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

-------

-------