to readily locate desired information
and understand the manual's content without long
perusal.
Quantity and Characteristics of
Animal Wastes
(Section 3 begins on page 17.)
Factors that affect the quantity and characteristics
of animal wastes are type and size of animal, cli-
mate, rations fed, and type of management system
(9). Because manure characteristics vary, they
should be determined by laboratory analyses if ap-
plicable local data are not available (42, 109, 112).
Animal waste characteristics are similar for the same
type of animal with similar manure management in
the same climatic region. Numbers in tables in this
manual should be regarded as guides to possible
values and not applicable to the entire United States.
The climate at the feedlot determines, to some
extent, the management system used, which, in turn,
determines the characteristics of animal waste avail-
able for land application. For example, housed feed-
lots and outdoor lots with paved or unpaved lot
surfaces with or without shelter are found in cold-
humid, cool-humid, and occasionally, cool-arid cli-
matic regions. (See figs. 6 and 7 for climatic regions
and average annual precipitation.) Local data should
be used for areas west of the 104th meridian and in
swamp and forest areas because of erratic changes
in climatological conditions. Geographic distribution
of livestock and poultry management systems is pro-
vided in table 3. Land Resource Areas (LRA's, fig.
4, p. 8) are the basis for presentation of manure-
management information. Detailed information about
LRA's can be obtained from USDA Agriculture
Handbook 296, "Land Resource Regions and Major
Land Resource Areas of the United States" (7).
Land-Application Planning
(Section 4 begins on p. 24.)
The application site should be evaluated in terms
of geographic area, surrounding land use, zoning re-
quirements, topographic features, irrigation potential,
and conservation practices. Application of animal
wastes at agronomic rates (rates that provide for
optimum crop production and that do not cause N
and salt problems) will increase soil fertility (9
115). Livestock and poultry manures also affect soil
tilth, water infiltration rates, and oxygen content.
Improper rates or application can pollute surface and
ground water and reduce soil productivity (164).
Proper application time is determined by climate,
cropping and management systems, and form of ani-
mal waste. The form (solid, slurry, or liquid) deter-
mines the method of land application. Manure should
be soil-incorporated immediately after application to
avoid excessive N losses (84, 86, 116). The amount
of N that should be applied to a specific site depends
on the crop requirement, N available in the soil, and
N losses by volatilization, leaching, denitrification,
and runoff. Salts in applied animal wastes may in-
crease soil salinity and lead to decreased yields and
soil structure deterioration in low rainfall areas (106,
107, 109).
Water Quality
(Section 5 begins on p. 44.)
The quality of runoff or water percolating through
soils may be changed by applied manure. Time,
method, and rate of application; soil type; crop; and
climate are influencing factors (124, 126).
Runoff quality is affected by the amounts of sus-
pended sediments and soluble solids transported
(164). In this manual, N, P, and chemical oxygen
demand (COD) contents in water solution, derived
from applied livestock or poultry manure, excluding
sediment, are used to indicate its change in quality.
Bacteriological considerations are not included.
Economic Considerations
(Section 6 begins on p. 85.)
Area-wide planners should carefully consider eco-
nomic and societal as well as agronomic and environ-
mental consequences of proposed nonpoint pollution
abatement guidelines on land application of animal
10
-------
1
CO
•8
I
I
.o
oo
£
vo
i
o
O
11
-------
1
s
I
i
.9
.&
o,
12
-------
TABLE 3.—Estimated percentage distribution of livestock and poultry-management systems1
Management Systems
Areas of the United States
Dairy 2
Stanchion
Loose housing
Free Stall
Unpaved lot, limited housing
Northeast and
Lake States
63
6
26
5
Southeast, Delta Mountains Corn Belt, Northern
and Southern Plains and Pacfiic Plains, and Appalachian
7
38
22
33
4
14
35
47
22
34
41
3
Beef
Breeding Stock
Pasture
Other
Feeders
Outdoor, unpaved lot without shelter 3
Outdoor, unpaved lot with shelter 3
Outdoor, paved lot with /without shelter
West of 98th Meridan
90
10
85
4
11
East of 98th Meridan
90
10
56
31
13
Swine
Pasture
Paved lot 5
Unpaved lot 5
Confined housing
Major producing states 4
25
17
41
17
All other States
50
5
40
5
Sheep
Breeding Stock
Pasture
Confinement
Feeder Lambs
Pasture
Outdoor, unpaved lot with shelter '
Outdoor, unpaved lot without shelter •
Outdoor, paved lot with /without shelter 6
All regions
70
30
35
35
20
10
Layers
Caged with dry manure-holding system
Caged with flush, slurry, pit slurry
Loose housing with bedded floors
All regions
70
10
20
Broilers
Loose housing
All regions
100
13
-------
TABLE 3.—Estimated percentage distribution of livestock and poultry-management systems'1—Continued
Management Systems
Areas of the United States
Northeast and
Lake States
Southeast, Delta
and Southern Plains
Turkeys
Outdoor or range (some with housing)
Loose housing
Mountains Corn Belt, Northern
and Pacific Plains, and Applachian
All regions
50
50
1 Based on data developed by D. L. Van Dyne, Economics, Statistics, and Cooperatives Service, and C. B. Gilbertson, Science and
Education Administration, U. S. Department of Agriculture, 1978 (153).
2 70% use stack or bunker storage; 20% use manure-holding ponds or lagoons; 10% use other methods of manure management.
3 About 40% of the units require runoff-control facilities.
4 Includes the Corn Belt and Lake States, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Texas, Kentucky, Tennessee, North Carolina, and
Georgia.
5 About 30% of the units require runoff-control facilities.
6 About 20% of the units require runoff-control facilities.
manure. Economic consequences are especially im-
portant to individual livestock producers. This man-
ual presents an overview of economic considerations.
It does not provide the detailed information or sug-
gested procedures necessary for a complete economic
analysis. A manual to be published later will link
the agronomic and environmental data with economic
information and procedures to provide the basis for
a more complete evaluation of best management
practices to reduce nonpoint pollution from land ap-
plication of animal wastes.
Sample Problem 1
Consideration of a hypothetical problem can illus-
trate points of evaluation and suggested guidelines to
cope with nonpoint pollution in a given area. Nitrate-
N (NO3-N) in a small stream draining from a water-
shed is 50 parts per million (p/m). The location is
a county in southwest Wisconsin in Land Resource
Area 105 which has sixty 100-cow dairies (see figs.
2, 3, and 4, pp. 6, 7, and 8). At 30 of the
dairies, manure is spread daily on meadows, pas-
tures, and land that was fall plowed at an application
rate of about 40 tons/acre (wet weight). At the
other 30 dairies about 20 tons/acre are plowed down
in both the spring and in the fall for corn silage.
Local planners have decided that 50 p/m of NO3-N
is too high and want to reduce this level to near 10
p/m. What can be done to reduce this nitrate level?
Are 20 tons/acre enough N for corn silage produc-
tion?
Checking with the Science and Education Admin-
istration—Extension, we find the soil is 3.5% organic
matter, which will supply about 70 pounds of N per
acre per year. Then, from table 7 (p. 22), dairy
manure removed daily is 13% total solids (TS),
which is 3.2% N. So, 40 tons of manure contain
40 tons x 2,000 Ib/ton x 0.13 (TS) x 0.032 (N) =
333.0 Ib of N. Table 10 (p. 29) shows that blue-
grass or timothy removes 60 Ib of N per acre per
year. Thus, the soil can supply the N required by the
grass. Table 13 (p. 32) indicates 50% of the N
applied is available the first year. Therefore, we
would expect nitrate leaching from meadows and
pastures where 40 tons/acre of manure were applied.
Nitrate leaching can be reduced by applying manure
to crops with higher N requirements. Table 10
(p. 29) shows that 8.7 tons/acre of corn dry matter
(grain and stover) use 235 Ib of N. Therefore, if
this high yield of corn is harvested, little nitrate
leaching would be expected.
When manure is applied at 20 tons/acre from
storage, table 7 (p. 22) shows it is 18% TS, which
is 2% N. Thus, 20 tons of stored manure contains
144 Ib of N. If we assume this N is 50% available,
then, we have 72 Ib of N from manure and 70 Ib of
N from the soil, or 142 Ib of N available. If the
14
-------
corn crop uses this at the rate of 235 lb/8.7 tons,
shown in table 10 (p. 29), then, we have enough
N to produce 142 lb/235 Ib x 8.7 tons = 5.26 tons
of corn dry matter. This indicates that little N leach-
ing would be expected where 20 to 25 tons of
manure are used on land for corn silage. If grain only
is harvested, 15 to 20 tons of manure per acre will
supply the N used.
Since nitrification is slow in cold weather, manure
can be spread on corn land in the fall and winter
without nitrate leaching. However, there may be
spreading problems on wet land, and erosion and
runoff losses must be considered. Table 19 (p. 50)
shows the total N transported from land in LRA
105 to be small, so runoff losses are not considered
a problem. Therefore, spreading on fall-plowed land
would depend on soil moisture and the ability to
move the spreader over the land without severe soil
compaction.
Perhaps leaching is the major problem in the area,
but runoff from grass is also a concern. For example,
suppose the area of grass fertilized is about 1,400
acres. The grass will discharge about 4,760 Ib of N
per year (table 22, p. 60). While this is not much
N, look at table 17: The runoff is less than 1 inch.
Using 1 inch, the concentration is 15 p/m by
spreading manure on the surface. (See Appendix
"Parts per Million" for an explanation of this cal-
culation.) If this practice were stopped, 15 p/m
from these acres would be eliminated along with the
leachate.
On the other hand, if this manure were used on
about 2,800 acres of row crop with conservation
measures, the area would discharge about 3,000 Ib
of N per year if surface applied. This would be a
net savings to the stream of 1,760 Ib of N, and
4,760 Ib if incorporated. The concentration of N in
the runoff from the row crop would be 2.2 p/m if
surface applied, and zero if incorporated.
Planners interested in evaluating manure manage-
ment problems will want to consider some of the
following items, which are discussed in detail in
Sections 3, 4, and 5:
1. Nitrogen available from manure and soil
should not exceed crop needs.
2. Manure spread daily will apply the greatest
amount of N to the land.
3. With daily spreading, erosion hazards may
sometimes be high, i.e., when ground is frozen
or soil is saturated from rainfall.
4. Surface spreading may leave manure subject
to erosion and runoff losses, and volatile com-
pounds may cause odor problems. Also N
losses from volatile N compounds such as
ammonia are usually greater with surface
spreading than with injection or spreading and
immediate incorporation.
5. Storing manure may allow leaching losses of
N and K unless it is protected from the weather
and stored in watertight bins or tanks.
6. Stored manure may be incorporated into the
soil to minimize odors and loss of volatile N
compounds, or it may be placed on meadows
at the time when vigorous plant growth will
use the nutrients most efficiently.
7. Storing manure allows more choices of crops
on which to apply the manure.
8. When N is applied at very high rates, nitrate
may leach into the ground water and flow into
streams.
Sample Problem 2
A county agent in Rock County, Wis., wants to
know if 25 tons (wet weight) of dairy manure per
acre will supply enough nitrogen to corn, the appli-
cation rate of runoff recommended, the acres of
cropland needed, and how much N, P, and COD are
lost from the application site if
-the dairy unit has 100 head of cows
-the dairy unit uses a stanchion barn
-the barn and paved lot manure is stored in a
covered bunker
-lot runoff control is used
—the land for disposal of runoff from the holding
pond can use about 6 inches of irrigation.
The agent doesn't know the nutrient content of
the manure but does know the crop is nonirrigated
corn grown for silage. The soil is a sandy loam and,
according to Agriculture Handbook 296 (6), the
area consists of glaciated plain and belts of moraine
hills, beach ridges, and outwash terraces. No conser-
vation or irrigation practices are used. The land is
fall plowed.
Using Worksheets 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, determine the
agronomic application rate, the acres of cropland
needed for manure application, and the amounts of
N, P, and COD lost from the application site.
See page 22 for solution of Sample Problem 2.
15
-------
w
0)
•H
O
0)
ft
tn
-Q
O
CO
eg
SX
fi
0
•H
4J
Id
3
H
0)
r-l
ft
O
H
B
W
W
W
X)
o
ft
g
0)
4-1
fi
0)
B
0)
Cn
(0
G
0)
in
3
id
4J
tn
•H
•p
id
0 *?
-y-
S _
~
en
o cn~t3 s eg
o-g co q sx
CO cO J?1 SX
< 2 si ^D ci
4->
rH
3
0
ft
H
O
>;
o
o
4-1
en
0)
>
•H
imate
ocation
e
(U
4-1
M
4-1
fi
0)
M
^
P
D
0)
£1
40 p..
40 6
3 4-1
0 (1)
Id
tn
S-l
0
G
id
•H
fi
en
•
-------
Section 3
QUANTITY AND CHARACTERISTICS OF ANIMAL WASTES
The quantity and characteristics of livestock or
poultry wastes at the time of land application differ
significantly from the initial values for manure ex-
creted by the animal. They are a function of the
animal type (table 4), ration fed, physical plant,
manure-management system, climate, and time and
method of land application. Characteristics include
the percent water, total solids (TS), electrical con-
ductivity (EC), COD, and many chemical elements.
Due to the high variation in animal waste characteris-
tics, it is recommended that they be laboratory ana-
lyzed prior to land application, if reliable local data
are not available. Laboratory analysis should include
TS, EC, N, P, K, calcium (Ca), magnesium (Mg),
and sodium (Na).
Waste-Management Systems
The physical plant determines the form or forms
(solid, slurry, or liquid) of animal waste. For this
manual, "solid" is defined as having TS content
greater than 20% (wet-weight basis (w.b.)); "slur-
ry" as having TS content ranging from 8 to 20%;
and "liquid" as having TS content less than 8%.
Manures having high fiber content cannot be pumped
as liquids.
Figure 8 illustrates the subsystems for solid-,
slurry-, and liquid-manure management. Systems for
handling solids are typically used in outdoor beef
cattle, dairy, sheep, and swine units; in poultry units
using the dry-litter, and deep-pit, compost methods;
and in confined-housing units using bedding or solids
separation by mechanical means. Slurry systems are
used in dairy, beef, and swine confined-feeding units;
in dairy-resting areas with slotted floors or paved
areas which are scraped regularly; and in buildings
using gutter cleaners with or without bedding. Liquid
systems are found in production units that have flush
systems, oxidation ditches, oxidation ponds, lagoons,
holding ponds, and runoff control for outdoor paved
or unpaved feedlots. Table 3 (p. 13) summarizes
TABLE 4.—Estimated quantities and constituents of livestock and poultry manures produced yearly1
Animal
type
Manure quantity
Total
Volume Weight per solids N2
per animal-year content
year
Quantity per animal-year
K
Fe Zn Mn Cu Ca Na Mg As COD
Gal
Pounds
Dairy
Beef
Swine
Sheep
Layers 5
Broilers 5
Turkeys 5
3,614
1,614
548
168
986
657
2,446
net
14.94
6.7
2.38
.73
3.86
2.62
10.22
w/^K
1.89
.77
.21
.18
.96
.65
2.55
12.7
1.6
9.2
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
123
61
32
16
94
78
304
21
18
7.4
3.7
40
22
84
98
39
11
11
40
25
99
1.7 0.30
2.0 .20
.35 2.1
NA* NA
3.9 .88
12 3.6
45 14
0.41
.20
.84
NA
.79
.31
1.2
0.07 72
.03 11.5
.15 11
NA 1.0
.29 170
.06 91
.25 355
15
4.2
1.9
.78
18
9.2
36
22
5.7
2.9
.78
13
9.2
36
0
0
30
0
0
.30
0
3,340
1,510
416
431
1,741
1,183
4,599
1 Manure production was derived from ASAE Standards (5) Midwest Plan Service (86), and Gilbertson et al (44). The
values are commonly used for calculating storage volume and equipment requirements and do not indicate quantities available
for land application. Based on average animal weight as follows: Dairy and beef, 1,000 Ib; swine, 200 Ib; sheep, 100 Ib; layers, 4 Ib;
broilers, 2 Ib; and turkeys, 10 Ib. These values do not include bedding or other materials such as spilled feed, soil, or water from pre-
cipitation. Neither do they reflect the decomposition processes that start as soon as the manure is voided by the animal.
2 Nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), potassium (K), iron (Fe), zinc (Zn), manganese (Mn), copper (Cu), calcium (Ca), sodium (Na),
magnesium (Mg), arsenic (As), and chemical oxygen demand (COD).
3 May contain up to 0.04 Ib per animal per year when As is a feed additive.
4 Not available.
5 Per 100 birds.
17
-------
sseaojd
spmbr].
TJ
'5
cr
LLJ
OC
D
O
Q.
CL
LU
LLI
I
LU
inement ba
tted loor
rete
lots
o
o
ved
ed
pa
scrape
oo
ily
Confi
Sla
Scr
Outd
Dai
LLI
LU
m
%,
DC
O)
'53
o
>.
o
g
'*
3
E
3
•o
-s
T3
O
to
O CO
CO 0-
a '
g
o m
Concrete pit
S tructure
orage
Tank
Pond
Tank wagon
•o
C
.2
' D.
O
O
Mounds
Storage
Earth
Wood
Concr
Roofed
de
r
Tractor sprea
Rear discha
Flail spread
18
-------
general categories for manure-management systems
for each animal type.
Quantities of material vary because dilution water,
wash water, evaporation, or debris (bedding, spilled
feed, or soil) may alter the initial volume. The
amount of water or bedding needed to change the
form of manure to liquid or solid can be calculated
from data in the Midwest Plan Service Handbook 18
(86). Total solids available for land application may
decrease due to biological degradation of organic
matter, seepage losses from storage facilities, and
runoff from outdoor lots (1, 28, 34, 35, 49). In this
manual, manure quantities are expressed as total
solids (either dry- or wet-weight basis) or by
volume.
Element Concentration
Concentration of elements in livestock and poultry
manures may be expressed in pounds per animal-day
or animal-year, pounds per ton (dry or wet basis),
pounds per acre-inch, pounds per cubic foot, percent,
parts per million, etc. In other references, concentra-
tions may be expressed on a percent wet- (% w.b.)
or dry-weight basis ( % d.b.).
Element concentrations (% d.b.) vary widely be-
cause they are the ratio of element to total solids
(E:TS). As TS content decreases, generally E:TS
increases. As TS increases, E:TS changes in relation
to the composition of the incorporated debris.
Nitrogen content of animal wastes is dependent on
the animal type, ration fed, the management system,
and the amount of debris mixed in the manure. The
N remaining in animal waste after land application
varies because N is subject to volatilization, leaching,
and runoff losses. Nitrogen is expressed as total N in
this manual. When manure decomposes in anaerobic
lagoons, holding ponds, and other anaerobic storage
structures, ammonia-N (NH3-N) is formed (69,
117). Nitrite and NO3-N are formed when manure
is oxidized in oxidation ditches or aeration ponds
(157).
Phosphorus exists in various forms in livestock and
poultry manures. In this manual, phosphorus is ex-
pressed as a total P.3 About 75 to 80% of the P
in manures is available to plants (96). Unlike N, P
and other elements usually remain in the manures
because they are not subject to significant volatiliza-
tion. Some water-soluble P may be lost by seepage
and runoff, however.
Potassium is expressed as total K4 in this manual.
Seventy percent or more of the K voided by livestock
and poultry is in urine; therefore, seepage and runoff
losses may be high.
Other chemical elements are important even
though present in smaller amounts. Ration composi-
tion largely determines the concentration of elements
in manures. For example, because a high level of
calcium (Ca) is fed to poultry (and in some in-
stances to dairy cattle), its concentration in the
manure is high. Because low levels of arsenic (As)
and copper (Cu) are fed to broilers, small amounts
may be present in broiler litter (103) /'
The chemical characteristics of bedding, soil, or
other incorporated materials influence the concen-
tration of elements in the manure. Appendix Tables
1 and 2 show the quantities of collectible manure
and the expected ranges in element content. // reli-
able local data are not available, laboratory analysis
is recommended for all manures before land applica-
tion. Care is necessary in order to get representative
samples for analysis (112).
Runoff from Paved and Unpaved
Feedlots
The United States was divided into eight climatic
regions based on temperature and precipitation (fig.
6, p. 11). Climatological patterns for local areas,
types of feedlot surfaces, and stocking density
(ftVanimal) affect runoff quantity from feedlots.
Since much animal production is concentrated in
humid regions, runoff may contain a significant
amount of manure.
Climatological factors affecting runoff include pre-
cipitation and temperature. Runoff patterns vary
widely within and among LRA's (fig. 4, p. 8). Be-
cause regions west of the 104th meridian have erratic
precipitation patterns, information should be ob-
tained locally.
For runoff estimates, feedlot surfaces were classi-
fied as paved and unpaved. For illustrative purposes
only, runoff was estimated to be 80% of the annual
precipitation for paved feedlots and 30% for un-
paved feedlots. Snowmelt may contribute up to 80%
of annual runoff in cold-humid regions and up to
30% in cool-humid and cool-arid regions (26, 43,
133).
Table 5 shows the typical area per animal in feed-
3 To convert P to P2O6, multiply by 2.29.
4 To convert K to K2O, multiply by 1.2.
5 A mixture of manure and bedding.
19
-------
TABLE 5.—Areas per animal used to calculate quantities of
runoff for paved and unpaved feedlots1
Climatic area
Livestock
type
Cold
Arid
Humid
Cool
Arid
Humid
Warm
Arid Humid
Hot
Arid
Humid
Square feet \animal
Dairy
Paved
Unpaved
Beef
Paved
Unpaved
Swine
Paved
Unpaved
Sheep
Paved
Unpaved
100
1,000
100
450
20
125
20
100
100
1,000
100
450
20
125
20
100
75
600
60
300
20
100
20
75
100
1,000
100
450
20
125
20
100
75
600
50
150
15
75
15
50
100
1,000
60
300
20
100
20
100
75
600
50
150
15
75
15
50
100
1,000
60
300
20
100
20
75
i Unpaved lot areas for turkeys are 15 ft2/bird for all climatic regions. Pasture
areas are 175 ft2/bird for all climatic regions. Paved lots are not recommended
for turkeys.
lots, and table 6 shows the maximum average annual
precipitation in each LRA. By using the data in
these tables, maximum annual feedlot runoff can be
calculated as follows: (a) Find the required area
(ft2) per animal in the climatic region in table 5;
(b) find the precipitation (in/yr) for the LRA in
table 6; and (c) use the constant 0.2 gal/in-ft2 for
unpaved lots or 0.5 gal/in-ft2 for paved lots and
calculate the gallons per animal year for runoff by
multiplying the three factors together.
Total solids in the rainfall runoff from beef feed-
lots have been shown to range from 0.3 to 1.75%
(26), depending on the annual precipitation and
the moisture deficit. Snowmelt runoff solids content
is much higher. The total solids in the runoff from
such feedlots can be calculated by assuming a value
in this range based on the climate, and multiplying
by the gallons of runoff and by 8.34 Ib/gal.
Guidelines for estimating runoff and solids trans-
ported can be found in Clark et al. (26), Shuyler
et al. (119), Gilbertson et al. (40), or the local data
from Soil Conservation Service, university, and ex-
tension offices can be obtained jor specific animal
types in a region. (Derivation of constants used in
this section is shown in the Appendix.)
The solids that settle out of feedlot runoff repre-
sent only a small fraction of the animal waste on
the lot and are important, basically, because they
figure in the management of the debris basin or flow-
through solids trap. Settled solids can be applied to
land along with manure from lots or pens but are
available in much smaller quantities than solid ma-
nure. As shown in Sample Problem 2, the estimated
quantity of settled solids from runoff is 0.40 ton dry
weight. Runoff contains soluble salts, however, and
must be carefully managed when used as a fertilizer
to avoid damage to the soil or harm to the crops.
These topics will be discussed in Section 4.
Except for snowmelt, runoff follows precipitation
patterns (43, 119, 130). Figure 9 shows 4-week
distribution of annual runoff. Depending on location,
snowmelt runoff usually occurs from mid-January
through March. In some years, snowmelt runoff may
exceed the moisture content of the snow because
livestock manures containing moisture have frozen
and accumulated on lots.
20
-------
TABLE 6.—Maximum average annual precipitation for Land Resource Areas
of the Continental United States (7)
Land
Resource
Area
Land
1
2
3
4
5
Land
7
9
10
11
12
13
Land
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Land
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
Maximum
average
precipitation
Inches
Resource Region A
100
60
90
80
70
Resource Region B
1 A
30
14
1 8
lo
23
20
13
11
20
Resource Region C
30
30
15
25
40
25
40
Resource Region D
20
60
14
12
16
15
12
20
12
10
4
14
16
12
16
13
10
14
35
10
20
16
Land
Resource
Area
Land
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
Land
52
53
54
55
56
57
Land
58
en
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
Land
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
Land
81
82
83
Maximum
average
precipitation
Inches
Resource Region E
50
16
40
20
20
30
20
8
20
Resource Region F
15
18
19
20
">")
4-t.
94
z.**
Resource Region G
16
16
16
18
24
20
18
23
24
36
15
15
16
Resource Region H
25
21
25
28
30
35
23
30
28
35
Resource Region I
35
40
35
Land
Resource
Area
Land
84
85
86
87
Land
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
Land
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
Land
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
Land
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
Maximum
average
precipitation
Inches
Resource Region J
35
35
35
42
Resource Region K
25
25
30
32
30
30
30
Resource Region L
32
30
36
36
36
35
45
Resource Region M
30
33
33
35
36
36
35
40
35
40
45
40
45
45
Resource Region N
40
52
50
45
40
45
54
50
45
50
45
60
45
54
50
Land
Resource
Area
Land
131
132
Land
133
134
135
136
137
138
Land
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
Land
147
148
149
Land
150
151
152
153
Land
154
155
156
Maximum
average
precipitation
Inches
Resource Region O
50
50
Resource Region P
60
53
60
55
50
55
Resource Region R
40
40
40
35
50
45
45
40
Resource Region S
45
45
50
Resource Region T
40
65
64
50
Resource Region U
57
60
64
21
-------
Table 7 shows quantities and characteristics of
livestock and poultry manures for illustrative use in
the sample problems. Quantities are listed for dry
manure available, percent total solids, and elemental
composition. More extensive data on manures, show-
ing the effects of management and pretreatment, are
given in Appendix tables 1 and 2. Values for quanti-
ties and characteristics of animal wastes listed in
table 7 and in Appendix tables 1 and 2 are intended
for illustrative use only. Animal wastes should be
analyzed and quantities estimated prior to land appli-
cation if reliable local data are not available. With
local data, planners could estimate both the quantity
of animal wastes and the concentrations of elements
in them for different physical plants.
Manure from horses is of local interest, so data
are not given beyond the following: 9.4 Ib of manure,
dry weight, per day at 20.6% total solids; and 2.9,
0.49, and 1.8% N, P, and K, respectively, for a
1,000-lb animal. Bedding could amount to 33 Ib of
straw per day per animal. Other details on manage-
ment are found in the publication by Sojka (121).
Worksheets 2, 3, 4, and 5 on pages 23, 41, 80,
and 84 illustrate some calculations of Sample Prob-
lem 2.
Worksheet 2 Instructions
Worksheet 2 may be used to estimate quantities of
manure available for land application from specific
livestock or poultry operations. Refer to Sample
Problem 2, Section 2, page 15.
The following steps give a systematic procedure
and correspond to the numbers on the worksheet:
1. Use figure 4, page 8, to determine the Land
Resource Area (LRA).
2. Use figure 6, page 11, to determine the climatic
region.
3. Enter the type of livestock or poultry.
TABLE 7.—Some estimated quantities and characteristics of livestock and poultry
manures at the time available for land application
Source of
manure
Dairy, stored
Dairy, re-
moved daily
Dairy runoff
Beef
Beef runoff
Swine
Swine lagoon
Sheep
Hen 5
Hen litter 5
Broiler litter 5
Dry
m&nurc
avail-
able
Tons
per
1.9
2.4
—
1.0
— .
.15
.10
.09
1.0
1.2
.8
Element
Total
solids
18
13
0.1
52
0.1
18
1
28
45
75
75
N
3 2.0
3.2
40.015
2.1
40.1
2.8
40.024
4.0
5.0
2.8
3.9
N
1.5
range
- 3.9
4.001-0.86
.6
- 4.9
4.001- 0.86
2.0
4.01
.9
3.0
1.2
1.21
- 7.5
- 0.15
- 5.4
-11
- 5
- 5.0
P
0.6
.6
.005
.8
.01
.6
.005
.6
1.8
1.9
1.5
K
%
2.4
2.4
.085
2.3
.01
1.5
.025
2.9
1.4
1.9
2.0
Ca
2.3
2.3
.016
2.0
.02
2.3
.005
1.7
3.4
3.5
1.9
Mg
0.7
.6
.011
.7
.01
2.4
.006
.5
.5
.5
.5
Na
0.4
.3
.053
.7
.06
.6
.06
.7
.7
.7
.7
Saltz
11.6
11.2
64.7
11.4
62.9
13.6
62.7
11.6
12.0
13.2
10.2
1 Based on average animal weight as follows: Dairy and beef, 1,000 Ib; swine, 200 Ib; sheep, 100
Ib; layers, 4 Ib; broilers, 2 Ib. These values reflect management and decomposition effects. More ex-
tensive data on manures are given in Appendix tables 1 and 2.
2 Sum of K+Ca+Mg+Na percentages times 2 is a reasonable estimate of the amount of salt.
3 Percent composition on dry-weight basis for solid manures.
4 Percent of wet weight of runoff or lagoon liquids. Swine-lagoon water is analogous to dairy and
beef runoff.
5 Amount per 100 birds.
6 Electrical conductivity (EC) in mmhos/cm. Assume EC of 1 mmho/cm = 0.064% salt or 640
ppm (140).
22
-------
.XcoJd, cool,
(Table 7, [.age .^}
DH.tK.
Paved lot
Unpaved lot
Rjnoff (Tables S and 6, pages
20 i 21, text, page 20j
Effluent I/ . , .
Settled Solids *J
Stored Manure
Holding pond (agitated)5/
Effluent I7
tfflutnt I/
Settled Solids I/'
Aerobic Id^oon (d^itatedj *./
Effluent *J
Settled Solids 4/
Oxiddiion ditUi
pond (agitated)
LffJuent I/
Sett iej boliiii 1-''
/o.
23
-------
4. Enter the maximum one-time animal capacity
of the physical plant.
5. Enter the manure-management system resem-
bling that used in the animal-production opera-
tion.
6. Check the appropriate manure sources and
forms on the worksheet blanks. Complete the
calculations for wet and dry weights as fol-
lows:
a. Use tables 5, 6, and 7 (pp. 20, 21, and
22) to determine the wet and dry weights
or gallons of waste available per animal
per year. The form would be "liquid" if the
holding pond is agitated before effluent is
removed. The forms are "liquid" and "sol-
id" if the holding pond is not agitated and
solids were allowed to remain in the pond
when effluent is removed. Locate the area
required per animal (ft2) in the climatic
region in table 5. Find the maximum aver-
age annual precipitation (in/yr) for the
LRA in table 6. Use the constant 0.5 gal/
in-ft2 for runoff from paved lots and 0.2
gal/in-ft2 for runoff from unpaved lots.
Multiply these three factors together and
insert the answer in Column 5. Calculate
the total dry solids in runoff by using the
amount of runoff (gal/animal-yr) times
the percent solids in the runoff (estimated
for the climatic region) divided by 100,
times 8.34 Ib/gal times
1 ton
i.e.,
2,000 Ib
1,600 gal/animal-year x0.1%/100x 8.34
Ib/gal x 1 ton/2,000 Ibs = 0.0067 ton/
animal-yr for Sample Problem 2. Place the
answer in column 8. Table 7 gives the total
dry solids weight and the percent water.
Enter the appropriate weight and number
of animals in the blanks of the worksheet.
Divide the dry weight by 1/100 of the
percent dry matter to determine the wet
quantities for each animal waste, i.e., 1.90
18
tons -=- —— = 10.56 tons/animal-year
for Sample Problem 2. Multiply each weight
by the animal number to get the total wet
and dry quantities. The settled solids dry
weight can be estimated by multiplying the
total solids in the runoff by 0.6. The quan-
tities for each source of manure will be
carried through to Worksheet 3 for calcu-
lations of application rates.
Section 4
LAND-APPLICATION PLANNING
Methods of applying animal wastes influence their
impact on the environment. Applied to soils in proper
amounts, animal wastes improve soil fertility and
crop yields. Carelessly handled, they impair soil pro-
ductivity, degrade the quality of surface and ground
water, and cause nuisance complaints by neighbors.
A complete plan for animal waste use consists of site
selection, time and method of land application, ef-
fects of wastes on soil properties and plants, and
application rates.
Site Selection
Potential land-application sites must be evaluated
for distance from the feedlot or animal production
unit, perimeter land use, land-use plans, climate, to-
pography, geology, prevailing wind direction, and
cropping systems (86, 87, 119). Table 8 summarizes
site evaluation criteria. A map may be prepared to
help visualize factors affecting the land-application
site and its compatibility with the local area (149,
150, 151). The map should show distances to neigh-
boring farms, streams, lakes, cities, and/or other
facilities within a 3- to 5-mile radius. Figure 10 is
an example of such a map.
Climate evaluation requires information on sea-
sonal characteristics, precipitation, temperature, and
wind. Local climatic information may be obtained
from the Soil Conservation Service or the U.S. De-
partment of Commerce (147).
Evaluation of topographic and geologic factors re-
24
-------
TABLE 8.—Evaluation checklist for a livestock or poultry manure application site
General Information
A. Distance of land-application site from manure source
B. Distance of land-application site from waterways, urban areas, or other
residences.
C. Proposed land use
1. Agricultural
2. Recreational
3. Urban development
D. Zoning requirements
E. Expansion potential (additional land available)
Environmental Inte
A. Climate
1.
2
3.
4.
5.
B. Topographic
1.
2.
3. .
4.
5.
6.
7.
ractions
Seasonal characteristics
Precipitation
Temperature
Prevailing wind direction
Evapotranspiration
and geologic features
Land slope; slope length
Erosion
Flood potential
Percolation rates
Soil profile characteristics
Ground water depth and availability
Well locations
Land-Use History
A. Crop rotations, pastureland, forest, etc.
B. . Conservation practices
C. Irrigation potential
quires information on land slope, erosion potential,
and soil type (20). The U.S. Department of Agri-
culture (USDA), Soil Conservation Service (SCS)
may be consulted for advice or for their guide, Agri-
cultural Waste Management Field Manual (142).
Information in the guide may be used to determine
runoff, soil transport, and ground water pollution po-
tential. Additional information is available in the
manuals, Control of Water Pollution from Cropland,
Volumes I and II (126, 127). General information
on climate, topography, geology, and cropping sys-
tems for LRA's is available in Agriculture Handbook
No. 296 (7).
Time and Method of Land
Application
Proper and timely application of animal wastes is
important in minimizing nutrient losses and pollution
potential (56, 58, 84, 105, 138, 165). Time and
method of application depend on climate, cropping
system, management system, and source and form of
animal waste (table 9). Equipment and labor avail-
ability also influence time and method of land appli-
cation.
Caution should be used when applying manure to
steep, frozen, and/or snow-covered ground. When
applied to crops, such as on grass or alfalfa, under
conditions leading to maximum spring runoff, snow-
melt runoff can transport large amounts of the or-
ganic materials and other potential pollutants from
the land (29, 130, 169). Although extended periods
of above-freezing temperatures may thaw the surface
layer of soil, a frozen sublayer may prohibit water
infiltration.
Local precipitation records should be evaluated to
avoid spreading wastes when runoff or leaching po-
tential is high. To spread slurry or solids, soils must
be dry enough to support farm machinery and avoid
soil compaction. Even though wet ground does not
interfere with sprinkler application, extra water could
result in greater nutrient leaching and runoff losses.
In some regions, at least 5 to 10% of the N is lost
25
-------
General Location: Land Resource Area 106, Southeast Nebraska
Row crop L
IM
I 300 Feet i
Diversion terraces
FIGURE 10.—Illustrative map for a local area and a site receiving livestock or poultry manure.
26
-------
TABLE 9.— Most probable months to apply livestock and poultry manures to land
in different climatic regions of the continental United States
Climatic regions of the United States
Manure
form
Cold
Humid Arid
Cool
Humid Arid
Warm
Humid Arid
Hot
Humid Arid
May
June
May
June
April
May
April
May
March
April
SOLID
SLURRY
LIQUID
(RUNOFF)
Aug.
Sept.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Sept.
April
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
May
June
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
March
through
Dec.
March
through
Dec.
Oct.
Nov.
April
May
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
March
through
Dec.
Aug. Around Around
Sept.
Oct.
Year Year Year
Around Around Around
Year Year Year
Around Around Aound
Around
Year
Around
Year
Around
1 See figure 6 for location of climatic regions.
through leaching if animal wastes are applied in the
fall rather than near planting time (130).
Row-crop, no-till systems, and small grains can
receive animal wastes before planting or after har-
vest. Slurries or liquids may be applied before land
preparation, after harvest, or through pipeline irriga-
tion systems as needed during crop growth. On irri-
gated land, time should be allowed for salt dispersion
and nitrification so ammonium concentrations are
within crop tolerance levels at planting time (77, 84,
123). Small grains or suitable grasses grown during
winter reduce nutrient leaching and enhance nutrient
recovery. In areas of high rainfall, leaching may be
excessive if animal wastes are applied far in advance
of planting. Coarse-textured soils, because of high
water permeability or intake rate, accept high liquid
application rates without runoff. Since most coarse-
textured soils have a very low ability to hold plant
nutrients, animal wastes should be applied at low
rates to those soils throughout the growing season
to reduce N leaching.
Grasses can receive solid, slurry, or liquid wastes
at any time except during germination and seedling
stages. The best time is usually after a period of
grazing by livestock or following each hay harvest.
No more than 1.5 inches or liquid or slurry (about
5% solids) should be applied to pastures within a
30-day period (84). The percentages of TS and N
in the animal waste control the amount that can be
applied. Grasses tolerate heavier applications of liq-
uids than broadleaf plants, but cattle may not eat
grass coated with large quantities of their own wastes.
In warm climates, all-year pasture systems may be
used to remove maximum amounts of nutrients from
the soil and limit leaching losses.
The method of application depends on whether the
manure is in solid, slurry, or liquid form. Solids are
usually spread with rear-discharge spreaders, uni-
formly and in a single operation. Slurries may be
hauled directly to the field with tank wagons or
diluted with water and pumped to the field through
pipeline irrigation equipment. Dilution of slurry with
water to form liquid is becoming more popular as
irrigated acres increase, but dilution increases the
volume that must be handled (86). For example,
increasing the water content of a manure from 80 to
27
-------
95% quadruples the volume. Liquids can be spread
by flood, furrow, or sprinkler systems. Sprinkler ap-
plication gives the highest uniformity. Sprinkling
should be avoided on days with high humidity or
winds if odors are carried to populated areas.
Uniform spreading of slurries and liquids prevents
concentrations of NH4-N and inorganic salts that can
reduce crop germination and yields. Animal wastes
should be incorporated as soon as possible to avoid
loss of N by volatilization (84, 86, 116). Prompt soil
incorporation also prevents rain or melting snow
from washing pollutants into streams.
Effect of Animal Wastes on Soils
and Plants
Land application of livestock or poultry wastes
may alter a number of soil properties such as soil
tilth, water infiltration rate, water-holding capacity,
oxygen content, and soil fertility. Factors affecting
leaching, denitrification, and runoff losses are rain-
fall, topography, soil texture, and amount of manure
applied.
Hydrologic characteristics of the land are impor-
tant since they affect the rate, volume, and flow path
of water. Musgrave (91) classified soils into four
hydrologic soil groups:
Group A (low-runoff potential)—Soils having high
infiltration rates even when thoroughly wetted. This
group includes very permeable, deep sands and deep,
aggregated silts of loessial origin. These soils have
little clay and colloid, and the silts have enough
organic matter to provide good aggregation.
Group B (low- to moderate-runoff potential) —
Soils having moderate infiltration rates when thor-
oughly wetted. This group includes sandy soils and
silt loams of moderate depth and above-average in-
filtration. The minimum infiltration rate ranges from
about 0.15 to0.30in/hr.
Group C (moderate- to high-runoff potential)—
Soils having low infiltration rates when thoroughly
wetted. This group consists chiefly of soils with a
layer that impedes the downward movement of wa-
ter. This group includes shallow soils in all textural
classes. The minimum infiltration rates are generally
between 0.05 and 0.15 in/hr.
Group D (high-runoff potential)—Soils having
very low infiltration rates when thoroughly wetted.
This group includes soils consisting of clays with
high swelling potential, soils with permanent high
water tables, soils with a claypan at or near the sur-
face, and shallow soils over nearly impervious mate-
rial.
Soil tilth refers to the physical condition of the
soil and is used to describe factors such as aggregate
formation and stability, moisture content, degree of
aeration, infiltration rate, drainage, and water-holding
capacity. These factors all influence the ease of till-
age, fitness of a seedbed, and impedance to seedling
emergence and root penetration. Livestock and poul-
try wastes improve soil tilth and are compatible with
most soils (78,79, 114, 115, 120, 170).
The infiltration rate is the rate at which water
enters the soil. It is dependent on the proportion of
coarser pores in the soil surface, the stability of
surface aggregates, the soil water content, and the
amount of surface cover at the time of rainfall or
irrigation (54). Infiltration rate, particularly in fine-
textured soils, is increased by incorporation of animal
wastes. Although slurry applied to the soil surface
may initially seal the soil and decrease infiltration,
time or tillage will restore the infiltration capacity.
More detail on infiltration can be found in the SCS
Agricultural Waste Management Field Manual (142).
By increasing water-holding capacity, animal
wastes stimulate plant growth. For example, if the
crop is Coastal bermudagrass on coarse, sandy soil,
heavy application of wastes usually results in leach-
ing only in the dormant season. Even under row
crops on sandy soils, wastes reduce leaching and
increase crop yields by helping plants use water and
nutrients (32, 71, 159).
A soil oxygen supply is necessary for decomposi-
tion of organic wastes and mineralization of their
organic nitrogen by soil micro-organisms. However,
the high biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) of ex-
cessive wastes or the time and method of application
may lead to anaerobic soil conditions, causing NH3-N
and NOj-N toxicity to plants (80). If wastes are
applied at agronomic rates, soil oxygen deficiencies
and undesirable end products of decomposition are
minimal (100).
Soil fertility is a function of the nutrients con-
tained in soil and their availability to plants (3, 33).
Nutrient amounts needed by crops vary with species,
as indicated by the elements found in harvested
crops shown in table 10. Because some plants are
more vigorous than others in absorbing nutrients,
soils deficient in certain elements for one crop may
have enough available for another. Each fertilizer
element contributes to the well-being of the plant.
However, deficiencies or excess of certain elements
in the soil affect crop yields (94). The quantity of
28
-------
TABLE 10 —Selected elemental content found in common crops on an area basis1
Crop
Yield per acre2
N
Tons
Barley (Grain)
Barley (Straw)
Corn (Grain)
Corn (Stover)
Oats (Grain)
Oats (Straw)
Rice (Rough)
Rice (Straw)
Rye (Grain)
Rye (Straw)
Sorghum (Grain)
Sorghum (Stover)
Wheat (Grain)
Wheat (Straw)
HAY
Alfalfa
Bluegrass
Coastal Bermuda
Cowpea
Peanut
Red Clover
Soybean
Timothy
FRUITS AND VEGETABLES
Apples
Beans (Dry)
Cabbage
Onions
Oranges
Peaches
Potatoes (Tubers)
Spinach
Sweet Potatoes
Tomatoes (Fruit)
Turnips (Roots)
OTHER CROPS
Cotton (Seed & Lint)
Cotton
Peanuts (Nuts)
Soybeans (Grain)
Sugar Beets
Sugarcane
Tobacco (Leaves)
Tobacco (Stalks)
0
1
4
4
1
2
1
2
0
1
1
3
1
1
4
2
.96
.00
.20
.50
.28
.00
.80
.50
.84
.50
.68
.00
.20
.50
.00
.00
8.00
2.00
2.
2.
2.
2
11.
0.
20.
7.
28.
14.
12.
5.
8.
20.
10.
0.
1.
1.
1.
15.
30.
1.
0
.25
.50
.00
.50
75
90
00
50
00
40
00
00
25
00
00
75
00
25
20
00
00
00
Bushels
40 35
15
150 135
100
Element per acre
P
K
Ca
Mg
Na
Pounds
.00
.00
.00
.00
80 50.00
25.00
80 50
.00
30.00
30 35
15
60 50
65
40 50
20
180
60
185
120
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
105.00
100.00
90.00
60
.00
30.00
75.00
130.00
45.00
85.
35.
00
00
80.00
50.
00
45.00
120.
00
45.00
40.00
35.
90.
150.
60.
96.
75.
35.
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
7
2
23
16
9
7
9
4
4
3
11
9
11
2
18
9
31
11
11
11
9
11
4
11
15
9
13
9
13
7
7
18
9
9
4
4
15
9
24
7
7
8
25
33
120
12
66
8
58
8
21
12
79
12
29
149
50
224
66
79
83
42
79
37
21
108
33
116
54
125
25
62
133
75
12
29
12
46
42
224
100
42
1.00
8
16
.00
.00
28.00
2
8
3
9
.00
.00
.00
.00
2.00
8.00
4
29
1
.00
.00
.00
6.00
112.00
16.00
59.00
55.00
45.00
69.00
40.00
18.00
8.
2.
00
00
20.00
11.
00
33.00
4.
3.
12.
4.
7.
12.
2.
28.
1.
7.
33.
28.
75.
0
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
2
2
20
17
3
8
4
5
3
2
5
18
6
3
71
7
24
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
15.00
17
17
18
6
.00
.00
.00
.00
5.00
2.00
8.00
2.00
12.
8.
00
00
6.00
5.00
9.
11.
00
00
6.00
4.
8.
3.
7.
24.
24.
18.
0
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
0.38
2.80
0.00
0.00
1.79
14.80
0.00
0.00
0.34
3.90
1.68
0.00
2.40
4.20
0.00
0.00
0.00
10.80
0.00
7.50
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0
1 Based on values from Our Land and its Care, National Fertilizer Institute, 4th ed., 1962, pp. 24-25
(94). The values may vary with soil type, season, soil fertility, and should be adjusted proportionally
to crop yields. These values do not represent crop requirements, because additional nutrients are
needed for roots or tops not harvested and certain soil factors influence the efficiency with which
nutrients are absorbed.
2 Grain, fruit, and vegetable yields were computed at 48 Ib /bu for barley, 56 Ib /bu for corn, 32
Ib/bu for oats, 45 Ib /bu for rice, 56 Ib /bu for sorghum, 60 Ib /bu for wheat, 47 Ib /bu for apples,
60 Ib/bu for beans, 48 Ib/bu for peaches, 60 Ib/bu for potatoes, 55 Ib/bu for sweet potatoes, 56 Ib/bu
for rye, and 60 Ib/bu for soybeans.
29
-------
nutrients in a crop is always less than the amount
required in the soil (crop requirement) to support
the crop because several plant and soil factors com-
bine to reduce the efficiency with which nutrients are
absorbed and utilized by the plants.
Livestock and poultry wastes supply many of the
elements essential to plant growth (12, 24, 37,
128). When adequate N is supplied by animal
wastes, P and K are usually adequate for crop pro-
duction as well. Although the P supplied often ex-
ceeds crop requirements, it does not approach toxic
levels and has not been a problem (31, 96, 97).
Excess Na and K may contribute to salt accumula-
tion, soil structure deterioration, and, in some cases,
yield reduction (46, 60).
Manures increase the levels of available Zn and
Fe in the soil and subsequently increase levels in
plant tissues (36, 50, 88, 155). Copper levels in
plants and soils where manures have been applied
either remain stable or increase slightly (36, 47, 99,
155). Studies have shown Mn levels can either in-
crease (36, 155) or decrease (6, 49, 50, 99).
Crop yields may be adversely affected when ele-
ments essential for plant growth reach excessive
levels in soils (15, 76, 111, 155). Since As com-
pounds are not essential for plants and are relatively
insoluble and resist leaching, they tend to accumulate
in soils. Broiler litter and some swine manure con-
tain traces of As, but studies have shown that plant
growth on land loaded with broiler litter is not re-
tarded by As accumulation.
Nutrient imbalances in soils in some areas have
been associated with metabolic disorders in animals
consuming forages grown on the soils. The incidence
of grass tetany, a disorder characterized by low Mg
levels in the blood, has increased in cattle on pas-
tures where large quantities of poultry manures have
been applied. High levels of NO3-N in the soil stimu-
late plant uptake of K, but not that of Ca and Mg.
The ratio of K/(Ca+Mg) is increased, and this may
cause Mg deficiency in pregnant or lactating cows.
Wilkinson et al. (161) found that application of a
magnesium oxide (MgO) and bentonite clay-slurry
to the foliage of plants decreased the incidence of
grass tetany.
Other metabolic disorders in animals have been
associated with excessive N accumulation in soils
treated with livestock and poultry manures. High
accumulations of NO3-N in forage crops may ap-
proach toxic levels (110, 155, 162). High N ferti-
lization of tall fescue, regardless of N source, has
been associated with increased incidence of fat necro-
sis, which is the occurrence of hard, fat lesions
predominantly within the abdominal cavity of cattle
(129,163).
Even when livestock and poultry manures are ap-
plied to land at agronomic rates, periodic soil tests
are recommended. Tests for nitrate, ammonia, and
salt in addition to standard soil tests will determine
whether N is being used efficiently, whether salinity
problems exist, whether certain elements are present
at toxic levels, or whether increased concentrations
of one element (such as P) have reduced the avail-
ability of another (Zn) to plants.
Planning Application Rates
Available N and salt limitations are the major de-
termining factors in controlling land application rates
of livestock and poultry manures. Since N is both the
most used element for production of optimum yields
and the most mobile element (thus creating potential
for surface and ground water pollution), it is the
most logical component on which to base application
rates. In some irrigated areas, however, salt buildup
in the soil may limit application rates. Even in non-
irrigated areas, manure rates must be reduced if salt
accumulations result in reduced yields. Because of
these factors, the most useful short-range guidelines
for determining land-application rates of livestock
and poultry manures are N and salt contents.
Manures having a low N content and considerable
moisture would require application of high tonnages
to satisfy crop needs for N to obtain high yields.
Therefore, it is recommended that approximately
half the N requirement be met with manure and the
other half from commercial fertilizer. This practice
will help conserve the P and K by applying them at
a more realistic rate. Potential salt problems will be
reduced or eliminated.
Nitrogen
The amount of N needed at a specific site depends
on crop requirements, N available in the soil, and
N losses through volatilization, leaching, denitrifica-
tion, and runoff.
Some crops require greater amounts of N in the
soil than others to produce optimum yields. Care
should be taken, however, to avoid basing N applica-
tion rates solely on desired yields. Although N is the
basis for maximizing yields, they will not increase
beyond a certain point regardless of the amount of
N applied (21). Some crop yields and/or quality
30
-------
may be reduced by excessive quantities of N (48,
76, 111, 155).
The amount of N available in the soil before ap-
plication of manure may be estimated from soil tests.
The percentage of the total N readily available to
plants varies among soils, but only a small percent-
age is available to crops during one season. The
range is from near zero to as high as 10% per year,
but, in most soils, the range of available N is from
1 to 6% of the total N in soils (122). A good dis-
cussion of the role of soil testing in determining N
needs is available in the book on corn production
edited by Pierre et al. (59). Soil testing for avail-
able N generally is not done east of the Mississippi
River. Instead, empirical procedures are used to
estimate the N-supplying ability of the soil.
The amount of N lost by volatilization is affected
by the method of manure application. Table 11
shows ammonia losses through volatilization within
4 days after application by various methods. The
immediate incorporation of manure into the soil sig-
nificantly reduces N loss.
Because manure has a high moisture-holding ca-
pacity and the N is released slowly, it is assumed
that potential leaching losses will be decreased when
the manure is applied at the beginning of the grow-
ing season. Denitrification losses usually occur in
oxygen-depleted soils. Because this condition is com-
mon only in Group D soils (heavy clay), denitrifi-
cation is not a major problem in most agricultural
areas. Denitrification varies with the type of manage-
ment, precipitation (or irrigation), and amount of
organic matter in soil of a given texture (83). In
this manual, the denitrification coefficients are as-
sumed to be 0, 0.10, 0.20, and 0.35 for hydrologic
soil types A (sandy), B (sandy, silty loam), C (shal-
low, relatively heavy), and D (heavy clay), respec-
tively. In other words, 35% of the N incorporated
in type D soils denitrifies and is lost to the air as
Nj. Prolonged soil oxygen depletion may reduce crop
yields more than denitrification would. When manure
is incorporated, negligible fertilizer will be lost from
the manure' in runoff.
The values for volatilization losses (table 11, p.
31) were multiplied by the coefficients for denitrifi-
cation losses. These values produced the multiplica-
tion factors for the combined losses due to volatiliza-
tion and denitrification shown in table 12.
Animal-Waste Decay Constants
When manure is applied to the same field year
after year, the availability of N it contains becomes
an important factor in determining application rate
(108). Nitrogen becomes available to plants through
the mineralization process. The N mineralization
rate can be determined by using a series of decay
constants described by Pratt et al (110). The proc-
ess is rapid the first year after application and slows
in subsequent years.
For example, a series of decay constants of 0.35,
0.15, 0.10, and 0.05 indicates that 35% of the N
in the manure becomes available the first year, 15%
of the residual N becomes available the second year,
10% the third year, and 5% the fourth year, and
each following year. Carbon dioxide is lost to the
atmosphere and N is converted to NH4-, NO..-, and
NOrN. Animal wastes containing higher percentages
of N have more rapid decay rates. In such wastes,
equivalent amounts of N and C are mineralized.
Poultry manures have high decay constants because
TABLE 11.—Estimated nitrogen loss within 4 days after
application from livestock or poultry manures with
different application methods (165)
Method of application
Type of
waste
Broadcast
Broadcast and immediately
cultivated
Knifing
Sprinkler irrigation
Solid
Liquid
Solid
Liquid
Liquid
Liquid
N
volatilization
loss
21
27
5
5
5
25
TABLE 12.—Multiplication factors to adjust livestock
or poultry manure quantities for nitrogen volatili-
zation and denitrification losses after the wastes
are applied to the soil
Hydrologic soil group
Manure management
Surface- Soil
applied incorporated
A (sandy)
B (sandy, silty loam)
C (shallow, relatively heavy soil)
D (heavy clay soils)
1.33
1.33
1.33
1.33
1.05
1.18
1.33
1.67
31
-------
they are high in uric acid and urea, substances that
readily release NH4-N. Manures accumulated on
outdoor lots or in storage exposed to the environ-
ment have low-decay constants because N may have
been lost through runoff or volatilization of NFL,,
or mixing with debris of low N content. Manures
having a low N percentage are likely to have a high
carbon to nitrogen ratio, C/N, and such manures
may cause rapid immobilization of mineralized N by
micro-organisms during the early part of the growing
season. The N then would be released several months
after application of the manure, once the C/N ratio
decreases below the critical range. Table 13 shows
the N decay constants used in this manual.
One equation based on the N content of a manure
is easier to use than a series of decay constants to
determine the amount of manure to supply the N
needed. Mathers and Goss (74) derived an equation
using the decay constants developed by Pratt et al.
(110) and Willrich et al. (165). Derivation of this
equation is shown in the Appendix, page 101, and
the values derived are shown in table 14. Table 12,
page 31, shows the amounts of N losses expected for
the different hydrologic soil groups.
Values from tables 10, 12, and 14 can be used to
estimate the manure needed for a crop. For example,
use corn grown for silage on Group B land. (Table
12 shows the amounts of N losses expected for the
TABLE 13.—Decay constants used to estimate animal-
manure nitrogen availability to crops, considering
the entire cropping year for degradation of the
manure
Manure source
N in
manure
(dry-
weight
basis)
Decay constants in years
after application
1234
Poultry (hens) 1
4.5 0.90 0.10 0.05 0.05
Poultry (broilers, turkeys)2
Swine 2
Dairy, fresh 2
Dairy, anaerobic 2
Beef feeders, fresh 1
Beef feeders, dry corral 1
3.8
2.8
3.5
2.0
3.5
2.5
1.5
1.0
.75
.90
.50
.30
.75
.40
.35
.20
.05
.04
.15
.08
.15
.25
.15
.10
.05
.02
.05
.07
.10
.06
.10
.05
.05
.02
.05
.05
.05
.03
.05
.05
i Pratt et al. (110).
2 Willrich et al. (165).
different hydrologic soil groups. The corn uses 235
Ib of N per acre (N for grain plus stover, table 10,
p. 29)). Soil tests show that 35 Ib of N is available
in the soil. The amount of additional N needed is
235 — 35 = 200. The manure contains 1.75% N.
Table 14 shows that 11.6 tons of manure with 1.5%
N or 7.0 tons with 2% N are required to supply 100
pounds of N. Take the average [(11.6 + 7.0) -=-
2 = 9.3] or 9.3, times the factor from table 12,
page 31, for Group B land (1.18) times N needed
in hundredweight (2). All of these multiplied equals
22 tons per acre.
When the quantity of manure (tons/acre) needed
to supply the desired quantity of N has been deter-
mined and the manure has been analyzed for other
elements, a simple calculation will show the amount
of other elements applied. For example, if N con-
tent is 1.5%, table 14 can be used to determine
that 11.6 tons of dry manure are needed to supply
100 Ib of N. If Zn concentration is 0.01%, then
11.6 x 2,000 x 0.0001 = 2.3 Ib of Zn applied
per 100 Ib of N the first year, 9.0 x 2,000 x
0.0001 = 1.7 Ib the second year, etc. The quantity
of other elements can be determined in the same
manner.
Nitrogen in feedlot runoff can be assumed to be
largely available the first year, so no decay constant
is needed in the calculations. For example, in table
7, page 22, dairy runoff is estimated to contain
0.015% N on a wet basis for Sample Problem 2.
On Worksheet 2, page 23, the 160,000 gal x
8.34 Ib x 0.00015 = 200 Ib of N. The rate at which
gal
the runoff is added will probably be governed by
either the irrigation that the soil can use or the
amount of salt that can safely be added to the soil,
rather than by the amount of N that the runoff sup-
plies. The volume, 160,000 gallons calculated in
acre-inches, is 160,000 gal -f- 27,150 gal = 5.9
acre-in
acre-in (see Appendix, p. 101, for derivation of the
conversion constant).
Salinity Limitations
In areas with heavy rainfall and natural leaching,
salinity (saline or salty soil) is not a problem; how-
ever, in irrigated and low-rainfall areas, application
of materials containing salt must be limited (18, 19,
106, 109, 123, 137). The soil must be managed to
minimize or prevent salt accumulation (75, 76).
32
-------
TABLE 14.—Quantity of livestock or poultry manure needed to supply 100 pounds of
nitrogen over the cropping yeari
Length of
time
N in manure (%)
applied (years) 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.0 125 1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0 4.0
Tons dry manure 1100 Ib N
1
2
3
4
5
10
15
20
154.1
79.3
53.8
40.9
33.0
17.0
11.5
8.7
60.
36
27
22.
18.
11.
8.
6.
7
.6
.2
,0
.7
,2
3
7
34.1
22.5
17.6
14.8
13.0
8.5
6.7
5.6
22.2
15.6
12.7
11.0
9.8
6.9
5.6
4.8
15.7
11.6
9.7
8.6
7.8
5.7
4.8
4.2
11.6
9.0
7.7
6.9
6.3
4.9
4.2
3.8
7.0
5.8
5.1
4.7
4.4
3.7
3.3
3.0
4.6
3.9
3.6
3.4
3.2
2.8
2.6
2.4
3.1
2.8
2.6
2.5
2.4
2.2
2.0
2.0
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.2
1.2
1 The values are for repeated application on the same acreage. An equation for calculation of the
values is shown in the Appendix.
Since most irrigation water contains soluble salts,
there are two sources of salt when animal wastes
are applied to irrigated land (61).
Although the following salinity guidelines for use
of manures are reliable in many situations, they may
not be applicable if impermeable layers exist below
the soil surface. Also, the values are based on spe-
cific soil water additions by precipitation or irriga-
tion each year. If less water is used (as for dryland
applications) or if soil or water characteristics are
unusual, watch the application area closely. Monitor
the salt-alkali status by yearly soil tests. Note the
seed germination and crop growth, and observe
whether water stands in the field longer than usual.
If the local conditions deviate markedly from the
circumstances described here, obtain local profes-
sional advice and help.
Soil salinity is determined by measuring the elec-
trical conductivity of a saturated soil paste extract
(ECe). Soil with an ECe of 4 mmhos/cm is con-
sidered saline. Soil saturated with 1 acre-ft of water
containing 1,740 Ib of salt would have an ECe of 1.0
mmho/cm (140).
Figure 11 shows that corn yields are reduced by
application of livestock or poultry manures at high
rates. Figure 12 shows that the yield reduction was
caused by salt buildup from heavy application rates
(greater than 60 tons/acre). Corn is a crop with
low tolerance to salinity and yield was affected when
the ECe value was 2 mmhos/cm. If salinity cannot
be entirely controlled, salt-tolerant crops may pro-
duce satisfactory yields. Table 15 lists selected crops
with very high, high, medium, and low salt toler-
ance (8). (Additional information is available in
Agriculture Handbook No. 60, Diagnosis and Im-
provement of Saline and Alkaline Soils (140)).
Salinity also can be controlled by use of certain land
preparation and tillage methods, irrigation techniques
to leach salts below the root zone, installation of
drainage systems, and, in some instances, chemical
additives to improve the soil structure.
How much salt can be applied safely to cropland
depends on the quantity of rainfall or of good quality
irrigation water available. Average annual precipita-
tion or quality of irrigation water, manure salt con-
tent, and hydrologic soil group (soil texture) may
be used to determine the maximum manure applica-
tion rate. Figure 13 shows the leaching required to
maintain a low salt level in the root zone (ECe < 4
mmhos/cm in leachate) with manure applications
less than 40 tons/acre. Figure 14 shows the leaching
required for medium salinity status. An estimate of
the average annual potential leaching (percolation)
caused by precipitation for nonirrigated lands is
shown on page 26 in Stewart et al. (126). For ex-
ample, in most of the Great Plains, leaching ranges
from 0.1 inch. In southeastern Georgia, it exceeds
7.1 inches. The percent salt in manure may be esti-
mated by multiplying the combined percentages of
K, Ca, Na, and Mg, as determined by laboratory
analysis, by a factor of 2. (See table 7, page 22, for
estimated percentage of salt in manures.) Electrical
conductivity is used as a measure of salt level in
irrigation water. When irrigation water has an EC
33
-------
c
o
40
30
~ 20
o
o
10
_l I
60 120 180 240
Yearly manure application, tons/acre
300
360
FIGURE 11.—Effect of applied manure (dry-weight basis) on corn forage yield (wet-weight basis) after three annual applica-
tions on irrigated soil.
of 1.0 mmho/cm, 1,740 Ib of salt will be applied
per acre with each foot of irrigation water. This
amount of salt will require about 3 inches of leach-
ing to maintain low salinity in the root zone.
For a sample calculation, assume the nonirrigated
land is in the eastern part of the Great Plains, the
leaching is 1 inch from annual precipitation, and the
manure available for use is dairy manure with a salt
content of 11.6%. Figure 13 can be used as follows:
(a) find leaching required (1 inch) on the horizontal
axis; (b) draw a vertical line to meet the curve on
the graph for the salt content (about halfway be-
tween the curves for 10 and 12%); (c) the maxi-
mum dry manure rate in tons per acre shown on
the vertical axis can be determined by drawing a
horizontal line from this point to the vertical axis
(about 2.5 tons/acre).
Under some circumstances, the proportions of Na
and K in the manure or feedlot runoff water may
promote soil structure deterioration (106, 107, 109).
If the ratios of Na and K to the total salt in the ma-
nure or runoff are more than 0.39, 0.32, 0.30, and
0.24, the manure or runoff may cause dispersion of
the soil aggregates when applied to hydrologic soil
groups A, B, C, and D, respectively. However, data
from the Imperial Valley indicate that manure ap-
plied at high rates to a fine-textured soil improved
the infiltration rates for several years. Stewart and
Meek (125) and Mathers et al. (77) report in-
creased infiltration on fine-textured soils where ma-
nure was applied.
Group D soils are difficult to leach, and therefore,
not more than 5 inches of leaching should be at-
tempted during the season. Coarse-textured soils can
be leached more. For illustrative purposes, it is as-
sumed that Group A, B, C, and D soils require 10,
7, 6, and 5 inches of leaching to maintain a low-
salinity status (106, 109, 140). Leaching, however,
removes nitrate as well as other salts, and consider-
able energy is used in supplying irrigation water, so
excessive amounts of manure should not be applied
to cropland with the intention of later leaching ex-
cessive amounts of salts.
For a sample calculation, assume 20 inches of
irrigation water with an EC of 0.6 mmhos/cm are
applied and the manure contains 11.4% salt. Note
the legend in figure 13 states that 3 inches of leaching
are needed for each foot of irrigation water having
34
-------
TABLE 15.— Tolerance level and effect of
salt on yields of crops1
Crop
Bermudagrass
Barley
Tall wheatgrass
Crested wheatgrass
Cotton
Barley (hay)
Sugar beets
Wheat
Perennial rye
Safflower
Birdsfoot trefoil
Hardinggrass
Tall fescue
Soybean
Sorghum
Beardless wild rye
Rice (paddy)
Sesbania
Alfalfa
Orchardgrass
Broad bean
Corn
Flax
Meadow foxtail
Clover
Beans (field)
Toler-
ance
levels 2
VH
VH
VH
VH
VH
VH
VH
H
H
H
H
M
M
M
M
M
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
Yield reduction
None
Et
6.9
48.0
7.5
3.5
7.7
6.0
47.0
46.0
5.6
5.3
5.0
4.6
3.9
5.0
4.0
2.7
3.0
2.3
2.0
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.7
1.5
1.5
1.0
10%,
r.'
10.8
4 10.0
9.9
9.8
9.6
9.5
4 8.7
47.4
6.9
6.2
6.0
5.9
5.8
5.5
5.1
4.4
3.8
3.7
3.4
3.1
2.6
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.3
1.5
50%
14.7
18.0
19.4
16.0
17.0
13.0
15.0
13.0
12.2
9.9
10.0
11.1
13.3
7.5
11.0
11.0
7.2
9.4
8.8
9.6
6.8
5.9
5.9
6.7
5.7
3.6
1 Adapted from Ayers and Wescot (8).
2 Tolerance levels based on ECe for 10% yield reduction:
8-13, VH (very high); 6-7.9, H (high); 4-5.9, M (medium);
1-3.9, L (low).
3 ECe means electrical conductivity of saturation extract in
mmhos/cm, and is an indication of the total salt content of
a soil
4 Tolerance during germination (beets) or early seedling
stage (wheat, barley) is limited to ECe about 4 mmhos/cm.
an EC of 1 mmho/cm. Therefore, 20 in x 1 ft/12
in x 3 in/1 ft x 0.6 = 3 in of leaching is needed
for the salt in the irrigation water in this example.
If the total leaching is 10, 7, 6, and 5 inches for
Group A, B, C, and D soils, respectively, that leaves
7, 4, 3, and 2 inches of effective leaching to remove
the manure salts. In figure 13, those leaching values
correspond to 20, 12, 8, and 6 tons of dry manure
per acre, respectively.
Runoff water from feedlots has some nutrient
value and will increase the yield of most crops until
salt buildup. To prevent salt accumulation, the irri-
gator should dilute runoff waters from feedlots with
good quality irrigation water. The quantity of irri-
gation water required for a given amount of feedlot
runoff water depends on the electrical conductivity
of both waters, the hydrologic soil group, and the
desired soil salinity level. Figure 15 shows the num-
ber of inches of irrigation water to add to an inch of
feedlot runoff water. The procedure is: (a) find the
electrical conductivity (assume 3.0 mmhos/cm) of
the feedlot runoff water on the vertical axis of the
graph; (b) move horizontally to the curve corre-
sponding to the electrical conductivity of the irriga-
tion water (assume 0.5 mmho/cm); and (c) fi-
nally, move down to find the proper dilution factor
or the number of inches of irrigation water (4
inches) to add to each inch of feedlot runoff water.
The two waters should be mixed before application
to the soil. Note that these values apply to a soil
with a 25% leaching fraction intended to maintain
a low-salinity soil. Figure 16 may be used for a
leaching fraction of 15% to maintain medium-
salinity soil.
The contribution of manure to the salt in drainage
water will depend mostly on the Na content of the
manure (77). If irrigation field runoff is used in an
irrigation return flow system, salt in the water in-
creases slightly due to salt removed from the soil
and to evaporation. The use of manure, however,
does not cause a significant increase of salt in these
return flow systems (77). When drainage water is
returned to the irrigation system the increase of salt
depends on the leaching fraction. Water from drain-
age systems may need to be diluted with low-salt
water before reuse.
Worksheet 3 Instructions
Worksheet 3 is used to determine the land-appli-
cation rate of manures and feedlot runoff that can
be used to supply N for crops without creating sa-
linity problems. The following Steps 1 through 6
correspond to Steps 1 through 6 on the worksheet.
1. Use figure 4, page 8, to determine the Land
Resource Area of the livestock or poultry site.
Supply the following information for site
evaluation.
la. Is topography flat, rolling, or steep? (If
specific information is not available, con-
sult local SCS, county extension agents,
or Agriculture Handbook 296 (7).)
35
-------
10
u
VI
o
. 6
8
8
t>
£
LLJ
0
I
I I
I
0 60 120 180 240 300 360
Yearly manure application, tons/acre
FIGURE 12.—Salt buildup in irrigated soil resulting from three annual manure applications. Manure rates on dry-weight basis.
£
u
40
35
30
25
1 20
"5.
a
C
re
15
10
5
0
Percent salt in manure
4 6
10
8
10
12
14
Leaching required, inches
Low salinity leachate, 4 mmhos/cm
FIGURE 13. — Estimated annual livestock or poultry manure application (dry-weight basis) allowable on cropland to maintain
low-salinity level.
36
-------
Percent salt in manure
8 10 12 14
16 18
20
Required leaching, inches
Medium salinity leachate, 8 mmhos/cm
FIGURE 14.—Estimated annual livestock or poultry manure application (dry-weight basis) allowable on cropland to maintain
medium-salinity level.
10 r-
u
E
E
it
o
O
O
111
0.0 .,0.1
4 6
Dilution factor
0.9
10
FIGURE 15.—Estimated dilution factors for feedlot runoff water to maintain low salinity in the root zone using a 25% leach-
ing fraction.
37
-------
02468
Dilution factor
FIGURE 16.—Estimated dilution factors for feedlot runoff water to maintain medium salinity in the root zone using a
15% leaching fraction.
lb. Are conservation measures used? (Con-
sult SCS or Extension Service.)
Ic. Is the hydrologic soil Group A, B, C, or
D? (See Section 4, p. 28, for explanation
of hydrologic soil groups.)
Id. Is the site irrigated?
ld.1. Is surface water or ground water
used for irrigation?
ld.2. What is the electrical conductivity
of the irrigation water? (Contact
SCS or county agent for local test-
ing information.)
le. Use figure 6, page 11, and table 6, page
21, to obtain climate and precipitation.
If. Use table 9, page 27, to determine when
manure application is most likely.
Ig. Is manure applied to the surface or is it
incorporated into the soil by plowing or
injection?
Ih. Is the crop grass, small grain, or a row
crop?
li. Enter whether land is plowed and, if so,
when.
2. Use the following procedure to determine ap-
plication rates.
2a. Use table 10, page 29, to determine the
N content of the crop to be grown. If
crop is divided into grain and stover or
grain and straw, etc., add the N required
by each part of the crop if the entire plant
is used. Adjust quantities according to
expected yield.
2b. To determine the N available in the soil,
contact a county extension agent or SCS
for soil test information.
2c. Determine the N needed from manure.
2c.l. Subtract Line 2b (N available in
soil) from Line 2a (N content of
crop).
2c.2. Divide the answer on line 2c.l by
2. Dividing by 2 limits the manure
rate to one-half of the amount
needed, with the rest of the N sup-
plied by commercial fertilizer.
2d. Transfer the manure sources from Work-
sheet 2 to Line 2d. Fill in percent N from
38
-------
local analysis or regional data known to
fit the management system or use Table
7, page 22, for an estimate.
2d.l. Fill in manure amount required to
supply 100 Ib of N from table 14,
page 33. Fill in multiplication fac-
tor for hydrologic soil group from
table 12, page 31. Find recom-
mended dry rate by multiplying
(column 3 by column 4 by Line
2c.2 by -J-^TT) rate to supply 100 Ib
N times multiplication factor times
N needed from manure (pounds/
acre) divided by 100. Find recom-
mended wet rate by dividing the
needed dry manure weight by the
fractional dry weight of the manure
(dry weight/wet weight from anal-
ysis of estimate), i.e., 10.98 -=-
-^jg — 61.05 («= 61) tons.
2d.2. When using feedlot runoff or la-
goon effluent, the calculations for
rate can yield gallons/acre or acre-
inches, depending on the conven-
ience of the unit for volume. It is
assumed that soluble N in the run-
off is 100% available. Calculate
the number of gallons needed to
supply 100 Ib of N and enter that
in column 3. For Sample Problem
8.34 Ib
2, 160,000 gal x x
gal
0.00015 = 200 Ib of N. Then,
160,000 gal
- — x 100 = 80,000
200 Ib N
gals for each 100 Ib of N. Find rec-
ommended gallons for column 5
by multiplying (column 3 by col-
umn 4 by Line 2c.2 by -^7^-) rate
to supply 100 Ib N times multipli-
cation factor times N required
(pounds/acre) divided by 100. To
convert gallons/acre to acre-inches,
divide by 27,150 for column 6,
wet-rate, runoff water.
3. Determine the salinity hazard of the recom-
mended rate.
3a. Find the percent salt content or electrical
conductivity of each manure source from
local data, analyses, or table 7, page 22.
3b. Use figure 13, page 36, or figure 14, page
37, to determine salinity limitations based
on salt in the manure (Line 3a).
3b.l. Assume 10, 7, 6, and 5 inches of
leaching on Group A, B, C, and D
soils, respectively, for low salinity
status. For nonirrigated soils, de-
termine the average annual poten-
tial leaching from Stewart et al.
(126) or from data from the SCS
or state university extension
sources. Record this value for
leaching on Line 3b.l.
3b.2. Use figure 15, page 37, to deter-
mine the dilution factor for feedlot
runoff or lagoon effluent to irrigate
with a 25% leaching fraction to
maintain low salinity, or figure 16,
page 38, to maintain medium salin-
ity with a 15% leaching fraction
(see Glossary and Section 4, pp.
32-35).
3c. For nonirrigated land, figure 13, page 36,
or figure 14, page 37, should be used to
determine the total application rate allow-
able before soil salinity becomes a prob-
lem. Note the annual estimated leaching
(obtained in Step 3b.l). The application
rate to maintain low soil salinity (with a
given manure salt content) varies with
the leaching. Use the leaching listed on
Line 3b. 1 and the manure salt content to
determine the limiting application rate
from figures 13 or 14. For feedlot runoff
(diluted to maintain low salinity at 25%
leaching fraction), the limiting rate is de-
termined by the amount of irrigation the
land will accept without excessive runoff
or leaching potential or N supplied in the
feedlot runoff. These factors will have to
be evaluated individually. Record the ap-
plication rate on Line 3c.
3d. For irrigated land, use figures 13 or 14,
pages 36 and 37. The application limit to
maintain low soil salinity will depend on
the leaching required for the hydrologic
soil group and the electrical conductivity
(EC) of the irrigation water. Find the
leaching list on Line 3b.l. Use the EC of
the irrigation water (Line ld.2). At the
base of figure 13, at the correct leaching
39
-------
value, draw a vertical line to the diagonal
line representing the correct percent salt
in the manure (Line 3a). The same
procedure for either a lagoon or feedlot
runoff holding pond is used here as for
Step 3c. Record the limiting application
to maintain low salinity on Line 3d.
3e. Find whether the crop to be planted on
the site has a very high, high, moderate,
or low tolerance to salinity in table 15,
page 35.
3f. Determine other potential limitations on
application rates, such as possible soil
structure deterioration and animal or hu-
man health hazards (see Section 4, p.
30).
4. The limiting loading rate is either Line 2d or
Line 3c (if land is nonirrigated) or 3d (if land
is irrigated), whichever is less.
5. Because the agronomic loading rate has been
limited by supplying only a fraction of the N
needed or by salinity problems, the amount of
supplementary fertilizer must be determined.
5 a. First, find the actual amount of N in the
manure to be applied. To do this, multiply
the limiting application rate (Line 2d, 3c,
or 3d) by the quantity
100 Ib N/acre
column 3 times column 4 (Line 2d)
Record the result on Line 5a.
5b. The amount of supplemental N needed in
the form of commercial fertilizer may be
determined by using information from
Line 2c.l (N needed) and Line 5a (ac-
tual N applied). For each manure source,
subtract Line 5a from Line 2c.l. The re-
sulting number is the amount of supple-
mental N required in Ib/acre.
6. Determining the number of acres needed to
spread the manure at agronomic rates is the
final step.
6a. List the source of the manure and the
amount of manure available yearly (tons/
year) (Worksheet 2). Divide the amount
available (Worksheet 2) by the applica-
tion rate (line 4). The number calculated
is the area (acres) required for land ap-
plication of the manure.
6b. Add the area requirements for each source
to determine the total area (acres) re-
quired for manure application at agro-
nomic rates.
40
-------
AuDlication Rate of Livestock or Poultrv Manure to Land _
ic Hvdro
(LRA, Figure 4, page 8 J
logic Soil Group (Section 4 , page 28, Table 1~ ,
9r Rolling
Yes •" So
A •'B c
D
page 45)
No
itv (EC) (mmhos/cm)
cold;
inches/year
cool ,
warm,
Id Irrigation
If ves
Id 1 hater Source ....
Id.2 hater Electrical Conaucti
le Climate (Figure 6, page llj
Maximum (Average) Annual Precipitation (Table 6, page 21) .
If Application time [circle most probable months] (Table 9,
page 27)
lg Method of application
lh Type of cropping system.^
li Other considerations:
U.I Is land plowed
li.2 If yes, when
Agronomic Application Rates
2a N content of cron*'
2b N available in s<
2c N needed from maj
2c 1 Needed (N content of crops (line 2a) - N available in soil (line 2b)] 4
2c. 2 N needed from manure (line 2c . 1 divided by 2)_£/ / / Jf Ib/acr
2d Recommended Dry and Wet Rates (Table 7, page 22)
arid, «X*^ humid
on
•d
iates
. (soil test)2/
J F M A/j
iS Surface
. . . . Grass
JT-
*S Yes
A J J A S/0 N D
- . -*
Snail grain V'KOW
No
*S Fall
0 Ib/acre
Plowed field
Unknown
"tenure Source
(horksneet 2)
(1)
Percent N (local
analysis or Table
7, page 22)
(2)
Manure needed to supply
100* N (Table 14. p. 33,
or calculated vol., p. 32)
See footnotes at end of Worksheet-
Multiplication
Factor (Table 12,
page 31)
(4)
Recommended Dry
Rate or Volume
(col 3xcol. 4
x manure N)
100
(5)
rate/acre
/6. 1?\
go./
Recommended Wet
Rate (calculate
from col. 5)1/
(6)
rate/acre
U -fco/)3
41
-------
•kSTeet 5 (cor.tirued)
Loading rate limitations
Salinity limits
Manure source (Worksheet 2)
3a Manure salt content {^) or Runoff electrical
conductivity (EC in mmhos/cnii (Table 7, p. 22)
3o Salinity calculations
5b. 1 Leacning required for soil for low salinity
status (Text, pages 32-35)
5b.2 Irrigation water to dilute runoff
(Figures 15 and 16, pages 37 and 38 )
Nonimgated land limiting application rate
(Figures 13 and IS, pages 36 and 31 )
3d Irrigated land limiting application rate
(Figures 13 and 15, pages 36 and 37 )
3e Crop tolerance to salinity (Table 15, page 35)
Other limitations (grass tetany, fat necrosis, etc ) Explain
/ me
3.7-1-1 - ¥.7
*• I £ H r» / jnches//»*5 inches
/ / tons /acre [dry)
_ tons /acre (dry)
tons /acre (dry)
__very high.
_high;
(t>*
medium,
inches/acre-ft
irrigation -v
Manure Source ..............
•* - The limited application rate is the lesser
quantity shown on lines 2d or 5c (non-irrigated) or . Q f> .»
3d (irrigated) ..................... /W * V if t^ fl tons/acre (dry) _
S. Because of the limited application rate, determine the supplemental fertilizer required
5a Actual N applied in manure limiting application rate (lines 2d, 3c,
or 3d)
tons/acre {dry)_
Manure Source
adjusted app. rate (line 2d
9.31
100
5b Supplemental S' required N needed (line 2c 1) - N applied (line 5a) = supplemental N required
Manure Source
in/aere
in/acre-ft
irrigation
Actual N
applied
33
_lb S/acre
_lb N/acre
Jb N/acre
Ib N/acre
See footnotes at end of Worksheet.
(continued)
42
-------
Worksheet 5 (conclusion)
6 Appli cation area
oa Manure source
( from Worksheet 2)
Aval '.able quantitv
(ho TK sheet 2!
APpl 1 cation rate ( 1 ine 4)
(rate/acre)
Area required
(acre?)
// tons
/7>3
0*6
6b Total appl i cat ion area (add all areas required for each manure source)
«£-/ » Q
Nitrogen reouared by crops must be adjusted to correspond to expected yields and N content for the area and soils if
different from Table 10
-Contact County Extension and Soil Conservation Service offices for local information. Use Agriculture Handbook 296
for general information for Land Resource Areas.
JAssuming one-half of the N needed is to come from the manure. Any other convenient fraction could be assigned to the
quantity of N to be derived from the manure source. See text, page 30
^Recommended wet weight quantities are expressed in tons of manure To obtain gallons of manure, multiply by 240
; ^-T— s—"4 ib— ~~i—t — ' ^° convert gal/acre to in/acre, divide by 27,150 gal/acre-in. To calculate wet weight
from drv weight of solids, divide column 5 by the fractional dry weight.
43
-------
Section 5
WATER QUALITY
Application of livestock and poultry manures may
affect the quantity and quality of runoff and leachate
from agricultural lands. This section does not indi-
cate what the maximum acceptable values are for
environmental quality, nor does it attempt to evaluate
runoff or percolate values derived by the procedures.
Best usable values are provided to enable planners
to estimate quantity and quality of runoff solution
and leachate. These values do not indicate the effect
of runoff and leachate on water quality after they
leave the field where manures have been applied.
Runoff Quantity
Runoff from rainfall and snowmelt has enough
energy to transport huge quantities of soil. The quan-
tity of soil transported is affected by climate, rainfall
characteristics, antecedent moisture conditions, soil
infiltration potential, cropping, and conservation
practices. Soil Conservation Service procedures
(141) were used in this manual to estimate runoff
quantities for small grain, row crops, and grassland
within LRA's.
Antecedent moisure condition (AMC) is defined
as the amount of water stored in the soil on the day
of a storm and is determined by the total rainfall ac-
cumulation during the preceding 5 days. Table 16
shows the three AMC groups used. The driest water-
shed conditions (AMC Group I) are when the soil
is dry enough for satisfactory plowing or cultivation.
Average watershed conditions are in Group II, and
watershed conditions nearly saturated from rains dur-
ing the previous 5 days are in Group III. Group III
TABLE 16.—Seasonal rainfall limits fot antecedent
moisture conditions used in runoff calculations (141)
Antecedent
moisture
content
Total 5-day antecedent rainfall
Dormant season
Growing season
Inches
Inches
I
II
III
less than 0.5
0.5 to 1.1
more than 1.1
less than 1.4
1.4 to 2.1
more than 2.1
has the highest runoff potential. The 5-day rainfall
amounts stored in the soil for each group vary with
geographic location and season as a result of evapo-
transpiration.
Infiltration potential is represented by the soil
index of hydrologic soil groups (A through D) and
is determined by the minimum infiltration rate of
bare soil after prolonged wetting (91). See Section
4, page 28, for approximate infiltration rates of
hydrologic soil groups.
Hydrologic soil groups with different land uses
and treatments are called hydrologic soil-cover com-
plexes. Each complex has a runoff potential for the
average antecedent soil moisture condition, depend-
ing on soil water-holding capacity, infiltration rate,
and foliage interception. The term "hydrologic con-
dition" refers to the runoff potential of a particular
cropping practice. A crop under good hydrologic
conditions will have a higher infiltration rate and
subsequently lower runoff potential than the same
crop under poor hydrologic conditions.
Table 17 shows estimated average annual runoff
quantities for grassland, small grain crops, and row
crops. The values were developed using the SCS
curve number method in conjunction with procedures
developed by Stewart et al. (126, 127). The percent-
age of snowmelt runoff (table 17) was estimated by
using a map of January normal daily maximum tem-
peratures (147). Snowmelt runoff was assumed to
be significant north of the maximum 45° lanuary
isotherm (fig. 6, page 11). Snowmelt runoff estimates
were based on limited data from Missouri, Iowa,
Minnesota, Pennsylvania, and Vermont.
Livestock and poultry manures applied to crop-
land affect runoff quantity by changing the infiltration
rate and increasing the water-holding capacity (field
capacity) of the soil. Runoff is usually reduced when
livestock or poultry manures are applied to land (51,
71, 168, 169), although cases of increased runoff
have been reported (107). It is assumed that rainfall
and snowmelt runoff values shown in table 17 are
reduced 5% and 20%, respectively, by surface ap-
plication of livestock and poultry manures.
For example, assume that animal wastes are sur-
face-applied at agronomic rates to 100 acres of wheat
in LRA 106. The annual runoff for LRA 106 is esti-
mated to be 1.0 inch, with snowmelt contributing
44
-------
TABLE 17.—Estimated average annual runoff from grass, small grain, and row cropland
without applied livestock or poultry manure by Land Resource Area
Land
Resource
Area '
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
Hydrologic
soil
group
B
B
B
B
D
B
B
C
D
B
MTNS3
D
B
A
B
B
B
B
C
B
B
B
B
B
D
C
C
A
C
D
C
D
B
D
D
D
FOR 3
FOR
B
A
FOR
FOR
Average annual runoff2
Grass Small grain
inches
<\ <\
<\ <\
<1 <1
<1 <1
1.8 2.35
<1 1.0
<1 <1
<1 <1
<1 1.0
<1 <1
— —
1.4 1.9
-------
TABLE 17.—Estimated average annual runoff'from grass, small grain, and row cropland
without applied livestock or poultry manure by Land Resource Area—Continued
Land
Resource
Area 1
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128N*
128S
129
130
131N
131S
132
133
134N
134S
Hydrologic
soil
group
FOR
B
A
B
B
D
B
B
B
B
C
B
B
B
B
C
C
C
D
D
D
B
C
MTNS
D
MTNS
C
C
B
C
C
MTNS
C
MTNS
B
B
B
MTNS
D
D
D
B
C
C
Grass
<1
<1
<1
<1
3.6
<1
<1
<1
<1
2.6
<1
<1
<1
<1
3.2
3.2
4.0
6.0
6.0
7.0
1.5
5.9
—
10.9
—
5.0
5.0
3.1
8.3
3.1
—
3.1
—
2.3
4.7
5.6
—
8.9
15.8
12.8
3.9
6.8
11.7
Average annual
runoff2
Small grain Row crop
inches
1.0
1
1.0
1.0
4.25
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
3.25
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
3.90
3.75
4.75
6.75
6.75
7.75
2.55
6.70
—
11.70
—
5.75
5.75
4.40
9.15
3.75
—
3.75
—
3.50
6.25
7.20
—
9.70
16.65
13.65
5.35
7.65
12.6
2.3
1
2.6
2.5
4.9
2.5
2.3
1.8
2.0
3.9
2.2
2.7
2.3
2.3
4.6
4.4
5.5
7.5
7.5
8.5
3.6
7.5
—
12.5
—
6.5
6.5
5.7
10.0
4.4
—
4.4
—
4.7
7.8
8.8
—
10.5
17.5
14.5
6.8
8.5
13.5
Amount
due to
snowmelt
%
,
40
30
30
30
30
15
25
50
50
40
40
10
20
25
10
15
10
—
5
5
5
—
—
—
—
5
5
—
—
5
—
10
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
(See footnotes at end of table.)
46
-------
TABLE 17.—Estimated average annual runoff from grass, small grain, and row cropland
without applied livestock or poultry manure by Land Resource Area— Continued
Land
Resource
Area J
Average annual runoff2
Hydrologic
soil
group
Grass
Small grain Row crop
Amount
due to
snowmelt
Inches
135
136N
136S
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150W
150E
151
152
153
154
155
156
D
B
B
A
B
C
C
C
D
MTNS
A
B
C
B
C
C
D
D
SWMP 3
D
C
A
B
SWMP
15.8
1.5
4.7
<1
5.6
2.2
2.2
3.1
4.1
—
<1
1.5
4.0
<1
3.1
4.0
6.0
15.8
—
15.8
7.8
1.5
7.4
—
16.65
2.55
6.25
1.0
7.2
2.8
2.8
3.75
4.80
—
1.0
2.55
4.75
1.0
3.75
4.75
6.75
16.65
—
16.65
8.65
3.70
9.15
17.5
3.6
7.8
2.6
8.8
3.4
3.4
4.4
5.5
—
1.4
3.6
5.5
2.6
4.4
5.5
7.5
17.5
—
17.5
9.5
5.9
10.9
—
—
—
—
—
10
25
30
50
—
30
15
50
10
10
5
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
1 It is not possible to estimate runoff for mountain, swamp, and forest regions or those with er-
ratic climate.
2 Average rainfall and snowmelt runoff values for land with surface-applied livestock or poultry
manure may be calculated by multiplying listed values by 0.95 and 0.80, respectively. Listed values
will not change when the manure is soil-incorporated.
3 Mountains, MTNS; Forest, FOR; Swamps, SWMP.
4 North, N; South, S; East, E; West, W, respectively within Land Resource Areas.
10% of the total (table 17). The total volume of
runoff from the wheat field without manure applied
or with animal manure incorporated would be 100
acre-inches:
Total Annual Runoff =
100 acres X 1-0 inch =100 acre-inches
Snowmelt Runoff =
(100 acre-inches) (0.10) = 10 acre-inches
Rainfall Runoff = 100 — 10 = 90 acre-inches
Total volume of runoff from the wheat field with
surface-applied waste would be:
Snowmelt Runoff = (10) (0.80) = 8.0 acre-inches
Rainfall Runoff = (90) (0.95) = 85.5 acre-inches
Total Annual Runoff =: 93.5 acre-inches
(Recall from p. 44 that surface-applied manure re-
duces rainfall and snowmelt runoff 5 and 20%, re-
spectively.) The net runoff reduction as a result of
surface-applied livestock or poultry manure is about
6.5% for the field in this example.
47
-------
Runoff Quality
It is difficult to estimate the quantities of total N,
total P, and COD in solution in runoff that can be
attributed to land application of livestock and poul-
try manures (107). Little definitive data are avail-
able on the chemical composition of surface runoff
from agricultural lands with or without manures ap-
plied because variations in soil and vegetation sig-
nificantly affect concentrations of dissolved chemicals
in runoff.
Suspended and soluble solids and debris are trans-
ported in runoff as sediment. These materials are po-
tential surface water pollutants. Almost all of the N
and P lost from agricultural lands are associated with
sediment (22, 134). These losses are a function of
the N and P concentrations in the soil and an en-
richment factor (13), which results from the frac-
tionation and accounts for the enrichment of sedi-
ment during the erosion process. In this manual, the
soluble, increased amounts of N, P, and COD values
in runoff tables are considered to be derived only
from surface-applied livestock and poultry wastes
rather than sediment values. In other words, the
values reported with the runoff here are in addition
to the losses that arc part of the sediment.
Excluding organic soils, most U.S. soils contain
from 0.05 to 0.30% N (122). The agricultural soils
in the upper Midwest are highest in N, generally
ranging from 0.2 to 0.3% (4 to 6 Ib/ton); soils in
most other U.S. areas have N levels of 0.05 to 0.2%
(1 to 4 Ib/ton). An enrichment factor for N in
eroded soil has been found to vary from about 1.1
to 5.0 (13). However, the enrichment factor is con-
servatively estimated at 2.0. From this, an N loss of
8 to 12 pounds of N per ton of soil in the upper
Midwest and 2 to 8 pounds of N per ton of soil for
most other U.S. cropland can be assumed.
Phosphorus concentration in U.S. agricultural soils
is estimated to be about 0.05% (1 Ib/ton). The en-
richment factor for P in eroded soil has been found
to range from 1.3 to 3.1 (13). If an enrichment
factor of 2 is assumed, the average P loss in eroded
soil is estimated to be 2 pounds per ton of soil.
Livestock and poultry manures applied to agricul-
tural land at agronomic loading rates can reduce
erosion potential. Surface applications of 3 tons or
more per acre (d.b.) can reduce soil loss from slop-
ing land by 50 to 80% (11, 168, 169). Since most
of the eroded N and P is associated with the sedi-
ment, manure applications may substantially reduce
the total runoff transport from row cropland (13,
158).
Table 18 represents the best usable values for dis-
solved N, P, and COD concentrations in runoff water
from land to which manures were applied to the sur-
face. These estimated values were obtained from
published data (27, 51, 71, 81, 107, 168, 169).
Values for dissolved N, P, and COD concentrations
have been listed separately for rainfall and snowmelt
runoff (table 18). The following equation was used
TABLE 18. — Estimated concentrations of total nitrogen, total phosphorus, and chemical
oxygen demand dissolved in runoff from land with and without livestock or poultry
manure surface-applied^ at agronomic rates
Rainfall runofT
Cropping Total N Total P
Snowmelt runoff
COD Total N Total P COD
Manure Manure Manure
With Without With Without With Without With manure
Parts per million
Grass
Small grain
Row crop
Rough plow
11.9
16.0
7.1
13.2
3.2
3.2
3.0
3.0
3.0
4.0
1.7
1.7
0.44
0.40
0.40
0.20
360
170
88
88
50
20
55
55
36
25
12.2
12.2
8.7
5.0
1.9
1.9
370
270
170
170
1 Incorporating manure in the soil would result in element concentrations the same as those for
"without manure."
48
-------
to estimate quantities of N, P, and COD transported
in runoff from land with or without livestock or poul-
try manure applied:
Wx = 0.226 RC
where Wx = quantity of element transported
(Ib/acre)
R = runoff (inches)
C = runoff concentration (parts per million)
The constant, 0.226, is a conversion factor with units
of Ib/acre-in. Runoff in inches (R) from table 17
and concentration in parts per million (p/m) (C)
for dissolved N, P, and COD from table 18 were
used in this equation to determine runoff transport
from land with and without livestock and poultry
manures surface applied. Areas with mountains,
swamps, forests, deserts, or erratic precipitation were
not considered. Tables 19, 20, and 21 show estimated
runoff transport of total dissolved N, P, and COD,
respectively, from land with agronomic surface ap-
plication of livestock or poultry manures. The in-
creased amounts of dissolved N, P, and COD trans-
ported in runoff from land with manures applied arc
shown in tables 22, 23, and 24. These estimated
increases are assumed to be the effect of annual sur-
face application of livestock or poultry manures. For
example, the increased dissolved N loss from manure
applied to row crop in LRA 105 without conserva-
tion farming is 2.5 Ib/acre (table 22). The amount
of dissolved N from land without surface applied
manure would be 4.0 — 2.5 =1.5 Ib/acre. This
would be the value for land receiving commercial
fertilizer or manure that is incorporated into the soil.
The values in tables 25-27 have been calculated
from concentrations associated with runoff occurring
shortly after the manure was applied. Therefore, they
tend to overestimate the effects of annual surface ap-
plication of manure on transport of N, P, and COD;
solubility and volatilization losses will decrease the
transport potential as the manure remains exposed
to the atmosphere and the soil. Tables 25-27 present
short-term (4-week or snowmelt runoff) values that
are closer to actual short-term field conditions.
In some LRA's, heavy seasonal rains or storms
are a major runoff influence. In others, usually those
north of the maximum 45 January isotherm (see fig.
6, p. 11), snowmelt transports almost all of the an-
nual N, P, and COD transported (see table 17, p. 45,
for distribution of runoff). Tables 25-27 show the
total quantities of dissolved N, P, and COD trans-
ported during either the peak 4-week runoff period or
by snowmelt, whichever was greater for any given
LRA. The seasonal influences of runoff-transported
elements on the environment may be determined by
comparing the estimated peak runoff periods with
the annual runoff. For example, the peak dissolved
N in snowmelt runoff from row crops without conser-
vation practices in LRA 105 is estimated to be 1.95
Ib/acre (table 25). The total annual dissolved N
transported is estimated to be 4.0 Ib/acre (table 19).
As a result, 49% (1.95 Ib/acre ~ 4.0 Ib/acre =
0.49) of the estimated total annual dissolved N is
transported in snowmelt runoff.
The preceding tables will assist planners in locating
areas where runoff-transported nutrients are a po-
tential problem. For LRA's not included in the ta-
bles, planners must use local climatic conditions to
calculate changes in N, P, and COD transported in
runoff. Procedures established within this section can
be used when local conditions are known.
Percolation Quantity
Precipitation, irrigation water, and liquid manures
that infiltrate the soil surface may percolate below
the root zone. The amount of percolation below the
root zone (usually about 4 feet) in a given area
depends on climatic characteristics (precipitation and
evaporation), crop grown, soil profile characteristics,
and land treatment. Stewart et al. (126, 127), in
Volumes I and II of Control of Water Pollution from
Cropland, estimated quantities of water percolating
below the 4-foot root zone in the U.S. land areas.
Percolation quantities for areas with mountains,
swamps, forests, or deserts were not calculated be-
cause precipitation patterns are erratic. Planners
should obtain local information for specific areas
from the SCS or State agricultural experiment sta-
tions.
Leaching of Nutrients
Nitrogen compounds, or other soluble chemicals
not used by plants or assimilated or decomposed by
micro-organisms, may leach below the 4-foot soil
profile (39). Therefore, the potential for ground
water pollution exists. In this manual, NO,-N is the
only ground water pollutant considered because it is
the most mobile and may be a health hazard if it
exceeds 10 p/m NO^-N (45 p/m NO3) in drinking
water.
49
-------
TABLE 19.—Total dissolved nitrogen transported in annual runoff from land
receiving livestock or poultry manure surface-applied at agronomic rates1
Land
Resource
Area
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
O Q
OO
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
Grass
< 2.6
< 2.6
< 2.6
< 2.6
8.2
< 4.6
< 2.6
< 2.6
< 3.8
< 2.6
(2)
5.8
< 2.6
< 2.6
< 3.0
< 2.6
< 2.6
< 2.6
< 2.6
< 3.0
< 2.8
< 2.8
< 2.8
< 3.0
13.8
3.3
5.7
< 2.6
8.0
5.7
8.0
10.5
3.9
15.4
18.0
20.6
< 4.5
< 4.6
—
—
—
< 4.2
< 2.6
< 3.8
< 3.8
13.5
< 3.2
< 3.6
< 4.6
Small grain
with or without
conservation
< 3.5
< 3.5
< 3.5
< 3.5
7.2
< 4.0
< 3.5
< 3.5
< 3.8
< 3.5
—
5.5
< 3.5
< 3.5
< 3.6
< 3.5
< 3.5
< 3.5
< 3.5
< 3.6
< 3.5
< 3.5
< 3.5
< 3.6
17.5
4.5
7.6
< 3.5
10.7
7.6
10.7
14.2
5.2
20.7
24.2
27.6
< 4.0
< 4.0
—
—
—
< 3.9
< 3.5
< 3.8
< 3.8
13.6
< 3.6
< 3.7
< 4.0
< 3.5
< 3.5
< 3.5
< 3.5
9.6
4.0
< 3.5
< 3.5
3.8
< 3.5
—
7.4
< 3.5
< 3.5
3.6
< 3.5
< 3.5
< 3.5
3.5
3.6
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.6
20.4
6.6
9.7
3.5
13.1
9.7
13.1
16.6
9.0
23.5
27.0
30.4
4.0
4.0
—
—
—
3.9
< 3.5
3.8
3.8
16.3
3.6
3.7
4.0
Row crop
with or without
conservation
Ib /acre
< 1.5
< 1.5
< 1.5
< 1.5
4.5
1.9
< 1.5
< 1.5
1.7
< 1.5
—
3.4
< 1.5
< 1.5
1.6
< 1.5
< 1.5
< 1.5
1.5
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.5
1.6
9.1
2.9
4.3
1.5
5.8
4.3
5.8
7.4
4.0
10.4
12.0
13.5
1.9
1.9
—
—
—
1.8
< 1.5
1.7
1.7
7.5
1.6
1.7
1.9
< 1.5
< 1.5
< 1.5
< 1.5
5.4
2.0
< 1.5
< 1.5
2.3
< 1.5
—
4.3
< 1.5
< 1.5
2.2
< 1.5
< 1.5
< 1.5
2.0
2.6
2.2
3.1
4.1
4.2
10.2
3.7
5.2
2.2
6.8
5.2
6.8
8.4
5.5
11.5
13.0
14.6
,
2.8
< 1.9
—
—
—
4.2
< 1.5
4.5
4.4
8.5
4.1
3.9
3.4
Rough plow
with or without
conservation
< 2.9
< 2.9
< 2.9
< 2.9
6.1
2.5
< 2.9
< 2.9
2.7
< 2.9
—
4.9
< 2.9
< 2.9
2.8
< 2.9
< 2.9
< 2.9
2.8
2.8
2.8
2.8
2.8
2.8
16.3
5.4
8.0
2.9
10.8
8.0
10.8
13.7
7.4
19.4
22.2
25.1
2.5
2.5
—
. —
—
2.6
< 2.9
2.7
2.7
11.4
2.8
2.7
2.5
< 2.9
< 2.9
< 2.9
< 2.9
7.4
3.8
< 2.9
< 2.9
3.5
< 2.9
. —
6.2
< 2.9
< 2.9
3.9
< 2.9
< 2.9
< 2.9
3.7
4.5
4.0
5.6
7.3
7.3
18.3
6.8
9.7
4.0
12.5
9.7
12.5
15.7
10.3
21.4
24.2
27.1
3.8
< 2.5
—
— -
—
6.0
< 2.9
6.9
6.7
13.0
6.9
6.2
4.6
(See footnotes at end of table.)
50
-------
TABLE 19.—Total dissolved nitrogen transported in annual runoff from land
receiving livestock or poultry manure surface-applied at agronomic rates'^—Continued
Land
Resource
Area
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128N3
128 S
129
130
131 N
131 S
132
133
134 N
134 S
135
136 N
136 S
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
Grass
< 4.6
10.8
< 4.2
< 3.0
< 3.4
< 3.6
9.5
10.1
11.9
15.4
16.6
19.4
4.2
15.2
—
28.0
—
13.8
13.8
8.0
21.3
8.6
—
9.2
—
5.9
12.1
14.4
—
22.9
40.6
32.9
10.0
17 5
30.1
40.6
3.9
12.1
< 2.5
14.4
6.5
7.8
11.7
18.7
—
< 3.8
4.8
18.2
< 3.0
9.2
11.1
Small grain
with or without
conservation
< 4.0
10.1
< 3.9
< 3.6
< 3.7
< 3.7
11.4
11.6
14.3
20.7
21.1
24.6
5.3
20.4
—
37.7
—
17.5
17.5
10.7
28.7
10.9
—
11.0
—
7.9
16.2
19.3
—
30.7
54.6
44.2
13.5
23.5
40.4
54.6
5.2
16.2
< 3.5
19.3
7.8
8.2
11.7
16.4
—
< 3.8
5.4
16.0
< 3.6
11.0
14.0
4.0
12.8
3.9
3.6
3.7
3.7
13.9
13.7
17.1
23.5
23.9
27.4
9.1
23.1
—
40.4
—
20.4
20.4
15.2
31.8
13.3
—
13.5
—
12.1
21.8
24.9
—
33.5
57.7
47.3
18.7
26.6
43.5
57.7
9.0
21.8
3.5
24.9
10.0
10.4
14.4
19.2
—
3.8
9.4
19.2
3.6
13.5
16.8
Row crop
with or without
conservation
Ib facre
1.9
6.0
1.8
1.6
1.7
1.7
6.3
6.2
7.7
10.4
10.7
12.2
4.1
10.3
—
17.9
—
9.1
9.1
6.8
14.1
6.0
—
6.1
—
5.4
9.7
11.0
—
14.9
25.6
21.0
8.2
11.8
19.3
25.6
4.0
9.7
1.5
11.0
4.5
4.8
6.6
9.0
—
1.7
4.3
9.0
1.6
6.1
7.5
3.4
7.1
4.0
4.3
3.8
3.9
7.4
7.2
8.8
11.5
11.8
13.3
5.6
11.5
—
19.2
—
10.2
10.2
8.7
15.3
6.9
—
7.1
—
7.2
12.0
13.5
—
16.1
26.8
22.2
10.4
13.0
20.7
26.8
5.5
12.0
4.0
13.5
5.5
5.8
7.7
10.3
—
2.4
5.9
10.3
4.2
7.1
8.6
Rough plow
with or without
conservation
2.5
8.6
2.6
2.8
2.7
2.9
10.9
10.5
13.4
19.4
19.2
22.0
7.3
19.1
—
33.3
—
16.3
16.3
12.5
26.2
10.7
—
10.1
—
10.0
18.0
20.5
—
27.6
47.6
39.0
15.4
21.9
35.9
47.6
7.4
18.0
2.9
20.5
7.8
7.5
10.1
12.2
—
2.7
7.2
12.2
2.8
10.6
13.5
4.6
10.1
5.7
7.5
6.3
6.2
12.8
12.1
15.3
21.4
21.1
24.0
10.1
21.4
—
35.6
—
18.3
18.3
16.2
28.5
12.4
—
12.3
—
13.4
22.2
25.1
—
29.9
49.9
41.3
19.4
24.2
38.5
49.9
10.3
22.2
7.4
25.1
9.5
9.2
11.7
13.9
—
3.7
9.9
13.9
7.3
12.3
15.5
(See footnotes at end of table.)
51
-------
TABLE 19.—Total dissolved nitrogen transported in annual runoff from land
receiving livestock or poultry manure surface-applied at agronomic rates1—Continued
Land
Resource
Area
Small grain
Grass with or without
conservation
Row crop
with or without
conservation
Rough plow
with or without
conservation
Ib I acre
150 W
150 E
151
152
153
154
155
156
15.4
40.6
—
40.6
20.0
3.9
19.0
—
20.7
54.6
—
54.6
26.9
5.2
25.6
23.5
57.7
—
57.7
30.1
12.8
31.8
—
10.4
25.6
—
25.6
13.3
5.7
14.1
—
11.5
26.8
—
26.8
14.6
9.0
16.7
—
19.4
47.6
—
47.6
24.8
10.5
26.2
—
21.4
49.9
—
49.9
27.1
16.8
31.1
1 Values estimated from tables 17 and 18.
2 It is not possible to estimate values for mountain, swamp, and forest regions or those with
erratic climate.
3 North, N; South, S; East, E; West, W, respectively, within Land Resource Areas.
52
-------
TABLE 20.—Total dissolved phosphorus transported in annual runoff from land
receiving livestock or poultry manure surface-applied at agronomic ratesi
Land
Resource
Area
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
00
oo
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
Grass
< .7
< .7
< .7
< .7
2.0
< 1.1
< .7
< .7
< .9
< .7
(2)
1.4
< .7
< .7
< .7
< .7
< .7
< .7
< .7
< .7
< .7
< .7
< .7
< .7
3.5
.8
1.4
< .7
2.0
1.4
2.0
2.7
1.0
3.9
4.5
5.2
< 1.1
< 1.1
—
—
—
< 1.0
< .7
< .9
< .9
3.3
< .8
< .9
< 1.1
Small grain
with or without
conservation
< .9
< .9
< .9
< .9
1.6
< .9
< .9
< .9
< .9
< .9
—
1 .2
< .9
< .9
< .9
< .9
< .9
< .9
< .9
< .9
< .9
< .9
< .9
< .9
4.3
1.1
1.9
< .9
2.7
1.9
2.7
3.5
1.3
5.2
6.1
6.9
< .9
< .9
—
—
—
< .9
< .9
< .9
< .9
3.1
< .9
< .9
< .9
< .9
< .9
< .9
< .9
2.1
.9
< .9
< .9
.9
< .9
—
1.7
< .9
< .9
.9
< .9
< .9
< .9
.9
.9
.9
.9
.9
.9
5.0
1.6
2.4
.9
3.3
2.4
3.3
4.2
2.3
5.9
6.8
7.6
.9
.9
—
—
—
.9
< .9
.9
.9
3.8
.9
.9
.9
/?OH> crop
with or without
conservation
Ib /acre
< .4
< .4
< .4
< .4
.9
.4
< .4
< .4
.4
< .4
—
.7
< .4
< .4
.4
< .4
< .4
< .4
.4
.4
.4
.4
.4
.4
2.1
.7
1.0
.4
1.4
1.0
1.4
1.8
1.0
2.5
2.9
3.2
.4
.4
—
—
—
.4
< .4
.4
.4
1.6
.4
.4
.4
< .4
< .4
< .4
< .4
1.0
.5
< .4
< .4
.5
< .4
—
.9
< .4
< .4
.5
< .4
< .4
< .4
.5
.6
.5
.7
1.0
1.0
2.4
.9
1.3
.5
1.6
1.3
1.6
2.0
1.3
2.8
3.1
3.5
.5
< .4
—
—
—
.8
< .4
.9
.9
1.8
.9
.8
.6
Rough plow
with or without
conservation
< .4
< .4
< .4
< .4
.9
.4
< .4
< .4
.4
< .4
—
.7
< .4
< .4
.4
< .4
< .4
< .4
.4
.4
.4
.4
.4
.4
2.1
.7
1.0
.4
1.4
1.0
1.4
1.8
1.0
2.5
2.9
3.2
.4
.4
—
—
—
.4
< .4
.4
.4
1.6
.4
.4
.4
< .4
< .4
< .4
< .4
1.0
.5
< .4
< .4
.5
< .4
—
.9
< .4
< .4
.5
< .4
< .4
< .4
.5
.6
.5
.7
1.0
1.0
2.4
.9
1.3
.5
1.6
1.3
1.6
2.0
1.3
2.8
3.1
3.5
.5
< .4
—
_
—
.8
< .4
.9
.9
1.8
.9
.8
.6
(See footnotes at end of table.)
53
-------
TABLE 20.—Total dissolved phosphorus transported in annual runoff from land
receiving livestock or poultry manure surface-applied at agronomic rates1—Continued
Land
Resource
Area
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128 N3
128 S
129
130
131 N
131 S
132
133
134 N
134 S
135
136 N
136 S
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
Grass
< 1.1
2.7
< 1.0
< .7
< .8
< .9
2.4
2.5
3.0
3.9
4.2
4.9
1.0
3.8
—
7.1
—
3.5
3.5
2.0
5.4
2.2
—
2.3
—
1.5
3.0
3.6
—
5.8
10.2
8.3
2.5
4.4
7.6
10.2
1.0
3.0
< .7
3.6
1.6
1.9
2.9
4.6
—
< .9
1.2
4.5
< .7
2.3
2.8
Small grain
with or without
conservation
< .9
2.3
< .9
< .9
< .9
< .9
2.8
2.8
3.5
5.2
5.2
6.0
1.3
5.1
—
9.4
—
4.3
4.3
2.7
7.2
2.7
—
2.7
—
2.0
4.1
4.9
—
7.7
13.6
11.1
3.3
5.9
10.1
13.6
1.3
4.1
< .9
4.8
1.9
1.9
2.7
3.6
—
< .9
1.3
3.6
< .9
2.7
3.5
.9
2.9
.9
.9
.9
.9
3.4
3.3
4.2
5.9
5.9
6.8
2.3
5.8
—
10.1
—
5.0
5.0
3.8
8.0
3.3
—
3.3
—
3.0
5.4
6.2
—
8.4
14.4
11.8
4.7
6.7
10.9
14.4
2.3
5.4
.9
6.2
2.4
2.5
3.3
4.3
_
.9
2.3
4.3
.9
3.3
4.2
Row crop
with or without
conservation
Ib {acre
A
1.2
.4
.4
.4
.4
1.4
1.4
1.8
2.5
2.5
2.9
1.0
2.5
—
4.3
—
2.1
2.1
1.6
3.4
1.4
—
1.4
—
1.3
2.3
2.6
—
3.6
6.1
5.0
2.0
2.8
4.6
6.1
1.0
2.3
.4
2.6
1.0
1.0
1.4
1.7
—
.4
1.0
1.7
.4
1.4
1.8
.7
1.4
.8
1.0
.8
.8
1.7
1.6
2.0
2.8
2.7
3.1
1.3
2.8
—
4.6
—
2.4
2.4
2.1
3.7
1.6
—
1.6
—
1.7
2.9
3.2
—
3.9
6.4
5.3
2.5
3.1
5.0
6.4
1.3
2.9
1.0
3.2
1.2
1.2
1.6
2.0
—
.5
1.3
2.0
1.0
1.6
2.0
Rough plow
with or without
conservation
.4
1.1
.4
.4
.4
.4
1.4
1.4
1.8
2.5
2.5
2.9
1.0
2.5
—
4.3
—
2.1
2.1
1.6
3.4
1.4
—
1.4
—
1.3
2.3
2.6
—
3.6
6.1
5.0
2.0
2.8
4.6
6.1
1.0
2.3
.4
2.6
1.0
1.0
1.4
1.7
—
.4
1.0
1.7
.4
1.4
1.8
.7
1.4
.8
1.0
.8
.8
1.7
1.6
2.0
2.8
2.8
3.1
1.3
2.8
—
4.6
—
2.4
2.4
2.1
3.7
1.6
—
1.6
—
1.7
2.9
3.2
—
3.9
6.4
5.3
2.5
3.1
5.0
6.4
1.3
2.9
1.0
3.2
1.2
1.2
1.6
2.0
—
.5
1.3
2.0
1.0
1.6
2.0
(See footnotes at end of table.)
54
-------
TABLE 20.—Total dissolved phosphorus transported in annual runoff from land
receiving livestock or poultry manure surface-applied at agronomic rates1 — Continued
Land
Resource
Area
Small grain
Grass with or without
conservation
Row crop
with or without
conservation
Rough plow
with or without
conservation
Ib I acre
150 W
150 E
151
152
153
154
155
156
3.9
10.2
—
10.2
5.1
1.0
4.8
—
5.2
13.6
—
13.6
6.7
1.3
6.4
—
5.9
14.4
. —
14.4
7.5
3.2
8.0
—
2.5
6.1
—
6.1
3.2
1.4
3.4
—
2.8
6.4
—
6.4
3.5
2.2
4.0
—
2.5
6.1
—
6.1
3.2
1.4
3.4
—
2.8
6.4
—
6.4
3.5
2.2
4.0
—
1 Values estimated from tables 17 and 18.
2 It is not possible to estimate values for mountain, swamp, and forest regions or those with erratic
climate.
3 North, N; South, S; East, E; West, W, respectively, within Land Resource Areas.
55
-------
TABLE 21.—Total dissolved chemical oxygen demand transported in annual runoff
from land receiving livestock or poultry manure surface-applied at agronomic
rates^
Land
Resource
Area
52
54
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
Small grain
Grass with or without
conservation
< 78.0 < 37.0 <
< 78.0 < 37.0 <
< 78.0 < 37.0 <
< 78.0 < 37.0 <
130.0 77.0
< 72.0 < 43.0
< 78.0 < 37.0 <
< 78.0 < 37.0 <
< 75.0 < 40.0
< 78.0 < 37.0 <
(2) —
103.0 58.0
< 78.0 < 37.0 <
< 78.0 < 37.0 <
< 77.0 < 38.0
< 78.0 < 37.0 <
< 78.0 < 37.0 <
< 78.0 < 37.0 -
< 78.0 < 37.0
< 77.0 < 38.0
< 77.0 < 37.0
< 77.0 < 37.0
< 77.0 < 37.0
< 77.0 < 38.0
386.0 187.0
101.0 48.0
171.0 81.0
< 78.0 < 37.0
241.0 114.0
171.0 81.0
241.0 114.0
319.0 150.0
117.0 55.0
466.0 220.0
544.0 257.0
622.0 294.0
— —
— —
< 72.0 < 43.0
< 72.0 < 43.0
— —
— —
. — . —
< 74.0 < 42.0
< 78.0 < 37.0
< 75.0 < 40.0
< 75.0 < 40.0
269.0 146.0
< 76.0 < 39.0
< 75.0 < 40.0
C 37.0 <
C 37.0 <
C 37.0 <
C 37.0 <
103.0
43.0
C 37.0 <
C 37.0 <
40.0
C 37.0 <
—
79.0
C 37.0 <
C 37.0 <
38.0
C 37.0 <
C 37.0 <
C 37.0 <
37.0
38.0
37.0
37.0
37.0
38.0
216.0
70.0
103.0
37.0
139.0
103.0
139.0
176.0
95.0
250.0
286.0
323.0
—
—
43.0
43.0
—
—
—
42.0
< 37.0
40.0
40.0
174.0
39.0
40.0
Row crop
with or without
conservation
Ib /acre
C 19.0 <
; 19.0 •=
C 19.0 <
; 19.0 <
60.0
25.0
C 19.0 <
C 19.0 <
23.0
C 19.0 •=
—
45.0
c: 19.0 <
C 19.0 <
20.0
C 19.0 «
C 19.0 <
C 19.0 <
19.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
114.0
36.0
53.0
19.0
72.0
53.0
72.0
91.0
49.0
129.0
148.0
167.0
—
— .
25.0
25.0 •
—
—
—
24.0
< 19.0 •
23.0
23.0
97.0
21.0
22.0
C 19.0 -
C 19.0 <
C 19.0 <
; 19.0 «
72.0
37.0
; 19.0 <
C 19.0 <
29.0
C 19.0 <
—
57.0
C 19.0 -
C 19.0 -
28.0
c; 19.0 <
C 19.0 -
C 19.0 -
25.0
32.0
27.0
39.0
51.0
52.0
127.0
46.0
65.0
27.0
84.0
65.0
84.0
105.0
68.0
142.0
162.0
180.0
—
—
37.0
< 25.0
—
—
—
55.0
< 19.0
59.0
56.0
111.0
52.0
51.0
Rough plow
with or without
conservation
< 19.0 <
C 19.0 <
C 19.0 <
C 19.0 <
60.0
25.0
C 19.0 <
C 19.0 <
23.0
C 19.0 <
—
45.0
C 19.0 •
< 19.0 <
20.0
C 19.0 <
< 19.0 <
C 19.0 <
19.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
114.0
36.0
53.0
19.0
72.0
53.0
72.0
91.0
49.0
129.0
148.0
167.0
—
—
25.0
25.0
—
—
—
24.0
< 19.0
23.0
23.0
97.0
21.0
22.0
C 19.0
C 19.0
C 19.0
C 19.0
72.0
37.0
C 19.0
C 19.0
29.0
C 19.0
—
57.0
< 19.0
< 19.0
28.0
C 19.0
C 19.0
C 19.0
25.0
32.0
27.0
39.0
51.0
52.0
127.0
46.0
65.0
27.0
84.0
65.0
84.0
105.0
68.0
142.0
162.0
180.0
—
—
37.0
< 25.0
—
—
—
55.0
< 19.0
59.0
56.0
111.0
52.0
51.0
(See footnotes at end of table.)
56
-------
TABLE 21.—Total dissolved chemical oxygen demand transported in annual runoff
from land receiving livestock or poultry manure surface-applied at agronomic
ratesi—Continued
Land
Resource
Area
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128 N3
128 S
129
130
131 N
131 S
132
133
134 N
134 S
135
136 N
136 S
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
Grass
< 72.0
< 72.0
194.0
< 74.0
< 77.0
< 76.0
< 75.0
245.0
244.0
307.0
466.0
463.0
540.0
116.0
459.0
—
847.0
—
386.0
386.0
241.0
645.0
239.0
—
238.0
—
179.0
365.0
435.0
—
692.0
1,228.0
995.0
303.0
529.0
909.0
1,228.0
117.0
365.0
< 78.0
435.0
169.0
165.0
231.0
297.0
—
< 75.0
114.0
290.0
< 77.0
Small grain
with or without
conservation
< 43.0
< 43.0
108.0
< 42.0
< 38.0
< 39.0
< 40.0
121.0
123.0
152.0
220.0
224.0
261.0
56.0
217.0
—
400.0
—
187.0
187.0
114.0
305.0
116.0
—
118.0
—
84.0
173.0
206.0
—
327.0
580.0
470.0
143.0
250.0
429.0
580.0
55.0
173 0
< 37.0
206.0
83.0
88.0
125.0
176.0
—
< 40.0
58.0
172.0
< 38.0
43.0
43.0
137.0
42.0
38.0
39.0
40.0
148.0
147.0
182.0
250.0
254.0
291.0
97.0
246.0
—
429.0
—
216.0
216.0
162.0
338.0
142.0
—
144.0
—
128.0
231.0
264.0
—
356.0
613.0
503.0
198.0
283.0
462.0
613.0
95.0
231.0
37.0
264.0
106.0
111.0
154.0
206.0
. —
40.0
100.0
206.0
38.0
Row crop
with or without
conservation
Ib/acre
25.0
25.0
78.0
24.0
20.0
21.0
22.0
79.0
79.0
97.0
129.0
133.0
153.0
51.0
127.0
—
222.0
—
114.0
114.0
84.0
175.0
74.0
—
77.0
—
67.0
120.0
137.0
—
184.0
317.0
260.0
103.0
146.0
239.0
317.0
49.0
120.0
19.0
137.0
57.0
62.0
86.0
120.0
23.0
54.0
120.0
20.0
45.0
50.0
93.0
52.0
55.0
49.0
51.0
93.0
91.0
111.0
142.0
147.0
167.0
71.0
142.0
—
238.0
—
127.0
127.0
108.0
190.0
86.0
—
89.0
—
89.0
148.0
167.0
—
200.0
332.0
276.0
129.0
162 0
257.0
332.0
68.0
148.0
49.0
167.0
69.0
75.0
99.0
137.0
32.0
75.0
137.0
52.0
Rough plow
with or without
conservation
25.0
25.0
78.0
24.0
20.0
21.0
22.0
79.0
79.0
97.0
129.0
133.0
153.0
51.0
127.0
—
222.0
—
114.0
114.0
84.0
175.0
74.0
—
77.0
—
67.0
120.0
137.0
—
184.0
317.0
260.0
103.0
146.0
239.0
317.0
49.0
120.0
19.0
137.0
57.0
62.0
86.0
120.0
. —
23.0
54.0
120.0
20.0
45.0
50.0
93.0
52.0
55.0
49.0
51.0
93.0
91.0
111.0
142.0
147.0
167.0
71.0
142.0
—
238.0
—
127.0
127.0
108.0
190.0
86.0
—
89.0
—
89.0
148.0
167.0
—
200.0
332.0
276.0
129.0
162.0
257.0
332.0
68.0
148.0
49.0
167.0
69.0
75.0
99.0
137.0
—
32.0
75.0
137.0
52.0
(See footnotes at end of table.)
57
-------
TABLE 21.—Total dissolved chemical oxygen demand transported in annual runoff
from land receiving livestock or poultry manure surface-applied at agronomic
rates^ —-Continued
Land
Resource
Area
Small grain
Grass with or without
conservation
Row crop
with or without
conservation
Rough plow
with or without
conservation
Ib I acre
148
149
150 W
150 E
151
152
153
154
155
156
238.0
309.0
466.0
1,228.0
—
1,228.0
606.0
117.0
575.0
—
118.0
149.0
220.0
580.0
—
580.0
286.0
55.0
272.0
—
144.0
179.0
250.0
613.0
—
613.0
319.0
136.0
338.0
77.0
94.0
129.0
317.0
—
317.0
165.0
70.0
175.0
89.0
108.0
142.0
332.0
—
332.0
180.0
112.0
207.0
—
77.0
94.0
129.0
317.0
—
317.0
165.0
70.0
175.0
—
89.0
108.0
142.0
332.0
—
332.0
180.0
112.0
207.0
• —
1 Values estimated from tables 17 and 18.
2 It is not possible to estimate values for mountain, swamp and forest regions or those with erratic
climate.
3 North, N; South, S; East, E; West, W, respectively, within Land Resource Areas.
58
-------
TABLE 22.—Increase in dissolved nitrogen transported in annual runoff from land
receiving livestock or poultry manure surface-applied at agronomic rates1
Land
Resource
Area
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
00
OO
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
Grass
< 1.8
< 1.9
< 1.8
< 1.8
6.9
< 3.8
< 1.8
< 1.8
< 3.0
< 1.8
(2)
4.8
< 1.8
< 1.8
< 2.2
< 1.8
< 1.8
< 1.8
< 1.8
< 2.2
< 2.0
< 2.0
< 2.0
< 2.2
10.2
2.4
4.1
< 1.8
5.7
4.1
5.7
7.6
2.8
11.1
12.9
14.7
i
< 3.8
< 3.8
—
—
—
< 3.4
< 1.8
< 3.0
< 3.0
10.9
< 2.4
< 2.8
< 3.8
Small grain
with or without
conservation
< 2.7
< 2.7
< 2.7
< 2.7
5.9
< 3.3
< 2.7
< 2.7
< 3.1
< 2.7
—
4.4
< 2.7
< 2.7
< 2.8
< 2.7
< 2.7
< 2.7
< 2.7
< 2.8
< 2.8
< 2.8
< 2.8
< 2.8
13.9
3.6
6.0
< 2.7
8.5
6.0
8.5
11.2
4.1
16.4
19.1
21.8
I
< 3.3
< 3.3
—
—
—
< 3.2
< 2.7
< 3.1
< 3.1
11.0
< 2.9
< 3.0
< 3.3
< 2.7
< 2.7
< 2.7
< 2.7
7.9
3.3
< 2.7
< 2.7
3.1
< 2.7
—
6.0
< 2.7
< 2.7
2.8
< 2.7
< 2.7
< 2.7
2.7
2.8
2.8
2.8
2.8
2.8
16.1
5.2
7.6
2.7
10.4
7.6
10.4
13.1
7.1
18.5
21.3
24.0
I
3.0
3.0
—
—
—
3.2
< 2.7
3.1
3.1
13.1
2.9
3.0
3.3
Row crop
with or without
conservation
Ib /acre
< .9
< .9
< .9
< .9
2.9
1.2
< .9
< .9
1.1
< .9
—
2.1
< .9
< .9
.9
< .9
< .9
< .9
.9
.9
.9
.9
.9
.9
5.1
1.6
2.4
.9
3.2
2.4
3.2
4.1
2.2
5.8
6.6
7.5
.
1.2
1.2
—
—
—
1.1
< .9
1.1
1.1
4.5
1.0
1.0
1.2
< .9
< .9
< .9
< .9
3.5
1.8
< .9
< .9
1.4
< .9
—
2.7
< .9
< .9
1.0
< .9
< .9
< .9
1.1
1.5
1.2
1.8
2.3
2.4
5.8
2.0
2.9
1.2
3.8
2.9
3.8
4.7
3.1
6.4
7.2
8.1
1.8
1.2
—
—
—
2.6
< .9
2.8
2.6
5.2
2.4
2.4
2.2
Rough plow
with or without
conservation
< 2.2
< 2.2
< 2.2
< 2.2
4.5
1.9
< 2.2
< 2.2
2.0
< 2.2
—
3.6
< 2.2
< 2.2
2.1
< 2.2
< 2.2
< 2.2
2.2
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
12.4
4.1
6.1
2.2
8.2
6.1
8.2
10.4
5.6
14.7
16.9
19.1
.
1.9
1.9
—
—
—
1.9
< 2.2
2.0
2.0
8.5
2.1
2.0
1.9
< 2.2
< 2.2
< 2.2
< 2.2
5.4
2.8
< 2.2
< 2.2
2.6
< 2.2
—
4.6
< 2.2
< 2.2
3.0
< 2.2
< 2.2
< 2.2
2.8
3.4
3.0
4.3
5.6
5.5
13.9
5.2
7.4
3.0
9.5
7.4
9.5
11.9
7.8
16.3
18.4
20.6
2.8
1.9
—
—
—
4.4
< 2.2
5.1
5.0
9.7
5.2
4.6
3.3
(See footnotes at end of table.)
59
-------
TABLE 22.—Increase in dissolved nitrogen transported in annual runoff from land
receiving livestock or poultry manure surface-applied at agronomic rates^—Continued
Land
Resource
Area
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128 N3
128 S
129
130
131 N
131 S
132
133
134 N
134 S
135
136 N
136 S
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
Grass
< 3.8
8.9
< 3.4
< 2.2
< 2.6
< 2.8
7.2
7.8
9.0
11.1
12.2
14.3
3.1
10.9
—
20.1
—
10.2
10.2
5.7
15.3
6.3
—
6.9
—
4.2
8.7
10.3
—
16.4
29.1
23.6
7.2
12.5
21.6
29.1
2.8
8.7
< 1.8
10.3
4.9
6.2
9.4
15.7
—
< 3.0
3.7
15.3
< 2.2
6.9
Small grain
with or without
conservation
< 3.3
8.2
< 3.2
< 2.8
< 3.0
< 3.0
9.1
9.3
11.3
16.4
16.7
19.5
4.2
16.1
—
29.7
—
13.9
13.9
8.5
22.6
8.6
—
8.8
—
6.3
12.8
15.3
—
24.3
43.1
34.9
10.6
18.5
31.9
43.1
4.1
12.8
< 2.7
15.3
6.2
6.6
9.5
13.4
—
< 3.1
4.3
13.1
< 2.8
8.8
3.3
10.4
3.2
2.8
3.0
3.0
11.1
11.0
13.6
18.5
18.9
21.7
7.2
18.3
—
31.9
—
16.1
16.1
12.0
25.1
10.6
—
10.8
—
9.6
17.2
19.6
—
26.5
45.5
37.4
14.7
21.0
34.4
45.5
7.1
17.2
2.7
19.6
7.9
8.4
11.6
15.7
—
3.1
7.5
15.7
2.8
10.8
Row crop
with or without
conservation
Ib /acre
1.2
3.7
1.1
.9
1.0
1.0
3.6
3.6
4.4
5.8
6.0
6.9
2.3
5.7
—
10.0
—
5.1
5.1
3.8
7.8
3.4
—
3.5
—
3.0
5.4
6.1
—
8.3
14.2
11.7
4.6
6.6
10.7
14.2
2.2
5.4
.9
6.1
2.6
2.9
4.0
5.7
—
1.1
2.5
5.7
.9
3.5
2.4
4.4
2.5
2.5
2.3
2.4
4.2
4.2
5.1
6.4
6.6
7.5
3.2
6.4
—
10.6
—
5.8
5.8
4.9
8.5
3.9
—
4.1
—
4.0
6.6
7.5
—
8.9
14.9
12.3
5.8
7.2
11.5
14.9
3.1
6.6
2.2
7.5
3.1
3.5
4.7
6.6
—
1.5
3.4
6.6
2.4
4.1
Rough plow
with or without
conservation
1.9
6.3
1.9
2.1
2.0
2.0
8.2
7.9
10.1
14.7
14.5
16.7
5.6
14.5
—
25.4
—
12.4
12.4
9.5
19.9
8.1
—
8.0
—
7.6
13.7
15.6
—
21.0
36.2
29.7
11.7
16.7
27.3
36.2
5.6
13.7
2.2
15.6
5.9
5.6
7.5
8.9
—
2.0
5.4
8.9
2.1
8.0
3.7
7.5
4.2
5.7
4.7
4.6
9.7
9.1
11.6
16.3
16.0
18.2
7.7
16.3
—
27.1
—
13.9
13.9
12.4
21.7
9.4
—
9.3
—
10.2
16.9
19.1
—
22.8
37.9
31.4
14.7
18.4
29.3
37.9
7.8
16.9
5.6
19.1
7.2
6.8
8.7
10.2
—
2.8
7.5
10.2
5.5
9.3
(See footnotes at end of table.)
60
-------
Table 22.—Increase dissolved nitrogen transported in annual runoff from land
receiving livestock or poultry manure surface-applied at agronomic rates1 —Continued
Land
Resource
Area
Small grain
Grass with or without
conservation
Row crop
with or without
conservation
Rough plow
with or without
conservation
Ib I acre
149
150 W
150 E
151
152
153
154
155
156
8.2
11.1
29.1
—
29.1
14.4
2.8
13.6
—
11.1
16.4
43.1
—
43.1
21.3
4.1
20.2
13.4
18.5
45.5
—
45.5
23.7
10.1
25.1
—
4.3
5.8
14.2
—
14.2
7.4
3.2
7.8
—
4.9
6.4
14.9
—
14.9
8.1
5.0
9.3
—
10.3
14.7
36.2
—
36.2
18.9
8.0
19.9
—
11.8
16.3
37.9
—
37.9
20.6
12.8
23.6
1 Values estimated from tables 17 and 18.
2 It is not possible to estimate values for mountain, swamp, and forest regions or those with erratic
climate.
3 North, N; South, S; East, E; West, W, respectively, within Land Resource Areas.
61
-------
TABLE 23.—Increase in dissolved phosphorus transported in annual runoff from land
receiving livestock or poultry manure surface-applied at agronomic rates'^
Land
Resource
Area
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
00
oo
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
Grass
< .6
< .6
< .6
< .6
1.8
<1.0
< .6
< .6
< .8
< .6
(2)
1.3
< .6
< .6
< .6
< .6
< .6
< .6
< .6
< .6
< .6
< .6
< .6
< .6
3.0
.7
1.2
< .6
1.7
1.2
1.7
2.3
.8
3.3
3.8
4.4
z
<1.0
<1.0
—
—
—
< .9
< .6
< .8
< .8
3.0
< .7
< .8
Small grain
with or without
conservation
< .8 < .8
< .8 < .8
< .8 < .8
< .8 < .8
1.4 1.9
< .8 .8
< .8 < .8
< .8 < .8
< .8 .8
< .8 .8
— —
1.1 1.5
< .8 < .8
< .8 < .8
< .8 .8
< .8 < .8
< .8 < .8
< .8 < .8
< .8 .8
< .8 .8
< .8 .8
< .8 .8
< .8 .8
< .8 .8
3.9 4.5
1.0 1.5
1.7 2.2
< .8 .8
2.4 2.9
1.7 2.2
2.4 2.9
3.2 3.7
1.2 2.0
4.6 5.3
5.4 6.0
6.2 6.8
~ ~
< .8 .8
< .8 .8
— —
— —
— —
< .8 .8
< .8 < .8
< .8 .8
< .8 .8
2.8 3.4
< .8 .8
< .8 .8
Row crop
with or without
conservation
Ib /acre
< .3
< .3
< .3
< .3
.6
.3
< .3
< .3
.3
.3
—
.5
< .3
< .3
.3
< .3
< .3
< .3
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
1.6
.5
.8
.3
1.1
.8
1.1
1.3
.7
1.9
2.2
2.4
.3
.3
—
—
—
.3
< .3
.3
.3
1.2
.3
.3
< .3
< .3
< .3
< .3
.8
.4
< .3
< .3
.4
.3
—
.6
< .3
< .3
.4
< .3
< .3
< .3
.4
.4
.4
.6
.8
.7
1.8
.7
.9
.4
1.2
.9
1.2
1.5
1.0
2.1
2.4
2.6
~
A
< .3
— .
—
—
.6
< .3
.7
.7
1.3
.7
.6
Rough plow
with or without
conservation
< .3
< .3
< .3
< .3
.8
.3
< .3
< .3
.3
.3
—
.6
< .3
< .3
.3
< .3
< .3
< .3
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
.3
1.9
.6
.9
.3
1.2
.9
1.2
1.5
.8
2.2
2.5
2.8
.
.3
.3
—
—
—
.3
< .3
.3
.3
1.4
.3
.3
< .3
< .3
< .3
< .3
.9
.5
< .3
< .3
.4
.5
—
.8
< .3
< .3
.3
< .3
< .3
< .3
.4
.5
.5
.6
.8
.8
2.1
.8
1.1
.5
1.4
1.1
1.4
1.8
1.2
2.4
2.7
3.1
.5
< .3
—
—
—
.7
< .3
.8
.8
1.5
.8
.7
(See footnotes at end of table.)
62
-------
TABLE 23.—Increase in dissolved phosphorus transported in annual runoff from land
receiving livestock or poultry manure surface-applied at agronomic rates1 —Continued
Land
Resource
Area
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128 N3
128 S
129
130
131 N
131 S
132
133
134 N
134 S
135
136 N
136 S
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
Grass
<1.0
<1.0
2.4
< .9
< .6
< .7
< .8
2.1
2.2
2.6
3.3
3.6
4.2
.9
3.2
—
6.0
—
3.0
3.0
1.7
4.6
1.8
—
2.0
—
1.3
2.6
3.1
—
4.9
8.7
7.0
2.1
3.7
6.4
8.7
.8
2.6
< .6
3.1
1.4
1.7
2.6
4.2
—
< .8
1.0
4.1
< .6
2.0
Small grain
with or without
conservation
< .8
< .8
2.1
< .8
< .8
< .8
< .8
2.5
2.5
3.1
4.6
4.7
5.4
1.2
4.6
—
8.4
—
3.9
3.9
2.4
6.4
2.4
—
2.4
—
1.8
3.6
4.3
—
6.9
12.2
9.9
3.0
5.3
9.0
12.2
1.2
3.6
< .8
4.3
1.7
1.7
2.5
3.3
—
< .8
1.2
3.2
< .8
2.4
.8
.8
2.6
.8
.8
.8
.8
3.0
3.0
3.7
5.3
5.3
6.1
2.0
5.2
—
9.0
—
4.5
4.5
3.4
7.1
3.0
—
3.0
—
2.7
4.9
5.6
—
7.5
12.9
10.6
4.2
6.0
9.7
12.9
2.0
4.9
.8
5.6
2.2
2.2
3.0
3.8
—
.8
2.0
3.8
.8
3.0
Row crop
with or without
conservation
Ib /acre
.3
.3
.9
.2
.3
.3
.3
1.1
1.0
1.3
1.9
1.9
2.2
.7
1.8
—
3.2
—
1.6
1.6
1.2
2.6
1.1
—
1.0
—
1.0
1.7
2.0
—
2.7
4.6
3.8
1.5
2.1
3.5
4.6
.7
1.7
.3
2.0
.8
.8
1.0
1.3
—
.3
.7
1.3
.3
1.0
.5
.5
1.0
.6
.7
.6
.6
1.3
1.2
1.5
2.1
2.1
2.3
1.0
2.1
—
3.5
—
1.8
1.8
1.6
2.8
1.2
—
1.2
—
1.3
2.2
2.4
—
2.9
4.8
4.0
1.9
2.4
3.7
4.8
1.0
2.2
.7
2.4
.9
.9
1.2
1.5
—
.4
1.0
1.5
.7
1.2
Rough plow
with or without
conservation
.3
.3
1.0
.3
.3
.3
.3
1.3
1.2
1.5
2.2
2.2
2.5
.8
2.2
—
3.8
—
1.9
1.9
1.4
3.0
1.2
—
1.2
—
1.1
2.0
2.3
—
3.1
5.4
4.4
1.7
2.5
4.1
5.4
.8
2.0
.3
2.3
.9
.9
1.2
1.5
—
.3
.8
1.5
.3
1.2
.6
.6
1.2
.7
.9
.7
.7
1.5
1.4
1.8
2.4
2.4
2.7
1.2
2.4
—
4.0
—
2.1
2.1
1.8
3.2
1.4
—
1.4
—
1.5
2.5
2.8
— .
3.4
5.6
4.7
2.2
2.7
4.3
5.6
1.2
2.5
.8
2.8
1.1
1.1
1.4
1.7
—
.4
1.2
1.7
.8
1.4
(See footnotes at end of table.)
63
-------
TABLE 23.—Increase in dissolved phosphorus transported in annual runoff from land
receiving livestock or poultry manure surface-applied at agronomic rates'-—Continued
Land
Resource
Area
Grass
Small grain
with or without
conservation
Row crop
with or without
conservation
Rough plow
with or without
conservation
Ib jacre
149
150 W
150 E
151
152
153
154
155
156
2.4
3.3
8.7
—
8.7
4.3
.8
4.1
—
3.1
4.6
12.2
—
12.2
6.0
1.2
5.7
—
3.7
5.3
12.9
—
12.9
6.7
2.9
7.1
—
1.3
1.9
4.6
—
4.6
2.4
1.0
2.5
—
1.5
2.1
4.8
—
4.8
2.6
1.6
3.0
—
1.5
2.2
5.4
—
5.4
2.8
1.2
3.0
—
1.8
2.4
5.6
—
5.6
3.1
1.9
3.5
.
1 Values estimated from tables 17 and 18.
2 It is not possible to estimate values for mountain, swamp, and forest regions or those with
erratic climate.
3 North, N; South, S; East, E; West, W, respectively, within Land Resource Areas.
64
-------
TABLE 24.—Increase in dissolved chemical oxygen demand transported in annual
runoff from land receiving livestock or poultry manure surface-applied at agrono-
mic rates '
Land
Resource
Area
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
Grass
< 66.0
< 66.0
< 66.0
< 66.0
110.0
< 61.0
< 66.0
< 66.0
< 63.0
< 66.0
(2)
87.0
< 66.0
< 66.0
< 65.0
< 66.0
< 66.0
< 66.0
< 66.0
< 65.0
< 66.0
< 66.0
< 66.0
< 65.0
329.0
86.0
146.0
< 66.0
206.0
146.0
206.0
272.0
100.0
398.0
465.0
531.0
—
—
< 61.0
< 61.0
—
—
—
< 62.0
< 66.0
< 63.0
< 63.0
228.0
< 65.0
< 64.0
< 61.0
Small grain
with or without
conservation
< 32.0
< 32.0
< 32.0
< 32.0
69.0
< 38.0
< 32.0
< 32.0
< 36.0
< 32.0
—
52.0
< 32.0
< 32.0
< 33.0
< 32.0
< 32.0
< 32.0
< 32.0
< 33.0
< 33.0
< 33.0
< 33.0
< 33.0
164.0
42.0
71.0
< 32.0
100.0
71.0
100.0
132.0
48.0
193.0
225.0
257.0
—
—
< 38.0
< 38.0
—
—
—
< 37.0
< 32.0
< 36.0
< 36.0
129.0
< 34.0
< 35.0
< 38.0
< 32.0
< 32.0
< 32.0
< 32.0
92.0
38.0
< 32.0
< 32.0
36.0
< 32.0
—
71.0
< 32.0
< 32.0
33.0
< 32.0
< 32.0
< 32.0
32.0
33.0
33.0
33.0
33.0
33.0
190.0
61.0
90.0
32.0
122.0
90.0
122.0
154.0
84.0
219.0
251.0
283.0
—
—
38.0
38.0
—
—
—
37.0
< 32.0
36.0
36.0
154.0
34.0
35.0
38.0
Row crop
with or without
conservation
Ib /acre
< 7.0
< 7.0
< 7.0
< 7.0
30.0
12.0
< 7.0
< 7.0
10.0
< 7.0
—
21.0
< 7.0
< 7.0
8.0
< 7.0
< 7.0
< 7.0
7.0
8.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
8.0
41.0
12.0
18.0
7.0
25.0
18.0
25.0
31.0
17.0
44.0
51.0
57.0
—
—
12.0
12.0
—
—
—
11.0
< 7.0
10.0
10.0
43.0
8.0
9.0
12.0
< 7.0
< 7.0
< 7.0
< 7.0
36.0
19.0
< 7.0
< 7.0
13.0
< 7.0
—
27 0
< 7.0
< 7.0
11.0
< 7.0
< 7.0
< 7.0
8.0
12.0
10.0
14.0
18.0
20.0
46.0
16.0
22.0
9.0
29.0
22.0
29.0
36.0
23.0
49.0
55.0
62.0
—
—
19.0
< 12.0
—
—
—
26.0
< 7.0
26.0
25.0
49.0
21.0
22.0
22.0
Rough plow
with or without
conservation
< 7.0
< 7.0
< 7.0
< 7.0
30.0
12.0
< 7.0
< 7.0
10.0
< 7.0
—
21.0
< 7.0
< 7.0
8.0
< 7.0
< 7.0
< 7.0
7.0
8.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
8.0
41.0
12.0
18.0
7.0
25.0
18. C
25.0
31.0
17.0
44.0
51.0
57.0
—
—
12.0
12.0
—
—
—
11.0
< 7.0
10.0
10.0
43.0
8.0
9.0
12.0
< 7.0
< 7.0
< 7.0
< 7.0
36.0
19.0
< 7.0
< 7.0
13.0
< 7.0
—
27.0
< 7.0
< 7.0
11.0
< 7.0
< 7.0
< 7.0
8.0
12.0
10.0
14.0
18.0
20.0
46.0
16.0
22.0
9.0
29.0
22.0
29.0
36.0
23.0
49.0
55.0
62.0
—
—
19.0
< 12.0
—
—
—
26.0
< 7.0
26.0
25.0
49.0
21.0
22.0
22.0
(See footnotes at end of table.)
65
-------
TABLE 24.—Increase in dissolved chemical oxygen demand transported in annual
runoff from land receiving livestock or poultry manure surface-applied at agrono-
mic rates1—Continued
Land
Resource
Area
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128 N3
128 S
129
130
131 N
131 S
132
133
134 N
134 S
135
136 N
136 S
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
Grass
< 61.0
162.0
<162.0
< 65.0
< 64.0
< 64.0
209.0
207.0
261.0
398.0
395.0
461.0
99.0
392.0
—
723.0
—
329.0
329.0
206.0
551.0
204.0
—
202.0
—
153.0
312.0
372.0
—
591.0
1,049.0
849.0
259.0
451.0
776.0
1,049.0
100.0
312.0
< 66.0
372.0
144.0
140.0
196.0
251.0
—
< 63.0
97.0
245.0
< 65.0
Small grain
with or without
conservation
< 38.0
96.0
< 37.0
< 33.0
< 35.0
< 35.0
104.0
109.0
134.0
193.0
190.0
229.0
49.0
190.0
—
351.0
—
164.0
164.0
100.0
267.0
102.0
—
104.0
—
74.0
151.0
180.0
. —
286.0
508.0
412.0
125.0
219.0
376.0
508.0
48.0
151.0
< 32.0
180.0
73.0
78.0
111.0
157.0
—
< 36.0
51.0
153.0
< 33.0
38.0
122.0
37.0
33.0
35.0
35.0
130.0
129.0
160.0
219.0
223.0
256.0
85.0
215.0
—
376.0
—
190.0
190.0
142.0
296.0
125.0
—
127.0
—
113.0
203.0
232.0
—
312.0
537.0
441.0
174.0
248.0
405.0
537.0
84.0
203.0
32.0
232.0
94.0
99.0
136.0
184.0
—
36.0
88.0
184.0
33.0
Row crop
with or without
conservation
Ib /acre
12.0
37.0
11.0
8.0
9.0
9.0
30.0
31.0
37.0
44.0
48.0
55.0
18.0
44.0
76.0
41.0
41.0
29.0
60.0
27.0
29.0
23.0
41.0
47.0
63.0
109.0
89.0
35.0
50.0
82.0
109.0
17.0
41.0
7.0
47.0
22.0
27.0
38.0
60.0
—
10.0
22.0
60.0
8.0
25.0
44.0
25.0
21.0
20.0
22.0
35.0
36.0
42.0
49.0
53.0
60.0
26.0
49.0
—
81.0
—
46.0
46.0
37.0
65.0
31.0
34.0
31.0
51.0
57.0
—
68.0
114.0
94.0
44.0
55.0
88.0
114.0
23.0
51.0
17.0
57.0
26.0
32.0
44.0
69.0
—
14.0
30.0
69.0
20.0
Rough plow
with or without
conservation
12.0
37.0
11.0
8.0
9.0
9.0
30.0
31.0
37.0
44.0
48.0
55.0
18.0
44.0
76.0
41.0
41.0
29.0
60.0
27.0
29.0
23.0
41.0
47.0
63.0
109.0
89.0
35.0
50.0
82.0
109.0
17.0
41.0
7.0
47.0
22.0
27.0
38.0
60.0
—
10.0
22.0
60.0
8.0
25.0
44.0
25.0
21.0
20.0
22.0
35.0
36.0
42.0
49.0
53.0
60.0
26.0
49.0
81.0
46.0
46.0
37.0
65.0
31.0
34.0
31.0
51.0
57.0
—
68.0
114.0
94.0
44.0
55.0
88.0
114.0
23.0
51.0
17.0
57.0
26.0
32.0
44.0
69.0
—
14.0
30.0
69.0
20.0
(See footnotes at end of table.)
66
-------
TABLE 24.—Increase in dissolved chemical oxygen demand transported in annual
runoff from land receiving livestock or poultry manure surface-applied at agrono-
mic ratesi—Continued
Land
Resource
Area
Small grain
Grass with or without
conservation
Row crop
with or without
conservation
Rough plow
with or without
conservation
Ib I acre
148
149
150 W
150 E
151
152
153
154
155
156
202.0
263.0
398.0
1,049.0
—
1,049.0
518.0
100.0
491.0
—
104.0
131.0
193.0
508.0
—
508.0
251.0
48.0
238.0
—
127.0
157.0
219.0
537.0
—
537.0
280.0
119.0
296.0
—
29.0
34.0
44.0
109.0
—
109.0
57.0
24.0
60.0
• —
34.0
39.0
49.0
114.0
—
114.0
62.0
38.0
71.0
—
29.0
34.0
44.0
109.0
—
109.0
57.0
24.0
60.0
—
34.0
39.0
49.0
114.0
—
114.0
62.0
38.0
71.0
•
i Values estimated from tables 17 and 18.
2 It is not possible to estimate values for mountain, swamp, and forest regions or those with erratic
climate.
3 North, N; South, S; East, E; West, W, respectively, within Land Resource Areas.
67
-------
TABLE 25.—Total dissolved nitrogen transported during maximum 4-week period or
from annual snowmelt from land receiving livestock or poultry manure surface-
applied at agronomic rates1
Land Resource
Area
Controlling Factor
Max.
4-wk.
period
60
61
62
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
OQ
oo
89
Snow-
melt
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
(2)
63
64
65
66
67
68
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
Grtiss
< 2.6
< 2.6
< 2.6
< 2.6
5.89
< 3.27
< 1.96
< 2.6
1.03
.73
—
3.67
< .65
< .65
< .65
< .33
< .33
1.11
1.73
.89
.65
1.00
1.60
1.60
3.43
1.73
1.73
.35
2.54
2.84
2.27
5.41
2.41
6.00
6.00
6.00
< 3.27
< 3.27
—
—
—
< 2.62
< 1.96
Small
with or
grain
\\iltV\r\llt
conservation
< 2.27
< 2.27
< 2.27
< 2.27
4.09
< 2.27
< 1.36
< 2.27
1.38
.98
—
2.55
< .45
< -45
< .45
< .23
< .23
1.49
2.33
1.20
.87
1.35
2.15
2.15
4.62
2.33
2.33
.47
3.42
3.82
3.05
7.27
3.24
8.07
8.07
8.07
< 2.27
< 2.27
—
—
—
< 1.82
< 1.36
< 2.27
< 2.27
< 2.27
< 2.27
5.45
2.27
< 1.36
< 2.27
1.47
1.15
—
3.45
< .45
< .45
.45
< .23
< .23
1.65
2.42
1.36
1.04
1.51
2.29
2.29
4.62
2.42
2.42
.78
3.47
3.84
3.13
7.27
3.35
8.07
8.07
8.07
. .
2.27
2.27
—
—
—
1.82
< 1.36
Row crop
conservation
Ib /acre
-------
TABLE 25 —Total dissolved nitrogen transported during maximum 4-week period or
from annual snowmelt from land receiving livestock or poultry manure surface-
applied at agronomic rates1—Continued
Land Resource
Area
Controlling Factor
Max.
4-wk. Snow-
period melt
Gr
-------
TABLE 25.—Total dissolved nitrogen transported during maximum 4-week period or
from annual snowmelt from land receiving livestock or poultry manure surface-
applied at agronomic rates1—Continued
Land Resource
Area
Controlling
Max.
Factor
Grass
Small
with or
grain
\l/ltVl /Mlt
conservation
Row
with or
crop
\17ltKl-\llt
conservation
Rough
niitli i-vr v
plow
•tu t
Wl til \JL Vv 1 LliVS W. i.
conservation
4-wk. Snow-
period
138
139
148
149
150 W
150 E
151
152
153
154
155
156
melt
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
3.46
1.22
3.60
6.09
13.40
—
< 1.96
1.47
13.10
< .65
2.06
2.06
4.38
4.38
—
5.81
3.00
2.08
7.79
.
4.65
1.64
2.50
4.23
9.32
—
< 1.36
1.02
9.09
< .45
2.76
2.76
5.89
5.89
—
7.82
4.04
2.80
10.5
4.69
1.75
3.18
5.18
10.90
—
1.36
1.77
10.9
.45
2.84
2.84
5.89
5.89
. —
7.82
4.07
3.18
10.5
—
Ib /acre
2.08
.77
1.55
2.53
5.32
—
.67
.87
5.32
.22
1.26
1.26
2.61
2.61
—
3.47
1.81
1.41
4.65
—
2.10
.82
1.89
2.93
6.10
—
.93
1.20
6.10
.58
1.29
1.29
2.61
2.61
—
3.47
1.82
1.58
4.65
—
3.87
1.44
1.55
2.53
5.32
—
.67
.87
5.32
.22
2.34
2.34
4.86
4.86
—
6.45
3.36
2.63
8.64
—
3.90
1.53
1.89
2.93
6.10
—
.93
1.20
6.10
.58
2.40
2.40
4.86
4.86
—
6.45
3.39
2.94
8.64
1 Values estimated from tables 17 and 18.
2 It is not possible to estimate values for mountain, swamp, and forest regions or those with erratic
climate.
3 North, N; South, S; East, E; West, W, respectively, within Land Resource Areas.
70
-------
TABLE 26.—Total dissolved phosphorus transported during maximum 4-week period or
from annual snowmelt from land receiving surface-applied livestock or poultry
manure at agronomic rates1
Land Resource
Area
Controlling
Max.
4-wk.
period
60
61
62
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
Factor
Snow-
melt
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
63
64
65
66
67
68
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
CiTelSS
< .7
< .7
< .7
< .7
1.42
< .79
< .47
< .7
.26
.18
(2)
.89
< .16
< .16
< .16
< .08
< .08
.28
.44
.23
.16
.25
.40
.40
.87
.44
.44
.09
.64
.72
.57
1.36
.61
1.51
1.51
1.51
—
—
< .79
< .79
—
—
—
< .63
< .47
Small
with or
grain
\*/itl-i/iiit
conservation
< .45
< .45
< .45
< .45
.82
< .45
< .27
< .45
.35
.25
—
.51
< .09
< .09
< .09
< .05
< .05
.37
.58
.30
.22
.34
.54
.54
1.15
.58
.58
.12
.85
.95
.76
1.82
.81
2.02
2.02
2.02
—
—
< .45
< .45
—
—
—
< .36
< .27
< .45
< .45
< .45
< .45
1.09
.45
< .27
< .45
.37
.29
—
.69
< .09
< .09
.09
< .05
< .05
.41
.60
.34
.26
.38
.57
.57
1.15
.60
.60
.20
.87
.96
.78
1.82
.84
2.02
2.02
2.02
—
—
.45
.45
—
—
—
.36
< .27
Row
with or
crop
Vulthl-Mlt
conservation
Ib /acre
< .17
< .17
< .17
< .17
.41
.17
< .10
< .17
.16
.12
—
.26
< .03
< .03
.03
< .02
< .02
.18
.26
.14
.11
.16
.24
.24
.40
.26
.26
.08
.37
.41
.33
.77
.36
.86
.86
.86
—
—
.17
.17
—
.14
< .10
< .17
< .17
< .17
< .17
.50
.26
< .10
< .17
.17
.14
—
.33
< .03
< .03
.05
< .02
< .02
.19
.27
.16
.13
.18
.26
.26
.49
.27
.27
.12
.37
.41
.34
.77
.37
.86
.86
.86
—
—
.26
< .17
—
—
—
.32
< .10
Rough
with nr
plow
•tu t
conservation
< .17
< .17
< .17
< .17
.41
.17
< .10
< .17
.16
.12
—
.26
< .03
< .03
.03
< .02
< .02
.18
.26
.14
.11
.16
.24
.24
.49
.26
.26
.08
.37
.41
.33
.77
.36
.86
.86
.86
—
—
.17
.17
—
—
—
.14
< .10
< .17
< .17
< .17
< .17
.50
.26
< .10
< .17
.17
.14
—
.33
< .03
< .03
.05
< .02
< .02
.19
.27
.16
.13
.18
.26
.26
.49
.27
.27
.12
.37
.41
.34
.77
.37
.86
.86
.86
—
—
.26
< .17
—
—
.32
< .10
(See footnotes at end of table.)
71
-------
TABLE 26.—Total dissolved phosphorus transported during maximum 4-week period
or from annual snowmelt from land receiving surface-applied livestock or poultry
manure at agronomic rates1—Continued
Land Resource
Area
Controlling Factor
Max.
4-wk. Snow-
period melt
,-.
VjidSS
Small
•,i
grain
\Ilif J-lrtllt
wiin or vYiimrui.
conservation
Row
•ti
crop
•tL t
wiin or wmn/ui
conservation
Rough plow
..i 'fUrt
wiin or wirnoi.
conservation
Ib jacre
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
12
127
128 N3
128 S
129
130
131 N
131 S
132
133
134 N
134 S
135
136 N
136 S
137
< .47
< .47
1.71
< .24
< .40
< .79
< .79
1.65
< .63
.28
< .32
< .40
.33
.48
.48
1.08
.70
1.19
.22
.92
—
1.98
—
.74
.93
.57
1.13
.48
—
.47
—
.23
1.10
1.10
1.83
1.54
.99
1.39
1.54
1.32
2.09
.18
.45
.14
< .27
< .27
.98
< .14
< .23
< .45
< .45
.95
< .36
.37
< .18
< .23
.44
.64
.65
1.44
.93
1.59
.29
1.23
—
2.65
—
.98
1.24
.76
1.51
.65
—
.63
—
.30
1.46
1.46
—
2.45
2.05
1.32
1.85
2.05
1.75
2.79
.24
.60
.18
.27
.27
1.17
.14
.23
.45
.45
1.20
.36
.41
.18
.23
.46
.66
.67
1.44
.93
1.59
.33
1.23
—
2.65
—
.99
1.24
.79
1.51
.67
—
.65
—
.34
1.46
1.46
—
2.45
2.05
1.32
1.85
2.05
1.75
2.79
.28
.63
.26
.10
.10
.45
.05
.09
.17
.17
.46
.14
.18
.07
.09
.20
.28
.28
.61
.40
.68
.14
.52
—
1.12
—
.42
.53
.34
.64
.28
—
.28
—
.14
.62
.62
—
1.04
.87
.56
.79
.87
.75
1.19
.12
.27
.11
.27
.26
.51
.13
.20
.31
.35
.54
.30
.19
.16
.20
.21
.29
.29
.61
.40
.68
.16
.53
—
1.12
—
.43
.53
.35
.64
.29
—
.29
—
.16
.62
.62
—
1.04
.87
.56
.79
.87
.75
1.19
.14
.28
.15
.10
.10
.45
.05
.09
.17
.17
.46
.14
.18
.07
.09
.20
.28
.28
.61
.40
.68
.14
.52
—
1.12 1
— —
.42
.53
.34
.64
.28
—
.28
— —
.14
.62
.62
— —
1.04 1
.87
.56
.79
.87
.75
1.19 1
.12
.27
.11
27
26
,51
,13
.20
,31
.35
.54
.30
.19
.16
.20
.21
.29
.29
61
.40
.68
.16
.53
.12
.43
.53
.35
.64
.29
.29
.16
.62
.62
.04
.87
.56
.79
.87
.75
.19
.14
.28
.15
(See footnotes at end of table.)
72
-------
TABLE 26.—Total dissolved phosphorus transported during maximum 4-week period
or from annual snowmelt from land receiving surface-applied livestock or poultry
manure at agronomic rates1—Continued
Land Resource
Area
Controlling Factor
Max.
4-wk. Snow-
period melt
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150 W
150 E
151
152
153
154
155
156
Gr3.ss
.87
.31
.87
1.47
3.24
—
< .47
.36
3.16
< .16
.52
.52
1.10
1.10
—
1.47
.76
.52
1.96
—
Small grain
with or without
conservation
1.16
.41
.50
.85
1.86
—
< .27
.20
1.82
< .09
.69
.69
1.47
1.47
—
1.95
1.01
.70
2.62
—
1.17
.44
.64
1.04
2.18
—
.27
.35
2.18
.09
.71
.71
1.47
1.47
—
1.95
1.02
.80
2.62
—
Row crop
with or without
conservation
Ib /acre
.50
.19
.24
.39
.83
—
.10
.13
.83
.03
.30
.30
.63
.63
—
.83
.43
.34
1.11
—
.50
.20
.29
.46
.95
—
.15
.19
.95
.09
.31
.31
.63
.63
—
.83
.44
.38
1.11
—
Rough plow
conservation
.50
.19
.24
.39
.83
—
.10
.13
.83
.03
.30
.30
.63
.63
—
.83
.43
.34
1.11
• —
.50
.20
.29
.46
.95
—
.15
.19
.95
.09
.31
.31
.63
.63
—
.83
.44
.38
1.11
—
1 Values estimated from tables 17 and 18.
2 It is not possible to estimate values for mountain, swamp, and forest regions or those with erratic
climate.
3 North, N; South, S; East, E; West, W, respectively, within Land Resource Areas.
73
-------
TABLE 27.—Total dissolved chemical oxygen demand transported during maximum
4-week period or from annual snowmelt from land receiving surface-applied live-
stock or poultry manure at agronomic rates1
Land Resource
Area
Controlling
Max.
4-wk.
period
60
61
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
Factor
Snow-
melt
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
OO
OO
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
X".
vJidSS
< 34
< 34 .
< 34
< 34
61
< 34
< 20
< 34
31
22
(2)
38
< 7
< 7
< 7
< 3
< 3
< 34
52
27
20
30
48
48
104
52
52
11
77
86
69
164
73
182
182
182
< 34
< 34
—
—
—
< 27
< 20
Small
•tt\- --
grain
•ti t
wiin or Y*iLiiv«-»«-
conservation
< 25
< 25
< 25
< 25
44
< 25
< 15
< 25
15
10
—
27
< 5
< 5
< 5
< 2
< 2
16
25
13
9
14
23
23
49
25
25
5
36
41
32
77
34
86
86
86
< 25
< 25
—
—
—
< 20
< 15
< 25
< 25
< 25
< 25
59
25
< 15
< 25
16
12
—
37
< 5
< 5
5
< 2
< 2
18
26
14
11
16
24
24
49
26
26
8
37
41
33
77
36
86
86
86
25
25
—
—
—
20
< 15
Row
•fi
crop
/itVlrtllt
witn or vyniivuL
conservation
Ib /acre
<15
<15
<15
<15
37
15
< 9
<15
8
6
—
23
< 3
< 3
3
< 2
< 2
9
13
8
6
8
13
13
25
13
13
4
19
21
17
40
18
44
44
44
15
15
—
—
—
12
< 9
<15
<15
<15
<15
45
23
< 9
<15
9
7
—
30
< 3
< 3
4
< 2
< 2
10
14
8
7
9
13
13
25
14
14
6
19
21
18
40
19
44
44
44
23
<15
—
—
—
28
< 9
Rough
-.1
plow
....
wnn or VVHIIVJUL
conservation
<15
<15
<15
<15
37
15
< 9
<15
8
6
—
23
< 3
< 3
3
< 2
< 2
9
13
8
6
8
13
13
25
13
13
4
19
21
17
40
18
44
44
44
15
15
—
—
—
12
< 9
<15
<15
<15
<15
45
23
< 9
<15
9
7
—
30
< 3
< 3
4
< 2
< 2
10
14
8
7
9
13
13
25
14
14
6
19
21
18
40
19
44
44
44
23
<15
—
—
—
28
< 9
(See footnotes at end of table.)
74
-------
TABLE 27.—Total dissolved chemical oxygen demand transported during maximum
4-week period or from annual snowmelt from land receiving surface-applied live-
stock or poultry manure at agronomic rates1—Continued
Land Resource
Area
Controlling Factor
Max.
4-wk. Snow-
period melt
Grtiss
Small
Witt! Or TTIVAIUMV
grain
\n/itVinnt
conservation
Row
with or ii n-iiuut.
crop
ii/ithrMit
conservation
Rough
with or VT»I,»»
plow
i;ithr»nt
conservation
Ib /acre
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128 N3
128 S
129
130
131 N
131 S
132
133
134 N
134 S
135
136 N
136 S
137
< 20
< 20
73
< 10
< 17
< 34
< 34
70
< 27
34
13
17
39
57
58
129
83
143
26
110
— .
238
—
88
111
69
136
58
—
56
—
27
132
132
—
220
185
119
167
185
158
251
21
54
16
< 15
< 15
53
< 7
< 12
< 25
< 25
51
< 20
16
10
12
19
27
27
61
39
68
12
52
—
112
—
42
53
32
64
27
—
27
—
13
62
62
—
104
87
56
79
87
75
119
10
25
8
15
15
63
7
12
25
25
65
20
18
10
12
20
28
28
61
40
68
14
52
—
112
—
42
53
34
64
28
—
28
—
14
62
62
—
104
87
56
79
87
75
119
12
27
11
9
9
40
5
8
15
15
41
12
9
6
8
10
15
15
32
21
35
7
27
—
58
—
22
27
17
33
15
—
14
—
8
32
32
—
54
45
29
41
45
39
61
6
14
6
24
23
45
12
18
28
31
48
27
10
14
18
11
15
15
32
21
35
8
27
—
58
—
22
27
18
33
15
—
15
—
8
32
32
—
54
45
29
41
45
39
61
7
15
8
9
9
40
5
8
15
15
41
12
9
6
8
10
15
15
32
21
35
7
27
—
58
—
22
27
17
33
15
—
14
—
8
32
32
—
54
45
29
41
45
39
61
6
14
6
24
23
45
12
18
28
31
48
27
10
14
18
11
15
15
32
21
35
8
27
—
58
—
22
27
18
33
15
—
15
—
8
32
32
—
54
45
29
41
45
39
61
7
15
8
(See footnotes at end of table.)
75
-------
TABLE 27.—Total dissolved chemical oxygen demand transported during maximum
4-week period or from annual snowmelt from land receiving surface-applied live-
stock or poultry manure at agronomic rates^—Continued
Land Resource
Area
Controlling Factor
Max.
4-wk. Snow-
period melt
Grass
Small grain
with or without
conservation
Row crop
with or without
conservation
Rough plow
with or without
conservation
Ib I acre
138
139
148
149
150 W
150 E
151
152
153
154
155
156
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
105
37
37
63
138
—
< 20
15
135
< 7
62
62
133
133
—
176
91
63
236
—
49
17
27
46
101
—
< 15
11
98
< 5
29
29
63
63
—
83
43
30
111
—
50
19
34
56
118
—
15
19
118
5
30
30
63
63
—
83
43
34
111
26
10
22
35
74
—
9
12
74
3
16
16
32
32
—
43
22
17
58
—
26
10
26
41
85
—
13
17
85
8
16
16
32
32
—
43
23
20
58
26
10
22
35
74
—
9
12
74
3
16
16
32
32
—
43
22
17
58
—
26
10
26
41
85
—
13
17
85
8
16
16
32
32
—
43
23
20
58
1 Values estimated from tables 17 and 18.
2 It is not possible to estimate values for mountain, swamp, and foiest regions or those with erratic
climate.
3 North, N; South, S; East, E; West, W, respectively, within Land Resource Areas.
Although not considered in this manual, salt is a
potential ground water pollutant, especially in irri-
gated areas. Care should be exercised when applying
manures in irrigated areas and sections of the South-
east with salt-leaching problems. In the Southeast,
leaching of plant nutrients below the 4-foot zone
occurs primarily from November through April. Nu-
trients contained in livestock and poultry manures
applied during these months would be available for
leaching. Cool-season crops can provide ground cover
and reduce nutrient leaching during the winter
ground water recharge period. The quantity of N
leached is a function of the water percolating below
the 4-foot root zone and the portion of the total
soluble N in the soil not used by crops.
Nitrogen leaching losses attributable to one-time,
surface-applied manures are assumed negligible be-
cause surface application results in slower decompo-
sition and nitrification rates and higher volatilization
losses (168, 169). Planners should refer to proce-
dures established by Stewart et al. (126, 127) for
other leaching losses. Estimated potential N leaching
losses shown in table 28 are from land with manures
incorporated into the soil at rates equaling or exceed-
ing those required to fill N requirements of crops.
The equation used to calculate potential leaching
losses is shown in the Appendix.
Nitrogen leaching losses may be excessive when
manure application exceeds agronomic loading rates
as shown in table 28. To avoid pollution of ground
76
-------
TABLE 28.—Potential increase in nitrogen leaching loss per 100 pounds of nitrogen con-
tent of crops receiving soil-incorporated livestock or poultry manure or other nitrogen
source
Manure rate '
Land Resource Area
Potential N leaching loss
Lb NjlOO Ib crop content
Fall-Applied Manure
52-64, 66-78, 80-83, 84*, 85*, 86*, 87*, 90, 95*, 99, 102-106,
107*, 108*, 109, 111*, 118*, 124*, 140*, 141, 142, 146, 150* 2 5 15 25
65, 79, 97, 98, 100, 101, 110, 112, 113*, 114*, 115*, 121, 126*,
148, 149 7 20 60 100
91, 96, 123, 131, 132, 134, 135, 139, 144*, 145, 147*, 152, 153* 13 40 120 200
116, 120, 122, 128, 129, 133, 136, 137, 138, 154, 155 20 60 180 300
Spring-Applied Manure
52-64,66-78, 80-85, 86*, 90, 95, 97-115, 118, 120*, 121-124,
126, 128, 129, 131, 132, 133*, 134, 135, 136, 140, 141, 142, 144*,
146-149, 152*, 153* 0000
65,79,87,96,116,139,145,150 2 5 15 25
91*, 133, 138 7 20 60 100
137, 154, 155 13 40 120 200
1 Manure or N rate: 1 = agronomic application rate to fulfill crop N requirements.
2 = twice agronomic rate, etc.
* Check figure 35, Stewart et al. (126) for exact location within LRA. Potential leaching loss for
parts of this LRA may be more severe than indicated here. Always check local conditions and use
local data when possible. It is not possible to estimate values for mountain, swamp, and forest
regions or those with erratic climate.
water, it is essential to use recommended manure
application rates. If recommended rates are not used,
economic losses incurred through loss of nutrients
will become more significant as fertilizer costs in-
crease.
Worksheet 4 Instructions
Worksheet 4 summarizes the effects of livestock
and poultry manure on the application site. No at-
tempt is made to make evaluation decisions since
standards and environmental quality criteria are not
available for each Land Resource Area. Readers fol-
lowing Sample Problem 2 should refer to the problem
statement and completed Worksheets 1, 2, and 3,
pages 15, 16, 23, and 35, respectively.
Steps 1 through 10 below correspond to Steps 1
through 10 on Worksheet 4:
1. Use figure 4, page 8, to determine the Land
Resource Area of the livestock or poultry op-
eration.
Planners provide local information.
2a. Check the most applicable land use for
the surrounding area. If the surrounding
area is other than agricultural or if future
plans are for other than agricultural pur-
poses, methods of manure application to
avoid nuisance problems should be con-
sidered.
2b. Draw a map of the land application site,
showing features such as neighboring
farms, streams, lakes, prevailing wind,
cities, etc. (See fig. 10, p. 26, for an ex-
ample map.) Steps 2b. 1 through 2b.4 on
the worksheet may be completed when
the map is available.
2c. Obtain present and planned zoning regu-
lations from local offices. These regula-
tions may have a significant effect on use
77
-------
of the site for application of livestock or
poultry manure.
3. Check whether the livestock or poultry manure
is surface-applied or incorporated into the soil
by knifing, plowing, or other tillage methods.
Runoff and leaching will be affected by appli-
cation method. (See Section 4, pages 25-28,
for detailed information on application meth-
ods.)
4. Check the type of cropping system used on the
application site.
5. Check the appropriate blank for conservation
practices.
6. The quantity of runoff water from the applica-
tion site will be determined in Steps 6a through
6e.
6a. Use table 17, pages 45-47, to determine
the quantity of runoff from land without
manure applied. Find the appropriate
Land Resource Area and type of crop-
ping system (grass, small grain, row crop,
or plowed field). Record the inches of
annual runoff on line 6a.
6b. Use table 17 to determine the amount of
annual runoff that is contributed by snow-
melt. Record the percent by snowmelt on
Line 5b.
6c. The percent of annual runoff due to rain-
fall may be calculated by subtracting
the percent by snowmelt (Line 6b) from
100. Record the difference on Line 6c.
6d. The application site area was determined
on Worksheet 3. Record the area (Line
6b, Worksheet 3) on Line 6d of Work-
sheet 4.
6e. The annual runoff from the application
site may be determined with information
recorded on Lines 3, 4, 5, and 6a through
6d.
6e.l. Calculate the amount of snowmelt
runoff and rainfall runoff. Transfer
the annual runoff recorded on Line
6a, percent by snowmelt recorded
on Line 6b, percent by rainfall re-
corded on Line 6c, and the applica-
tion area recorded on Line 6d to
appropriate lines in 6e.l and 6e.2.
By performing the calculations
shown under Line 6e.l, the quan-
tity of snowmelt and rainfall runoff
from land with manure surface-
applied may be calculated. (Note
the use of the constants 0.8 and
0.95 in the calculations to reflect
the reduction in runoff when ma-
nure is surface applied.)
6e.2. Snowmelt and rainfall runoff with
manure soil-incorporated may be
calculated as shown on Line 6e.2.
(Runoff from land without manure
and land with manure soil-incorpo-
rated are assumed the same. How-
ever, small reductions in runoff are
evident on soil with annual applica-
tions of manure.)
Note:
The total quantity of runoff from
land with livestock or poultry ma-
nure soil-incorporated and surface-
applied may be compared, using the
total runoff values on Lines 6e.l
and 6e.2.
7. Check the type of cropping system used where
livestock or poultry manure is applied (see
Line 4). Runoff and runoff-transported nutri-
ents will be affected by the type of crop grown
or the condition of the field.
7a. Estimated N transported in runoff from
land with surface-applied manure may be
obtained by following Steps 7a.l through
7a.5.
7a.l. The amount of N transported in
runoff annually may be obtained by
referring to table 19, page 50. Lo-
cate the LRA recorded on Line 1.
The amount of N transported from
land with manure applied is listed
on table 19. The planner must se-
lect the appropriate cropping sys-
tem (recorded on Line 4) and re-
cord a value on Line 7a.l. Values
are listed for land both with and
without conservation practices.
7a.2. The quantity of N transported due
to livestock or poultry manure ap-
plied to the land may be obtained
from table 22, page 60. The plan-
ner must select the appropriate
number to record on Line 7a.2.
7a.3. Since runoff is dependent on precip-
itation patterns and snowmelt, most
of the N will be transported during
seasons characteristics to the cli-
matic conditions of the LRA. Ta-
78
-------
ble 25, page 68, may be used to
obtain the maximum short-term
amount of N transported either by
rainfall or snowmelt (values for
each type of cropping system listed,
with or without conservation prac-
tices). Record the value on Line
7a.3.
7a.4. Make a checkmark by snowmelt or
rainfall, whichever controls the
maximum short-term runoff (refer-
ring to table 25).
7a.5. Total N transported annually from
the application site may be calcu-
lated by multiplying the N (lb/
acre) transported annually (Line
7a,l) times the application site
area (Line 6d) and recording the
value on Line 7a.5.
CA UTION: Values for transportation are
for discharge N at field edge only.
7b. Nitrogen transported in runoff from land
with soil-incorporated manure may be ob-
tained by following Steps 7b.l and 7b.2.
7b.l. Enter the runoff-transported N an-
nually from Line 7a.l and the in-
crease in runoff-transported N due
to application of manure in appro-
priate blanks of Line 7b. 1. By sub-
traction, the amount of N trans-
ported from land with soil-incorpo-
rated manure should be recorded
on Line 7b.l.
7b.2. The estimated amount of N trans-
ported annually from the applica-
tion site with manure soil-incorpo-
rated may be calculated by multi-
plying the N transported annually
(Line 7b.l) times the application
site area (Line 6d) and recording
the value on Line 7b.2.
8. The P transported in runoff may be estimated
by following procedures in 7a.l through 7b.2
and using table 19, page 50, for P transported
annually from surface-applied manure, table
23, page 62, for the increase due to manure
application, and table 26, page 71, for the
maximum short-term, runoff-transported P.
Record values on Lines 8a.l through 8b.2.
9. The COD (indicator for organic matter trans-
port) in runoff may be estimated by following
procedures in 7a.l through 7b.2 and using
table 21, page 56, for COD transported an-
nually, table 24, page 65, for the increase in
COD transported annually, and table 27, page
74, for the maximum short-term, runoff COD.
Record values on Lines 9a.l through 9b.2.
10. Percolation of N below the root zone may be
determined by completing Steps lOa through
lOd.
lOa and lOb. See page 49 for additional infor-
mation.
lOc. Potential leaching of N due to manure
application at rates exceeding crop N
requirements will differ depending upon
the time of application. Potential N
leaching from fall- and spring-applied
manure at twice agronomic application
rates may be determined by completing
Steps lOc.l through 10d.2.
lOc.l. The potential N leached is ob-
tained by use of the equation
shown. Obtain the N leached
from table 28, page 77, under
fall application and record the
value in the equation on Line
1 Oc. 1. Transfer the crop content
of N from Line 2a, Worksheet 3,
into the equation. Complete the
answer on Line lOc.l.
10c.2. The total N leaching potential
from the manure application site
when manure is fall-applied may
be determined with the equation
shown on Line 10c.2. Transfer
the value for N leached from
fall-applied manure from line
lOc.l and the area of the ma-
nure application site into the
equation. Complete the answer
on Line 10c,2.
lOd. The potential N leached when manure
is spring-applied may be obtained by us-
ing the same procedures as Steps lOc.l
through 10c.2 and table 28, page 77, for
spring-applied manure.
Worksheet 5 Instructions
Record the results obtained from Worksheets 2
through 4 on this worksheet for a concise summary.
79
-------
c:
f-
P
"aj
h
1
1
c.
0
rt
a;
U
ra
^
n
*.»
n
u
t*
\
rt
(U
M
00
d
§
o
fc
3
U1
i/l
3
c
nl
J
• rt
O
\
•"""
nl
flj
V,
ra
o
p
n
y
l/l I/
a; a
i
3
OJ
£
M
n
to
ffl
££.
4)
ra
^
E
M-i ^
0)
o
C
a c
.O .f
r i f
O
2:
\
>~
k
u
u
S
t/i
3
c
o
T)
O
s
0)
m
en
u
i/i
•d
c
*
M
p
rt
K
cx
j:
O
\
^
_Q
aj
i/i
i/i
c:
O
ffl
u
_
exe-
rt c
n
-C 3
C ft
O O
l/l V
"al F
f
^
C
y
\
«1
U
C
4J
F
b
c
«
t
t>
C
C
c
J
1 *
1
1 *
01
u
n
t
-
\
c
;w
f>i
U
;c
a
rt
0
c
s
-a
£
T
C
(X
3
o
\
-* c
1— t (-
L/l 0
in
c
•t:
4)
3
in
^
(U
4->
U
C
a
0
c
I
c
,*
f
\
u
T
S
C
tn
u
.5
-H * f
H'
K
s
5
p
3
5
•H
S
VI
i+ f-~\
§ $
•H (•
*J
U D.
•H
-)
O, h-
ex -.
« ^
u
§^H
£3
M R]
*C H
U-<
O "*-<
g B
P
o — »
x g
*-» c
*-" < C
la
«n
f*
*
. Kl
; ; ^
. (U
0)
n ^ >;
T 0) M
a, o
c
•*" -o
-t i
u *• c
-1 O -H
D O -1
H -H rt
I C +-1
c rt »o
^ t
X X 0
" C ^
U 0) 'H
u u >-*
-« M G,
x a <
D 0 T3
.
V|
^*
0
"^tel
"• ' i
i *
» «
k
k
P-
. -o
, ;
^ *
o
3 -
C
U
c
H
i
o
rt
O
xS
w ^*
I '
VvS"
o
K
'-^
U
V
rH
\A
•rH
4-J *
U ^|
D, *O
K X
^j
i
o
c
X X
1/1
4J
C
c:
^C^
0 *
^
rt
3
C
rt
H H
ifJ
O
E
w
j
o
c
H
e
u
rt
11
VI
V
M
U
rt
ri
V
rt
^
•H
tf)
c
o
pplicati
A
K K
pH
rt
rt
t-,
X
c
Q
i-i
U
^;
c
^
o
_
c
^
II
"4-1
o
§
^
pH
rt
c
rt
UH
O
C
rt
+
O
"iu
o
w
II
M-i
O
rt
o
80
-------
f
1
f"
\
O -H —» "<
\
fo
*
^ s
\
**>
g s
E £
S H
K U
z 3
E B
i e
h o
n —<
t^ D,
O D,
H rt
81
-------
I
ft)
Q
c|~ c
j oj rt
\
rt •-<
i-1 D-
H rt4
82
-------
3
no
'8
83
-------
«-|
» »
1
1> C
OJ H
.c —<
\\
-6
h
nj c
CX rH
* X fc
ta ,n xi
s - -,
I
cr,
$1
in
I
o
-u
vo
E
&
84
-------
Section 6
ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS
After planners have formulated alternative guide-
lines regarding technically feasible waste-handling
practices and systems for reducing nonpoint pollu-
tion, each alternative should be evaluated in terms of
economic costs and benefits (fig. 1, p. 4). This sec-
tion provides an overview of some of the factors that
need to be considered in making an economic evalua-
tion. The principles and procedures for the evalua-
tion will be discussed in a subsequent manual.
Two types of economic effects should be consid-
ered: (1) effects on crop and livestock producers,
and (2) effects on local and regional areas and sub-
sequent water users.
Producer Considerations
Regulations or guidelines that require changes in
waste-handling practices and systems could affect
producers in various ways (see table 29). New in-
vestment in equipment and facilities may be required,
which could increase, or in some cases decrease, pro-
duction costs. The amount and seasonally of labor
might also be affected. For example, increased sea-
sonal spreading of animal manure could displace
labor from other activities, thereby decreasing total
farm output, or could require hiring additional em-
ployees for part of the year.
Anticipated changes in yields of crop and pasture-
land resulting from different manure management
systems or practices should be considered. Yields
may increase or decrease. An example of reduced
yields would be handling systems requiring longer
manure storage periods, resulting in reduced solids
and nutrient content and thereby reducing the effec-
tiveness of the manure as a source of organic ferti-
lizer. Use of commercial fertilizer could compensate,
but production costs would increase.
Cost increases not offset by productivity increases
would in turn affect producers' net income and pos-
sibly their decisions as to the kinds and amounts of
crops and livestock produced. Similar decisions by a
number of producers in a given area could signifi-
cantly alter areawide crop and livestock production.
Guidelines imposed on a planning area will likely
cause economic impacts not equally shared by all
producers within the area. They may result in a finan-
cial burden for smaller producers or producers of
certain types of livestock or poultry. Generally, eco-
nomics associated with the purchase of new machin-
TABLE 29.—Economic considerations for assessing alternative guidelines for nonpoint pollution control
Producer Considerations
Other Considerations
Impacts on production inputs/costs
1. Would additional investments be necessary for machin-
ery, equipment, and storage facilities?
2. How would the quantity, price and seasonality of labor
and energy inputs be affected?
3. Would operators be able to obtain necessary capital and
labor to implement proposed changes?
Impacts on productivity
1. Would the nutrient value of manure be affected?
2. Would yeilds of crop or pastureland be affected?
Income/structural/distributional impacts
1. What would be the effect on producers net income?
2. What would be the impact on small versus large opera-
tions?
3. Would the impact be greater for certain types of live-
stock operations than for others?
4. Would special consideration be necessary for different
size or type firms to maintain their viability?
Area Impacts
1. What would be the impact on the area's economy re-
sulting from changes in the livestock and poultry opera-
tions?
2. How would input suppliers be affected?
3. Would financing be available for investment in plant and
equipment?
4. Would there be an impact on purification costs for sub-
sequent water users?
5. Would there be an impact on social/recreational/esthetic
benefits?
85
-------
ery and equipment to comply with guidelines are
more favorable for larger production units than for
smaller ones. This puts small operations at a distinct
disadvantage when considering most guidelines for
nonpoint pollution abatement.
Estimation of adjustment costs for major types of
livestock and poultry operations, the desired reduc-
tion in pollution per animal unit, and the size distri-
bution of these types of operations in a particular
area will assist planners in estimating the economic
impact of various policy recommendations. This in-
formation provides planners with a basis for evaluat-
ing which size and type of operations in a particular
area should be subject to more stringent environ-
mental standards and whether they can sustain the
additional cost and remain in business. Special con-
sideration or exclusion for certain types and smaller
operations may need to be part of nonpoint regula-
tions and guidelines, as they are in point source regu-
lations (23,62, 143, 152).
Other Considerations
Decisions by a number of producers to change the
amount of crops and livestock produced, and equip-
ment, fertilizer, and other supplies purchased could
affect suppliers and marketing firms in the area (see
table 29, p. 85). For example, sales and incomes of
suppliers of feed and other materials would be re-
duced if total livestock and poultry production de-
creases. Suppliers may have to adjust their inventory
storage capacity if adoption of new manure manage-
ment systems significantly change the distribution of
livestock production during the year. If implementa-
tion of environmental standards causes geographical
shifts in production, some suppliers' business may in-
crease. Increases in one area, however, will likely be
offset by decreases elsewhere. Similar geographical
adjustments could occur with marketing firms in the
area if changes in production patterns were substan-
tial.
Nonpoint guidelines that require adopting new
handling methods or altering existing practices for
livestock and poultry operations could affect seasonal
and total labor requirements within a planning area.
The type, amount, and seasonal distribution of fuel
and energy use might also be affected. This could
also affect storage volume needed and location within
a planning area.
There are other areawide impacts from improved
water quality that are difficult to define. They include
possible reductions in purification costs for subse-
quent water users and increases in social, recrea-
tional, and esthetic benefits. Economic evaluation of
the latter items requires analysis of the wants and
needs of the population within the planning area and
of adjacent planning areas.
86
-------
GLOSSARY OF TERMS
Acre-foot. The volume of water that will cover 1
acre to a depth of 1 foot.
Acre-inch. The volume of water that will cover 1
acre to a depth of 1 inch.
Aeration. The process of being supplied or impreg-
nated with air. In a well-aerated soil, the soil air is
similar in composition to the atmosphere above the
soil.
Aggregation,, soil. The cementing or binding together
of several soil particles into a secondary unit, ag-
gregate, or granule. Water-stable aggregates, which
will not disintegrate easily, are of special impor-
tance to soil structure.
Agitated pit or holding pond. A reservoir, pit, or
pond, ordinarily not stirred or aerated, but which
is mixed just before emptying to suspend settled
solids.
Agricultural economics. The application of eco-
nomic principles to the agricultural sector of the
eonomy, including inputs, production, and market-
ing and distribution.
Agronomic rate. Referring to addition of organic
wastes to soils at such a rate as to benefit plant
growth and help to meet the fertility requirements
of the particular soil. The quantity of waste added
would not tax the soils' ability to degrade and as-
similate the waste nor contribute to environmental
degradation.
Ammonia. The gaseous compound of nitrogen and
hydrogen (NH3) commonly known as anhydrous
ammonia in the fertilizer industry.
Anaerobic decomposition. Dissolution processes of
organic matter caused by bacteria and other mi-
crobes not requiring free or dissolved oxygen for
metabolism but rather from substances such as
carbohydrates, nitrate, or sulfate.
Antecedent moisture condition. The amount of
water stored in the soil on the day of a storm. It is
determined by the total rainfall accumulating dur-
ing the preceding 5 days.
B
Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD). The quantity
of oxgen used in the biochemical oxidation of
organic matter in a specified time, at a specified
temperature, and under specified conditions. A
standard test used in assessing waste water
strength.
Calcareous soil. Soil containing sufficient free cal-
cium carbonate or magnesium carbonate to effer-
vesce carbon dioxide visibly when treated with cold
0.1 normal hydrochloric acid.
Chemical oxygen demand (COD). A measure of the
amount of oxygen required to oxidize organic and
oxidizable inorganic compounds in water. The
COD test, like the BOD test, is used to determine
the degree of pollution in an effluent.
Clay. Naturally occurring mineral crystalline mate-
rial found in soils and other earthy deposits, the
particles being of clay size, that is, less than 0.002
millimeter in equivalent diameter.
Claypan. A dense, compact layer in the subsoil hav-
ing a much higher clay content than the overlying
material from which it is separated by a sharply
defined boundary; formed by downward movement
of clay or by synthesis of clay in place during soil
formation. Claypans are usually hard when dry,
and plastic and sticky when wet. They usually
impede movement of water and air, and growth of
plant roots.
Climate. The total of all atmospheric or meteorolog-
ical influences, principally temperature, moisture,
wind, pressure, and evaporation, which combine
to characterize a region and give it individuality by
influencing the nature of its land forms, soils, vege-
tation, and land use.
Conservation practices. Any of the techniques and
methods for the control of erosion and sediment
resulting from land-disturbing practices.
Conservation tillage. Any tillage system that reduces
loss of soil or water as compared to conventional
tillage.
Crop requirement. The amount of nutrients needed
per acre, regardless of their origin, to grow a speci-
fied yield of a crop plant.
Debris. 1. The loose material arising from the disin-
tegration of rocks and vegetative material; trans-
portable by streams, ice, or floods. 2. The loose,
scattered material often added to manure, such as
bedding, spilled feed, or soil.
Debris basin. 1. An open structure or excavation in
which the reduced velocity of the stream allows
silt, manure solids, or other materials to settle out
87
-------
and be separated from the liquid runoff. 2. A set-
tling basin.
Deep percolation. Water that percolates below the
root zone and cannot be used by plants.
Denitrification. The reduction of nitrate, with nitro-
gen gas evolved as an end product.
Desalinization. 1. Removal of salts from saline soils,
usually by leaching. 2. The conversion of salt
water to sweet water, also spelled desalination.
Digestion. Although aerobic digestion is being used,
the term digestion commonly refers to the anaero-
bic 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. Organic solid mate-
rials are never completely destroyed by bacterial
action alone.
Dryland farming. Crop production in low rainfall
areas without irrigation.
Ecology. The study of interrelationships of orga-
nisms to one another and to their environment.
Effluent. 1. Solid, liquid, or gas wastes which enter
the environment as a byproduct of man's activities.
2. The discharge or outflow of water from ground
or subsurface storage.
Electrical conductivity. A measure of the ease with
which a sample of water or a water extract of soil
conducts electricity. A high conductivity indicates
a high content of salts which would impair plant
growth or soil physical properties or make the
water unfit for consumption.
Environment. The total external conditions that may
'act upon an organism or community to influence
its development or existence.
Fertility, soil. The quality of a soil that enables it to
provide nutrients in adequate amounts and in
proper balance for the growth of specified plants
when other growth factors, such as light, moisture,
temperature, and the physical condition of the soil,
are favorable.
Fertilizer. Any organic or inorganic material of nat-
ural or synthetic origin that is added to a soil to
supply elements essential to plant growth.
Fertilizer analysis. The percentage composition of
fertilizer expressed in terms of nitrogen, phos-
phoric acid, and potash. For example, a fertilizer
with a 6-12-6 analysis contains 6% nitrogen (N),
12% available phosphoric acid (P-Or,), and 6%
water-soluble potash (K2O). Minor elements may
also be included. Recent analysis expresses the
percentages in terms of the elemental fertilizer (ni-
trogen, phosphorus, potassium).
Fertilizer value. The potential worth of the plant
nutrients that are contained in the wastes and
could become available to plants when applied to
the soil. A monetary value assigned to a quantity
of organic wastes represents the cost of obtaining
the same plant nutrients in their commercial form
and in the amounts found in the waste. The worth
of the waste as a fertilizer can be estimated only
for given soil conditions and other pertinent fac-
tors such as land availability, time, and handling.
Field capacity. The amount of water retained in a
soil or in solid waste after it had been saturated
and has drained freely. In soils, also called field
moisture capacity (obsolete in technical work) and
is usually expressed as a percentage of the oven-
dry weight of the soil. In waste management, also
called moisture-holding capacity or water-holding
capacity.
G
Ground water. Phreatic water or subsurface water in
the zone of saturation.
H
Holding pond. A pond, pit, or reservoir usually
made of earth and built to store polluted runoff.
Horizon. See soil horizon.
Humus. The dark or black carboniferous residue in
the soil resulting from the decomposition of vege-
table tissues of plants originally growing there.
Residues similar in appearance and behavior are
found in composted manure and well-digested
sludges. The more nearly stable part of the organic
matter in soils.
Hydrologic condition. The runoff potential of a par-
ticular cropping practice. A crop under good hy-
drologic conditions will have a higher infiltration
rate and lower runoff potential than one under
poor conditions.
Hydrologic soil groups. Classification of soils by ref-
erence to their intake rate or infiltration of water,
which is influenced by texture, organic matter con-
tent, stability of the soil aggregates, and soil hori-
zon development.
88
-------
I
Infiltration. The process whereby water enters the
soil through the surface.
Infiltration rate. 1. The rate at which water enters
the soil or other porous material under a given
condition. 2. The rate at which infiltration takes
place, expressed as depth of water per unit time,
usually in inches or centimeters per hour.
K
Knifing. A means to incorporate slurry or liquid
manures into the soil. The waste is injected just
behind a thin, knifelike tool that opens a narrow
slit in the soil.
Lagoon. An inclusive term commonly given to a
water impoundment in which organic wastes are
stored and stabilized. Lagoons may be described
by the predominant biological characteristics (aer-
obic, anaerobic, or facultative), by location (in-
door, outdoor), by position in a series (first stage,
second stage, etc.), and by the organic material
accepted (sewage, sludge, manure, or other).
Land resource area. An area of land reasonably
alike in its relationship to agriculture with empha-
sis on combinations or intensities of problems in
soil and water conservation; ordinarily larger than
a land resource unit and smaller than a land re-
source region.
Land resource region. A generalized grouping of
land resource areas reflecting regional relationships
to agriculture with emphasis on soil and water
conservation.
Leachates. Liquids that have percolated through a
soil and that contain substances in solution or sus-
pension.
Leaching. 1. The removal of soluble constituents
from soils or other material by water. 2. The re-
moval of salts and alkali from soils by abundant
irrigation combined with drainage. 3. The disposal
of a liquid through a nonwatertight artificial struc-
ture, conduit, or porous material by downward or
lateral drainage, or both, into the surrounding
permeable soil.
Leaching fraction or requirement. The fraction of
the water entering the soil that must pass through
the root zone to prevent soil salinity from exceed-
ing a specified value.
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. Also, animal manures or wastes
having a total solids content less than 8% (wet-
weight basis).
Litter. 1. Vegetative material, such as leaves, twigs,
and stems of plants, lying on the surface of the
ground in an undecomposed or slightly decom-
posed state. 2. The bedding material used for
poultry.
Loading. Addition of organic wastes to soils at such
a rate as to benefit plant growth and help to meet
the fertility requirements of the particular soil.
The quantity of waste added would not tax the
soils ability to degrade and assimilate the waste nor
contribute to environmental degradation.
Loam. Soil material that contains 7 to 27% clay, 28
to 50% silt, less than 53% sand, and variable
amounts of organic matter.
M
Manure. 1. The fecal and urinary defecations of
livestock and poultry. Manure may often contain
some spilled feed, bedding, litter, or soil. 2. Syn-
onymous with animal waste.
Manure, collectible. Manure accumulating in animal
confinements that may be brought together and
transported for use elsewhere as opposed to ma-
nure voided at random in pastures and on range-
land.
Manure stack. 1. A place with an impervious floor
and side walls to contain manure and bedding until
it may be recycled. 2. A manure bunker.
Manure tank. A storage unit in which accumulations
of manure are collected before subsequent han-
dling or ultimate disposal. Water may be added in
the tank to promote liquefaction.
Micronutrient. A chemical element necessary in only
extremely small amounts (less than 1 part per mil-
lion) for plant growth. "Micro" refers to the
amount used rather than to its essentiality. Exam-
ples are boron, chlorine, copper, iron, manganese,
and zinc.
N
Nitrate. A combined form of nitrogen with oxygen,
(NCX ), available as a nutrient for plant uptake as
89
-------
a fertilizer. Nitrate does not exist alone, but com-
monly as salts of calcium, sodium, potassium, or
ammonium in soils and soil solutions.
Nitrate reduction. The chemical or biochemical re-
duction of nitrate to the nitrite form.
Nitrification. The biological oxidation of ammoni-
um to nitrite and the further oxidation of nitrite to
nitrate.
Nitrogen. The gaseous, essential element for plant
growth, composing about 78% of the atmosphere,
which is quite inert and unavailable to most plants
in that form.
Nitrogen cycle. The sequence of biochemical changes
undergone by nitrogen, wherein it is used by a
living organism, liberated upon the death and de-
composition of the organism, and converted to its
original state of oxidation.
Nutrients. 1. Elements, or compounds, essential as
raw materials for organism growth and develop-
ment, such as carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, phospho-
rus, etc. 2. The dissolved solids and gases of the
water of an area.
Organic matter. Chemical substances of animal or
vegetable origin, or more correctly, of basically
carbon structures, comprising compounds consist-
ing of hydrocarbons and their derivatives.
Oxidation ditch. A shaped ditch, usually oval, with
a revolving drum-like aerator, which circulates the
liquid within it and supplies air to it to reduce the
organic material by aerobic microbial action.
Percent moisture content, (solid waste). The per-
centage of moisture contained in solid waste; it can
be calculated on a dry or wet basis, as follows:
Permeability, soil. The quality of a soil horizon that
enables water or air to move through it. The per-
meability of a soil may be limited by the presence
of one nearly impermeable horizon even though
the others are permeable.
pH. A numerical measure of acidity or hydrogen ion
activity. Neutral is pH 7.0. All pH values below 7.0
are acid, and all above 7.0 are alkaline. See reac-
tion, soil.
Phosphorus, Phosphate (PO43 ), Oxide form (P2O,)-
An essential element for plant growth found in
animal manures and mineral deposits. Plants take
up the element from soils in the oxidized, phos-
phate (PO43~) form. Often the amount of phos-
phorus is indicated in the diphosphate, pentoxide
form (P2O5) in fertilizer analysis and in fertilizer
recommendations.
Pollution
Point source pollution. Pollution arising from a
well-defined origin such as the runoff from a beef
cattle feedlot.
Nonpoint source pollution. Pollution arising from
an ill-defined and diffuse source, such as the runoff
from cultivated fields, grazing lands, or urban
areas.
Pollution. The presence in a body of water (or soil or
air) of material in such quantities that it impairs
the water's usefulness or renders it offensive to
sight, taste or smell. Contamination may accom-
pany pollution. In general, a public-health hazard
is created, but, in some instances, only economy
or aesthetics are involved, as when waste salt
brines contaminate surface waters or when foul
odors pollute the air.
Pretreatment. See waste treatment.
1. Wet =
100 (water content of sample)
dry weight of sample -\- water content of sample
,, 100 (water content of sample)
dry weight of sample
Percolation. The downward movement of water
through soil, especially the downward flow of water
in saturated or nearly saturated soil at hydraulic
gradients of about 1.0 or less.
Ration. The amount of feed allotted to a given ani-
mal for 24 hours. It may be fed at one time or in
90
-------
portions at different times during the day. Ration
may also refer to the constitution of the feed, i.e.,
the amounts of the various parts.
Reaction, soil. The degree of acidity or alkalinity of
a soil usually expressed as a pH value. Descriptive
terms commonly associated with certain ranges in
pH are extremely acid, less than 4.5; very strongly
acid, 4.5-5.0; strongly acid, 5.1-5.5; medium acid,
5.6-6.0; slightly acid, 6.1-6.5; neutral, 6.6-7.3;
mildly alkaline, 7.4-7.8; moderately alkaline, 7.9-
8.4; strongly alkaline, 8.5-9.0; and very strongly
alkaline, more than 9.0.
Runoff, (Hydraulics). That portion of the precipita-
tion on a drainage area that is discharged from
the area in stream channels. Types include surface
runoff, ground water runoff, or seepage.
Salinity or saline soil. A nonsodic soil containing
sufficient soluble salts to impair its productivity
but not containing excessive exchangeable sodium.
This name was formerly applied to any soil con-
taining sufficient soluble salts to interfere with
plant growth, commonly greater than 3,000 parts
per million.
Salinity. Referring to salty quality of soil, salts com-
posed of sodium, calcium, magnesium as chlorides,
sulfates, carbonates, bicarbonates, and potassium.
Sand. 1. A soil particle between 0.05 and 2.0
millimeters in diameter. 2. Any one of five soil
separates; very coarse sand, coarse sand, medium
sand, and very fine sand. 3. A soil textural class.
See soil texture.
Sediment. Solid material, both mineral and organic,
that is in suspension, is being transported, or has
Jbeen moved from its site of origin by air, water,
gravity, or ice and has come to rest on the earth's
surface either above or below sea level.
Settleable solids. 1. That matter in wastewater which
will not stay in suspension during a preselected
settling period, such as 1 hour, but either settles to
the bottom or floats to the top. 2. In the Imhoff
cone test, the volume of matter that settles to the
bottom of the cone in 1 hour.
Silt. 1. A soil particle between 0.05 and 0.002 milli-
meter in equivalent diameter. 2. A soil textural
class. See soil texture.
Slurry manure. Animal measures or wastes having a
total solids content ranging from 8 to 20% (wet-
weight basis).
Soil. The unconsolidated mineral and organic mate-
rial on the immediate surface of the earth that
serves as a natural medium for the growth of land
plants.
Soil dispersion. A condition in which the soil readily
forms a colloidal solution. Dispersed soils usually
have low permeability and aeration. They tend to
shrink, crack, and become hard on drying and to
slake and become plastic on wetting.
Soil horizon. A layer of soil material approximately
parallel to the land surface and differing from
adjacent layers by color, structure, texture, and
other properties.
Soil organic matter. The organic fraction of the soil
that includes plant and animal residues at various
stages of decomposition, cells and tissues of soil
organisms, and substances synthesized by the soil
population.
Soil structure. The combination or arrangement of soil
particles into larger units characterized and classi-
fied on the basis of size, shape, and degree of dis-
tinctness. A good, stable soil structure is conducive
to water and air movement which promote plant
growth. Such a condition resists erosion by wind
and water.
Soil texture. The relative proportions of the various
soil separates (sand, silt, clay) in a soil as described
by classes of soil texture. The textural class names
may be modified by the addition of suitable adjec-
tives when coarse fragments are present in substan-
tial amounts, for example, gravelly silt loam. Sand,
loamy sand, and sandy loam are further subdivided
on the basis of the proportions of the various sand
separates present.
Soil type. A subdivision of a soil series based on sur-
face texture.
Solid manure. Animal manures or wastes having a
total solids content greater than 20% (wet-weight
basis).
Swelling potential, clay. The property of dry clay
to increase in volume when wetted with water.
Normally, the swelling is greater the higher the
adsorption capacity of the clay.
Tilth. The physical condition of the soil related to its
ease of tillage, fitness as a seedbed, and impedance
to seedling emergence and root penetration.
91
-------
u w
Waste-management system. The collecting, convey-
V ing, storing, and processing devices and structures
used to handle and dispose of animal manures.
Volatilization. Loss of the gaseous components, here Waste treatment. Any of the pretreatment processes
particularly the ammonium nitrogen (NH3), from applied to animal wastes to reduce waste loads and
animal manures. land area requirements for disposal.
92
-------
REFERENCES
1. * Adriatic, D. C.
1974. Chemical characteristics of beef feedlot
wastes as affected by housing type. In Mich.
Agr. Expt. Sta. Bui., L. J. Conor and H.
Koenig, eds. Beef feedlot design manage-
ment.
12.
Wilkinson, S. R., Stuedemann, J. A., and
2.
1975.
Chemical characteristics of beef feedlot
manures as influenced by housing type.
pp. 347-350. In Managing Livestock
Wastes. 3d Intl. Symp. on Livestock Wastes
Proc. Amer. Soc. Agr. Engin., St. Joseph,
Mich.
3. Allison, F. E.
1957. Nitrogen and soil fertility. U.S. Dept. Agr.,
1957 Yearbook, Soils: 85-94.
4. Armstrong, E. O., and Rector, G. R.
1976. Poultry and egg statistics. Supp. for 1972-
75 to Statistical Bui. No. 525. Econ. Res.
Serv., U.S. Dept. Agr.
5. ASAE
1977. Manure production and characteristics.
ASAE Standard D384. 1977 Agricultural
Engineering Yearbook. St. Joseph, Michi-
gan 49085.
6. Atkinson, H. J., Giles, G. R., and Desjardins, J. G.
1958. Effect of farmyard manure on the trace
element content of soils and of plants
grown thereon. Plant and Soil 10(1):
32-36.
7. *Austin, M. E.
1965. Land resource regions and major land re-
source areas of the United States, U.S.
Dept. Agr., Agr. Handbook 296, (rev).
Soil Conservation Serv., Washington, D.C.
82 pp.
8. Ayers, R. S. and Wescot, D. W.
1976. Water quality for agriculture. Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations, Rome, Italy.
9. *Azevedo, J., and Stout, P. R.
1974. Farm animal manures: An overview of
their role in the agricultural environment.
Calif. Agr. Expt. Sta. Manual 44. 109 pp.
10. *Baker, T. G., and Brake, J. R.
1976. Financing pollution abatement investments
on Michigan dairy farms. Mich. State
Univ., Agr. Expt. Sta. Res. Rpt. 300 (Agri
Business), East Lansing, Mich. 19 pp.
11. Barnett, A. P., Jackson, W. A., and Adams, W. E.
1968. Apply more, not less, poultry litter to re-
duce pollution. Crops and Soils 21(7): 24.
* Particularly useful references.
Jackson, W. A.
1973. The value of poultry manure on cropland.
pp. 29-37. In 17th Ann. Poultry Health
and Management Short Course Proc. Poul-
try Sci. Dept., Clemson Univ., and South
Carolina Poultry Improvement Assoc.
13. Barrows, H. L., and Kilmer, V. J.
1963. Plant nutrient losses from soils by water
erosion, pp. 303-316. In A. G. Norman,
ed. Advances in Agronomy, v. 15. Ac-
ademic Press, New York.
14. Bartlett, H. D., Branding, A. E., Marriott, L. F., and
Shaw, M. D.
1975. Milking center waste management, pp. 112-
113. In Managing Livestock Wastes. 3d
Intl. Symp. on Livestock Wastes Proc.
Amer. Soc. Agr. Engin., St. Joseph, Mich.
15. Bear, F. E.
1957. Toxic elements in soils. U.S. Dept. Agr.
1957 Yearbook, Soils: 165-171.
16. Bhattacharya, A. N., and Taylor, J. C.
1975. Recycling animal waste as a feedstuff. A
review. Jour. Anim. Sci. 41(5): 1438-1457.
17. *Booram, C. V., Hazen, T. E., and Frederick, L. R.
1973. Effects of swine lagoon effluent on the soil
and plant tissue. ASAE Paper No. 73-239.
Amer. Soc. Agr. Engin., St. Joseph, Mich.
18. Bower, C. A., Swarner, L. R., Marsh, A. W., and
Tileston, F. M.
1951. The improvement of an alkali soil by treat-
ment with manure and chemical amend-
ments. Sta. Tech. Bui. 22. Oregon State
College, Corvallis.
19. and Fireman, M.
1957. Saline and alkali soils. U.S. Dept. Agr.
1967 Yearbook, Soils: 282-290.
20. *Brady, N. C.
1974. The nature and properties of soils. 8th ed.
MacMillan Co., New York. 639 pp.
21. Brandon, J. F., and Mathews, O. R.
1944. Dryland rotation and tillage experiments
at the Akron (Colorado) field station. U.S.
Dept. Agr. Cir. No. 700, Washington, D.C.
22. Burwell, R. E., Timmons, D. R., and Holt, R. F.
1975. Nutrient transport in surface runoff as in-
fluenced by soil cover and seasonal periods.
Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. Proc. 39(3): 523-528.
23. *Buxton, B. M., and Ziegler, S. J.
1974. Economic impact of controlling surface
water runoff from U.S. dairy farms. U.S.
Dept. Agr., Agr. Econ. Rpt. No. 260, 40
pp., Washington, D.C.
24. Carreker, J. R., Wilkinson, S. R., Box, J. E., Jr., and
others.
1973. Using poultry litter, irrigation, and tall
fescue for no-till corn production. Jour.
Environ. Quality 2(4): 497-500.
93
-------
25. Church, D. C.
1969. Digestive physiology and nutrition of rumi-
nants, 2nd ed. 3 vol. D. C. Church, Cor-
vallis, OR.
26. *Clark, R. M., Gilbertson, C. B., and Duke, H. R.
1975. Quantity and quality of beef feedyard run-
off in the Great Plains, pp. 429-431. In
Managing Livestock Wastes. 3d Intl. Symp.
on Livestock Wastes Proc. Amer. Soc. Agr.
Engin., St. Joseph, Mich.
27. *Converse, J. C., Bubenzer, G. D., and Paulson, W. H.
1975a. Nutrient losses in surface runoff from win-
ter spread manure. ASAE Paper No. 75-
2035. Amer. Soc. Agr. Engin., St. Joseph,
Mich.
28. * Cramer, C. O., Tenpas, G. H., and Schlough,
D. A.
1975b. Properties of solid and liquids from stacked
manure, pp. 432—436. In Managing Live-
stock Wastes. 3d Intl. Symp. on Livestock
Wastes Proc. Amer. Soc. Agr. Engin., St.
Joseph, Mich.
29. Coote, D. R., Haith, D. A., and Zwerman, P. J.
1975. Environmental and economic impact of
nutrient management on the New York
dairy farm. Search Agr., v. 5(5). Agr.
Engin. Dept., Cornell Univ., Ithaca, N.Y.
28pp.
30. and Zwerman, P. J.
1975. Manure disposal, pollution control, and the
New York dairy farmer. Agr. Exp. Sta.
Bui. 51. Cornell Univ., Ithaca, N.Y. 6 pp.
31. Council for Agricultural Science and Technology
(CAST)
1975. Utilization of animal manures and sewage
sludges in food and fiber production. Iowa
State Univ., Dept. of Agronomy. Report
No. 41, 22 p.
32. Cummings, G. A., Burns, J. C., Sneed, R. E., and
others.
1975. Plant and soil effects of swine lagoon ef-
fluent applied to Coastal bermudagrass. pp.
598-601. In Managing Livestock Wastes.
3rd Intl. Symp. on Livestock Wastes Proc.
Amer. Soc. Agr. Engin., St. Joseph, Mich.
33. Dean, L. A.
1957. Plant nutrition and soil fertility. U.S. Dept.
Agr. 1957 Yearbook, Soils: 80-85.
34. El-Sabban, F. F., Long, T. A., Gentry, R. F., and
Frear, D. E. H.
1969. The influence of various factors on poultry
litter composition, pp. 340-346. In Animal
Waste Management. Cornell Univ. Conf. on
Agr. Waste Management Proc. Ithaca, N.Y.
35. Elson, H. A., and King, A. W. M.
1975. In house manure drying—the slat system.
pp. 83-84, 92. In Managing Livestock
Wastes. 3d Intl. Symp. on Livestock Wastes
Proc. Amer. Soc. Agr. Engin., St. Joseph,
Mich.
See footnote on p. 93.
94
36. *Evans, S. D., MacGregor, J. M., Munter, R. C., and
Goodrich, P. R.
1974. The residual effect of heavy applications of
animal manures on corn growth and yield
and on soil properties, pp. 98-126. In A
report on field research in soils. Soil Series
91. Univ. of Minnesota, St. Paul.
37. Gardner, R., and Robertson, D. W.
1946. Comparison of the effects of manures and
commercial fertilizers on the yield of sugar
beets, pp. 27-32. In Amer. Soc. Sugar Beet
Technology Fourth General Mtg. Proc.
38. Gershon, S. I., Hart, S. A., Chang, A. C., and Branch,
J. W., Jr.
1975. A planning study on dairy wastes manage-
ment, pp. 132-135, 138. In Managing Live-
stock Wastes. 3d Intl. Symp. on Livestock
Wastes Proc. Amer. Soc. Agr. Engin., St.
Joseph, Mich.
39. Giddens, J. A., Rao, A. M., and Fordham, H. W.
1973. Microbial changes and possible ground
water pollution from poultry manure and
beef cattle feedlots in Georgia. Completion
Rpt. USDI OWRR Proj. No. A-031-GA,
ERC-0573, Univ. of Georgia, Athens. 57 pp.
40. Gilbertson, C. B., and Clanton, C. J.
1978a. Quantity and constituents in livestock and
poultry manure residue as reflected by man-
agement systems. Part I. Model Theory.
ASAE Paper MC-78-402, ASAE, St. Jo-
seph, Michigan 49085.
41. Van Dyne, D. L., Clanton, C. L, and White,
R. K.
1978b. Quantity and constituents in livestock and
poultry manure residue as reflected by man-
agement systems. Part II. Model Use. ASAE
Paper 78-3064, ASAE, St. Joseph, Michi-
gan 49085.
42. *Gilbertson, C. B., Ellis, J. R., Nienaber, J. A., and
others.
1975a. Properties of manure accumulations from
midwest beef cattle feedlots. Trans. Amer.
Soc. Agr. Engin. 18(2): 327-330.
43. *Gilbertson, C. B., Ellis, J. R., Nienaber, J. A., and
others.
1975b. Physical and chemical properties of outdoor
beef cattle runoff. Nebr. Agr. Expt. Sta.
Res. Bui. 271, 16 pp., Lincoln.
44. Nienaber, J. A., Ellis, J. R., and others.
1974. Nutrient and energy composition of beef
cattle feedlot waste fractions. Nebr. Agr.
Expt. Sta. Res. Bui. 262. Univ. of Nebraska,
Lincoln. 20 pp.
-------
45. Glerum, J. C., Klomp, G., and Poelma, H. R.
1971. The separation of solid and liquid parts of
pig slurry, pp. 345-347. In Livestock Waste
Management and Pollution Abatement.
Intl. Symp. on Livestock Wastes Proc.
Amer. Soc. Agr. Engin., St. Joseph, Mich.
46. Goodrich, P. R., Miller, E. C., Boedicker, J. J., and
others.
1973. Effects of intensive applications of livestock
manure on soil and crops. /;/ Minnesota
Cattle Feeder's Rpt, pp. 99-115. Univ. of
Minnesota, St. Paul.
47. Gupta, U.
1971. Influence of various organic materials on
the recovery of molybdenum and copper
added to a sandy clay loam soil. Plant and
Soil 34: 249-253.
48. Halvorson, A. D., and Hartman, G. P.
1975. Manure good source of N for beets. Mon-
tana Farmer-Stockman 61: 21-23.
49. Hensler, R. F., Erhardt, W. H., and Walsh, L. M.
1971. Effects of manure handling systems on plant
nutrient recycling, pp. 254-257. In Live-
stock Waste Management and Pollution
Abatement. Intl. Symp. on Livestock
Wastes Proc. Amer. Soc. Agr. Engin., St.
Joseph, Mich.
50. Olsen, R. J., and Attoe, O. J.
1970a. Effect of soil pH and application rate of
dairy cattle manure on yield and recovery
of twelve-plant nutrients by corn. Agron.
Jour. 62: 828-830.
51. Olsen, R. J., Witzel, S. A., and others.
1970b. Effects of method of manure handling on
crop yields, nutrient recovery and runoff
losses. Trans. Amer. Soc. Agr. Engin. 13:
726-731.
52. Herron, G. M., and Erhart, A. B.
1965. Value of manure on an irrigated calcareous
soil. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. Proc. 29: 278-281.
53. *Hileman, L. H.
1967. The fertilizer value of broiler litter. Ar-
kansas Agr. Expt. Sta. Rpt. Series 158.
Univ. of Arkansas, Fayetteville, 12 pp.
54. Homer, G. M., Oveson, M. M., Baker, G. O., and
Pawson, W. W.
1960. Effect of cropping practices on yield, soil
organic matter, and erosion in the Pacific
Northwest Wheat Region. Bui. 1 published
by Agr. Expt. Sta. Idaho, Oregon, and
Washington, and Agr. Res. Serv., U.S. Dept.
Agr. 25 pp.
55. Morton, M. L., Halbeisen, J. L., Wiersma, J. L., and
others.
1975. Land disposal of beef wastes: Climate,
rates, salinity, and soil. pp. 258-260. In
Managing Livestock Wastes. 3d Intl. Symp.
on Livestock Wastes Proc. Amer. Soc. Agr.
Engin., St. Joseph, Mich.
56. Humenik, F. G., Sneed, R. E., Overcash, M. R., and
others.
1975. Total waste management for a large swine
production facility, pp. 168-171. In Manag-
ing Livestock Wastes. 3d Intl. Symp. on
Livestock Wastes Proc. Amer. Soc. Agr.
Engin., St. Joseph, Mich.
57. Huntington, G. B.
1975. Bentonite or sodium bicarbonate in high-
concentrate lamb diets. Masters thesis.
South Dakota State Univ., Brookings.
58. *Illinois Environmental Protection Agency.
1976. Design criteria for field application of live-
stock waste. Tech. Policy WPC-2, 4 pp.
59. Iowa State University.
1976. Advances in corn production, principles,
and practices. W. H. Pierre, S. R. Aldrich,
and W. T. Martin, ed. Iowa State University
Press, Ames.
60. Jackson, W. A., Leonard, R. A., and Wilkinson, S. R.
1975. Land disposal of broiler litter—changes in
soil potassium, calcium, and magnesium.
Jour. Environ. Quality 4(2): 202-206.
61. *Jacobs, H. S., and Whitney, D. A.
1971. Determining water quality for irrigation.
Kansas State Univ. Bui. C-396. Manhattan,
Kans.
62. *Johnson, J. B., Davis, G. A., Martin, J. R., and
Gee, C. K.
1975. Economic impacts of controlling surface
water runoff from fed-beef production fa-
cilities. Econ. Res. Serv., U.S. Dept. Agr.,
Agr. Econ. Rpt. No. 292. Washington, D.C.
39pp.
63.
-Hoglund, C. R., and Buxton, B.
See footnote on p. 93.
1973. An economic appraisal of alternative dairy
waste management systems designed for
pollution control. Jour. Dairy Sci. 56(10):
1354-1366.
64. Johnson, J. C., Jr., Utley, P. R., Jones, R. L., and
McCormack, W. R.
1975. Aerobic digested municipal garbage as feed-
stuff for cattle. Jour. Anim. Sci. 41(5):
1487-1495.
65. Jones, D. D., Day, D. L., and Converse, J. C.
1969. Field tests of oxidation ditches in confine-
ment swine buildings, pp. 160-171. In Ani-
mal Waste Management. Cornell Univ.
Conf. on Agr. Waste Management Proc.
Ithaca, N.Y.
66. Koch, B. A., Mines, R. H., Allee, G. L., and Lipper,
R. I.
1975. KSU aerobic swine waste handling system—•
six years of problems and progress, pp.
181-183, 185. In Managing Livestock
Wastes. 3d Intl. Symp. on Livestock Wastes
Proc. Amer. Soc. Agr. Engin., St. Joseph,
Mich.
95
-------
67. Larson, R., and Jedele, D. G.
1975. Utilization of beef cattle waste from a
slotted-floor deep-pit barn. pp. 101-103. In
Managing Livestock Wastes. 3d Intl. Symp.
on Livestock Wastes Proe. Amer. Soc. Agr.
Engin., St. Joseph, Mich.
68. *Loehr, R. C.
1974. Agricultural waste management. Academic
Press, Inc., New York. 576 pp.
69. *Lorimer, J. C., Melvin, S. W., and Leu, B. M.
1975. Nutrient characteristics of wastes from deep
pits and anaerobic lagoons, pp. 306-308. In
Managing Livestock Wastes. 3d Tntl. Symp.
on Livestock Wastes Proc. Amer. Soc. Agr.
Engin., St. Joseph, Mich.
70. Lucas, D. M., Fontenot, J. P., and Webb, K. E., Jr.
1975. Composition and digestibility of cattle fecal
waste. Jour. Anim Sci. 41(5): 1480-1486.
71. Lund, Z. F., Doss, B. D., and Lowry, F. E.
1975. Dairy cattle manure—its effect on yield and
quality of Coastal bermudagrass. Jour. En-
viron. Quality 4(2): 358-362.
72. Long, F. L., Doss, B. D., and Lowry, F. E.
1975. Disposal of dairy cattle manure on soil.
pp. 591-593, 601. In Managing Livestock
Wastes. 3d Intl. Symp. on Livestock Wastes
Proc. Amer. Soc. Agr. Engin., St. Joseph,
Mich.
73. Maddex, R. L., Loudon, T. L., Prewitt, L. R., and
Shubert, C. H.
1975. Evaluation of dairy, beef, and swine waste
handling systems, pp. 104-106, 111. In
Managing Livestock Wastes. 3d Intl. Symp.
on Livestock Wastes Proc. Amer. Soc. Agr.
Engin., St. Joseph, Mich.
74. Mathers, A. C., and Goss, D. W.
1976. Estimating animal waste applications to sup-
ply nitrogen requirements. Agron. Abstr.:
150.
75. * and Stewart, B. A.
1971. Crop production and soil analyses as
affected by applications of cattle feedlot
waste. In Livestock Waste Management
and Pollution Abatement, pp. 229-231, 234.
Intl. Symp. on Livestock Wastes Proc.
Amer. Soc. Agr. Engin., St. Joseph, Mich.
76. * Stewart, B. A,, and Thomas, J. D.
1975. Residual and annual rate effects of manure
on grain sorghum yields, pp. 252-254. In
Managing Livestock Wastes. 3d Intl. Symp.
on Livestock Wastes Proc. Amer. Soc. Agr.
Engin., St. Joseph, Mich.
77. and Stewart, B. A.
1977. Manure effects on water intake and runoff
quality from irrigated grain sorghum plots.
Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. Jour. 41: 783-785.
78. McCalla, T. M.
1942. Influence of biological products on soil
structure and infiltration. Soil Sci. Soc.
Amer. Proc. 7: 209-214.
79.
See footnote on p. 93.
96
1946- Value of inorganic matter in soil. pp. 22-31.
1947. In Nebr. Crop Improvement Assoc. 37th
and 38th ann. rpt.
80. * Frederick, L. R., Palmer, G. L.
1970. Manure decomposition and fate of break-
down products in soil. In T. L. Willrich
and G. E. Smith (eds.), Agricultural prac-
tices and water quality, pp. 241-255. Iowa
State Univ. Press, Ames.
81. McCaskey, T. A., Rollins, G. H., and Little, J. A.
1973. Water pollution by dairy farm wastes as re-
lated to method of waste disposal. Water
Resources Res. Inst. Bui. 18, Auburn Univ.
Auburn, 86 pp.
82. Mclntosh, J. L., and Varney, K. E.
1972. Accumulative effects of manure and N on
continuous corn and clay soil. I. Growth,
yield, and nutrient uptake of corn. Agron.
Jour. 64: 374-378.
83. Meek, B. D., MacKenzie, A. J., Donovan, T. L, and
Spencer, W. F.
1974. The effect of large applications of manure
on movement of nitrate and carbon in an
irrigated desert soil. Jour. Environ. Quality
3: 253-258.
84. * Chesnin, L., Fuller, W., Mille, R., and
Turner, D.
1975. Guidelines for manure use and disposal in
the Western Region, USA. Bui. 814. Wash-
ington State Univ., Pullman. 18 pp.
85. Michigan State University
1976. Beef feedlot design and management in
Michigan. Mich. State Univ. Res. Rpt. No.
292, East Lansing. 32 pp.
86. *Midwest Plan Service
1975. Livestock waste facilities handbook. Iowa
State Univ. MPS-18, Ames. 94 pp.
87. *
1975. Livestock waste management with pollution
control. Iowa State Univ., Ames. 89 pp.
88. Miller, B. F., Lindsay, W. L., and Parsa, A. A.
1969. Use of poultry manure for correction of Zn
and Fe deficiencies in plants, pp. 120-123.
In Animal Waste Management. Cornell
Agr. Waste Management Conf. Proc.,
Cornell Univ., Ithaca, "N.Y.
89. Miller, E. C., and Smith, L.
1974. Personal communication. Northwest Exp.
Sta., Crookston, Minn.
90. Moore, J. A., Larson, R. E., and Allred, E. R.
1969. Study of the use of the oxidation ditch to
stabilize beef animal manures in cold cli-
mate, pp. 172-177. In Animal Waste Man-
agement. Cornell Agr. Waste Management
Conf. Proc. Cornell Univ., Ithaca, N.Y.
91. Musgrave, G. W.
1955. How much of the rain enters the soil? U.S.
Dept. Agr. 1955 Yearbook, Water.
-------
92. Mutlak, S. M., McKelvie, A. D., and Robinson, K.
1975. The yield response of grass to aerobically
stabilized swine waste, pp. 274-276, 281. In
Managing Livestock Wastes. 3d Intl. Symp.
on Livestock Wastes Proc., Amer. Soc. Agr.
Engin., St. Joseph, Mich.
93. National Academy Sciences, Natl. Res. Council,
U.S A.
1970. Nutrient requirements of beef cattle nutri-
tion, Subcommittee on Beef Cattle Nutri-
tion, Committee on Animal Nutrition, Agri-
cultural Board. Washington, D.C. 55 pp.
94. National Fertilizer Institute
1962. Our land and its care. 4th ed. National Fer-
tilizer Inst., Washington, D.C.
95. Ogilvte, J. R., Phillips, P. A., and Lievers, K. W.
1975. Shortest path network analysis of manure
handling systems to determine least cost-
dairy and swine, pp. 446-451. In Managing
Livestock Wastes. 3d Intl. Symp. on Live-
stock Wastes Proc. Amer. Soc. of Agr.
Engin., St. Joseph, Mich.
96. Olsen, S. R., and Barber, S. A.
1977. Effect of waste application on soil phos-
phorus and potassium, p. 197-215. In L. R.
Elliott and F. J. Stevenson (eds j. Soils for
management of organic wastes and waste
waters. Amer. Soc. Agron., Madison, Wis.
97. and Fried, M.
1957. Soil phosphorus and fertility. U.S. Dept.
Agr. 1957 Yearbook, Soil: 94-100.
98. Overcash, M. R., Humenik, F. J., and Driggers, L. B.
1975. Swine production and waste management:
State-of-the-art, pp. 154-159, 163. In Man-
aging Livestock Wastes. 3d Intl. Symp. on
Livestock Wastes Proc. Amer. Soc. Agr.
Engin., St. Joseph, Mich.
99. Page, E. R.
1966. The micronutrient content of young vegeta-
ble plants as affected by farmyard manure.
Jour. Hort. Sci. 41: 257-261.
100. Parr, J. F.
1974. Organic matter decomposition and oxygen
relationships, p. 134. In Factors involved in
land application of agricultural and munici-
pal wastes. USDA-ARS Spec. Publ. 1974,
Washington, D.C.
101. Pearce, G. R.
1975. The inclusion of pig manure in ruminant
diets, pp. 218-219, 221. In Managing Live-
stock Wastes. 3d Intl. Symp. on Livestock
Wastes Proc. Amer. Soc. Agr. Engin., St.
Joseph, Mich.
102. *Peele, T. O., Lynn, H. P., Earth, C. L., and Wil-
liams, J. N.
1973. Land application of animal waste. Clemson
Univ. Bui. 570. 18 pp.
See footnote on p. 93.
103. *Perkins, H. F., and Parker, M. B.
1974. Chemical composition of broiler and hen
manures. Univ. Georgia Res. Bui. 90.
Athens. 17 pp.
104. Pherson, C. L.
1974. Beef waste management economics for Min-
nesota farmer-feeders, pp. 250-270. In Proc-
essing and Management of Agricultural
Waste. 1974 Cornell Agr. Waste Manage-
ment Conf. Proc. Cornell Univ., Ithaca,
N.Y.
105. Pollock, K. A., and O'Callaghan, J. R.
1975. A practical management system for pollu-
tion-free land spreading of animal wastes.
pp. 277-281. //( Managing Livestock
Wastes. 3d Intl. Symp. on Livestock Wastes
Proc. Amer. Soc. Agr. Engin., St. Joseph,
Mich.
106. *Powers, W. L., Herpich, R. L., Murphy, L. S., and
others.
1973. Guidelines for land disposal of feedlot
lagoon water. Kansas Cooperative Ext.
Serv. 7 pp. Manhattan.
107. Wallingford, G. W., and Murphy, L. S.
1975a. Research status on effects of land applica-
tion of animal wastes. U.S. Environ. Pro-
tection Agency, EPA-660/2-75-010. Cor-
vallis, Oreg.
108. Wallingford, G. .W., and Murphy, L. S.
1975b. Formulas for applying organic wastes to
land. Jour. Soil and Water Conservation
30(6): 286-289.
109. * Wallingford, G. W., Murphy, L. S., and
others.
1974. Guidelines for applying beef feedlot manure
to fields. Kansas Cooperative Ext. Serv. Cir.
No. 502. 11 pp. Manhattan.
110. Pratt, P. F., Broadbent, F. E., and Martin, J. P.
1973. Using organic wastes as nitrogen fertilizers.
Calif. Agr. (June): 10-13.
111. Reddell, D. L.
1974. Forage and grain production from land used
for beef manure disposal, pp. 464-483. In
Processing and Management of Agricul-
tural Waste. Proc. Cornell Univ. Agr.
Waste Management Conf. Cornell Univ.,
Ithaca, N.Y.
112. Sewel, J. L, Gilbertson, C. B., and Zindell,
H. C.
1975. Sampling of liquid and solid animal wastes.
pp. 258-281. //; Standardizing properties
and analytical methods related to animal
waste research. Spec. Publ. SP-0275. Amer.
Soc. Agr. Engin., St. Joseph, Mich.
113. Robbins, J. W. D., Kriz, G. L, and Howells, D. H.
1971. Quality of effluent from farm animal pro-
duction sites, pp. 166-169, 173. In Livestock
Waste Management and Pollution Abate-
ment. Intl. Symp. on Livestock Wastes Proc.
Amer. Soc. Agr. Engin., St. Joseph, Mich.
97
-------
114. Robinson, R. R.
1964. Earthworms in relation to soil productivity.
U.S. Dept. Agr., Agr Res. Serv. CA-14-1,
4 pp. Beltsville, Md.
115. Russell, E. W.
1961. Soil conditions and plant growth. 9th ed.
Longman Green & Co., Ltd., London, Eng-
land. 688 pp.
116. Salter, R. M., and Schollenberger, C. J.
1939. Farm manure. Ohio Agr. Expt. Sta. Bui.
605, 69 pp.
117. Schmid, L. A., and Lipper, R. I.
1969. Swine waste characterization and anaerobic
digestion, pp. 50-57. In Animal Waste
Management. Cornell Univ. Conf. on Agr.
Waste Management Proc., Ithaca, N.Y.
118. *Sewell, J. I.
1975. Animal waste management facilities and
systems. Tenn. Agr. Expt. Sta. Bui. 548,
48 pp. Knoxville.
119. *Shuyler, L. R., Farmer, D. M., Kreis, R. D., and
Hula, M. E.
1973. Environment protection concepts of beef
cattle feedlot wastes management. U.S. En-
viron. Protection Agency, Natl. Animal
Feedlot Wastes Res. Program, Robert S.
Kerr Environ. Res. Lab., Ada, Okla. 283
pp.
120. Smith, R. M., and Thompson, D. O.
1954. Texas earthworms are big too! Crops and
Soils 6(7): 18-19.
121. Sojka, N. J.
1975. Management applications for the horse in-
dustry. Virginia Polytech Institute and State
Univ., Blacksburg.
122. Standford, G.
1969. Nitrogen in soils. Plant Food Rev. 15(1):
2-4, 7.
123. Stewart, B. A.
1974. Salinity problems associated with wastes.
pp. 140-160. In Factors involved in land
application of agricultural and municipal
wastes. USDA-ARS Spec. Publ. 1974.
124. and Mathers, A. C.
1971. Soil conditions under feedlots and on land
treated with large amounts of animal wastes.
pp. 81-83. In Intl. Symp. on Identification
and Measurement of Environ. Pollutants
Proc. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
125. and Meek, B. D.
1977. Soluble salt consideration with waste appli-
cations, pp. 219-232. In L. F. Elliott and
F. J. Stevenson (eds.), Soils for manage-
ment of organic wastes and waste waters.
Amer. Soc. of Agron., Madison, Wis.
126. *-
- Woolhiser, D. A., Wischmeier, W. H., and
others.
1975. Control of water pollution from cropland:
Vol. I. A manual for guideline development.
U.S. Dept. Agr., Agr. Res. Serv./Environ.
Protection Agency. Ill pp.
127.
See footnote on p. 93.
1976. Control of water pollution from cropland:
Vol. II. An overview. U.S. Dept. Agr., Agr.
Res. Serv./Environ. Protection Agency. 187
pp.
128. Stucker, T., and Erickson, S.
1975. Livestock wastes as a substitute for commer-
cial nitrogen fertilizer. Illinois Res. (Sum-
mer): 10-11.
129. Stuedemann, J. A., Wilkinson, S. R., Williams, D. J.,
and others.
1975. Long-term broiler litter fertilization of tall
fescue pastures and health and performance
of beef cows. pp. 264-268. In Managing
Livestock Wastes. 3d Intl. Symp. on Live-
stock Wastes Proc. Amer. Soc. Agr. Engin.,
St. Joseph, Mich.
130. *Sutton, A. L., Mannering, J. V., Bache, D. H., and
others.
1975. Utilization of animal waste as fertilizer.
Indiana Cooperative Ext. Serv. Bui. ID-
101, 10 pp. West Lafayette.
131. Moeller, N. L, Nelson, D. W., and Nye, J. C.
1974a. Effect of anaerobic liquid dairy waste on
soil composition and productivity. Presented
69th Ann. Mtg. Amer. Dairy Sci. Assoc.,
Univ. of Guelph, Canada.
132. Nelson, D. W., Mayrose, V. B., and Nye, J. C.
1974b. Effect of liquid swine waste application on
soil chemical composition, pp. 503-514. In
Processing and Management of Agricul-
tural Waste. 1974 Cornell Agr. Waste Man-
agement Conf. Proc. Cornell Univ., Ithaca,
N.Y.
133. Swanson, N. P., Mielke, L. N., Lorimore, J. C., and
others.
1971. Transport of pollutants from sloping cattle
feedlots as affected by rainfall intensity,
duration, and recurrence, pp. 51-55. In
Livestock Waste Management and Pollu-
tion Abatement. Intl. Symp. on Livestock
Wastes Proc. Amer. Soc. Agr. Engin., St.
Joseph, Mich.
134. Taylor, A. W.
1967. Phosphorus and water pollution. Jour. Soil
& Water Conserv. 22(6): 228-231.
13'5. Timmons, D. R., Burwell, R. E., and Holt, R. F.
1973. Nitrogen and phosphorus losses in surface
runoff from agricultural land as influenced
by placement of broadcast fertilizer. Water
Resources Res. 9(3): 658-667.
98
-------
136.
137.
138.
139.
140.
141.
142.
143.
Townshend, A. R., Reichert, K. A., and Nodwell, J. E.
1969. Status report on water pollution control fa-
cilities for farm animal wastes in the prov-
ince of Ontario, pp. 131-149. In Animal
Waste Management Cornell Agric. Waste
Management Conf. Proc. Cornell Univ.,
Ithaca, N.Y.
Travis, D. W., Powers, W. L., Murphy, L. S., and
Lipper, R. I.
1971. Effect of feedlot lagoon water on some
physical and chemical properties of soils.
Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. Proc. 35: 122-126.
*Turner, D. O.
1976. Guidelines for manure application in the
Pacific Northwest. No. EM-4009. Coopera-
tive Ext. Serv., Washington State Univ.,
Pullman. 25 pp.
Tyler, K. B., vanMaren, A. F., Lorenz, O. A., and
Takatori, F. H.
1964. Sweet corn experiments in the Coachella
Valley. California Agr. Expt. Sta. Bui. 808,
16 pp.
*U.S. Department of Agriculture
1954. Diagnosis and improvement of saline and
alkali soils. L. A. Richards, ed. U.S. Dept.
Agri., Agr. Handbook No. 60, 160 pp.
1972.
Soil Conservation Serv. Natl. Engin. Hand-
book. Sec. 4. Hydrology. U.S. Dept. Agr.,
Washington, D.C.
1975. Agricultural Waste Management Field Man-
ual. Soil Conserv. Serv.
1976a. Implications of EPA proposed regulations
of November 20, 1975 for the animal feed-
ing industries. Prepared under the direction
of the U.S. Dept. Agr. Animal Waste Sub-
committee, Washington, D.C. 26 pp.
144.
145.
146.
147.
148.
1976b. Cattle. Statistical Rptg. Serv. February.
1976c. Hogs and pigs. Statistical Rptg. Serv. June.
1976d. Sheep and goats. Statistical Rptg. Serv. Jan-
uary.
U.S. Department of Commerce.
1968. Climatic atlas of the United States. U.S.
Dept. Commerce, Environ. Data Serv.,
Washington, D.C.
(recur- Climatological data. Natl. Oceanic and At-
ring) mospheric Admin., Natl. Climatic Center,
Asheville, NC.
149.
150.
*U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
1975a. Compilation of Federal, State and local
laws controlling nonpoint pollutants. EPA
440/9-75-011. Aspen Systems Corp., Rock-
ville, Md.
151.
See footnote on p. 93.
1975b. Evaluation of land application systems:
Evaluation checklist and supporting com-
mentary. EPA-430/9-75-001. U.S. Environ.
Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
^University of Maine.
1972. Maine guidelines for manure and manure
sludge disposal on land. Life Sci. and Agr.
Expt. Sta. and Cooperative Ext. Serv.,
Misc. Rpt. 142. Univ. of Maine at Orono,
and Maine Soil and Water Conserv. Comm.
22pp.
152. Van Arsdall, R. N., Smith, R. B., and Strucker, T. A.
1974. Economic impact of controlling surface
water runoff from point sources in U.S. hog
production. U.S. Dept. Agr., Agr. Econ.
Rpt. No. 263. Washington, D.C. 56 pp.
153. Van Dyne, D. L., and Gilbertson, C. B.
1978. Estimated U.S. Livestock and Poultry Ma-
nure and Nutrient Production. USDA,
Economics, Statistics, and Cooperatives
Service. (In press.)
154. Wallingford, G. W.
1974. Effects of solid and liquid beef feedlot
wastes on soil characteristics and on growth
and composition of corn forage. Ph.D.
thesis, Kansas State Univ., Manhattan. 289
pp.
Murphy, L. S., Powers, W. L., and Manges,
H. L.
1974. Effect of beef-feedlot-lagoon water on soil
chemical properties and growth and com-
position of corn forage. Jour. Environ.
Quality 3(1): 74-78.
Powers, W. L., and Murphy, L. S.
1975. Present knowledge on the effects of land ap-
plication of animal waste, pp. 580-582, 586.
In Managing Livestock Wastes. 3d Intl.
Symp. on Livestock Wastes Proc. Amer.
Soc. Agr. Engin., St. Joseph, Mich.
157. Wesley, R. L., Hale, E. B., and Porter, H. C.
1971. The use of oxidation ponds for poultry
processing waste disposal. ASAE Publ.
PROC-271, pp. 286-287. In Livestock
Waste Management and Pollution Abate-
ment. Intl. Symp. on Livestock Wastes
Proc,. Ohio State Univ. Amer. Soc. Agr.
Engin., St. Joseph, Mich.
158. White, A. W., Barnett, A. P., and Jackson, W. A.
1967. Nitrogen fertilizer loss in runoff from crop
land tested. Crops and Soils. 19(4): 28.
155.
156.
99
-------
159. Wilkinson, S. R., Dawson, R. N., and Barnett, A. P.
1976. Fertilization of bermudagrass with animal
wastes. 6th Research-Industry Conf. Proc.,
Coastal Bermudagrass Processors Assoc.,
Inc. Richard Russell Agr. Res. Center,
Athens, Ga. 22 pp.
160. and Stuedemann, I. A.
1974. Fertilization with poultry litter, pp. 180-
182. In McGraw-Hill Yearbook of Science
and Technology. McGraw-Hill, N.Y.
161. Stuedemann, J. A., Jones, J. B., Jr., and others.
1972. Environmental factors affecting magnesium
concentrations and tetanigenicity of pas-
tures. Chap. 6, pp. 153-173. In Symp. on
Magnesium in the Environment, Soils,
Crops, Animals and Man Proc. J. B. Jones,
Jr., M. C. Blount, and S. R. Wilkinson, eds.
Taylor County Pub. Co., Reynolds, Ga.
Stuedemann, J. A., Williams, D. J., and others.
162.
1971. Recycling broiler house litter on tall fescue
pastures at disposal rates and evidence of
beef cow health problems. ASAE Publ.
PROC-271, 321-324, 328. In Livestock
Waste Management and Pollution Abate-
ment. Intl. Symp. on Livestock Wastes
Proc., Ohio State Univ. Amer. Soc. Agr.
Engin., St. Joseph, Mich.
163. Williams, D. J., Tyler, D. E., and Papp, E.
1969. Abdominal fat necrosis as a herd problem
in Georgia cattle. Jour. Amer. Vet. Med.
Assoc. 154: 1017-1021.
164. Willrich, T. L., and Smith, G. E. (eds.)
1970. Agricultural practices and water quality.
Iowa State Univ. Press, Ames. 415 pp.
165.
166.
Turner, D. O., and Volk, V. V.
1974. Manure application guidelines for the
Pacific Northwest. ASAE Paper No. 74-
4061. Amer. Soc. Agr. Engin., St. Joseph,
Mich.
Woodhiser, D. A.
1976. Hydrologic aspects of nonpoint pollution.
pp. 7-24. In Control of water pollution
from cropland: Vol. II. An overview. Agr.
Res. Serv./Environ. Protection Agency.
167. Yeck, R. G., Smith, L. W., and Calvert, C. C.
1975. Recovery of nutrients from animal wastes—
an overview of existing options and po-
tentials for use in feed. pp. 192-194, 196.
In Managing Livestock Wastes. 3d Intl.
Symp. on Livestock Wastes Proc. Amer.
Soc. Agr. Engin., St. Joseph, Mich.
168. Young, R. A.
1974. Crop and hayland disposal areas for live-
stock waste management, pp. 484-492. In
Processing and Management of Agricultural
Wastes. 1974 Cornell Agric. Waste Manage-
ment Conf. Proc. Graphics Management
Corp., Washington, D.C.
169. * and Mutchler, C. K.
1976. Pollution potential of manure spread on
frozen ground. Jour. Environ. Quality
5(2): 174-179.
170. Zook, L. L.
1936. Maintenance of organic matter in dry-land
soils, pp. 61-71. Nebraska Potato Improve-
ment Assoc. 17th Ann. Rpt.
See footnote on p. 93.
100
-------
APPENDIX
Runoff Volume
Conversion constants, 0.2 gal/in-ft and 0.5 gal/
in-ft, for unpaved and paved lots, respectively:
144 inVft- x 1 gal/231 in3 = 0.62 gal/in-ft2
0.62 gal/in-ft2 x 0.3 = 0.186, rounded to one
decimal place 0.2 gal/in-ft2
0.62 gal/in-ft2 x 0.8 = 0.5 gal/in-ft2
Conversion constant 27,150 gal/acre-in to convert
gallons to acre-inches:
7.48 gal/ft3 x 43,560 ft2/acre x 1 ft/12 in =
27,150 gal/acre-in when you drop the insignificant
digits.
Total Dry Solids Transported
Conversion constant, 8.34 , for weight of run-
gal
off for unpaved and paved lots, respectively:
231 in3 1ft3 62.4 Ib Ib
• X —-—- X = 8.34
Igal
1728 in3
1ft3
gal
Considering the low solids content, the density of the
runoff can be approximated as that of water or 62.4
. In Sample Problems 2 and 3, the solids con-
ft3
centration in the runoff is taken to be 0.1 %.
Parts per Million
The calculation of the concentration of a sub-
stance, such as N in water, in parts per million (p/m)
means to express the weight of the N found in a
million parts of water, using the same measuring unit
for both the N and water. For example, suppose
runoff from a field carries 3.4 Ib N per acre per
year and the amount of runoff is 1 inch per acre per
year. What is the concentration of N in parts per
million? The Appendix sections on "Runoff Volume"
and "Total Dry Solids Transported" show the con-
stants 27,150 gal/acre-in and 8.34 Ib/gal. The 1
inch of runoff from 1 acre is 1 acre-in. The calcula-
tions for the concentration of N in parts per million
are as follows:
27,150 gal/acre-in x 8.34 Ib/gal = 226,431 Ib
water /acre-in
226,431 Ib -f- 1,000,000 = 0.226431 million Ib
water
3.4 Ib N -f- 0.226431 million Ib water = 15 Ib N
per 1 million Ib water or N concentration —15
P/m.
Animal Waste Equations for
Nitrogen Rates
Regression equations were calculated for manures
with different N concentrations, since regression of
the natural logarithm (In) of total N required (R)
on the In time (T) showed this relation fit the data
well. The intercepts (A) and the slopes (B) of these
equations were dependent on the percent N in the
manure. Regression of A on In percent N and re-
gression of B on In percent N showed that the inter-
cepts and slopes were closely related to the percent
N in the manure. The equation may be written:
R = ATB
R = manure required to supply 100 Ib N
A = 445—235 lnx(a constant calculated using
20x x = the N concentration
(% N) in manure. The
value 20 converts to tons/
acre.)
T = time in years starting with the first ap-
plication
B = —0.5057 -f 0.3254 In x (a constant cal-
culated using x = % N in the manure).
If values for soil-available N and potential N
losses were known, the following equation could be
used to adjust the values found in table 14 to calcu-
late total N required:
NT = Nr - Ns
Nv + ND
NR,
where NT = total N required or crop requirement
No = N content of the crop,
Ng = N available in the soil,
Nv = N volatilization loss,
ND = N denitrification loss,
NL — N leaching loss, and
NR — N runoff loss.
NO is known (table 10, p. 29) and Ns can be
obtained for a given soil by soil tests. Because of
the N losses (denitrification, volatilization, leaching,
and runoff), the amount of manure to fulfill crop
needs must be increased above the values in table 14.
101
-------
Table 12, page 31, contains multiplication factors
to allow for N volatilization and denitrification losses.
The multiplication factors (MF) were derived using
the following equation:
1
1 _ [Nv + ND]
where Nv = volatilization loss at tune of applica-
tion
= 0.25 for surface-applied and 0.05 for
soil-incorporated manure, and
ND = denitrification constant for hydrologic
soil groups
= 0, 0.1, 0.2, and 0.35 for hydrologic
soil groups A, B, C, and D, respec-
tively, for soil-incorporated manure.
Potential Nitrogen Leaching
The potential quantity of N leached (Ib/acre) may
be estimated by using the following equation:
NL = LP [(EA) (MF)(R)(X)(DC) (1 - Nv — ND)
(2,000) — 0.67 N0],
where NL = N leaching loss (Ib/acre),
Lp = leaching percent,
EA = excess manure application factor, i.e.,
1 — manure application to meet a
specific requirement or at agronomic
rates; 2 = twice agronomic rates, etc.,
MF = multiplication factor (see table 12, p.
31),
R = manure required (dry weight) to sup-
ply 100 Ib of N (see table 14, p. 33),
X = percent N in the manure,
DC— decay constant for the manure (see
table 13, p. 32),
Nv = N volatilization coefficient (see table
11, P- 31),
ND = denitrification coefficient (0, 0.1, 0.2,
and 0.35 for hydrologic soil types A,
B, C, and D, respectively; see Section
4, p. 28),
2,000 = conversion constant, and
No = N content of the crop (see table 10,
p. 29).
102
-------
TABLE 1.—Some estimated quantities of livestock and poultry manures at the time available for land application1
Management
Swine
Dairy Beef
Farrow Finish
Sheep Layers Broilers Turkeys
Tons /animal-year
Tons j 100 bird-years
wet
dry
wet
dry wet dry
dry wet dry wet dry wet dry wet dry
Bedding Added
Daily spread
Manure pack
Bunker
Compost pile
No Bedding Added
Daily
Bunker
Pit (slurry)
(pit dry)
Compost
Holding pond 2
Effluent 2
Anaerobic lagoon 2
Effluent 2
Aerobic lagoon 2
Effluent 2
Vnpaved Lot
Mound
Compost
Paved Lot
Bunker
16.9
11.3
13.5
5.5
11.6
7.0
10.6
— .
2.3
5,500
3,500
4,850
3,480
20,340
14,820
5.6
2.2
5.6
3.38
3.38
3.38
2.76
1.74
1.74
1.59
—
1.13
1 28
0.38
0.98
0.29
1.44
0.43
2.54
1.12
1.64
6.4
4.3
5.0
2.0
4.8
2.7
4.8
—
0.9
2,230
1,850
2,080
1,800
8,140
7,710
2.4
2.2
2.5
1.28
1.28
1.25
1.01
0.72
0.69
0.72
—
0.45
0.52
0.20
0.38
0.15
0.60
0.20
1.3
1.2
0.62
—
—
5.9
—
—
1,590
1,370
1,530
1,320
5,930
5,490
—
—
—
—
—
0.46
—
—
0.37
0.14
0.28
0.11
0.42
0.16
—
—
—
1.3
0.8
0.4
0.4
1.0
0.9
2.2
—
0.2
600
460
600
480
2,260
2,060
0.3
0.2
0.50
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.18
0.19
0.18
0.18
—
0.12
0.14
0.05
0.11
0.04
0.16
0.06
0.20
0.16
0.09
1.5
1.0
1.4
0.5
0.8
0.8
1.1
—
0.2
510
460
480
410
1,890
1,720
0.4
0.3
— •
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.23
0.16
0.16
0.16
—
0.10
0.12
0.05
0.09
0.04
0.13
0.05
0.22
0.19
—
3.8
—
5.5
1.0
—
—
—
3,060
2,520
8,810
8,230
—
—
—
1.15 2.0
. —
0.83
0.89
—
—
—
0.56
0.21
0.62
0.24
—
—
—
—
0.7
3.7
—
—
—
2,076
1,800
5,930
5,490
—
—
—
0.78
—
0.60
0.56
—
—
—
0.38
0.15
0.42
0.16
—
—
—
10.2 3.06
4.7 2.35
— —
— —
— . —
3.3 1.66
— —
— . —
— —
. — . — .
— —
— —
4.5 2.50
3.7 2.04
— —
i Gilbertson et al. (40, 41).
2 Values for wet weight are expressed in gallons per animal-year or gallons per 100 bird-years. Average animal weight as follows:
Dairy and beef, 1,000 Ib; swine farrow, 375 Ib; swine finish, 150 Ib; sheep, 100 Ib; layers, 4 Ib; broilers, 2 Ib; and turkeys, 10 Ib.
103
-------
TABLE 2.-
-Some estimated quantities of nutrients in livestock and poultry manures
at the time available for land application^
Management
N
K
Na
Ca
Fe
Zn
Mn
Cu
As
lb janimal-yr
Bedding
Dairy
Beef
Swine
Sheep
Layers 2
Broilers *
Turkeys 2
A'o Bedding
Dairy
Beef
Swine (Farrowing)
(Finish)
Sheep
Layers 2
Broilers 2
84-133
39- 63
17- 30
10- 16
69
57
162-222
23.9
19.0
7.6
4.0
41.0
22.5
85.7
178.4
66.0
14.3
17.2
53.0
74.1
132.7
26.7
8.6
2.3
1.7
20.1
10.5
40.8
82.7
15.3
11.8
1.9
172.0
92.4
359.5
28.0
7.8
3.1
1.2
13.9
9.8
38.3
2.4
2.4
0.4
0.5
4.0
1.8
45.9
0.3
0.2
2.1
0.04
0.9
3.5
13.8
0.55
0.24
0.8
0.06
0.8
0.3
1.3
0.11
0.04
0.2
0.01
0.3
0.06
0.3
—
—
—
—
0.3
—
15-110
15- 46
21- 54
8- 29
4- 10
24- 75
19- 70
20.7
18.0
19.5
7.4
3.7
40.0
21.7
98.2
39.0
38.0
10.5
11.0
40.2
25.5
14.5
4.4
4.9
1.5
0.8
18.2
9.2
71.8
11.6
30.0
9.2
1.0
170.0
91.3
22.0
5.8
7.7
2.3
0.8
13.0
9.2
1.8
2.1
0.9
0.3
0.5
3.9
1.7
0.30
0.2
5.4
2.0
0.04
0.9
3.5
0.4
0.2
2.2
0.7
0.05
0.8
0.3
0.08
0.03
0.4
0.1
0.01
0.3
0.06
0.3
Unpaved Lot
Dairy
Beef
Swine (finish)
Sheep
Turkeys 2
61- 98
30- 38
15- 21
8- 11
144-203
—
13.0
6.0
3.2
68.3
_
14.4
7.1
7.3
55.8
—
4.4
1.9
0.8
35.7
—
11.6
11.4
1.0
355.0
—
5.8
2.9
0.8
35.8
—
2.1
0.4
0.5
45.6
—
0.2
2.1
0.04
13.8
—
0.2
0.8
0.05
1.2
—
0.03
0.2
0.01
0.3
—
—
—
—
~~T
1 Gilbertson et al. (40, 41). The United States Census for 1974 and estimates of nutrient losses in current management systems were
used to compute the values.
2 Values for layers, broilers, and turkeys are expressed as lb/100 bird-year. Average animal weight as follows: dairy and beef,
1,000 lb; swine farrow, 375 lb; swine finish, 150 lb; sheep, 100 lb; layers, 4 lb; broilers, 2 lb; and turkeys, 10 lb.
104
-------
c
o
•t-t
4-1
rt
3
F f
aj
tiJ
e
• S • r-i o en •J -sr
g ci *^ '^
~Ci 0) ' — SX
e^ u} — ^ ^^
X V S -0
en tn -v -V 2
•-^ 4-> CO
•^ C -g^ •
C/} £ •? ^3 J^J
' & ^32^
00 ^0 ^
cd Qj
g S1^ g
c - o g^>
*e co
£~ -o v?
O ^~ C\T) t^)
"5 «? rf
•C^ ^
•H 3 "Q '9"
4-1 °, "eTi co
C3 J CO -v) V
-^ -£t ^> ^
s -< 1 — 2 *?
system, i.e., location, climate, livestock or poultry type, animal
e
SH
£-4
3
co
O
-*: t/i
M
OT (D
•H -D
E
4-J 3
tfl C
r^
S
cj
T3
cO
1
o
CO
en "v
o •—
V
*^ "^^
Qj —1
i s
0 MC
MO-0
-o cO J^
O ^ *O
en MO ci
§ tJ O
S S
— *o
2 ^P sx
S^ ">
cj
*O ^^--S^
SO
•* c^ ^
^5."° "^
~cs -cs
(^ dJ Qj
*O j^1 o^1
*T ^- SX
' *^ • o
^) <5J
>3 • v -^
S 0 O
-S! ^ >3
t3 *6
*-- t^*i c^~j
!
C^
^D
§
.§
>^
^
£1
—j
•v
2
Ci>
•w>
^
£
Csx
^
!y
^
^5
^^
~X3
c^o
O
o
en
•V
Mo
§
~o
"^ O
o
-Q "Cj
ti ci)
"«
^ ^
O
MO ^
MO J^1
o ei
S -0
o -s!
0 S
s; O\Q ^y
ei *"— ~
~C3 SI CQ
•W^ f^
^5 *^0 o
£ "o o
'^^S
UJ C-O ^^-J
-O
^
§
i^-j
•*•«
*o
4U
^
O
>~J
o
o
en
0
CO
3
l^§
• *J
*^ cv
o o
MO -o . .
_1 _
T3 "tS *? £
CO S 2 5
'O ei -j^
O Mo ^ £^
Cr'MO .£?!
CO O £ SX
*e a o
"CS *? Moc^J
si ei
e? MO co • O
*e H <3 co
o 3 -s
-< C/2 O
O
ci
O
sx
sx
MO
ei
-Sf
5
3
en
•o
-O
^ j
o
CO
^^
\
g
^
^
'1
^J
•w
o
ex
3ted, proceed to Worksheet 2.
«-H
a,
o
o
J^
o
•-H
4_»
3
5
o
£1
•r-f
^
O
_Q
nj
O
5
r-;
4-»
•— 1
^
105
-------
I*:ier»uu'i^ Quantities of Livestock or Poultry Manures Available for Lund Applimtlun
1. Loci t ion (LRA, Figure 4, page 8) _ __
2. Climate (Figure 6, page 11) ................................ ^/cold; cool ; _ warm, _ hot; yXhumid, _ _arid;
3. Animal type ................................................ £)cUUUJ
4. Number of animals ( one-time capacity or inventory number) / QO ff
5 . Management syste. ( Problem description) .................... £?g. ^ ffr*V*-^- &*£ j C0»4At*/. ^€**t
6. Check manure source and form and fill in the blanks below using local data for characteristics.
Manure Source and Form Het Quantity Dry Weight
. Net weight Annual Dry Annual
Source!/ _ Form or gal/ x Animal - wet weight/X Animal « dry
(Table 7. page 22) Solid Slurry Liquid animal/ 1' number quantity animal/ number weight V
HI RT7 fJ) W j'y ,_ (5) m
"»™^ ........................ _it_ _ _ ULU-Stta- *
PH ~
Floor ^
Paved lot ..................... \/ _ __ _ x
unpaved lot ................... x
Runoff (Tables 5 and 6, pages __ _ _ x
20 t 21i text, page 20)
Emu«ti/ .................
Settled Solids i/ ...........
Stored Manure .................. x «
Holding pond (agitated)—^ ...... __ _ _ _ __ x ____^ - _
Effluent */ ............. ... __ _ _ _ x __ _ = _
Settled Solids 4/ ......... _ __ _ __^ t
Anaerobic lagoon (agitated) —' . __ _^ _ ___ _ x _ = _
Effluent I/ ................. x «
Settled Solids £/ ........... __ _ _ (
Aerobic lagoon (agitated) V ___ _ ____ _ __ x =
Effluent I/ ................. __ _ _ x _ - _
Settled Solids 4/ ........... __ _ (
Oxidation ditch ............... __ _ x _ * _
Oxidation ditch overflow holding
pond (agitated) ............ j/ _ _ ______ x _ * _ _
Effluent V ................. __ _ ________ x * _
Settled Solids £/ ........... __ _ (
Other ....................... x -
_ ..............
_ ..............
Include all sources and forms of manures for a particular system.
^Liquids are expressed in gallons per animal per year; to convert gallons to acre-inches, divide by 27, ISO gal ;
slurry and solids ate expressed in tons/animal/year . acre-in
If holding ponds or lagoons are not agitated when pumped out, or a debris basin is used to separate solids,
enter wet quantity under effluent.
**If ponds, lagoons, etc., are not agitated, estimate dry weight effluent and settled solids as follows: Settled
solids dry weight = total runoff solids times 0.6. If available, use reliable local estimates of the fraction of
total runoff solids that can be expected to settle out.
(9)
(To)
>5/
>!/ >
>j/ =
106
-------
Location (LRA, Figure 4, page 8 j / (2 \3
Ic nvdroiogic Soil Group (Section J, page 28, Table 17. A ^X"^ B C
D
JFMAMJJASON
iS Surface
yX Grass
Id Irrigation ... .
If yes
Id 1 hater Source Ground water
Id 2 hater Electrical Conductivity (EC) (mmnos/cm)
ie Climate (Figure 6, page 11) \s cold; cool;
Maximum (Average) Annual Precipitation (Table 6, page 21).. O*j> inches/year
If Application time [circle most probable months] (Table 9,
page 27)
Ig Metnod of application ..
Ih Type of cropping system . . .»
li Other considerations-
li 1 Is land plowed . . .
li 2 If yes. when
Agronomic Application Rates
2a N content of crop!/ (Table 10, page 29)
2b N available in soi1 (soil test)2/
2c N needed from manure
2c 1 Needed [N content of crops (line 2a) - N available in soil (line 2b)]
2c.2 N needed from manure (line 2c .1 divided by 2)^J
2d Recommended Dry and Net Rates (Table 7, page 22)
hot,
arid,
Soil incorporate
Small grain Row
Plowed field
Unknown
Unknown
&Q Ib/acre
-5 Ib/acre
Manure Source
(horksneet 2)
Percent N (local
analysis or Table
7, page 22)
(2)
3.2.
Manure needed to supply
100* N (Table 14. p. 33,
or calculated vol., p. 32)
Multiplication
Factor (Table 12,
page 31)
(4)
LB3_
r
Ib/acre
Ib/acre
Recommended Dry
Rate or Volume
(col, 3x col. 4
x manure__N]
100
(5)
rate/acre
£t&£L
Recommended Net
Rate (calculate
fron col. 5)1'
(6)
rate/acre
See footnotes at end of horksheet.
107
-------
•i. sheet 5 (ccm tinued)
Loading rate limitat
Salinity limits
Manure source (Horksneet 2)
3a Manure salt content (\) or Runoff electrical
conductivity (EC in mmhos/cml (Table 7, p 22)
5b 1 Leaching required for soil for low salinity
status (Text, pages 32-35)
5b.2 Irrigation *ater to dilute runoff
(Figures IS and 16, pages 37 and 38 )
3c *»onirngated land limiting application rate
(Figures 13 and 15, pages 36 and 37 )
3d Irrigated land limiting application rate
{Figures 13 and IS, pages 36 and 37 )
/ inches
15, page 35)
__tons/acre (dry)
__tons/acre (dry)
__very high, high;
tons/acre (dry) I. ^) inches/acre
tons/acre (dry) inches/acre-ft
irrigation
Manure Source
4 The limited application rate is the lesser
quantity shown on lines 2d or 3c (nonimgatedl or
3d (irrigated)
tons/acre (dry)_
tons/acre (dry)
5 Because of the limited application rate, determine the supplemental fertilizer required-
Sa Actual N applied in manure limiting application rate (lines 2d, 3c,
Adjusted app. rate (line 2d -
or col. 3 x col. 4)
2.2.
5b Supplemental N required: N needed (line 2c.l
*nure Source AjLL>
ne 2c-Il« - N applied (line Sa) = supplemental N requir
*
^^ 37 .
in/acre-ft
"irrigation
Actual N
applied
37
o
See footnotes at end of Worksheet.
(continued)
108
-------
horksneet 5 (conclusion)
6 Application area
oa Manure source
(fr;
lotal application area (add all areas required for each manure source)
Nitrogen required by crops must be adjusted to correspond to expected yields and N content for the area and soils if
different from Table 10.
-Contact County Extension and Soil Conservation Service offices for local information Use Agriculture Handbook 296
for general information for Land Resource Areas
^Assuming one-half of the N needed is to come from the raarjure- Any other convenient fraction could be assigned to the
quant_ity of N to be derived from the manure source. See text, page 30
4 Re commended wet weight quantities are expressed in tons of manure. To obtain gallons of manure, multiply by 240
To convert gal/acre to in/acre, divide by 27,150 gal/acre-in. To calculate wet weight
1 ton 8 34 Ib 1 ton
rom dr\ weight of solids, diviue column 5 bv the fractional dry weignt
109
-------
110
-------
TJ
iH
-a
V
o
a.
j
O
DC
— » C
<"< H
rt ra
B M
iyj DC
rt
U
OJ
p
C
£
T3
4)
fi
n
4)
U
\*
(/)
,*?
4)
V,
rt
X)
M
U
rt
M
U
rt
X!
0)
O
rt
XI
vs
^^N
N
un
a,
CTl
o
X>
n
t*
^
3
c
c
-a
L.
0
D
i
"'.
1
41
t-,
n)
X)
IH
U
X)
4)
U
CO
X)
4>
U
fl
X)
w\
^M
N/
_
S
P.
r-i
4)
n
rt
H
4>
§
E
O
1-1
D
TJ
:rease
c
H
f |
'"•
OJ
(H
U
rt
XI
0)
u
rt
X)
ra
4>
U
CO
X)
ts
_•
^1
>l
_
CO
a.
in"
-i
£
2
*-*
»J
o
^c
H
U
3
r-l
'
rt
^
S
_x
OJ X
i X>
^o ^^^
u C^(
H ^^\
rt .I
•r* M
O
i rt
i~* X)
rt
u
H
^,
TJ
0)
P.
P.
rt
O I
t-i
I S
3 «
--^ "^
% X)
X
rt
3
rt
TJ
4J
fJ
a
5
S
z
II H
X
v 3
§ 5
C rt
Z T)
"S 2
*J O
c s-
1 I
u
c a:
i—l ^H
^ fS
f?
H
X
x>
^^
•o
c
• H
1-4
rt
u
M II
rt
4) 4)
r-* U
•H
4-1
rt
U
'*"*
P.
P,
(4
X
•~*f
£ K
»> K
c u
•H rt
i-H -^
^ XJ
X
3
C
Tf
t»
1
c
2
•x.
B II
E
TJ
4)
M 4)
O 4-»
P. ^
ui in
C o
«-> -H
JJ7J.
0 O.
H n
*^
1?
E
D
Ul
X
t/l
bfi
C
H
P
P
£
O
3
c
TJ
4)
IH
O
P.
c
2
*-*
0.
O
x
4-1
c
3
cr
T)
4)
*-J
Q
UJ
T3
S
»w
T)
O
a.
o
DC
•-' C
rt cq
B ^
t/) be
rt
h
s^
0)
M
3
C
5
T)
4>
,
41
O
rt
"£
w
rt
00
u
o
rt
XI
0)
H
U
a
£
rt
X)
£
O
rt
XI
5-
M
1/1
P.
n
U
X)
rt
H
X
3
rt
TJ
£
O
(X
"^
oO
4>
O
rt
XJ
4>
rt
X)
4)
U
rt
X>
41
M
U
rt
-O
3
^
j,
3
K)
r^
U
XI
rt
H
41
I*
3
§
8
O
3
:rease
c
ri
OO
41
U
rt
X)
i— <
M
U
rt
X>
£
u
rt
^
K
o
rt
X)
Oh
ts
M
^
P.
.
r-i
1)
r-t
X)
rt
H
0)
*•*
o
x:
VI
D
.S
*?
00
rt
C
a
D
Tf
*J
4)
O
C
\
(N
•3
£
B
.
H
B
^
B
"^
oO
^
X)
^^
4) ^^
C
C ^
K
rt
£ £
rt (-•
u
4) rt
*-»
U1
.2 ^V»
*-• ^*^
rt ^^.
u j^^
&
rt
K K
£7
rt
00 4)
U
•o rt
£ x?
8.
e
g
-7$
H
II H
4)
V)
c
0
rt
u
^
P,
P.
rt
e
l+J
.
i/1
5
r7
rt
OO
C
-H
^ £
£0
rt
3 -v
C X)
O
4>
3
T)
rt
£ "
^ £
.3 u
rt
X)
rt
oo
4)
C
C-
•o
4)
•H
P,
P.
rt
£ '
3 4)
5 S
S Rt
"v. X)
X
S
TJ
41
a
V)
jjj
0.
n n
X
rt
41 3
3 S
•Sj
z "S
T) *-»
41 M
? 8.
5 2
& 2
0 *J
u
c o.
^ ^
'o xj
X)
u.
x
X)
(_s
TJ
V
c
• 1-1
rt
V II
N
rt «
4)
D t*
t-> U
•H ffl
c
o
rt
•H
p.
s-
K
r— ^
X)
OO K
4) 41
c fi
• H u
— i rt
x>
X -•
rt
3
rt
TJ
4)
C
a
S
a.
B » ii
o
T)
4)
O
P. •-
§
*-i
4J
O 1.
H
rg
X)
oo
111
-------
E E
i I
II
4i
u
rt
x7
1-1
/— >
s
01
c
'rt
<—<
rt
s
rt
41
4-1
Ul
O
•rt
(J
O
CX
CX
rt X
* s
!-> U
«-t rt
XI X)
O1 i-H
X
rt
3
3
"D
(-1
(J
Q
O
U
B M It
<*J
4)
O
I "
*§
Q H
O *-*
(j rt
fj
•—< -rt
gl
0>
M
U
rt
-D
-o" -a"
0) 4)
rt 'rt
CX CX
CX CX
V n
rrt rrt OJ
B E J=
£O w
MO) J«
3 O
TJ T3 C JC
00 00 B O
S S m &"1
js x: o i-
u u u
3 3 O ^
rt 0
rt M
M-i UH U C
O O -rt 41
00 00 D. C
C C D, 0
rt rt rt (J
X X
U U —< '*.
ai rt •-*
u ra cx
rt J-
C 00
CO (N
O "H
rt *J 4) K
fj rt — <
rt u xi
U .rt rt
•rt — « H
'— > -H CX ' — '
rH CX CX
rt cx rt *-<
rt rt C
fJ U OJ
a> c B -H C
»-> rt o o
O r-l C <-l
CX O
rt 00 O
ii H rt M
rH O (J
rt C 4J
4-4 O <-l ^
O M rt
H DO 3 X)
CX rt *-> — «
^-t *-*+-* O
o rt •-•
M tn JH
«-•
O 1-1 C C O CX
m X) 4*
D 0) T) U
x: B rt rt x; w
o a. M" CT -H
rrt n) O O II II
X) 0) C C
II
•o
o c
'rt 'rt
r~> rrt
CX >— '
D.
rt rt
*H rt
rt
w-< a>
V) -rt
• rt I/I
£ §
3 .H
B U
•H
C -«
CX
CX
rt
x
*~I
(J
o
4>
rt
CX
£ -g
3 a
1 ~*
| *
m *a
V
41 O
x: rt
rt r-<
rH 2
QOO
in (/)«-<
112
-------
113
-------
HORtvSHEET ~> Surrjoarv of Results
Manure Source
1. Availaole manure (horksheet 2)
quantity ' \.ear
2. Agronomic 'and ap?licat ion rate (horksheet 3]
rate/acre ^line )
.3) 4. Land application area required (Worksheet 3)
(line 5b) (line 6b)
acres
5. Quantity of runoff from land application site (Worksheet 4)
. — **/,* (Part 6e)
Surface applied ^ *£ S & G acre-in (6e . 1)
Soil incorporated /'0£ ^f acre-in (6e.2)
COD from manure transported in runoff from land
(Worksheet 4 , part 9} *\4//
Surface applied ............. <^ ^rm^QCQ Ib/yr (9a.5)
Soil incorporated
£ OO Ib/yr (9b.2)
" — —
6. N from manure transported in runoff from land (horksheet 4, part 7}
Surface applied ........ 4L /£/S 2*Q Ib/yr (7a. 5)
Soil incorporated ..... _ i / ^*
Ib/yr (7b. 2)
7. P from manure transported in runoff from land (Worksheet 4, part 8)
Surface applied ....... ^- _$*?•£& Ib/yr (8a.5)
Soil incorporated ..... _ / 1f£ _ Ib/yr (8b.2)
9. Percolation of N below 4-foot root zone (Worksneet 4)
//* -» J (Part 10)
Fall applied /Ot / rQ Ib/yr (lOc.)
Spring applied.
Ib/yr (lOd.)
114
-------
o
2 -Q
S
O
CH
o
o
4-)
03
c
o
•H
4-1
tO
O
O
rH
c
o
•H
4-1
(0
P
rH
tO
>
W
e
^
O
o
J^
c^)
"W
5
o
^
»^
—i
s;
*V
S
s
en
0
•<>
o
V
"*•?
Ci)
"O
^5
jJ
O
'^
i
o
2^
0
cn
^
o
o
sx
N
«3
•£?
s;
£
s;
0
3
>
sj
eJ
N
'>?
'i
*vJ
ent system, i.e.
^_l
M
p
0
0)
.p
4-1
O
(d
G
O
W
•rH
t\-
u
-P
o
03
SH
0)
ti-i
-------
^jhh-^i -*• -U -.,.• n. te mti.ut_, ijuant i l
Dry height
Source!'
(Table 7, page 22)
Fora
_
Solid Slurry Liquid
Wet weight Annual
or gal/ y. Animal - wet
animal/ ±/ number quantity
Dry Annual
weight/X Animal = dr>
animal/ number weight ^
pit
Floor _
Paved lot ................... _ x =
Unpaved lot ................... x =
Runoff (Tables 5 and 6, pages x =
20 t 21; text, page 20) '
Effluent I/ ................ __ _ _ x _ = _ _
Settled Solids I/ ......... __ _ ( _
Stored Manure .................. x =
Holding pond (agitated)!' ...... __ _ _ _ x = _
Effluent £/ ............... __ ___ _ _ x ______ = _ _
Settled Solids £/ ..... __ _ [_
Anaerobic lagoon (agitated) _'. x =
Effluent I/ ............... __ _ ______ * _ = ______ _____
Settled Solids I/ ........ __ _ ( __
Aerobic lagoon (agitated) _' . . . x =
Effluent *J .............. __ _ _ x _ = _ _
Settled Solads 4/ .......... __ _ ( _
Oxidation ditch ............ __ _ _ x _ = _ _
Oxidation ditch overflow holding
pond (agitated) .......... 17 __ _ _ x _ = _ ___ _
Effluent i/ ............. __ _ _____ * _ s _____ _____
Settled Solids £/ ........... __ _ ( _
Other ....... ... x = _
_____ __ ....... __ _ _ _ x _ = __ _
______ ___ ........... __ _ _ _ x _ = _ _____
1 Include all sources and form* of manures for a p-vrt.cular system.
^Liquidb dre expressed in gallons per animal per year, to convert gallons to acre -inches, divide by 2 7 , 150 pa 1 ,
slurry and solids are exrressed in tons /animal/year . acre- in
•^If holding panJa or lagoons are not agitated when pumped out, o_r a debris basin is used tu separate solids,
enter wet quantity under effluent.
"* If ponds, lagoons, etc , are not agitated, estimate dry ueigh_t_ effluent and scttUd solids as follows Settled
solids drv weight = total runoff polios times 0.6 If available, use reliable local estimates of the fraction of
total runoff solids that can be expected to settle out.
)j/=
116
-------
1. Location (LRA. Fieure 4. page B ) /OC*
la
l/W Ib
Ic
Id
le
Hydrologic Soil Group (Section 4, page 28; Table 17, A ^r B CD
page 45)
If yes:
id.Z Hat*>r Flrrfriral Condurtivi ty (FC) (mmhos/rm)
Climate (Figure 6, page 11) cold; */ cool ; warm, hot ; arid, )r hunid
-------
Worksheet 3 (continued).
5 leading rate limitations
Salinity limits^
Manure source (Worksheet 2)
3a Manure salt content (%) or Runoff electrical
conductivity (EC in mmhos/cm) (Table 7, p. 22)
3b Salinity calculations
3b.l Leaching required for soil for low salinity
status (Text, pages 32-35)
5b.2 Irrigation water to dilute runoff
(Figures 15 and 16, pages 37 and 38 )
3c fconimgated land limiting application rate
(Figures 13 and 15, pages 36 and 37 )
3d Irrigated land limiting application rate
(Figures 13 and 15, pages 36 and 37 )
3< Crop tolerance to salinity (Table 15, page 35)
ery high;
_tons/acre (dry)_
tons/acre (dry)
inches/ inches
of runoff
inches/acre
inches/acre-ft
irrigation
Other limitations (grass tetany, fat necrosis, etc ) Explain
Manure Source.
The limited application rate is the lesser
quantity shown on lines 2d or 3c (.n.anirn.gated) or
3d (irrigated)
tons/acre (dry)_
tons/acre (dry)_
S. Because of the limited application rate, determine the supplemental fertilizer required
Sa Actual N applied in manure: limiting application rate (lines 2d, 3c,
or 3d)
Manure Source
_ __^_
adjusted app.'rate (line 2d •
or col . 3 x col . A}
i n / a c re
_in/acre-ft
irrigation
Actual N
applied
_Ib f/ac
Ib N/ac
100
5b Supplemental N required" N needed (line 2c.l) - N applied (line 5a) = supplemental N required
*nure Source ^~ >*~~ 3. 3.O //O =
5>e footnotes at end of Worksheet.
118
-------
rksheet 5 (conclusion)
Application area
Aiailable quanritv
(Worksheet 2)
&O "tint, (<4
-------
\
£
u
br, i
-r >-
t
rt
(H
rt
H
TJ
Q
t
i/l ff
t
V rt
'+-
c
J3 1
rt X
ri r
— • — ' in
H B >•
C
fl • 3 1
R . c
0) - ^
li U 0
*-* *-i "O
0> X rt
CU rt Q)
r-t U m
rt
t/l t/) U
X t-"
nj O in
i xi TJ
C js c
0) Ofl rt
nj u
i c ao
c
E E rt
U (H rt
IM "4-1 rt
qj u D
UUP
c; c cx
rt rt
o a i
"
i
1
U
3
,e-
^1, 1/1
C
tfl
f
C
If
r
(
C
1 ^
t
a
in
OJ
t-
c
4.
6
1
It-
-
S
c
l
*.
b
c
c
c
(-
l/J
\
c
c
>rt
t-
rt
L
;c
c
rt
£
c
•n
a
i
4-
e
in
, °
U
w
.^
tf
&
e
^
c
i
\-
L-
4)
\
T3
C
s
'S.
o
3
OJ
o
H
4J
O
2
CX
c
o
!H
*-•
. £
t>
«
0 C
8
,
i/l
V
u
.5
^
^
in
(X
r*
u
X)
rt
H
Uj
0
frt
3
5
Is
c
u
a
u
cx
s
•N
^r
cx
r^.
2
rt
i-
|
C
t/l
X
c
u
u
D!
5
c
u
u
H
V
ex
•Q
^
i
o
c
l/l
o
o
II
rt
M-l
C
•H
S
X,
c
u
u
OL,
u
s
u
«
t^
t->
o
1/1
o
^
u
c
J
rt
f
(-1
rt
V
in
C
o
rt
u
'_,
cx
ex
•o
fj
Ifl
o
*->
rt
u
cx
IX 13
rt 4)
rt
a —
0 CX
f" CX
4^ rt
^ 1)
^ u
g *2
3 l-<
C 3
w
1 -
c
c u
5 vO
5
-------
121
-------
g C(
s\
(X V
rt i/i
rt -•
t-> CX
O CX
H H O
122
-------
123
-------
•1
NH
a; ra
—< o
-* o
ex p-
a F
124
-------
tD
e
-H
c
ID
O
ft
A;
o
o
4->
w
(D
-H
CO
EH
W
W
33
O
!3
ffl
0)
s
0)
4-1
10
C
0
•rH
4-1
rrt
HJ
3
r-t
(D
>
H
e
CD
i— 1
X3
O
i-i
AJ
4-1
C
0)
E
CD
tr
ID
C
rD
g
1
CD
^t
3
q
ID
g
Cb
x;
4-1
a>
4-)
n)
•rH
c
o
-H
4-J
m
o
o
H
t:
CO
ID
x;
s
O
J-l
ft
w
4J
0)
0)
O
CD
4-J
TI
O
x:
CO
w
cfl
4-)
rd
4-1
QJ
CU
x;
o
4-1
0)
0)
U
O
h
ft
13
ft
O
O
c
o
•H
4->
ID
c
-r-i
Q)
>
O
CD
4J
x;
4J
125
-------
i uueati on ( LKA, f-igure 4, page 6
1 Climate (figure t-. pdfjell,
3 AniOdJ type . .
4 Number of animals ( one-time capacit) or inventory number.,
S. Management systec; ( Problem descriptionj
Check manure source and form and fill m the blanks below using local data for characteristics
Manure Source and Fora
Ket Quaruit)
Dry height
Sourcei/
(Table 7, page
_____ Form
Sol id Slurry Liquid
het weight Annual
orgal/ x Ain ma 1 = wet
animal/ _' number quantity
year
Dr> Annual
weight/X Animal = dry
animal/ number weight .
year
(1)
(2) (3)
(4)
(SJ
(8)
(9)
(10)
Bam ...
Pack „__ ~ ~~
Pit
Floor
Paved lot x = _
Uipaveii lot x =
Runoff {Tables S and 6, pages x =
20 & 21; text, page 20) ~ ~
Effluent i/ x =
Settled Solids I/ (
Stored Manure x = ,
Holding pond (agitated)—' x = .
Effluent I/ x _______ = ________ _____
Settled Solids V . . -- _____ (
Anaerobi c lagoon (agitated)—'. x =
Effluent I/ _______ x = ______ ______
Settled Solids £/ ______ (
Aerobic Idgoon (agitatedj _/. . . x -
Effluent *! x = .
Settled Solids 4/ ( '•
Oxidation ditch x = :
Oxidation ditch overflow holding
pond (agitated) 27 x - :
Effluent I/ x _____ = _______ _____ :
St-ttled Solids *J [ .
Other .... . . . _______ x '
x =
x _ -
^In.-JuJe all sources and forms of manures for a particular system
'Liquids arc expressed in gallons per animal per year, to convert gallons to acre-inches, divide by 2J.150 pal_,
slurrv and solids are exf icssed in to.,s/aj.imal/year. acre-in
•^If holding ponJi or lagoons are not agitated when punned out, o_r a debris basin is used to separate solids,
enier »et quaniity under el fluent
4If pondb, lagoons, etc , are not agitated, estimate dry weight effluent and settled solids as follows Settled
solids drv weight = total runoff solids times 0,6. If available, use re liable local estimates of tne fract ion of
total runoff solids that can be expected to settle out
126
-------
hJPr-,'iL:_7 "•> 'eterrinitic \ ;>r 11 - a M_op_Ju te of Livf^tocl- or Poul_tr\_ Manure to Land i.'
' I "cat i on ! kA, F-1 j. lire 4 T j . . c
la Topographic Features __ Flat
les
A
Ground i*dter
\\> Conserxation Practices . . . . . _
1c H> drologic Soi1 Group (Section 4, page 28, Table 17,
page W
ic Irripation
If >es
Id J hater Source
Id 2 hater Electrical Conductivity (EC 1 (mmhos/cm)
le Climate (Figure 6, page ll
Maximurr, (Average) Annual Precipi t at iof (Table 6, page 21) .
If Application time [circle most probable months] (Table 9,
page 27}
]g Method of application ...
In Type of cropping svstem
li Other considerations
li 1 Is land plowed ...
li 2 If >es, Mien
\gronomic ^pplicat•on Rates
2a N content of cropjL' (Table 10, page 291
2b N available in soil (soil test)£/
2c N needed from manure
2c 1 Needed [\ content of crops (line 2a) - N available in soil (line 2b}]
2c 2 N needed from manure (line 2c 1 divided b> 2)^
2d Recommended trr> and Wet Rates (Tab! e 7, page 22)
arid ,
JFMAMJJASOND
Surface Soil incorporate
Grass _ _ Sr,il 1 grain Ron
No
Fall
1 *i / a c re
1 b'a c re
_lb/acre
Ib/acrc
Manure Source
(Worksheet 2j
Percent N (local
anali- sis or Table
7 p^Re 221
Manure needed to supply
]00E N (Table U p 33,
or calculated vol , p j
-.'-.ended hct
(calculatc
See footnotes at end of Uorxsheet
127
-------
fcorksheet 3 (continued).
5. Loading rate limitations
Salinity limits
Manure source (Worksheet 2)
3a Manure salt content (\) or Runoff electrical
conductivity (EC in ramhos/cm) (Table 7, p. 22)
5b Salinity calculations
3b.1 Leaching required for soil for low salinity
status (Text, pages 32-35)
3b.2 Irrigation water to dilute runoff
(Figures IS and 16, pages 37 and 38 ) _____ inches/
of runoT
3c Nonimgated land limiting application rate
(Figures 13 and 15, pages 36 and 37 ) tons/acre (dry) tons/acre (dry) inches/a
3d Irrigated land limiting application rate
(Figures 13 and IS, pages 36 and 37 ) tons/acre [dry) tons/acre (dry) inches/acre-ft
irrigation
3e Crop tolerance to salinity (Table 15, page 35) very high; high; medium; low;
Other limitations (grass tetany, fat necrosis, etc.) Explain: „___ ^
Manure Source.
4. The limited application rate i_s the lesser
quantity shown on lines 2d or 3c (nonirngated) or
3d (irrigated) tons/acre (dry) tons/acre (dry) ^in/acre
S. Because of the limited application rate, determine the supplemental fertilizer required: in/acre-ft
irrigation
S» Actual H applied in manure: limiting application rate (lines 2d, 3c, x 100 ^ , Actual N
or 3d) adjusted app. rate (line 2d ' applied
or col. 3 x col. 4)
Manure Source x 100 * Ib N/acre
^ x __ 100 - Ib N/acre
X 100 * Ib N/acre
Sb Supplemental N required: N needed time 2c.l) - N applied (line 5a) - supplemental N required
Jfanure Source _ - ,= ^^^^ Ib N/acre
See footnotes «t end of Worksheet. (continued)
_lb N/acre
Ib N/acre
128
-------
fcorksheet 3 (conclusion)
6 Application area
oa Manure source Available quantity Application rate (line 4} = Area required
(from horxsheet 2} (horkshe^t 21 (rate/acrej (acres)
6b Total application area (add all areas required for each manure source)
Nitrogen required by crops must be adjusted to correspond to expected yields and N content for the area and soils if
different from Table 10.
^Contact County Extension and Soil Conservation Service offices for local information. Use Agriculture Handbook. 296
for general information for Land Resource Areas
3Assummg one-half of the N needed is to come from the manure Any other convenient fraction could be assigned to the
quantity of N to be derived from the manure source. See text, page 30
^Recommended wet weight quantities are expressed in tons of manure. To obtain gallons of manure, multiply by 240
I —j—rr— B 54 Ih— ~T~t— ^° convert gal/acre to in/acre, divide by 27,150 gal/acre-in. To calculate wet weight
from dry weight of solids, divide column 5 by the fractional dry weight.
129
-------
E- s
-a -H —
£ ,
TJ
4-1
in
c
0
4-1
re
u
ex
c-
0
c
c
fl
c
I
n t.
'. 5
•a
cx
ex
: |
3
O
*
i
: 4J
i -H
•< «
X r-
,° **
4-*
re
U 0
cx -
4J
0 XI
IH n
O **•
I \
O -H
x =
£ 4
C
15
a> QJ (/i
4) a> u
cx cx re
: : j-;
. 4J
OJ
rA tj W
in ^ >;
1 °
£X O
r-." ^ ^
V
, 0) *" C
rH O H
X) O J
H
*— ' it rf
V
*J ^-t M
rH »-^ rt
OJ (t)
O H -H
W 2 ^
X X g
JD XI -H
+J
C C tJ
D U .H
U (J M
M k CX
Xt U TJ
4)
4-)
W
O
i-t
*->
a
O
a.
cx
re
6
0
U-4
O
c
1
c
5
It
130
-------
nj
0)
~ n
" i?
3 '"
§
S
0)
T)
01
rt
e »
u
c o>
u
rt
4)
c
cx
rt
V 1
t-,
C M
rt U
B rt
2 &
X
^
rt
1
rt
Tl
4J
o
cx
S
X
g
c
i
•a
£
(-.
o
ex.
c
*-t
z
•-H
X)
X
"^
^
T)
^D
4)
C
C^
ra
rt
4-1 h
H U
in rt
C
o
S
p.
cx
rt
K
"-*
X) X
01
01 h
C O
•rt rt
•^ XI
X
1
c
rt
•a
o>
M
O
CX
§
z
o
M
'4-1
T)
0)
t-J
0 *J
p, -<
S c
^ o
+J r-t
•— < -H
rt •-»
p a
0 P.
fN
t?
B
.
O
§
c
oi
^
o
cx
c
rt
Q_
»+4
o
X
*-l
4->
c
rt
er
•o
OJ
i
»->
1/1
LJJ
0
y-<
01
S
a.
,
o
-* c
p— I H
rt rt
B t-
t/J bo
rt
u
K
C
5
Oi
cx
cx
01
rt
l£
3
i/l
rt
CO
U if
rl ^
u u
•£ ^ -
X> XI J.
01 Oi
M t^
(J O
rt rt c
Xi X) £
\-> t-l \
u u <.
rt rt ci
X) X3 X
0) 0) 0
^ h t-
U U C.
rt ra n
Xi X) X
r-l ^H —
•5' f7
a. cx £
O (O
rt rt
h- H 01
,c
X 4> rt
^ 3 t
rt C
3 (3 B
c e C
2
tJ fJ
tJ 3 C
O (/
O, 01
S S 0
2 K S
W O X
c 2
£X ^ E
— , r i fO
or, uO oC
U J3
J
a
3 r-*
-« ^1 T3
rt
C C
• H H
f| l""1
U 11
i j-: rt
g Oi *-< &>
v. i tfl H
3 i U
^j
-H
V)
c
O
fj
rt
U
-H
rt
/
K K
d
CO 0)
U
4-j *t3 rt
— i 0) \
S o
0 CX
C it
1/1 J r5
M
rt
3
^C rt
u II
-H 01
P -H
-'Be:
0 O
cd
L, VI U
t-» CX
O rt
CX
e o
3 M
tn <+•<
' 4-1
•a
B 0)
0» t-l
*J O
cx
•^ c
o rt
X M
in 4-1
n cx
B -•
H rt
rt o
•n 10
rt rt
00 OO
131
-------
o
5 p
E C
ra in
a -s
e- B- ^
132
-------
133
-------
2 -S.
134
-------
JL'.N 1
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Jaaructions on the reverse before completing)
1 REPORT NO.
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION-NO.
A. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Animal Waste Utilization on Crop and Pastureland
5. REPORT DATE
May 1978
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7.AUTHOR(sic.B. Gilbertson, F.A. Norstadt, A.C. Mathers,
R.F. Holt, A.P. Bamett, T.M. McCalla, C.A. Onstad, R.A.
Young. L.R. Shuvler. L.A. Christensen. and D.L. Van Dyne
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Agricultural Research Service
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Washington, D.C. 20460
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
1BB770
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
IAG-D6-0986
12 SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory
Ada, OK 74820
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
June 1976 to May 1978
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
3PA/600/15
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
Prepared as a joint publication of Office of Research and Development, EPA, and
Agricultural Research Service, USDA
16. ABSTRACT
.Da i rtMi, i
Engineering and agronomic techniques to predict and control the volume of nutrients
and chemical oxygen demand leaving the application sites, caused by the application of
animal wastes, are described. Methodology was developed to enable the user to identify
the pollutant loads for different management practices and to select the best manage-
ment practice for a given site or region. Engineering, agronomic and economic factors
are included in the decision process. The information is presented in the form of
regional maps, decision flow charts, tables, graphs, example problems and brief
technical highlights.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COSATI Field'Group
Runoff
Wastes
Leaching
Nutrients
Non-point Source
Pollution
Animal Manure
Land Application
43F
68D
3 DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Unlimited
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
Unclassified
21 NO OF PAGES
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
135
-------
------- |