EPA
Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines
and New Source Performance Standards for the
FEEDLOTS
Point Source Category
JANUARY 1974
\ U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
" Washington, D.C. 20460
-------
t
t
-------
DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT
for
EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES
and
NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
FEEDLOTS POINT SOURCE CATEGORY
Russell E. Train
Administrator
Robert L. Sansom
Assistant Administrator for Air & Water Programs
Allen Cywin
Director, Effluent Guidelines Division
Jeffery D. Denit
Project Officer
January |974
Effluent Guidelines Division
Office of Air and Water Programs
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Washington, D.C. 20402 - Price $3.26
-------
-------
ABSTRACT
This document presents the findings of an extensive study of the feedlot
industry for the purpose of developing proposed regulations, providing
guidelines for effluent limitations and Federal standards of performance
for the industry to implement Sections 304 and 306 of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972.
Feedlots for the following animal types were considered in this study;
beef cattle, dairy cattle, swine, chickens, turkeys, sheep, ducks and
horses.
Guidelines are set forth for effluent reduction attainable through the
application of the "Best Practicable Control Technology Currently
Available," the "Best Available Technology Economically Achievable" and
for New source Performance Standards. The proposed recommendations
require no discharge of process wastewaters to navigable water bodies by
July 1, 1977 except for precipitation event(s) in excess of the 10 year,
24 hour, storm for the location of the point source for all animal types
except ducks. Duck growing operations will be required to meet a
limitation on BOD and bacterial pollutants using biological treatment
(e.g. 2.0 pounds of BOD per 1000 ducks). By 1983, the no discharge
limitation will apply to all animal types except for precipitation
event(s) in excess of the 25 year, 24 hour rainfall. The latter
limitation also applies to all new sources.
Supportive data and rationale for development of the proposed guidelines
for effluent limitations are presented.
-------
-------
CONTENTS
Section Page
I CONCLUSIONS l
II BEODMMENDATIONS 3
III INTEODUCTION 5
Purpose and Authority 5
Basis for Guidelines Development 6
Definition of a Feedlot 8
Beef Cattle n
Dairy Cattle 12
Swine 14
Chickens 16
Sheep 17
Turkeys 21
Ducks 23
Horses 24
IV INDUSTRY CATEGORIZATION 27
General 27
Categorization 38
V WASTE CHARACTERIZATION 53
Introduction 53
Beef Cattle 55
Dairy Cattle 71
Swine 86
Chickens 98
Sheep 106
Turkeys 124
Ducks 125
Horses 125
VI SELECTION OF POLLUTANT PARAMETERS 133
Definition of Pollutant 133
Biochemical Oxygen Demand 134
Fecal Coliforms 135
Total Suspended Solids 136
Nutrients 137
VII CONTROL AND TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY 141
General 141
Feedlot Analysis 141
End-of-Process Control and Treatment
Technology Identification 149
Land Utilization of Animal Wastes 149
111
-------
CONTENTS (Cont'd)
Section
Runoff Control 156
Composting 168
Dehydration 170
Conversion to Industrial Products 175
Aerobic Production of Single Cell Protein 176
Aerobic Production of Yeast 179
Anaerobic Production of Single Cell 181
Protein
Feed Recycle Process 185
Oxidation Ditch 188
Activated Sludge 192
Wastelage 197
Anaerobic Production of Fuel Gas 193
Reduction with Fly Larvae 201
Biochemical Recycle Process 204
Conversion to Oil 207
Gasification 207
Pyrolysis 211
Incineration 211
Hydrolysis and Chemical Treatment 214
Chemical Extraction 217
Barriered Landscape Water
Renovation System 220
Lagoons for Waste Treatment v 222
Evaporation 225
Trickling Filter 225
Spray Runoff 229
Rotating Biological Contactor 231
Water Hyacinths 232
Algae 233
Pretreatment Requirements 236
VTII COST, ENERGY, AND NON-WATER QUALITY ASPECT 241
General 241
Cost 241
Energy and Non-Water Quality Aspect 266
IX EFFLUENT REDUCTION ATTAINABLE THROUGH
THE APPLICATION OF THE BEST PRACTICABLE
CONTROL TECHNOLOGY CURRENTLY AVAILABLE ~
EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES 271
Introduction 271
Effluent Attainable Through the
Application of the Best Practicable
Control Technology Available 271
Identification of the Best Practicable
Control Technology Currently Available 272
Rationale for the Selection of the Best
iv
-------
CONTENTS (Cont'd)
Section
Practicable Control Technology 272
Currently Available 272
X EFFLUENT REDUCTION ATTAINABLE THROUGH
THE APPLICATION OF THE BEST AVAILABLE
TECHNOLOGY ECONOVIICALLY ACHIEVABLE —
EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES 273
Introduction 277
Effluent Reduction Attainable Through
the Application of the Best Available
Technology Economically Achievable 277
Identification of the Best Available
Technology Economically Achievable 278
Rationale for the Selection of the
Best Available Technology Economically
Achievable 280
XI NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STAND
PRE-TREATMENT STANDARDS 281
New Source Performance Standards 281
XII ACKNC^ILEDGEMENTS 283
XIII REFERENCES 287
Statistical Data 287
Land Utilization 287
Composting 289
Dehydration 290
Conversion to Industrial Products 292
Aerobic Single Cell Production (SCP) 292
Aerobic Yeast Production 293
Anaerobic SCP Production 293
Feed Recycle 293
Oxidation Ditch 294
Activated Sludge 294
Wastelage 296
Anaerobic Fuel Gas Production 297
Fly Larvae 297
Biochemical Recycle 298
Conversion to Oil 298
Gasification 298
Pyrolysis 299
Incineration 300
Hydrolysis 300
Chemical Extraction 301
Runoff Control 301
BLWRS 303
Lagoons 303
-------
CONTENTS (Cont'd)
Section Page
Evaporation 305
Trickling Filter 305
Spray Runoff 306
Rotating Biological Contactor 306
Water Hyacinths 307
Algae 307
Regulations 307
XIV GLOSSARY 309
Introduction 309
Terms and Definitions 309
Conversion Table 319
VI
-------
FIGURES
Number
1A Sketch of Open Beef Feedlot 9
2A Sketch of Housed Beef Feedlot 10
1 Typical Beef Feedlot Flow Diagram 11
2 Typical Dairy Farm Flow Diagram 13
3 Typical Swine Feedlot Flow Diagram 15
4 Typical Broiler Feedlot Flow Diagram 16
5 Typical Laying Operation Flow Diagram 20
6 Typical Lamb Feedlot Flow Diagram 20
7 Typical Turkey Feedlot Flow Diagram 21
8 Typical Duck Feedlot Flow Diagram 22
9 Flow Diagram of Typical Racetrack 24
10 Beef Cattle Industry Structure 40
11 Dairy Cattle Industry Structure 41
12 Swine Industry Structure 42
13 Broiler Industry Structure 43
14 Layer Industry Structure 45
15 Sheep Industry Structure 46
16 Turkey Industry Structure 47
17 Duck Industry Structure 48
18 Horse Industry Structure 51
19 Beef Cattle Industry Waste Identification 56
20 Beef Cattle Category I Flow Diagram 57
21 Beef Cattle Category II Flow Diagram 67
22 Dairy Cattle Industry Waste Identification 72
23 Dairy Cattle Category III Flow Diagram 73
24 Dairy Cattle Category IV Flow Diagram 76
25 Dairy Cattle Category V Flow Diagram 78
26 Swine Industry Waste Identification 86
27 Swine Category VI Flow Diagram 87
28 Swine Category VII Flow Diagram 88
29 Swine Category VIII Flow Diagram 97
30 Deleted
31 Sheep and Lamb Industry Waste Identification 105
32 Sheep and Lambs Category XII Flow Diagram 107
33 Sheep and Lambs Category XIII Flow Diagram 123
34 Turkey Industry Waste Identification 124
35 Duck Industry Waste Identification 126
36 Composting 171
37 Dehydration 173
38 Dehydration - Mass Balance 174
39 Aerobic Production of Single Cell Protein 177
40 Aerobic Production of Yeast 180
41 Anaerobic Production of Single Cell Protein 184
42 Anaerobic Production of Single cell
Protein - Mass Balance 186
43 Feed Recycle Process 187
44 Oxidation Ditch 190
45 Oxidation Ditch - Mass Balance 191
46 Activated Sludge 194
47 Anaerobic Production of Fuel Gas 199
vii
-------
Number FIGURES (CONT'D) PAGE
48 Conversion of Solid Wastes to Methane 200
49 Reduction With Fly Larvae 203
50 Biochemical Recycle Process 205
51 Gasification 209
52 Pyrolysis 212
53 Pyrolysis - Mass Balance 213
54 Steam Hydrolysis 216
55 Chemical Extraction 218
56 Barriered Landscape Water Renovation System 221
57 Trickling Filter 227
58 Spray Runoff 230
59 Algae 235
60 Land Utilization Investment Cost - Solid Manure 244
61 Land Utilization Operating Cost - Solid Manure 246
62 Liquid Manure - Investment Cost 247
63 Liquid Manure - Operating Cost 248
64 Irrigation Equipment - Investment Cost 249
65 Irrigation Equipment - Operating Costs 251
66 Cost of Sewage Treatment Unit Operations 258
67 Lagoons and Ponds - Investment Cost 262
68 Lagoons and Ponds - Investment Cost (Detail) 263
Vlll
-------
TABLES
Number
1 Beef Cattle
37
38
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Cattle
cattle
Cattle
Cattle
Cattle
Cattle
8 Dairy Cattle
9 Dairy Cattle
10 Dairy Cattle
11 Dairy Cattle
12 Dairy Cattle
13 Dairy Cattle
14 Dairy Cattle
15 Dairy Cattle
16 Dairy Cattle
17 Swine
18 Swine
19 Swine
2C Swine
21 Swine
22 Swine
23 Chickens
24 Sheep
25 Sheep
26 Lambs
27 Lambs
28 sheep
29 Lambs
30 Sheep & Lambs
31 Sheep
32 Lambs
33 Sheep
34 Lambs
35 Turkeys,
Breeding
36 Turkeys,
Growing
Ducks
Horses
Fresh and Slotted Floor/Shallow
Pit Manure
Biodegraded Manure
Dirt/Normal Slope Runoff
Dirt/Steep Slope Runoff
Paved Lot Runoff
Slotted Floor/Deep Pit Manure
Housed/Solid Floor Manure & Bedding
Stall Barn Milk Room Waste
Stall Barn Manure and Bedding
Free Stall Barn Milking Center Waste
Free Stall Barn Manure & Bedding
Free Stall Barn Liquid Storage &
Slotted Floor
Free Stall Barn Liquid Flush
Cow Yard Milking center Waste
Cow Yard Manure
Cow Yard Runoff
Solid Floor Waterwashed Waste
Slotted Floor/Pit Manure
Oxidation Ditch Mixed Liquor
Unaerated Lagoon Effluent
Manure
Dirt Lot Runoff
Fresh Manure
(Solid)
(Liquid)
(Solid)
(Liquid)
Manure
Manure
58-59
60
61-62
63-64
65-66
68-69
70
74
75
79
80
Housed Manure
Housed Manure
Housed Manure
Housed Manure
Partial Confinement
Partial confinement
Open Lot Runoff
Partial Confinement Corral Manure
Partial Confinement corral Manure
Dirt Lot Manure
Dirt Lot Manure
Fresh Manure
Fresh Manure
Wet Lot Waste Water
Manure and Bedding
39 End-of-Process Technology Classification
39A Summary of Feedlot Runoff Control Criteria
39B Management Periods Governing Storage of Process
Generated Waste Water
40 Inhibitory Substances
41 Energy and Non-Water Quality Aspect
81
82
83
84
85
89-90
91-92
93-94
95-96
99-100
101-102
103
109-110
111
112
113-114
115
116
117-118
119
120
121
122
127-128
129-130
131
132
150
162-164
167
239
270
-------
-------
SECTION I
CONCLUSIONS
&mong the conclusions derived in the course of this study is that the
animal feedlot industry may be segmented into eighteen subcategories for
the purposes of establishing effluent limitations. The main criteria
for categorization of the feedlot industry were animal type and
production process employed, secondary criteria were product produced,
prevalence of the production process, employed, and characteristics of
waste produced. The factor of raw materials used is mainly concerned
with the feed used by the animals and its influence is reflected in
animal type and the characteristics of the waste produced. Age of
facilities and equipment were found to have no meaningful effect on
categorization. Location and climate greatly influence feedlot
management but represent such a diversity as to be an inefficient basis
for categorization. Treatability of the wastes was considered but not
found to have a significant effect on categorization because no known
practical treatment system exists which can reduce or alter feedlot
wastes (with the exception of duck feedlot wastes) to the point where
they can be discharged.
With the exception of the duck feedlot subcategories, it is further
concluded that animal feedlot subcategories can achieve a level of waste
control which prevents the discharge of any wastes into waterways by
July 1, 1977 except for overflows due to excessive rainfall or similar
unusual climatic events. The duck industry requires until July 1^ 1983
to meet the no discharge requirement with a similar exclusion for
overflows.
There exists a number of promising refined waste management concepts
such as manure processing and reuse which offer potentially viable
alternatives to land utilization. These concepts are all at, or past
the level of "breakthrough" and should be pursued to establish practical
applicability.
-------
-------
SECTION II
RECOMMENDATIONS
It is recommended that no discharge of wastewater pollutants to
navigable waterbodies be the effluent limitation effective July 1, 1977
for existing feedlots for all animal types except ducks: beef cattle,
dairy cattle, swine, chickens, turkeys, and sheep. The no discharge
requirement should apply to all flushing or washdown waters used to
clean pens, barns or other animal confinement facilities, all waters
from continuous overflow watering systems, spillages from watering
systems, or similar "man made" sources, and all rainfall runoff except
that due to chronic or catastrophic storm event(s) in excess of the 10
year, 2<* hour storm as defined by the National Weather Service, National
Oceanic Atmospheric Administration for the location of the point source.
This elimination of discharge should be achieved by the recycling of
wastes to land for efficient utilization as moisture and nutrients by
growing crops.
The effluent limitation for discharges to navigable water bodies from
existing feedlots, for the animal type ducks, applicable for July 1,
1977 should be less than 0.9 kilograms (two pounds) of BOD5 per day per
1000 ducks being fed and less than the National Technical Advisory
Committee recommended values for total viable coliform counts in
shellfish producing waters. The resulting coliform limitation for ducks
shall be a median of less than 10 million and a maximum of less than 33
million counts per day per 1000 ducks being fed.
It is recommended that no discharge of waste water pollutants to
navigable waterbodies constitute the effluent limitation for all animal
types and subcategories thereof effective July 1, 1983, and no discharge
of waste water pollutants constitute the standard of performance for nev
sources. The no discharge requirement should apply to all flushing or
washdown waters used to clean pens, barns or other animal confinement
facilities, all waters from continuous overflow watering systems,
spillages from watering systems, swimming areas for ducks, or similai
"man made" sources, runoff except that due to chronic or catastrophic
storm event(s) in excess of the 25 year, 24 hour storm as defined by the
National Weather Service, National oceanic Atmospheric Administratior
for the location of the point source.
-------
-------
SECTION III
INTRODUCTION
PURPOSE AND AUTHORITY
On October 18, 1972, the Congress of the United States enacted the
Federal Water Pollution Control Amendments of 1972. The Act in part
requires that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) establish
regulations providing guidelines for effluent limitations to be achieved
by "point" sources of waste discharge into navigable waters and trib-
utaries of the United States.
Specifically, Section 301(b) of the Act requires the achievement by not
later than July 1, 1977 of effluent limitations for point sources, other
than publicly owned treatment works, which requires the application of
the best practicable control technology currently available as defined
by the Administrator pursuant to Section 304 (b) of the Act. Section
301 (b) also requires the achievement by not later than July 1, 1983 of
effluent limitations for point sources, other than publicly owned
treatment works, which requires the application of the best available
technology economically achievable which will result in reasonable
further progress toward the national goal of eliminating the discharge
of all pollutants, as determined in accordance with regulations issued
by the Administrator pursuant to Section 304 (b) to the Act. Section 306
of the Act requires the achievement by new sources of a Federal standard
of performance providing for the control of the discharge of pollutants
which reflects the greatest degree of effluent reduction which the
Administrator determined to be achievable through application of the
best available demonstrated control technology, processes, operating
methods, or other alternatives, including, where practicable, a standard
permitting no discharge of pollutants.
Section 304(b) of the Act requires the Administrator to publish, within
1 year of enactment of the Act, regulations providing guidelines for
effluent limitations setting forth the degree of effluent reduction
attainable through the application of the best practicable control
technology currently available and the degree of effluent reduction
attainable through the application of the best control measures and
practices achievable, including treatment techniques, process and
procedure innovations, operation methods and other alternatives. This
study recommends effluent limitations guidelines pursuant to section
304 (b) of the Act for the animal feedlot industry.
Section 306 of the Act requires the Administrator, within 1 year after a
category of sources is included in a list published pursuant to Section
306(b)(l)(A) of the Act, to propose regulations establishing Federal
standards of performances for new sources within such categories. The
-------
Administrator published in the Federal Register of January 16, 1973 (38
F.R. 1621), a list of 27 source categories. Publication of the list
constituted announcement of the Administrator's intention of
establishing, under Section 306, standards of performance applicable to
new sources within the listed categories. This study recommends the
standards of performance applicable to new sources within the animal
feedlot industry which was included within the list published January
16, 1973.
The guidelines in this document identify in terms of chemical, physical,
and biological characteristics of pollutants, the level of pollutant
reduction attainable through the application of the best practicable
control technology currently available, (BPCTCA), and the best available
technology economically achievable, (BATEA). The guidelines also
specify factors which must be considered in identifying the technology
levels and in determining the control measures and practices which are
to be applicable within given industrial categories or classes.
In addition to technical factors, the Act requires that a number of
other factors be considered, such as the cost and non-water quality
environmental impacts (including energy requirements) resulting from the
application of such technologies.
BASIS FOR DEVELOPMENT OF GUIDELINES AND PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
The feedlot industry is extremely diverse with individual operations
utilizing management techniques which vary due to animal type, size and
weight, crops available, market available, geographical location,
climate, traditional practices, and management experience and education.
This study has been based upon the available data and the best estimates
and judgements by recognized experts in the feedlot industry field. To
perform a more exact study would require extensive new and/or original
investigative work. The results are felt to properly reflect the
present situation in the industry and form a basis for the development
of effluent guidelines.
The effluent limitations guidelines and standards of performance
proposed herein were developed in the following manner. The point
source category was first studied for the purpose of determining whether
separate limitations and standards are appropriate for different
segments within a point source category. This analysis included a
determination of whether differences in raw material used, product
produced, manufacturing process employed, age, size, wastewater
constituents, and other factors require development of separate effluent
limitations and standards for different segments of the point source
category. The raw waste characteristics for each segment were then
identified. This included an analysis of (1) the source and volume of
water used in the process employed and the sources of waste and
wastewaters in the plant; and (2) the constituents (including thermal)
-------
of all wastewaters including toxic constituents and other constituents
which result in taste, odor, and color in water or aquatic organisms.
The constituents of wastewaters which should be subject to effluent
limitations guidelines and standards of performance were identified.
The full range of control and treatment technologies existing within
each category was identified. This included identification of each
distinct control and treatment technology, including an identification
in terms of the amount of constituents (including thermal) and the
chemical, physical, and biological characteristics of pollutants, of the
effluent level resulting from the application of each of the treatment
and control technologies. The problems, limitations and reliability of
each treatment and control technology and the required implementation
time was also identified. In addition, the nonwater quality
environmental impact, such as the effects of the application of such
technologies upon other pollution problems, including air, solid waste,
noise and radiation, were also identified. The energy requirements of
each of the control and treatment technologies was identified as well as
the cost of the application of such technologies.
The information, as outlined above, was then evaluated in order to
determine what levels of technology constituted the "best practicable
control technology currently available," "best available technology
economically achievable" and the "best demonstrated control technology,
processes, operating methods, or other alternatives." In identifying
such technologies, various factors were considered. These included the
total cost of application of technology in relation to the effluent
reduction benefits to be achieved from such application, the age of
equipment and facilities involved, the process employed, the engineering
aspects of the application of various types of control techniques
process changes, nonwater quality environmental impact (including energy
requirements) and other factors.
The data and recommended effluent guidelines within this document were
developed based upon review and evaluation of available literature,
consultation with recognized experts in specific animal fields, and
visits to 91 exemplary feedlots in 17 major "feedlot" states.
Eight animal types were included in the study; beef cattle, dairy
cattle, swine, chickens, sheep, turkeys, ducks, and horses.
Specifically excluded from the purview of the report are those
facilities used to raise pets (dogs, cats, small animals), small game,
and wild game.
Five consultants and a technical contractor (cited in Section XII) were
employed to provide the most current and accurate data for these animal
types. The consultants were chosen based upon their long established
interest, expertise and current participation in the field of animal
-------
waste management, as well as their recognition by Government and the
agricultural industry as experts in their field.
No consultant was utilized for horses due to the diversity of the
industry and the lack of scientific attention horses have received
relative to the other animals. The consultants provided overall animal
industry statistics and specific information on production methods and
types of wastes and waste treatment systems prevalent. The contractor
provided similar data for horses based on literature searches and con-
versations with individuals in the industry.
DEFINITION OF A FEEDLOT
In accordance with the Federal Water Pollution Control Amendments of
1972, animal feedlots are defined as "point sources" of pollution. It
is necessary, therefore, to distinguish between animals grown in
feedlots and those grown in nonTfeedlot situations. For the purposes of
this document, the term feedlot is defined by the following three
conditions:
1. A high concentration of animals held in a small area for periods of
time in conjunction with one of the following purposes:
a. Production of meat
b. Production of milk
c. Production of eggs
d. Production of breeding stock
e. Stabling of horses
2. The transportation of feeds to the animals for consumption.
3. By virtue of the confinement of animals or poultry, the land or area
will neither sustain vegetation nor be available for crop or forage
production.
These criteria must be met by a facility in order to be classified as a
feedlot. Facilities which meet the first condition invariably meet all
conditions also. However, pasture and range operations do not meet the
first condition but on occasion do meet the second condition. In
pasture and range situations, the animals are at such a low density in
terms of numbers of animals per acre that the growth of grasses and
other plants is not inhibited. In these cases the animals receive the
major portion of their sustenance from these plants and in turn return
nutrients to the soil in the form of wastes. These wastes are then
assimilated by the plants in a natural recycle system. Under pure
pasture or range conditions no pollutional source is ever reliably
identifiable. In some instances supplementary feed may be brought to
the animals (usually in the winter) but this level of feeding does not
-------
.ntroduce a situation wherein the ability of the natural ecosystem to
ibsorb the animal wastes is exceeded.
CATTLE ALLEY
.
32 FEET
-------
FIGURE 2A. SKETCH OF A
CHARACTERISTIC HOUSED BEEF
FEEDLOT FACILITY
-------
There are animal management schemes where the animals are on the range
or pasture for part of their growth cycle and in a feedlot, or confined
area, the remainder of the time. Under these circumstances only the
wastes from the feedlot were considered as being subject to the effluent
limitations defined in Sections IX, X and XI. Where management schemes
bordered on being a pasture or range situation, only the higher density
type operations were addressed as being subject to the technical
analyses and conclusions developed herein.
The following paragraphs provide a general description of each animal
industry, including the range/feedlot relationships.
BEEF CATTLE
The production and early growth of beef calves is accomplished on range.
As of January 1973 there were approximately 101 million head of beef
cattle in the United States. Of this number only 14 million head were
in feedlots. The rest of the animals which include bulls, brood cows,
and calves were on range. Figure 1 shows a generalized flow diagram of
a beef cattle feedlot operation which may be operated as either an open
or housed confinement facility. The feed usually contains a high
proportion of cereal grains such as corn, barley and milo and protein
supplements such as soybean meal with 5% to 20% roughage such as silage
or alfalfa to promote proper digestion.
The exact proportion of each constituent depends on a number of factors,
including the availability and cost of each constituent and the weight,
grade, and sex of the animal. On large feedlots, the ration is
programmed by computer based on these factors, and then mixed and
brought to the cattle by a variety of mechanical means.
270 kg Calves —
(600 Ib) Calves
Water • 1
38 - 114 liter/head/day
10 - 30 gallons/head/day
Feed
7.7 - 10.4 kg/head/day
(17 - 23 Ib /head/day
BEEF FEEDLOT
Time in Feedlot
130 - 180 Days
477 kg
(1050 Ib)
•Market
Animals
Average Raw Waste
22 kg/head/day
(48 Ib/head/day)
FIGURE 1
TYPICAL BEEF FEEDLOT FLOW DIAGRAM
11
-------
When calves on range reach a weight, of 160-275 kilograms (350-600
pounds) they are sold to feedlots as "feeder" calves. The calves are
fed highly concentrated feeds for a period of 130 to 180 days until they
reach a weight of 450 to 550 kilograms (1000 to 1200 pounds). At this
point they are slaughtered. On occasion calves are grown on a feedlot
to only about 365 kilograms (800 pounds) and then transferred to a
"finishing" lot where they complete their growth.
The type of feed provided to cattle in feedlots consists of 5.0 to 2C%
roughage with the remainder being concentrated grains and protein
supplements. A total of about 7 to 9 kilograms of feed are required for
every kilogram of grain on the animal. Approximately 45 billion
kilograms (100 billion pounds) of feed were consumed by feedlot cattle
in 1972. A total of about 27 million cattle (approximately 12 billion
kilograms ±27 billion pounds1) were marketed for slaughter by feedlots
in 1972 with an approximate gross income of 10 billion dollars.
The vast majority of cattle feedlots are open dirt lots and are located
mainly in the West Central and Southwest parts of the country. The
small percentage of lots which are housed facilities are in the Midwest.
The ten leading states in feedlot cattle production (1972) are as
follows:
State Cattle Marketed
Texas 4,308,000
Nebraska 3,990,000
Iowa 3,896,000
Kansas 2,405,000
Colorado 2,291,000
California 2,062,000
Illinois 1,003,000
Minnesota 935,000
Arizona 899,000
Oklahoma 626,000
DAIRY CATTLE
Milk cows, replacement heifers and dairy breeding stock total about 16
million head in the United States. Of this number 11.5 million are milk
cows, which are the only dairy cattle partially or completely fed under
feedlot conditions. The rest of the dairy cattle are on pasture. At
the age of about two years heifers are bred and after the birth are
started as milk cows. From that point on they are bred once each year
so milking can be continued. When they are no longer acceptable milk
cows they are sold as utility or commercial grade beef. Eighty-five to
ninety-five percent of all the milk cows in this country are Holsteins
and weigh about 590 to 635 kilograms (1300 to 1400 pounds). Their diet
consists of 35 to 40% concentrate ration and 60 to 65% roughage, which
12
-------
may be supplied by pasture. Total daily consumption is 16 to 25
kilograms (35 to 55 pounds) of feed per cow. Water consumption is 57 to
95 liters (15 to 25 gallons) per cow per day. Total feed consumption by
all milk cows is 71 billion kilograms (157 billion pounds) of feed per
year. Of this, an undetermined amount comes from pasture. Figure 2 is
a flow diagram showing input and output parameters of a typical dairy.
The water input shown is for drinking and washing. In operations that
use water to flush manure from the facility, this value is approximately
132 to a73 liters (35 to 125 gallons) per cow per day. Dairy cattle are
fed some cereal grains and protein supplements but roughage provides 60%
to 65% of the diet. In some cases, the cattle are allowed to graze on
pasture, and depending on the quality and type of pasture, the diet may
be supplemented as necessary.
Feed *
16-25 kg/cow/day
(35-55 Ib/cow/day)
Water *.
64-322 lit/cow/day
(17-85 gal/cow/day)
Bedding
0-3 kg/cow/day
(0-7 Ib/cow/day)
DAIRY
I
9-25 kg/cow/day
(20-55 Ib/cow/day)
-^Calves for replace-
ment or sale as
beef animals
1 per cow per year
Average Raw Waste, 41 - 54 kg/cow/day
(90 - 120 Ib/cow/day)
TYPICAL DAIRY FARM FLOW DIAGRAM
FIGURE 2
In 1972 the average production per milk cow was 4663 kilograms (10,271
pounds) of milk and 172 kilograms (377 pounds) of milkfat. Total for
the dairy industry was 51, 606 million kilograms (120,278 million
pounds) of milk and 2,006 million kilograms (4,420 million pounds) of
milkfat, for a per capita consumption of milk and milkfat of 270
killograms (595 pounds) per year. Gross farm income from diary products
in 1972 was 7.3 billion dollars. The ten leading milk production states
in 1972 were:
13
-------
Millions of
Pounds of Milk Gross Income
Plus Milk Fat (Millions of Dollars)
1. Wisconsin 20,370 1,070
2. California 10,803 611
3. New York 10,560 645
4. Minnesota 9,925 486
5. Pennsylvania 7,293 482
6. Michigan 5,098 299
7. Ohio 4,708 284
8. Iowa 4,671 236
9. Texas 3,502 243
10. Missouri 3,135 169
The distribution of dairies throughout the country follows closely the
population distribution. The major influence is the distance from a
market. Generally market distance is less than 480 kilometers (300
miles) for fluid milk and less than 160 kilometers (100 miles) for
cheese plants. Climate and land values are probably the most important
factor in determining the type of facility used. Cowyard facilities are
almost exclusively located in the Southern half of the country. Free
stall barns are mainly used in the North with only a small percentage in
the South. Stall barns are almost exclusively found in the North.
Pasturing of milk cows is more generally seasonal in the North.
SWINE
Nearly all swine are born and raised under feedlot conditions. The June
1, 1972 swine inventory was approximately 62 million. Of this figure
about 15% are breeding animals and 85% are market animals. Market hogs
reach a weight of about 100 kilograms (220 pounds) prior to slaughter;
this takes about 23 to 25 weeks. Feed for an average 45 kilogram (100
pound) hog is approximately 23 kilograms (5 pounds) per day. The feed
includes little or no roughage and consists mainly of grains, minerals
and protein supplements. Hogs require from 3-4 kilograms of feed per
every kilogram of grain. Total feed consumption for market hogs in 1972
was about 36.9 billion kilograms. Figure 3 shows typical input - output
relationships for a swine feedlot.
14
-------
A total of 91.5 million hogs were marketed for slaughter in 1972
providing an industry gross income of 5.5 billion dollars. The ten
leading 1972 hog producing states are:
State
1. Iowa
2. Illinois
3. Indiana
4. Missouri
5. Minnesota
6. Nebraska
7. Ohio
8. Kansas
9. Wisconsin
10. South Dakota
Hogs Marketed
(1000 Head)
20,795
10,908
7,201
6,984
5,374
5,199
3,889
3,240
3,096
2,905
Gross Income
(Millions of Dollars)
1,270
688
468
405
319
322
226
200
163
176
Food-
2.2 kg/hog/day
(5 Ib/hog/day)
Feeder Pigs (55 Ib)
Water
4-23 lit/hog/day
(1-6 gal/hog/day)
SWINE FEEDLOT
Time In Feedlot:
23 - 25 Weeks
I
->*100 kg hogs to
slaughter
(220 Ib hogs to
slaughter)
Average Raw Waste, 3-4 kg/hog/day
(7-8 Ibs/hog/day)
TYPICAL SWINE FEEDLOT FLOW DIAGRAM
FIGURE 3
Solid concrete floor and slotted floor swine feedlots are becoming more
prevalent in states with severe winters, however, open dirt lots are
still the most common type of swine facility. The number of hogs per
acre on dirt lots is sometimes low enough to provide a pasture situation
15
-------
where the wastes are absorbed naturally by the pasture. These cases do
not represent feedlot conditions as previously defined. Depending on a
variety of conditions the allowable animal density for pasture can be a
maximum of about 75 (30) hogs per hectare (acre). Since the exact
number of hogs raised under pasture conditions cannot be determined, the
industry categorization in Section IV treats the swine industry as being
completely operated on a feedlot basis. However, if a particular swine
facility is able to operate under pasture or range conditions, it should
not be subject to the feedlot effluent limitations outlined in Sections
IX, X and XI.
CHICKENS
The chicken industry is comprised of two distinct types of operations;
production of meat by the slaughter of broilers, and the production of
eggs by laying hens,
Broilers
Figure 4 is a flow diagram of a typical broiler growing operation.
Chicks
Litter
0.45 kg/bird
(1 Ib/bird)
Feed
0.064 kg/bird/day avg.
0.14 Ib/bird/day avg.
Water
0.129 kg/bird/day avg.
0.285 Ib/bird/day avg.
BROILER FEEDLOT
Time in Feedlot:
6-8 Weeks
1.8 kg broilers
to slaughter
4 Ib broilers
to slaughter
T
Average Raw Waste,
0.054 kg/bird/day
(0.12 Ib/bird/day)
TYPICAL BROILER FEEDLOT FLOW DIAGRAM
FIGURE 4
16
-------
All broilers are hatched and raised under feedlot conditions. There are
approximately 468,000,000 broilers in feedlots at present of which
25,000,000 are breeding stock. At the time of slaughter, a broiler is 6
to 8 weeks old and weighs approximately 1.70 kilograms (3.75 pounds).
Over this period of time feed consumption is 3.86 kilograms (8.5 pounds)
per bird, for a feed consumption per kilogram of grain of approximately
2.3 kilograms. The feed consists of grains, minerals and protein
supplements. Total consumption of feed by growing broilers in 1972 is
estimated to have been 12 billion kilograms (27 billion pounds) .
Broiler production in 1972 was 3.1 billion birds, which represents 5.2
billion kilograms (11.5 billion pounds). Total gross income was 1.62
billion dollars. The ten leading broiler producing states in 1972 were:
Production Gross Income
State (Thousands of Dollars)
1. Arkansas 532,135 255,159
2. Georgia 442,937 214,692
3. Alabama 399,274 188,298
4. North Carolina 301,772 163,591
5. Mississippi 256,264 125,159
6. Texas 178,511 93,790
7. Maryland 177,247 108,528
8. Delaware 131,873 80,746
9. California 86,022 63,226
10. Virginia 77,238 41,987
Broilers are produced almost exclusively in floor litter houses. As can
be seen from the above listing, the major production area is in the
Southern states.
Layers
Like broilers, laying hens spend their entire life in feedlots. The
present population of layers is 478,000,000. Beginning egg production
at approximately six months of age, laying hens produce for about one
year at which time they are slaughtered, usually for use in soup. Feed
for laying hens consists of grains, minerals and protein supplements.
Total feed consumption per bird is about 43 kilograms (95 pounds ) over
its 18 month life span. During this time the hen will produce about 18
dozen eggs. Feed consumption per dozen eggs on a gross basis is
approximately 2.4 kilograms (5.3 pounds). On the basis of only the feed
received during the laying period, this number drops to 1.9 kilograms
(4.3 pounds). Total feed consumed by laying hens in 1972 is estimated
to be 13.6 billion kilograms (30 billion pounds). Figure 5 is a flow
diagram for a typical egg laying operation.
17
-------
Total egg production in 1972 was approximately 70 billion, for a gross
income of 1.80 billion dollars. The ten leading states in egg
production for 1972 were:
Number of Eggs Gross Income
State (Millions) (Millions)
1. California 8,652 203.0
2. Georgia 5,465 160.0
3. Arkansas 3,795 114.0
4. Pennsylvania 3,599 91.5
5. North Carolina 3,433 98.4
6. Indiana 3,036 73.4
7. Alabama 2,852 81.0
8. Florida 2,840 58.9
9. Texas 2,685 75.4
10. Minnesota 2,584 44.1
Distribution of egg production across the nation follows somewhat the
population distribution. Regional shares of production for 1971 were as
follows:
Region Percent of Production
North Atlantic
East North Central
West North Central
South Atlantic
South Central
Mountain
Pacific
Although there are several different methods for confinement housing of
laying hens in different areas of the country there is no evidence of a
preference for particular systems. Worthy of note, however, is that
about one hundred large layer operations exist which employ liquid
manure handling systems - and a trend toward this type of system may
become established.
SHEEP
The great majority of sheep and lambs in the United States are
maintained on pasture or range land. Of those which are associated with
feedlot operations, only a portion are maintained in feedlots on a full
time basis. A significant number of sheep and lambs are maintained on
pasture part of the time and in feedlots the remainder. As with swine,
only the effluents from the feedlot situation are subject tp the
limitations of Sections IX, X, and XI.
18
-------
The total population of sheep in the country on January 1, 1973 was
17,726,000 head. The January 1 date is used because it is the time of
the highest population of feedlots. In the summer months, the number of
sheep and lambs in feedlots is very low. Of the total number only
4,214,000 are in feedlots. Of this number 2,066,000 are in feedlots
which do not use supplemental pasture. The remaining 2,148,000 utilize
supplemental pasture on the average of 50% of the time. Figure 6 is a
flow diagram for a typical sheep feedlot.
Feedlot lambs are generally born and raised to a weaning weight of 30 to
40 kilograms (65 to 90 pounds) on range or pasture. The remainder of
growth to about 45 to 60 kilograms (100 to 130 pounds) (slaughter
weight) is accomplished in the feedlot. An average lamb receives about
1.7 kilograms (3.8 pounds) of feed per day. The feed consists of 85X
concentrate ration and 15% roughage. Feed conversion efficiency fdf a
lamb is about 5 to 7 kilograms of feed per kilogram of grain.
In 1972, 630 million kilograms (1.4 billion pounds) of sheep and lambs
were marketed. Of this total number, it is not known what percentage
was from feedlots. Gross income was 358 million dollars. The ten
leading sheep producing states were:
Pounds Gross
Marketed income
State ^Millions)
1. Texas 207 54
2. Colorado 201 57
3. Wyoming 96 19
4. California 89 24
5. South Dakota 84 22
6. Iowa 75 20
7. Idaho 74 19
8. Utah 65 17
9. Montana 54 12
10. Ohio 45 12
19
-------
Food
0.095 kg.hen/day
0.21 Ib/hen/day
Water
0.168-0.193 kg/hen/day
0.37-0.425 Ib/hen/day
Litter
0.00032 kg/hen/day
0.000? Ib/hen/day
LAYER HOUSE
T
•Eggs
0.585 eggs/hen/day
Average Raw Waste, 0.18 kg/hen/day
0.4 Ib/hen/day
TYPICAL LAYING OPERATION FLOW DIAGRAM
FIGURE 5
Lambs.
30 - 41 kg
(65-90 Ibs)
Feed
1.8 - 2.3 kg/hd/day
(4-5 Ib/hd/day)
Bedding 1
Approx. 0.45 kg/hd/da}>
Approx. (1 Ib/hd/day)
LAMB FEEDLOT
Time in Feedlot
40 - 150 Days
I
•Lambs to slaughter
45 - 59 kg
(100 - 130 Ib.)
Average Raw Waste, 3.3 kg/hd/day
(7.2
TYPICAL LAMB FEEDLOT FLOW DIAGRAM
FIGURE 6
20
-------
The distribution of feedlot operation throughout the country is somewhat
vague; however, Texas and Colorado are the most important feedlot states
followed next by Wyoming, Nebraska and Minnesota. Note that not all of
these states fall in the top ten production lists. This again
emphasizes that many lambs are raised under non-feedlot conditions.
TURKEYS
Essentially all turkeys are bred and raised in feedlots. The only
exception if that some open facilities operate at such a low density of
birds per hectare that vegetative cover can be maintained. This amounts
to pasture or range conditions and does not fall under the limitations
of Sections IX, X and XI. In the turkey industry the term range is
generally used to designate any open facility regardless of whether or
not it is a true range operation as defined by this report. In most
cases what is called "range" is actually a feedlot for reasons discussed
previously.
Turkey chicks
Feed
0.18-0.23 kg/bird/day
(0.4-0.5 Ib/bird/day)
Water
0.36-0.45 kg/bird/day
(0.8-1.0 Ib/bird/day)
Litter *-
(no data)
TURKEY FEEDLOT
(Heavy Breed)
Time in Feedlot
20-24 Weeks
•Turkeys to slaughter
8.2 kg hens
(18 Ib hens)
13.6 kg toms
(30 Ib toms)
Average Raw Waste, 0.45 kg/bird/day
(1 lb/bird/dayy
* For Housed Feedlots Only
TYPICAL TURKEY FEEDLOT FLOW DIAGRAM
FIGURE 7
21
-------
The summer population (time of maximum number due to seasonal
operations) of turkeys in the United States is estimated to be
90,200,000 birds. The turkeys are fed a ration of grains, minerals and
protein supplements. Slaughter weights and ages are:
Hen
Tom
Heavy Breed
Weight
kg (lb)
8.2 (18)
11 (24)
Light Breed
(10X of total turkeys)
Age (Weeks)
20
24
Weight
kg (lb)
4.5
8.2
(10)
(18)
Age (Weeks)
20
24
Total turkey production in 1971 was 120,085,000 birds. Live weight
slaughtered was 1.02 billion kilograms (2.26 billion pounds) for a gross
income of 500 million dollars. The top ten turkey producing states
were:
State
1. California
2. Minnesota
3. North Carolina
4. Texas
5. Missouri
6. Arkansas
7. Iowa
8. Utah
9. Virginia
10. Indiana
Pounds
Produced
(Millions)
321
308
183
173
170
155
131
92
92
84
Gross
Income
(Millions)
70
66
42
36
36
36
27
20
20
20
Favorable climatic conditions favor the use of open feedlots in
Southern states. Housed facilities are more prevalent in the North.
the
22
-------
The total present domestic duck inventory is approximately 1.86 million
ducks. The ducks are hatched and raised to a slaughter weight of about
3 kilograms (7 pounds) in 7 weeks. The feed consists of grains,
minerals and protein supplements. Feeding efficiency of ducks is about
2.5 to 3.5 kilograms of feed per kilogram of gain. Total feed consumed
by the duck industry in 1972 was approximately 124 million kilograms
(273 million pounds). Figure 8 is a typical duck feedlot flow diagram.
Chicks
Feed .
0.19 kg/duck/day avg.
(0.41 Ib/duck/day avg.)
Litter
(no data)
DUCK FEEDLOT
Time in Feedlot
7 Weeks
Water 1
Wet Lot: 38 - 132 lit/duck/day
(10 - 35 gal/duck/day)
Dry Lot: Up to 15 lit/duck/day
(Up to 4 gal/duck/day)
3.2 kg Ducks
to slaughter
(7 Ib Ducks
to slaughter)
Average Raw Waste, 0. 043 kg/duck/day
(0. 094 Ib/duck/day)
TYPICAL DUCK FEEDLOT FLOW DIAGRAM
FIGURE 8
A total of about 13 million ducks are produced in this country each year
with the largest concentration on Long Island, New York. For 1969, the
top ten states for duck production were as follows:
State
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
New York
Indiana
Wisconsin
California
Illinois
Virginia
Ohio
Missouri
New Jersey
Pennsylvania
Number Produced (Thousands)
6,099
2,989
1,487
766
646
456
382
310
257
87
23
-------
Wet lot duck operations represent SOX of all feedlots and is the
predominant method of production in the East. The remaining 20% are dry
lots which predominate in the Midwest. Forty-five percent of all ducks
produced are raised on Eastern Long Island.
There are a total of approximately 7.5 million horses in the United
States, comprised of pleasure, farm and track horses. Except for
special circumstances such as resort ("dude") ranches in the West,
available data shows that pleasure and farm horses do not exist in large
groups in close confinement. On the average there is usually a minimum
of O.U hectare (one acre) grazing area available for each horse and the
actual time held in stalls or barns is not significant.
Figure 9 is a flow diagram for a typical horse stable facility.
Feed ^
9.1 - 13.6 kg/horse/day
(20 - 30 Ib/horse/day)
Water •
30 - 40 lit/horse/day
(8-10 gal/horse/day)
Bedding ^
22/7 kg/ horse/day avg.
(50 Ib/horse/day avg.)
STABLE
T
Average Raw Waste, 15. 0 - 22.7 kg/horse/day
(33 - 50 Ib/horse/day)
FLOW DIAGRAM OF TYPICAL RACETRACK
FIGURE 9
Horses housed in stables at racetracks represent an important segment of
the industry category of horses which is considered as a feedlot. A
total of about 275,000 horses are currently housed at various racetrack
operations around the country. Racing horses consume about 9 to 11
kilograms (20 to 25 pounds) of feed per day. When a horse is not racing
this may drop to half this value.
-------
The three major types of horse racing are thoroughbred, harness and
quarter horse. Tracks of these types and many others are located
throughout the country. Including pleasure and farm horses, the
following states have the greatest horse population:
1. Texas
2. California
3. Oklahoma
-------
-------
SECTION IV
INDUSTRY CATEGORIZATION
GENERAL
The feedlot industry is most logically treated as a function of anirr
type. For this study, the following animals were included: bet t
cattle, dairy cattle, swine, chickens, sheep, turkeys, ducks and horses
This section details a description of the process of growing each of
these types of animals and the factors utilized in further categorizing
each animal type, and identifies the final industry categorization for
purposes of effluent limitations.
The subcategories derived as a result of the analyses given in this
Section are as follows:
(1) Beef cattle, open lot
(2) Beef cattle, housed lot
(3) Dairy, stall barn
(4) Dairy, free stall barn
(5) Dairy, cowyard
(6) Swine, open dirt or pasture
(7) Swine, slotted floor houses
(8) Swine, solid concrete floor
(9) Chickens, broilers
(10) Chickens, layers
(11) chickens, layer breed and replacement
(12) Sheep, open lot
(13) Sheep, housed lot
(14) Turkeys, open lot
(15) Turkeys, housed lot
(16) Ducks, wet lot
(17) Ducks, dry lot
(18) Horses, stables
In addition to the general description discussion in Section III,
additional details regarding the production methods specific to each
subcategory are presented below, followed by a discussion of factors
used in arriving at the subcategorization.
Beef_cattle
Open ^Lot - An open lot is one which cattle are either entirely exposed
to the outside environment or in which a relatively small portion of the
feedlot offers some protection. The limited protection afforded may be
in the form of windbreaks, shed-type buildings with roofs and one to
three sides enclosed, roofs only, or some type of lattice-work shade.
The floor of the open feedlot may be of dirt with a flat slope of up to
3%, moderate of 3% to Q%, or a steep slope in excess of 8%, or may be a
paved surface. Cattle in open feedlots are generally maintained at
densities of one animal per 6.5 to 27.9 square meters (70 to 400 square
27
-------
feet), if the lot is unpaved, and less than a density of one animal per
6.4 square meters (90 square feet) if it is paved.
Just under 96% of the 1U million head are fed in open lots and 93% of
the t^tal are on open dirt lots with flat to moderate slopes. Nearly 3%
ar^ on dirt lots with steep slopes; the number of paved lots is less
-n 1.0%. For all of these facilities any waste water discharge that
is caused by rainfall with some contribution from watering
such as overflow waters.
- A housed facility is a building in which cattle are kept under
roof at all times. Buildings may have sides which are either entirely
<3pen or completely enclosed, may be equipped with a solid dirt floor or
concrete, or may have slotted floors. Solid floor facilities utilize
bedding material to absorb the moisture of the excreted wastes and to
maintian these wastes in a solid or semi-solid form. Slotted floor
facilities utilize either a shallow pit beneath the floor with daily
waste removal or deep pits for waste storage. They are generally
stocked with cattle at a density of less than about 2.8 square meters
(30 square feet) per animal.
Housed operations comprise just over H% of the total production with
slightly under 2% being slotted floor and slightly over 2% being solid
floor operations. Of the slotted floor operation, the deep pit facility
is predominant.
Dairy cattle
The inventory of milk cows and replacement heifers on farms, as of
January 1, 1971, totaled 16 million head. The 11.5 million milk cows
are kept in three major types of production systems — stall barn with
milk room, free stall barn with milking center, and cow yard with
milking center.
Stall Barn With Milk Room - Just under 60% of the dairy industry is on
farms consisting of stall barns with a milk room. This method of
production is predominant in the Northeastern and Northcentral portions
of the country. Milk cows and replacements are restrained to a fixed
location where they are fed and cows are milked. The barns are
generally insulated and mechanically ventilated. The amount of time
spent in the barn varies from as high as 100% to as low as 20% depending
on the climate, land availability and other factors. The remainder of
the time the cows are on pasture. Milk is brought manually for small
systems, or by pipeline for larger systems, to the milk room where it is
cooled and stored. Milking equipment is washed daily and stored in the
milk room. Bedding is widely used in the stall area where it absorbs
the moisture of the excreted manure, and the total semi-solid waste is
collected in gutters and removed by mechnical means. Milk room wastes
are the only liquid wastes generated by this production method which
must be managed. Runoff from rain will not be contaminated unless the
manure removed from barns is stored in the open and subjected to this
exposure.
28
-------
Free Stall Barn With Milking Center - This type of facility is used with
approximately 16% of the dairy inventory on farms, but is rapidly
increasing in use for larger production systems. Where pasture is not
available, milk cows and replacement heifers are kept under roof in
barns but are allowed free movement between resting stalls and feeding
areas. Where pasture is available, the animals spend as much as SOX of
the time on pasture. The barns are generally not insulated and are
naturally ventilated. In very severe climates, insulation and
mechanical ventilation can be found. The milking center includes a
"parlor" and milk room. Cows are milked in the parlor twice daily and
the milk is mechanically transferred to the mij.k room where it is cooled
and stored. Milking equipment is cleaned daily in both rooms. Over 9056
of the free stall barns still use bedding in the resting area. Manure
is usually collected in alleys and mechanically scraped out of the
barns. Some used bedding may be added to the manure to improve its
handleability. For these systems semi-solid wastes from the barn and
milking center are generally the same as those from the stall barn
system. The remaining 10% of free stall barns utilize liquid manure
systems split equally among three types; solid floors with liquid
storage, slotted floors and liquid flush.
In northern regions, solid floor barns with separate liquid manure
storage are becoming more popular than slotted floor barns with sublevel
storage. In southern regions, liquid flushing systems predominate with
collection of the diluted wastes and daily or other periodic irrigation
of fluid wastes to the land. The milking center wastes for these liquid
manure systems are generally added to the manure storage to reduce the
total solids concentration for ease of pumping.
Cow Yard With Milking Center - This method of production is used with
approximately 25% of the dairy inventory on farms, and is predominant in
the southern portions of the country. Where the climate is hot and dry,
milk cows and replacements are maintained in open sided shelters which
provide shade, and in cooler climates, the shelters are partially
enclosed and include bedded packs or free stalls.
Free access is provided to open dirt or paved exercise yards while
feeding areas are normally paved and have fence line feed bunks. These
type systems are common for herds larger than 200 animals. Cows are
moved twice daily to a milking barn or parlor. Milking equipment is
washed daily and the use of "cleaned-in-place" equipment is increasing.
Bedding is seldom used in large yards in the dry climates but often used
in shelters in cooler climates. Manure may be removed for field
spreading weekly from paved yards, or after the winter season from
bedded shelters and partially paved yards. With large earthen yards,
manure may be mounded periodically and removed annually for field
spreading. The liquid waste discharge from this type of production
system consists of milking center wastes and runoff resulting from
precipitation on the exposed surfaces of the cow yard.
29
-------
Swine
The production of piglets for subsequent use as feeder pigs is for the
most part accomplished under feedlot conditions. Of the 61.6 million
swine on feed in the United States during 1972, 85% were market animals
and 15% were breeding animals including those in pedigree operations.
These animals were produced in three types of production systems — open
dirt or pasture lots, fully roofed buildings with slotted floors and
solid concrete floors with partial or full roofs. Open dirt or pasture
lot is the most predominant method of swine production, and accounts for
60% of the national production capacity. Open dirt or pasture units
have the lowest density of hogs and are considered a confinement
operation since feed is brought into the fenced area. The recommended
stocking density is 62 market hogs per hectare (25 market hogs per
acre), but densities up to 490 animals per hectare (200 animals per
acre) are employed in some cases. The most widely practiced stocking
density is estimated to be between 62 and 250 animals per hectare (25
and 100 animals per acre). The recommended pasture stocking density is
49 to 74 animals per hectare (20 to 30 animals per acre) on permanent
pasture such as Bermuda grass or fescue and ladino clover. Beyond this
density, bare areas will begin to appear. For pasture to survive,
animals must be removed during the dormant or nongrowing season or lots
rested by a rotation scheme. Lots with 250 or more hogs per hectare
(100 or more hogs per acre) will not support vegetative cover. At
higher densities, any manure buildup will generally be disked into the
soil or scraped up and spread on crop land so that manure packs
characteristic of high density beef feedlots do not usually occur.
Runoff is the primary waste output from the pasture or dirt lot
production unit. Animal density and annual rainfall are the primary
factors to be considered with respect to the degree of pollution in the
runoff. Temperature, vegetation, contributing watershed area and snow
melt relationships are additional factors which are involved.
Slotted Floor Houses - Building with complete roofing and slotted floors
is a recent development in the swine producing industry and presently
accounts for 15% of the total production capacity. These buildings
generally consist of two types, those with only a portion of the floor
space slotted and those with the entijre floor space slotted. slotted
floors with temporary storage pits underneath reduce the hand labor
required to clean pens and thus are responsible for the continuing trend
towards fully enclosed houses with total slotted floors.
The first buildings with partial slotted floors were designed with a pen
size of 1.2 meters to 1.5 meters (4 feet to 5 feet) wide and
approximately 4.9 meters (16 feet) long with 1.2 meters (4 feet) of this
length as slats. Average pit depth under the slats was about one meter
(3 feet). With time, more space in each pen was slotted because
cleaning time could be reduced. Many units for market hogs were
developed on the basis of 0.07 square meters (8 square feet) per animal
with one-third slotted. Many of these buildings serve as a combination
nursery and finishing unit. A common pen size is 3.0 meters by 7.3
meters (10 feet by 24 feet) for three litters or approximately 30 pigs
(about 0.7 square meters, 8 square feet of living area per pig).
30
-------
Storage capacity in the pit is 0.1 to 0.3 cubic meters (5 to 10 cubic
feet) per pig for a depth of 0.6 - 1.2 meters (2 to U feet).
Buildings with partially or totally slotted floors may have storage
pits, oxidation ditches or under-house lagoons incorporated as an
internal component of the production unit.
Systems with manure storage pits predominate and account for over 90% of
all slotted floor operations. Pits are generally filled with a minimum
of 15 centimeters (6 inches) to a maximum of 0.6 meters (2 feet) of
water before pigs are placed in slotted floor pens, or after complete
wastewater discharge. This allows for better cleaning when pits are
emptied, as well as reducing odors initially. Spillage and overflow
from waterers and mist from fogging for summer cooling add to the
quantity of liquid which must be handled. The amount of washwater
employed to clean different partially slotted units represents the major
difference in the volume and concentration of wastes stored in partially
or totally slotted production units. Additionally, the manner in which
pit waste is discharged will affect concentration. Many storage pits
are completely emptied only every three to six months to reduce labor
and water precharge requirements. Pits may be equipped with an overflow
pipe to control water level and thus supernatant may be continously
released or partially discharged as necessary. The concentration of a
supernatant overflow or partial discharge will be less than the average
concentration of the total waste load for a complete pit emptying.
Systems with integral oxidation ditches under slotted floors are less
than 556 of all slotted floor production systems. The variable amounts
of washwater used for different slotted floor configurations and
management schemes will affect the volume of waste load and the
concentration of ditch mixed liquor. Any such dilution effects due to
excessive water use may mask oxidation ditch operation and performance.
Discharge from the oxidation ditch is considered the waste load from a
production facility with such an under-house treatment unit. This waste
load consists of the mixed liquor which may be removed continously or
periodically depending upon operational and management techniques.
Systems with under-house lagoons also are less than 5% of all the
slotted floor production systems. Since these lagoons are usually
exposed to the environment at the sides and under the houses, the effect
of wash water volume on the quantity and quality of lagoon liquid or
overflow will generally be insignificant compared to the influence of
climatic relationships and lagoon performance.
Sqlid Concrete Floor - Production units with solid concrete floors may
be partially or totally roofed. About 25% of the swine production
capactiy is of this type and units can vary from those which are
partially open having 2.3 square meters (25 square feet) of floor space
per market animal, to those which are completely roofed with only 0.9
square meters (10 square feet) of floor space. The most prevalent
31
-------
practice is to have 1.1 to l.U square meters (12 to 15 square feet) per
animal with one-half to two-thirds under roof.
Bedding of wood shavings, straw or sawdust is used in some farrowing
houses and nurseries because of its insulation and absorptive
characteristics; however, this prepresents an insignificant portion of
the wastes from the swine industry.
Wastes on the concrete pen floors are periodically washed or scraped
into a collection gutter. High pressure, low volume hose systems allow
more rapid and efficient cleaning and thus, large reductions in
washwater quantities. Drinking cup spillage, fogging water and urine
continuously flow into the collection gutter. Rainfall and roof runoff
that have access to the concrete floors or drainage that -enters the
waste collection and conveyance system contribute to the amount of
wastewater that must be handled. The amount of rainfall that must be
handled is small, amounting to an average of about 1.3 to 1.9 liters
(1/3 to 1/2 gallons) per day per animal due to the high animal stocking
rate. These liquid wastes leaving the gutter may enter a concrete tank
or some other temporary storage, a lagoon, or discharged to adjacent
land.
Chickens
The category of chickens consists of two primary types of production
which prevail on a national basis - broilers and layers. Therefore,
discussion of industry categorization will begin at that level.
Broilers - The broiler industry encompasses three basic processes:
a. Development of breeding stock;
b. Production of broiler chicks by breeding stock, and
c. Growth and slaughter of broilers.
These operations may be separate or in combination. The development of
breeding stock by specialized farms involves the controlled breeding of
high quality birds. The purpose is one of constantly improving broiler
birds by selective breeding. The birds produced by such an operation
are then used to produce chicks which are grown on a grain and meal
concentrate ration and slaughtered as broilers.
Breeder stock is kept in houses which includes nesting, litter covered
floor area, and slotted or wire covered perching area over pits. The
wastes consist of a mixture of manure and litter plus manure scraped
from the pit. The litter, which consists of wood shavings or similar
materials, is used for absorbing the moisture in the wastes. The weight
of the breeder stock birds is about 2.7 kilograms (6 pounds) for hens
and 3.6 kilograms (8 pounds) for roosters with an average of one rooster
for every ten hens. At the end of their useful life (1-1/2 years) these
birds are usually sold as roasting chickens.
32
-------
Broilers are usually raised in houses using a floor litter system. The
birds are grown to a weight of about 1.8 kilograms (tt pounds) in
approximately eight weeks. The waste is in the form of mixed litter and
manure. The litter is replaced periodically and may remain in the house
for as long as a year. It may be turned with a plow between batches of
chicks and various chemicals (to aid in composting) and more litter may
be added each time.
Layers - The egg laying industry is comprised of two different
operations. These are:
a. Laying hen production
b. Egg production.
The industry operates with a total of 178,000,000 birds. About
5,000,000 of these are breeding stock with a ratio of one rooster for
every ten hens. Replacement layers (pullet) account for 158,000,000
birds. The remainder (315,000,000) are producing layers.
Breeding birds are maintained in circumstances similar to broilers and
the wastes are similar. Roosters and hens weigh about 3.6 kilograms (8
pounds) and 2.7 kilograms (6 pounds) respectively.
The growing pullets are maintained in cages over pits (20X) or in floor
litter systems (80%). In very few cases floor litter systems are used
in the first few weeks followed by cage systems until laying age.
Laying hens are maintained in several types of housing systems. These
are:
Cages over Dry Pits 70%
Floor Litter/Pit Perch 20X
SIat-Wire/Litter Pit 5%
Cages over Dry Pits
(Ventilated) 3%
Cages over Wet Pits 2%
The cage systems use several set-ups for the cages which are only
different in geometry with no effect on the waste load. Both dry pit
systems utilize mechanical removal of wastes. Fans are used in the
ventilated system for drying the wastes. The pit in this type of system
is generally deeper than pits used in the other system. In the wet pit
system, water is added to facilitate pumping of the waste in the form of
a slurry.
The floor litter/pit perch system utilizes a litter covered floor area
with nests for laying and perches mounted over pits. Food and water are
available in the floor area. The slat-wire/ litter pit system is
essentially the same except that slatted floors or wire meshes are used
over the pits and food and water are placed in this area.
33
-------
Sheep
As shown in Section III, the total population (January 1970) of breeder
sheep and lambs on feedlots was 4,214,000; 3,604,000 of which are on
open lots and 610,000 of which are housed. These statistics are
somewhat misleading in that they are not in anyway indicative of the
distribution of sheep and lambs at any other time of the year.
Actually, there are more sheep and lambs in the United States in the
summer than on January 1st. However, in the summer the vast majority of
sheep and lambs are either on range or pasture. Hence, January 1st was
chosen for reporting since sheep and lamb feedlots have the greatest
population at that time.
Cereal grains make up the bulk of lamb fattening ration but some
roughage is desirable. Bedding is found only in the housed facilities.
OpenITLot - Open lots include completely exposed dirt lot operations as
well as partial confinement (e.g. sheltered feeding areas) where the
open area is a corral. The wastes from these operations include both
manure and runoff. Breeding flocks in open lots are stocked at a rate
of from 1.9 to 19 meter sq. (20 to 200 ft. sq.) per animal. The
stocking rate for lambs is about 1.4 to 9.3 meter sq. (15 to 100 ft.
sq.) per animal.
Hpused - Housed lamb production represents the most modern and
concentrated lamb feeding operation. Wastes from such an operation are
either solid (scraped) or liquid (pumped) depending on the chosen waste
management scheme.
Turkeys
The two major methods of production consist of open lots, with about 78%
of the production capacity, and housed production for the remaining 22%.
2E§JQ Lot - The open lot consists of a brooder house where the turkey
poults~~are kept for the first eight weeks after hatching and outdoor
confinement areas where the birds are fed to a finished market weight.
The latter period averages nine weeks for hens and fifteen weeks for
toms. Normally open lots grow one flock of birds per year. Some open
lots utilize the brooder house to produce a second flock, in which case
these birds are finished in confinement.
The wastes produced in the brooder house consist of the manure excreted
by the birds and the litter material which is used to cover the floor;
both are removed from the house by mechanical means between groups of
birds. The wastes produced in the outdoor confinements or range area
are generally not of sufficient mended value of 620 birds per hectare
(250 birds per acre) up to 1240 birds per hectare (500 birds per acre).
Good management practices consist of either rotating range areas and/or
moving the feeders and waterers to prevent the accumulation of wastes in
any one area in order to prevent the vegetation from being completely
killed. This is also advantageous for disease and parasite control.
The surfaces of range areas are plowed and planted in cover crops during
34
-------
idle periods. The wastes deposited on open range land may have a
pollutional discharge due to runoff from incident rainfall.
Housed - Production of slaughter birds consist of poult growing for the
first eight weeks after hatching in a brood house and then feeding to
finish market weight in confinement rearing houses. The finishing
houses are similar to brood houses with the exception that more space is
allowed for each bird. Both the brood house and finishing house utilize
litter on the floor and wastes are removed periodically by mechanical
means.
The breeding portion of the industry is usually a separate farm and
supplies chicks to open and housed operations. The breeding operation
accounts for about 1/2% of the total number of turkeys on feed and
consists of breeding flock maintained in enclosed facilities. The waste
produced in this operation is from mature birds maintained on litter
Again, the litter is mechanically removed periodically from the breeding
houses.
Ducks
Duck raising facilities may be considered as being in two major
groupings; wet and dry lots. The primary difference between the two is
the amount of water used. In feedlots, the primary purpose for allowing
ducks free access to swimming water is for improvement in the quality of
the feathers (used as down) . However, the quality of down is apparently
not materially affected by growing in total dry lot facilities. Many of
the larger producers have integrated facilities. That is, breeding,
hatching, growing and slaughtering facilities are located on the same
complex with the waste treatment plant usually designed to handle the
entire waste load of the facility.
Wet - The largest group (80% of the population) are the "wet" lots in
wHich the ducks have access to water runs. Local surface and
groundwater is channeled to supply the birds swimming areas ("runs") anc1
to facilitate a controlled discharge of waste water for treatment and
disposal. The slopes leading to the waters edge collect fecal material
which is washed into the water during rainstorms. These runs may be
combined with some shelter facilities. For the last few weeks of thr
growing period, the birds are completely raised on the run and adjacert
land. The amount of water provided in these "wet" lot ranges from 38 to
132 liters/duck/day (10 to 35 gallons/duck/day) .
Dry - A second category of feedlot is the "dry" lot with the
being the area tending more toward this totally environmentally
controlled type of facility. The main difference from a wet lot is the
reduced amount of water used in the raising of the duck. Dry lot
facilities are usually constructed with flushing troughs placed under a
wire floor portion of the building. Feeders and waterers are also in
this area providing for collection of some of the manure. The remainder
35
-------
of -the floor is solid covered with litter. Flushing results in the
dilution of the manure and movement of the slurry into the processing
plant. Water usage for a dry lot generally ranges up to 15
liters/duck/day (4 gallons/duck/day).
Horses
Of the approximately 7,500,000 horses in the country, by far the largest
number (75%) fall into the "pleasure" category. For the most part,
these are backyard horses used for occasional riding. Of this number,
approximately half are located in suburban areas with the balance housed
in rural areas.
The suburban horse is stalled an average of one-quarter of the time, the
rest being spent out-of-doors. Some local ordinances restrict the
number of horses allowed on a parcel of land with the minimum usually
being one horse/acre. The amount of bedding used varies considerably
from 4.5 - 18.2 kilograms/day/animal (10 - 40 pounds/day/animal).
Bedding material is usually straw but sawdust and wood shavings are
occasionally used. The purpose of the bedding is two-fold. It acts as
an absorbent for the moisture excreted by the animal, and it acts as a
cusioning agent for the animal when it lies down. The manure produced
per day per animal is composed of 15.0 - 22.3 kilograms (33 - 50 pounds)
of fecal waste at 75 - 80% moisture, 3.6 - 4.5 kilograms (8 - 10 pounds)-
of urine at 90% moisture and varying amounts of bedding. Good manage-
ment practice dictates frequent stall cleaning, usually daily.
The second half of the "pleasure" horse population is housed in rural
areas. As such, the amount of stalling will be less since more open
roaming land is available. The amount of bedding used and manure
production in the stall areas will, in general, be less than that for
the suburban horse population. Certain special circumstances such as
resort ranches or riding clubs are likely to have corral/stable
facilities functionally similar to any other feedlot.
The remainder of the horses in the country (25% of the total) are
considered "commercial." This may be broken into two groups. One of
these is "general farm animals" comprising 85% of this category. These
are used for general work around ranches and are stalled only a small
percentage of the time. Bedding provided is slightly greater than for
the pleasure horse averaging 9.1 - 18.2 kilograms/day/animal (20 - 40
pounds/day/animal) rather than 4.5 - 18.2 kilograms/day/animal (10 - 40
pounds/day animal). This is due to the "equipment-like" nature of the
animal that results in better care. In addition, bedding material is
more readily available on facilities such as these, and the wastes are
more easily disposed of leading to a more generous use of bedding.
Excrement production for these animals is the same as the others
discussed above.
For purposes of grouping, except for resort ranches, riding clubs or
similar facilities, all three types of horses discussed so far may be
36
-------
placed in one group. In varying degrees they deliver their excrement
directly to the natural eco-system, thereby obviating the need for
processing. In the case of the individual owning a few backyard horses,
the possibility of restrictions beyond the local level seems very
slight.
The remaining category of "commercial" horses are of the racing class.
These animals are carefully tended. Except for those times on the track
or in training they may be considered continually stalled. These stalls
are cleaned daily with fresh straw bedding averaging 22.7 kg/day/animal
(50 Ib/day/animal) provided. Tradition and fear of damage to the feet
have slowed any change even in bedding material. Together with resort
ranches or riding clubs, this is the only type of horse which can be
considered to be maintained under feedlot conditions.
37
-------
CATEGORIZATION
The following factors were considered in establishing categories for all
the animal groups.
a. Animal type
b. Treatability of wastes
c. Location and climate
d. Size and age of facilities and equipment
e. Raw materials used
f. Product produced
g. Production process employed
h. Product or waste impact of any group or subgroup
i. Characteristics of waste produced.
Animal type is of course a significant factor and was used as the first
level of categorization. In all cases, the treatability of wastes was
not a factor for categorization since, except as discussed later for the
category of ducks, all the wastes are so concentrated that there are no
known practical technologies available*to treat the waste to a degree
which will allow an effluent to be discharged directly to navigable
waterways. Location and climate have a material effect upon pollution
control methodology for any given operation or segment of the industry.
However, the impact of either location or climate is so highly variable
as to prove to be unreliable in defining or substantiating any
subcategories. The size of facilities was also not considered a
significant factor since the pollutional potential is the same per unit
of animal production for all sized facilities. Moreover, the essential
requirements governing waste management and control are closely related
for all facility sizes. The age of facilities is likewise not a
significant factor; any effect of age is predominately reflected in the
type of production facility, and this is taken into consideration
through the production process factor.
Beef_Cattle
Raw materials used in each case are feed, water and, in some cases,
bedding. Since, except for bedding, these materials are common in all
cases, they cannot be used as a basis for categorization. The
difference of bedding being used in limited circumstances is not
considered significant since any effect it has on a category shows up in
the waste characteristics and is considered at that point. The product
produced is also not considered a discriminator for categorization since
the product produced in each case is beef cattle for slaughter. The
production process employed is a significant factor in categorization
since different types of facilities show materially different process
features and frequently lend themselves to different means of pollution
abatement. The production impact of certain types of facilities does
not justify their being separated into individual categories. In this
case they are placed in other categories which are most nearly similar.
Waste characteristics are considered as a pertinent factor in that this
factor incorporates specific differences in the amount and nature of
38
-------
waste constituents particularly related to rainfall runoff (open lots)
and relatively undiluted solids (housed lots).
Figure 10 shows the structure of the confined beef cattle industry by
type of production process employed. The capacity of each type of
facility as of January 1973 in terms of number of animals on feed at any
one time is indicated. In addition, the type of wastes generated by
each facility is also shown in generic terms. Detailed definitions of
the wastes are given in Section V.
The industry is divided into two categories for the purpose of effluent
limitations. The major factor in this case is the production process
employed, open lot versus housed facilities. These open lot methods
each have similar wastes, giving further cause for such grouping. The
paved lot is somewhat different as a production method but does not have
the product impact in terms of animal capacity to justify a separate
group. The housed facility category is barely numerically significant
but represents a very different production process. The wastes from the
various segments of the housed operations are similar, but significantly
different from the wastes from an open feedlot. The use of bedding in
the solid floor facilities represents a minor difference and since
350,000 head raised on bedding is only a small percentage of the total
14,000,000 head, there is not justification for a separate category.
Dairy^Cattle
Raw materials used are similar to those discussed for beef and the
rationale for not being a basis for categorization is the same. The
same argument holds for product produced since throughout the diary
industry it is milk. As with beef, the production process employed is
considered a significant factor in categorization as are the waste
characteristics.
Figure 11 shows the structure of the dairy industry by type of
manufacturing process employed. The capacity of each type of facility
as of January 1971 in terms of number of animals in production at any
one time is indicated. In addition, type of wastes produced by each
facility is shown in generic terms.
The dairy industry is divided into three categories for the purpose of
effluent limitations. The major factor is the production process
employed; stall barn, free stall barn and cowyard with milking center.
The differences in waste outputs between the stall barns and the free
stall barns is not significant; however, the numerical significance of
each category is such as to further justify their separation. Within
the free stall barn category, the subcategories of liquid storage,
39
-------
BEEF CATTLE
ON FEED
14,000,000
OPEN LOT
13,400,000
(96%)
DIRT-NORMAL
SLOPE
1 3,000,000
•MANURE
•RUNOFF
DIRT-STEEP
SLOPE
300.000
-MANURE
•RUNOFF
CATEGORY I
PAVED
100,000
-MANURE
-RUNOFF
HOUSED
600,000
(4%)
SLOTTED FLOOR
250,000
SHALLOW PIT
60,000
—MANURE
SOLID FLOOR
350,000
•MANURE AND
BEDDING
DEEP PIT
190,000
—MANURE
CATEGORY II
FIGURE 10. BEEF CATTLE INDUSTRY STRUCTURE
-------
DAIRY COWS
IN PRODUCTION
11,536,000
STALL BARN
WITH MILK ROOM
6,800,000 (59%)
•MILKROOM WASTES
•MANURE AND BEDDING
CATEGORY III
FREE STALL BARN
WITH MILKING
CENTER
1,816,000(16%)
MECHANICAL SCRAPE
1,636,000
— MILKING CENTER
WASTE
— MANURE AND
BEDDING
LIQUID STORAGE
60,000
•MILKING CENTER
WASTE AND
LIQUID MANURE
SLOTTED FLOOR
60,000
•MILKING CENTER
WASTE AND LIQUID
MANURE
CATEGORY IV
COW YARDS WITH
MILKING CENTER
2,920,000 (25%)
•MILKING CENTER
•MANURE AND BEDDING
•YARD MANURE
•RUNOFF
CATEGORY V
LIQUID FLUSH
60,000
•MILKING CENTER
WASTE AND LIQUID
MANURE
FIGURE 11. DAIRY CATTLE INDUSTRY STRUCTURE
41
-------
I
, SOLID
1 FLOOI
| 15,400
1
| — WATE
1 WAST
1
SWINE
61.600,000
ON FEED
15% BREEDER
85% MARKET
! j
CONCRETE I 1
R ' •
,000 (25%) | |
R WASHED | I
II
1 1
, | ^
SLOTTED
FLOOR HOUSES
9,200,000 (15%)
1]
I'
— MANURE 1 |
• PIT '1
• OXID. DITCH |
DIRT LOT OR 1
PASTURE 1
37,000,000 (60%) |
1
— MANURE 1
-RUNOFF J
•LAGOON | 1 1
1 1
i CATEGORY VI I I CATEGORY VII
CATEGORY VIII J
FIGURE 12. SWINE INDUSTRY STRUCTURE
42
-------
r
BROILERS
ON FEED
468,000,000
1
BREEDING
STOCK
25,000,000
(6%)
•MANURE AND
LITTER
l_
CATEGORY IX
BROILER HOUSE
(FLOOR-LITTER)
443,000,000
(94%)
•MANURE AND
LITTER
FIGURE 13. BROILER INDUSTRY STRUCTURE
43
-------
slotted floor and liquid flush are significantly different from the
subcategory of mechanical scrape but they are not numerically
significant enough to justify a separate category. Cowyards with
milking centers are not only numerically significant but also have
significantly different waste outputs and thus are placed in a separate
category.
Swine
Raw materials used in each case are feed and water. Since these
materials are common in all cases, they cannot be used as a basis for
categorization. Product produced is also not considered a discriminator
for categorization since the product produced in each case is swine for
slaughter. The production process employed and waste characteristics
are a significant factor in categorization as in the preceding animal
types.
Figure 12 shows the structure of the swine industry by type of
manufacturing process employed. The capacity of each type of facility
in terms of number of animals on feed at any one time is indicated. In
addition, the type of wastes produced by each facility is shown in
generic terms.
The industry is divided into three categories for the purpose of
effluent limitations. The major factor is the production process
employed; dirt lots, solid concrete floor lots and slotted floor houses.
Each category in this case in numerically significant and also has
significantly different waste outputs.
Chickens
Raw materials used in each case are feed, water and, in some cases,
litter. Since, except for litter, these materials are common in all
cases, they cannot be used as a basis for categorization. The
difference of litter being used in some circumstances is not considered
significant since any effect it has on a category shows up in the waste
characteristics and is considered at that point. Product produced is a
significant discriminator for categorization since it is broilers for
slaughter in one case and eggs in the other. Hence the chicken industry
is broadly categorized into two major segments, broilers and layers.
Broilers -* Figure 13 shows the structure of this industry by type of
manufacturing process employed. The capacity of each type of facility
in terms of number of animals on feed at any one time is indicated. In
addition, the type of wastes produced by each facility is shown in
generic terms.
44
-------
REPLACEMENT
PRODUCTION
163,000,000 (34%)
BREEDING
FLOCK
5,000,000
-MANURE AND
LITTER
Ul
LITTER
REPLACEMENT
LAYERS
158,000,000
1
LITTER
,000
RE AND
FJ
1
CAGE BROODER
31,600,000
— MANURE
FLOOR L
AND
CAGE BR
1,500,000
— MANUR
^M AMI II?
LAYERS
478,000,000
ON FEED
EGG PRODUCTION
315,000,000 (66%)
LITTER
I CATEGORY X I .
FLOOR LITTER
PIT PERCH
63,000,000
— MANURE AND
LITTER
SLAT-WIRE
LITTER BREEDER
1 6,000,000
— MANURE
CAGES-DRY
PIT WITH
VENTILATION
10,000,000
— MANURE
CAGES-DRY PIT
220,000,000
— MANURE
CAGE-WET PIT
6,000,000
— MANURE
I
I CATEGORY XI I
FIGURE 14. LAYER INDUSTRY STRUCTURE
-------
SHEEP
2,270,000 SHEEP
1.944,000 LAMBS
4,214,000 ON FEED
(JAN. 1 FIGURES)
^MR» MtMH
-
HOUSED
610,000
(15%)
1
r
SHEEP
520,000
1
LAMBS
90,000
— MAN
JRE
1
1 1 —
OPEN LOT
3.604.000
(35*1
I
1 1
PARTIAL D|RT LOT
CONFINEMENT 1456000
2,148,000
1 1
1 1 1
"I
I ^^ CATEGORY XII j
I I
SHEEP
1,400,000
(32%)
— MANURE
— RUNOFF
— CORRAL MANURE
LAMBS
748,000
— MANURE
— RUNOFF
— CORRAL MANUR
1
SHEEP
350,000
— MANURE
— RUNOFF
1
LAMBS
1,106,00
— MANURE
— RUNOFF
CATEGORY XIII
FIGURE 15. SHEEP INDUSTRY STRUCTURE
-------
HOUSED
19,700,000
(22%)
TURKEYS
90,200,000 ON FEED
n
^-MANURE AND
LITTER
I
CATEGORY XIV
OPEN LOT
70,500,000
(78%)
— MANURE
RUNOFF
L
CATEGORY XV
FIGURE 16. TURKEY INDUSTRY STRUCTURE
47
-------
DUCKS
1,860,000 ON FEED
95% MARKET
5% BREEDER
DRY LOT
380,000
(20%)
WASTE WATER
MANURE AND
LITTER
L
CATEGORY XVI
n
WET LOT
1,480,000
(80%)
WASTE WATER
-—MANURE AND
LITTER
L
CATEGORY XVII
J
FIGURE 17. DUCK INDUSTRY STRUCTURE
48
-------
The industry is grouped as one category for the purposes of effluent
limitations. In this case there is no significant difference in the
type of production process employed or in the type of wastes generated.
Layers - Figure m shows the structure of this industry by type of
manufacturing process employed. The capacity of each type of facility
in terms of number of animals on feed at any one time is indicated. In
addition, the type of wastes produced by each facility is shown in
generic terms.
The layer segment is divided into two categories for the purpose of
effluent limitations. The major factor is the production process
employed; replacement production and egg production. The subcategory of
cage brooder in the category of replacement production does have a
different type of waste output but it is not numerically significant
enough to justify separate categorization. Likewise the differences in
production process employed and type of waste outputs encountered in the
egg production category are minor and do not justify further sub-
ca-tegorization.
Raw materials used in each case are feed, water and, in some cases,
bedding, and the rationale for not being a basis for categorization is
the same as for beef and dairy cattle. Product produced is also not
considered a discriminator for categorization since the product produced
in each case is lambs for slaughter. As with the previous animal types,
the production process employed and the waste characteristics are
considered to be a significant factor in categorization.
Figure 15 shows the structure of the sheep industry by type of
production process employed. The capacity of each type of facility in
terms of number of animals on feed on January 1 is indicated. In
additon, the type of wastes produced by each facility is shown in
generic terms.
The industry is divided into two cateogries. The main factor for this
categorization is the production process employed; open lot facilities
and housed facilities. In the housed category there is no significant
difference in waste outputs of the subcategories to justify further
division into two categories. In the open lot category the same logic
holds true. In addition, the production process employed in both
partial confinement and dirt lots are essentially similar.
Turkeys
Raw materials used in each case are similar to those used for chickens
and the rationale for not being a basis for categorization is the same.
Product produced is also not considered a discriminator for
categorization since the product produced in each case is turkeys for
slaughter. After considering all factors, production process employed
49
-------
and waste characteristics are considered to be a significant factor in
categorization as in the preceding animal types. As a result, industry
is divided into two categories for the purpose of effluent limitations;
housed facilities and open lots.
Figure 16 shows the structure of the turkey industry by type of
production process employed. The capacity of each type of facility in
terms of animals on feed at any one time is indicated. In addition, the
type of wastes produced by each facility is shown in generic terms.
Ducks
Raw materials used in each case are similar to those used for chickens
and the rationale for not being a basis for categorization is the same.
Product produced is also not considered to be a valid reason for
categorization since the product produced in each case is ducks for
slaughter. The production process employed and the waste
characteristics are considered to be significant factors in
categorization.
Figure 17 shows the structure of the duck industry by type of production
process. The capacity of each type of facility in terms of animals on
feed at any one time is indicated. In addtion, the type of wastes
produced by each facility is shown in generic terms.
The industry is divided into two categories for the purpose of effluent
limitations; dry lots and wet lots. Both categories are numerically
significant and the wastes are significantly different in terms of water
content and waste concentrations.
Horses
Only one category (horse stables) is recommended and since this category
involves only one type of stabling the factors for categorization do not
enter into the rationale. The other uses of horses as shown in Figure
18 represent very low concentrations of animals and allow the direct
recycling of wastes to the land without, in general, causing any
pollution problems. If these other uses of horses result in pollution
problems, they can be best handled individually at the local level.
50
-------
HORSES
7,500,000
COMMERCIAL
1,875,000
(25%)
TRACK
275,000 (3.7%)
ALWAYS STALLED
Tl
MANURE AND
'BEDDING
CATEGORY XVIII
J
PLEASURE
5,625,000
(75%)
FARMS
1,600,000 (21.3%)
STALLED 1/12 OF
TIME
MANURE AND
'BEDDING
SUBURBAN
2,812,500 (37.5%)
STALLED 1/4 OF
OF TIME
.MANURE AND
'BEDDING
RURAL
2,812,500 (37.5%)
STALLED 1/8 OF
TIME
MANURE AND
'BEDDING
FIGURE 18. HORSE INDUSTRY STRUCTURE
-------
-------
SECTION V
WASTE CHARACTERIZATION
INTRODUCTION
Animal feedlot wastes generally includes the following components:
1. Bedding or litter (if used) and animal hair or feathers
2. Water and milking center wastes
3. Spilled feed
H. Undigested or partially digested food or feed additives
5. Digestive juices
6. Biological products of metabolism
7. Microorganisms from the digestive tract
8. Cells and cell debris from the digestive tract wall.
9. Residual soil and sand
The greatest influences on waste characteristics are animal type, type
of facility used and diet. The latter two considerations are usually
the only factors which lead to any substantial variation in waste
characteristics for any given animal type. For example, bedding
materials used in certain facilities, or amount of roughage used in
various feeds, will affect the character of waste loads. In the case of
diet, variations encountered in manure constituents for one particular
type of animal are not usually significant although solids content can
be increased due to high roughage feeds. Some of the trace elements and
all of the Pharmaceuticals present in the wastes are a result of
additives in the diet obtained from other than natural sources (i.e.,
other than crops used for feed).
Explanation of Tabular Data
This section details the waste outputs of the industry categories
defined in Section IV. The information for each category includes:
1. Brief narrative description and explanation of waste characteristics
2. Industry waste identification figures
3. Generalized category flow diagrams
4. Detail waste characteristic tables.
The narrative in each case provides a brief explanation of types of
wastes involved and also describes the assumptions and methods of
estimation used where adequate waste data were not available. In some
cases, data were so sparse that reasonable estimates could not be made
as shown by the entry of "No data" in the tables. TO the extent
practicable, however, data are shown or are estimated by compositing as
53
-------
many specific sources of information as could be gathered and reviewed
(with final review by consultants) to show expected characteristics for
the entire industry and segments thereof on a national basis. The
industry waste identification figures are similar to the industry
structure figures shown in Section III; however, they also provide
reference to detailed waste characteristic tables. Generalized flow
diagrams are included for each category which show the origin of the
wastes. The waste characteristic tables define the waste outputs of the
industry in detail, and in some cases, the same table suffices for more
than one category. The data used by the consultants in establishing the
waste characteristics tables has been assembled from the literature and
from the results of unpublished investigations. These data represent
information originally generated over a substantial period of time from
animals being produced or raised on a variety of diets and management
practices. The available information has a high degree of variability
and in many instances the conditions of animal breed, size, and diet,
location as well as sample collection and analysis technique were not
available. Therefore, it was necessary for the consultants to utilize a
significant amount of engineering judgment in the preparation of some of
these tables.
The characteristics reported under the heading of average, represented ;
consultants best judgment of the values typical of the animal type,
size, and conditions of management as indicated on the table heading.
Characteristics reported under the heading of maximum and minimum
represented the reasonable extremes to be encountered for each parameter
and therefore they are not representative of the characteristics or
integrity of a single sample. Where no conclusive test data were
available the characteristics had been estimated and are so indicated by
the use of an "e" following the estimated number. If the estimated
number has been based upon test data tabulated elsewhere in these
charts, it is generally shown with an "e" and a reduced number of
significant figures. In some cases the maximum value reported is based
upon data for fresh voided waste while the minimum and average values
were not available and these were therefore estimated and reported with
an "e." Where data were available for waste characteristics in "pounds
per day per animal" and concentrations in "milligrams per liter," both
are reported. In many instances one waste characteristic has been
calculated from the other, and in other cases both values have been
estimated separately. The values shown as "pounds per head per inch of
runoff" have in general been calculated from measured concentrations in
the runoff from animal pens, or are based upon estimated percentages of
the deposited waste which will wash away each year and the national
average annual runoff. This information is based upon a very limited
existing amount of runoff documentation and defines the runoff waste
load for the particular set of conditions present at the time of
documentation including the size and intensity of the rainfall event,
the past history of rainfall events, the history of pen cleaning,
temperatures, slope of lots, animal density, animal weight, etc. These
-------
data do not necessarily represent the waste load which will runoff for a
different set of circumstances and conditions. In cases where only a
portion of the time is spent in confinement housing the values are
reported on a per day basis taking into consideration the percentage of
confinement. This percentage is indicated on the table where applicable
and corresponding reductions are made in the wastes collected outside of
the confinement area.
BEEF CATTLE
Category I
As shown in Figure 19, Category I includes dirt-flat to moderate slope,
dirt-steep slope, and paved open lots. All of these facilities require
scraping to remove accumulated wastes denoted "manure" on Figure 19 and
the flow diagram. Figure 20. In addition, rain falling on the waste-
covered surface carries away a portion of wastes as runoff. The
characteristics of the scraped manure are given by Tables 1 and 2. The
characteristics of the manure depend on whether it is removed frequently
or infrequently. Frequently removed manure undergoes little or no
biodegradation and is essentially the same as freshly deposited manure.
This type is defined by Table 1. Infrequently removed manure may
undergo considereable biodegradation, and is defined by Table 2. These
two tables represent the expected extremes for manure characteristics as
removed from open lot surfaces.
The greater amount of runoff from dirt-steep slope surfaces over that
from flat to moderate slope surfaces is due simply to the increased
slope. Runoff from paved lots may vary from dirt lots since paved lots
tend to dry out faster, thus preventing biodegradation and the movement
of soluble pollutants such as nitrates down into the manure pack.
Runoff from these three types of open lots is defined in Tables 3, 4 and
5.
Category II
A generalized flow diagram for Category II is shown in Figure 21. The
shallow pit system is normally operated on a basis of frequent (usually
daily) cleaning. As a result, the waste output is essentially fresh
manure and, therefore, is defined by Table 1.
Deep pits are generally used for long term storage and may not be
cleaned more than twice each year. No actual test data are available
which defines the waste output of such a system. The values for this
system, shown in Table 6 are based on the following assumptions:
55
-------
BEEF CATTLE
14,000,000 ON FEED
I—
DIRT-NORMAL
SLOPE
1 3,000,000
•MANURE
TABLE 1
TABLE 2
•RUNOFF
TABLE 3
I CATEGORY I
r
HOUSED
600,000
SLOTTED FLOOR
250,000
SHALLOW PIT
60,000
•MANURE
TABLE 1
DEEP PIT
190,000
-MANURE
TABLE 6
SOLID FLOOR
350,000
•MANURE AND
BEDDING
TABLE 7
I CATEGORY II I
FIGURE 19. BEEF CATTLE INDUSTRY WASTE IDENTIFICATION
-------
1. No less than ten percent of all input moisture would be evaporated
in a storage period of 120 - 150 days.
2. No less than ten percent of the solids in the fresh manure would be
liquified during same period.
3. About forty percent of the volatile solids would be degraded during
a normal storage period.
Volatilization of
Organics and Evaporation
(no data)
I
Rain and Snow
(Variable)
Feed ^»
7.7-10.4 kg/head/day
(17-23 Ib/head/day)
Water 1~
38-114 lit/head/day
(10-30 gal/head/day)
OPEN LOT
FEEDLOT
Runoff:
Dirt Normal Slope:
Dirt Steep Slope:
Paved:
186.2 kg/head/cm avg.
(1040 Ib/head/in avg.)
214.1 kg/head/cm avg.
(1196 Ib/head/in avg.)
46.5 kg/head/cm avg.
(260 Ib/head/in avg.)
Manure:
3.6 - 21.8 kg/head/day
(8-48 Ib/head/day)
BEEF CATTLE CATEGORY I FLOW DIAGRAM
FIGURE 20
57
-------
ANIMAL TYPE: Beef Cattle
ANIMAL WEIGHT: 360 kg Average (800 Ibs Average)
TYPE OF WASTE:
Fresh Manure and Slotted Floor/Shallow Pit Manure
Parameter
Total (wet solids)
Moisture
Dry Solids
Volatile Solids
pH
BOD5
COD
Ash
Total Nitrogen
Ammonia Nitrogen
Nitrate Nitrogen
Total Phosphorus
Total Potassium
Magnesium
kg/head/day
(Ib/he ad/day)
Minimum
18.2
(40.0)
14.5
(32.0)
1.9
(4.3)
1.4
(3.0)
7.2
0.4
(0.8)
0.73
(1.6)
0.59
(1.3)
0.073
(0.16)
0.03
(0.07)
0.01
(0.03)
0.03
(0.06)
0.073
(0.016)
0.018
(0.039)
Average
21.8
(48.0)
18.5
(40.8)
3.3
(7.2)
2.6
(5.8)
7.3
0.45
(1.0)
1.6
(3.5)
0.77
(1.7)
0.12
(0.263)
0.04
(0.08)
0.017
(0.038)
0.031
(0.068)
0.0831
(0.183)
0.0192
(0.0192)
Maximum
29.1
(64.0)
25.3
(55.7)
5.81
(12.8)
3.2
(7.0)
7.6
0.73
(1.6)
2.0
(4.4)
1.3
(2.8)
0.14
(0.30?)
0.04
(0.09)
0.02
(0.04)
0.03
(0.07)
0.091
(0.20)
0.020
(0.020)
TABLE 1
58
-------
ANIMAL TYPE: Beef Cattle
ANIMAL WEIGHT: 360 kg Average (800 Ibs Average)
TYPE OF WASTE:
Fresh Manure and Slotted Floor/Shallow Pit Manure
Parameter
Sodium
Diethylstilbestrol
kg/head/day
(Ib/head/day)
Minimum
0.02
(0.05)
-
Average
0.0365
(0.0803)
-
Maximum
0.082
(0.18)
Trace
TABLE 1 (Continued)
59
-------
ANIMAL TYPE: Beef Cattle
ANIMAL WEIGHT: 360 kg Average (800 Ibs. Average)
TYPE OF WASTE: Biodegraded Manure
Parameter
Total twet solids)
Moisture
Dry Solids
Volatile Solids
PH
BODs
COD
Ash
Total Nitrogen
Ammonia Nitrogen
Nitrate Nitrogen
Total Phosphorus
Total Potassium
Magnesium
Sodium
kg/head/day
(Ib/head/day)
Minimum
1.5
(3.3)
0.45
(1.0)
1.0
(2.3)
0.82
(1.8)
5.1
0.2
(0.5)
0.91
(2.0)
0.23
(0.50)
0.03
(0.07)
0
(0)
0
(0)
0.02
(0.05)
0.03
(0.07)
0.009
(0.02)
0.01
(0.03)
Average
3.6
(8.0)
1.03
(2.26)
2.61
(5.74)
1.80
(3.96)
7.6
0.31
(0.68)
1.09
(2.40)
0.808
(1.78)
0.082
(0.18)
0.03
(0.07)
0.01
(0.03)
0.039
(0.086)
0.059
(0.13)
0.0192
(0.0423)
0.0365
(0.0803)
Maximum
7.81
(17.2)
3.9
(8.6)
3.9
(8.6)
2.9
(6.4)
9.4
0.4
(0.9)
1.8
(4.0)
1.8
(3.9)
0.11
(0.25)
0.064
(0.14)
0.045
(0.045)
0.050
(0.11)
0.086
(0.19)
0.03
(0.06)
0.059
(0.13)
TABLE 2
60
-------
ANIMAL TYPE: Beef Cattle
ANIMAL WEIGHT: 360 kg Average (800 Ibs. Average)
TYPE OF WASTE : Dirt-Moderate Slope-Runoff
AREA: 18.6 meter square/head (200 feet square/head)
Parameter
Total (wet solids)
Moisture
Dry Solids
Volatile Solids
Suspended Solids
PH
BOD5
COD
Ash
Total Nitrogen
Ammonia Nitrogen
Nitrate Nitrogen
Total Phosphorus
kg/head/cm runoff
(Ib/head/inch runoff)
Minimum
-
183.40
(1024.4)
1.11
6.24
0.707
(3.95)
0.186
(1.04)
5.1
0.186
(1.04)
0.558
(3.12)
0.372
(2.08)
0.004
(0.02)
0
0
0.002
(0.01)
Average
186.16
(1040.0)
184.67
(1031.7)
1.49
(8.32)
0.745
(4.16)
0.47
(2.6)
7.6
0.279
(1.56)
0.652
(3.64)
0.782
(4.37)
0.029
(0.16)
0.01
(0.06)
0.005
(0.03)
0.01
(0.08)
Maximum
-
185.16
(1034.4)
2.79
(15.0)
1.49
(8.32)
0.931
(5.20)
9.4
1.12
(6.23)
5.58
(31.2)
1.4
(7.8)
0.204
(0.14)
0.093
(0.52)
0.022
(0.123)
0.039
(0.22)
mg/1
Minimum
-
985,000
6,000*
3,800
1,000
1,000
3,000
2,000
20
0
0
14
Average
—
992,000
8,000
4,000
2,500
1,500
3,500
4,200
150
60
25
80
Maximum
—
994,000
15,000
8,000
5,000
5,000
20,000
7,500
1,100
• 500
120
200
TABLE 3
61
-------
ANIMAL TYPE: Beef Cattle
ANIMAL WEIGHT: 360 kg Average (800 Ibs. Average)
TYPE OF WASTE: Dirt-Moderate Slope-Runoff
AREA: 18.6 meter square/head (200 feet squre/head)
Parameter
Total Potassium
Magnesium
Sodium
kg/head/cm runoff
(Ib/head/inch runoff)
Minimum
0.004
(0.02)
0.01
(0.07)
0.01
(0.07)
Average
0.063
(0.35)
0.018
(0.10)
0.043
(0.24)
Maximum
0.2
(0.9)
0.021
(0.12)
0.1
(0.7)
mg/1
Minimum
20
70
65
Average
340
95
230
Maximum
900
120
700
TABLE 3 (Continued)
62
-------
ANIMAL TYPE: Beef Cattle
ANIMAL WEIGHT: 360 kg Average (800 Ibs. Average)
TYPE OF WASTE: Dirt-Steep Slope-Runoff
AREA: 18.6 meter square/head (200 feet square/head)
Parameter
Total (wet solids)
Moisture
Dry Solids
Volatile Solids
Suspended Solids
PH
BOD5
COD
Ash
Total Nitrogen
Ammonia Nitrogen
Nitrate Nitrogen
Total Phosphorus
kg/head/cm runoff
(Ib/head/inch runoff)
Minimum
-
210.0
(1175.0)
1.6?
(9.33)
0.813
(4.5*0
0.215
(1.20)
5.1
0.215
(1.20)
0.643
(3.59)
0.428
(2.39)
0.0041
(0.023)
0
0
0.00206
(0.0115)
Average
214.08
(1196.0)
212.29
(1186.0)
1.71
(9.57)
0.856
(4.78)
0.535
(2.99)
7.6
0.320
(1.79)
0.750
(4.19)
0.900
(5.03)
0.0329
(0.184)
0.012
(0.069)
0.00474
(0.0265)
0.0185
(0.104)
Maximum
-
213.01
(1190.0)
3.20
(17.9)
1.71
(9.57)
1.07
(5.98)
9.4
1.29
(7.18)
6.43
(35.9)
1.61
(8.97)
0.234
(1.31)
0.107
(0.598)
0.00618
(0.0345)
0.0453
(0.253)
mg/1
Minimum
-
982,750
9,200
4,370
1,150
1,150
3,450
2,300
23
0
0
16
Average
-
990,800
9,200
4,600
2,875
1,725
4,025
4,830
173
69
29
92
Maximum
-
990,800
17,250
9,200
5,750
5,750
23,000
8,625
1,265
575
138
230
TABLE 4
63
-------
ANIMAL TYPE: Beef Cattle
ANIMAL WEIGHT: 360 kg Average (800 Ibs. Average)
TYPE OF WASTE: Dirt-Steep Slope-Runoff
AREA: 18.6 meter square/head (200 feet square/head)
Parameter
Total Potassium
Magnesium
Sodium
kg/head/cm runoff
(Ib/head/inch runoff)
Minimum
0.00412
(0.0230)
0.0144
(0.0805)
0.0144
(0.0805)
Average
0.0721
(0.403)
0.0206
(0.115)
0.0494
(0.276)
Maximum
0.186
(1.04)
0.0247
(0.138)
0.144
(0.805)
mg/1
Minimum
23
81
75
Average
391
109
265
Maximum
1,035
138
805
TABLE 4 (Continued)
64
-------
ANIMAL TYPE: Beef Cattle
ANIMAL WEIGHT: 360 kg Average (800 Ibs. Average)
TYPE OF WASTE: Paved Lot Runoff
AREA: 4.6 meter square/head (50 feet square/head)
Parameter
Total (wet solids)
Moisture
Dry Solids
Volatile Solids
Suspended Solids
PH
BOD5
COD
Ash
Total Nitrogen
Ammonia Nitrogen
Nitrate Nitrogen
Total Phosphorus
kg/head/inch runoff
(Ib/head/inch runoff)
Minimum
-
45.795
(255.88)
0.569
(3.18)
0.279
(1.56)
0.093
(0.52)
5.5
0.093
(0.52)
0.23
(13.)
0.186
(1.04)
0.02
(0.1)
0.0047
(0.026)
0
0.002
(0.01)
Average
46.54
(260.0)
45.982
(255.84)
0.745
(4.16)
0.387
(2.16)
0.279
(1.56)
6.6
0.15
(0.83)
0.331
(1.85)
0.358
(2.00)
0.052
(0.29)
0.01
(0.08)
0.02
(0.09)
0.005
(0.03)
Maximum
-
45.61
(254.8)
0.93
(5.2)
5.93
(3.12)
0.47
(2.6)
7.5
0.558
(3.12)
1.86
(10.4)
0.70
(3.9)
0.073
(0.41)
0.023
(0.13)
0.0558
(0.312)
0.01
(0.08)
mg/1
Minimum
-
980,000
12,000
6,000
2,000
2,000
5,000
4,000
370
100
0
20
Average
-
984,0.00
20,000
8,300
6,000
3,200
7,100
7,700
1,100
325
360
110
Maximum
-
988,000
160,000
12,000
10,000
12,000
40,000
15,000
1,580
500
1,200
305
TABLE 5
65
-------
ANIMAL TYPE: Beef Cattle
ANIMAL WEIGHT: 360 kg Average (800 Ibs. Average)
TYPE OF WASTE: Paved Lot Runoff
AREA: 4.6 meter square/head (50 feet square/head)
Parameter
Total Potassium
Magnesium
Sodium
kg/head/inch runoff
(Ib/head/inch runoff)
Minimum
0.002
(0.01)
0.004
(0.02)
0.005
(0.03)
Average
0.02
(0.09)
0.005
(0.03)
0.021
(0.12)
Maximum
0.075
(0.42)
0.00?
(0.04)
0.045
(0.25)
mg/1
Minimum
30
80
120
Average
350
100
450
Maximum
1,600
140
950
TABLE 5 (Continued)
66
-------
Volatilization of
Organics and
Evaporation
(Variable) '
For Deep Pit
and Solid Floor
Units Only
Foot
7.7 - 10.4 kg/head/day
(17 - 23 Ib/head/day)
Water
38 - 114 lit/head/day
(10 - 30 gal/head/day)
Bedding ^
1.21 kg/head/day average
(2.66 Ib/head/day average)
(For Solid Floor Units Only)
HOUSED FEEDLOT
Wastes:
Slotted Floor
Shallow Pit - 21.8 kg/head/day avg.
(48 Ib/head/day avg.)
Deep Pit - 19.6 kg/head/day avg.
(43.2 Ib/head/day avg.)
Solid Floor
7.6 kg/head/day avg.
(16.8 Ib/head/day avg.)
BEEF CATTLE CATEGORY II FLOW DIAGRAM
FIGURE 21
67
-------
ANIMAL TYPE: Beef Cattle
ANIMAL WEIGHT: 360 kg Average (800 Ibs. Average)
TYPE OF WASTE: Slotted Floor - Deep Pit Manure
e = estimate
Parameter
Total (wet solids)
Moisture
Dry Solids
Volatile Solids
ph
BOD5
COD
Ash
Total Nitrogen
Ammonia Nitrogen
Nitrate Nitrogen
Total Phosphorus
kg/head/day
(Ib/head/day)
Minimum
No Data
No Data
l.Oe
(2.3e)
0.82e
(1.8e)
5.1e
0.2e
(0.5e)
0.91e
(2.0e)
0.2e
(0.5e)
0.03e
(0.07e)
Oe
No Data
0.02e
(O.OSe)
Average
19. 6e
(43. 2e)
16. 7e
(36. 7e)
3.0e
(6.5e)
1.6e
(3.5e)
5.8e
0.3e
(0.6e)
l.le
(2.4e)
0.95e
(2.1e)
O.lle
(0.25e)
0.04e
(0.09e)
No Data
O.OSe
(0.07e)
Maximum
29. le
(64. Oe)
25. 3e
(55. 7e)
5.81e
(12. 8e)
3.2e
(7.0e)
7.6e
0.73e
(1.6e)
2.0e
(4.4e)
1.3e
(2.8e)
O.le
(0.3e)
0.05e
(0.12e)
0.02e
(0.04e)
0.03e
(0.07e)
TABLE 6
68
-------
ANIMAL TYPE: Beef Cattle
ANIMAL WEIGHT: 360 kg Average (800 Ibs. Average)
TYPE OF WASTE: Slotted Floor - Deep Pit Manure
e = estimate
Parameter
Total Potassium
Magnesium
Sodium
Diethylstilbestrol
kg/head/day
(Ib. head/day)
Minimum
0.03e
(0.07e)
0.009e
(0.02e)
O.Ole
(0.03e)
Oe
Average
O.OSe
(0.19e)
0.02e
(0.04e)
0.04e
(0.09e)
Oe
Maximum
0.09e
(0.02e)
0.020e
(0.045e)
0.082e
(0.18e)
Trace
TABLE 6 (Continued)
69
-------
ANIMAL TYPE: Beef Cattle
ANIMAL WEIGHT: 360 kg Average (800 Ibs. Average)
TYPE OF WASTE: Housed-Solid Floor Manure and Bedding
e = estimate
Parameter
Total (wet solids)
Moisture
Dry Solids
Volatile Solids
PH
BOD5
COD
Ash
Total Nitrogen
Ammonia Nitrogen
Nitrate Nitrogen
Total Phosphorus
Total Potassium
Magnesium
Sodium
kg/head/day
(Ib/head/day)
Minimum
5.77e
(12. 7e)
2.6e
(5.7e)
3.2e
(7.0e)
1.6e
(3.5e)
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
Average
7.63e
(16. 8e)
3.8e
(8.4e)
3.8e
(8.4e)
1.8e
(4.0e)
7.3e
0.4e
(O..7e)
l.le
(2.5e)
2.0e
(4.4e)
0.082e
(0.18e)
0.03e
(0.07e)
O.Ole
(0.03e)
0.031
(0.068e)
0.183e
(0.183e)
0.019e
(0.042e)
0.04e
(O.OSe)
Maximum
20. 2e
(44. 4e)
16. 5e
(36. 4e)
9.08e
(20. Oe)
2.5e
(5.5e)
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
TABLE 7
70
-------
4. Approximately forty percent of the BODS would be satisfied during
the storage period.
5. Approximately one-third of the COD would be satisfied during the
storage period.
6. Because of degradation, the concentration of ash would be increased
about 25 percent.
7. Small losses of nitrogen (as ammonia) would occur during the
digestion process.
8. No losses of phosphorus, potassium, magnesium, or sodium would
occur, and the resulting concentrations would be increased slightly
over concentrations found in fresh manure.
Maximum values were estimated on the basis of fresh manure. Minimum
values were estimated on the basis of biodegraded manure (Table 2).
The waste output of a solid floor unit could not be completely
documented because of the variability of bedding used. To estimate the
characteristics given in Table 7 it was assumed that bedding amounts are
based on absorbing moisture from the wastes such that an acceptable
moisture content could be reached that would be comfortable for the
cattle for walking. An average number for this is 1.21 kg (2.66 Ibs.)
of bedding per animal per day. Furthermore, it was assumed that a
substantial quantity of moisture would evaporate, that the material
added would be relatively inert, and that no substantial amounts of
readily degradable organic pollutants would be added to the feedlot as
bedding material. Amounts of inorganic materials (phosphorus,
potassium, magnesium and sodium) are shown to be approximately equal to
the concentrations in raw manure.
Data on maximum and minimum variations was not available for most of the
characteri stic s.
DAISY CATTLE
Category III
As shown in Figure 22, this category comprises only one method of
production, stall barns with milkrooms, and is depicted in Figure 23.
The collectable wastes from this system are the milkroom wastes, (Tables
8) from the washdown of the milking equipment, and manure and bedding
(Table 9) which is mechanically removed from the stall area.
Experimental data on milkroom wastes is extremely sparse. For this
reason, only the average value is shown.
71
-------
to
STALL BARN
WITH MILK ROOM
6,800,000
M1LKROOM WASTES
TABLE 8
MANURE AND BEDDING
TABLE 9
CATEGORY 111
J
MECHANICAL SCRAPE
1,636,000
— MILKING CENTER
WASTE
TABLE 10
— MANURE AND BEDDING
TABLE II
L
DAIRY COWS
11,536,000 ON FEED
1 Tr
FREE STALL BARN
WITH MILKING
CENTER 1,816,000
LIQUID STORAGE
60,000
•MILKING CENTER
WASTE AND
LIQUID MANURE
TABLE 12
SLOTTED FLOOR
60,000
FT
I I
COWYARDS WITH
MILKING CENTER
2,920,000
— MILKING CENTER
TABLE 14
— YARD MANURE
TABLE 15
— RUNOFF
TABLE 16
L
CATEGORY V
— MILKING CENTER
WASTE AND
LIQUID MANURE
TABLE 12
LIQUID FLUSH
60,000
— MILKING CENTER
WASTE AND
LIQUID MANURE
TABLE 13
CATEGORY IV
•
J
FIGURE 22. DAIRY CATTLE INDUSTRY WASTE IDENTIFICATION
-------
Volatilization of Organics
and Evaporation (No Data)
Feed
14.5 - 25.0 kg/day
(32 - 55 Ib/day)
Water
64 - 110 lit/head/day
(17 - 29 gal/head/day)
Bedding
1.1 - 3.2 kg/head/day
(2.5 - 7.0 Ib/head/day)
STALL BARN
WITH
MILK ROOM
T
Milk
9.1-250 kg/head/day
(20-55 Ib/head/day)
Milk Room Waste:
7.6 kg/head/day average
(16.8 Ib/head/day average)
Manure and Bedding:
47.7 kg/head/day average
(105 Ib/head/day average)
DAIRY CATTLE CATEGORY III FLOW DIAGRAM
FIGURE 23
73
-------
ANIMAL TYPE: Dairy Cattle
ANIMAL WEIGHT: 590 kg Average (1300 Ibs. Average)
TYPE OF WASTE: Stall Barn - Milk Room Waste
Parameter
Total (wet solids)
Moisture
Dry Solids
Volatile Solids
Suspended Solids
pH
BOD5
COD
Ash
Total Nitrogen
Ammonia Nitrogen
Nitrate Nitrogen
Total Phosphorus
Total Potassium
Magnesium
Sodium
kg/head/day
(Ib/head/day)
Minimum
No Data
ii
H
it
ii
ii
H
ii
n
H
II
II
II
II
II
II
Average
7.63
(16.8)
7.54
(16.6)
0.059
(0.13)
No Data
0.005
(0.01)
8.0
0.005
(0.01)
No Data
n
0.00077
(0.0017)
0.000039
(0.000085)
No Data
0.000064
(0.00014)
No Data
n
n
Maximum
No Data
n
n
M
n
n
n
n
n
M
n
n
n
n
n
n
mg/1
Minimum
-
No Data
ii
n
ii
-
No Data
ii
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
Average
-
988,000
7,740
No Data
595
-
595
No Data
it
101
5
No Data
8
No Data
n
ii
Maximum
-
No Data
n
n
n
-
No Data
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
TABLE 8
74
-------
ANIMAL TYPE: Dairy Cattle
ANIMAL WEIGHT: 590 kg Average (1300 Ibs. Average)
TYPE OF WASTE: Stall Barn, Manure and Bedding
PERCENT CONFINED: 46%
Parameter
Total (wet solids)
Moisture
Dry Solids
Volatile Solids
PH
BOD5
COD
Ash
Total Nitrogen
Ammonia Nitrogen
Nitrate Nitrogen
Total Phosphorus
Total Potassium
Magnesium
Sodium
kg/head/day
(Ib/head/day)
Minimum
18.8
(41.4)
14.2
(31.3)
2.1
(4.6)
1.73
(3.82)
5
0.0396
(0.873)
1.67
(3.68)
0.146
(0.322)
0.0749
(0.165)
0.021
(0.046)
0
0.0167
(0.368)
0.021
(0.046)
0.021
(0.046)
No Data
Average
21.9
(48.3)
(17.8
(39.1)
4.2
(9.2)
3.55
(7.82)
7
0.459
(1.01)
2.92
(6.44)
0.355
(0.782)
(0.115
(0.253)
0.0708
(0.156)
0.042
(0.092)
0.021
(0.046)
0.0731
(0.161)
0.0251
(0.0552)
No Data
Maximum
26.5
(58.4)
24.0
(52.9)
7.31
(16.1)
6.67
(14.7)
9
0.627
(1.38)
6.27
(13.8)
0.731
(1.61)
0.167
(0.368)
0.125
(0.276)
0.0835
(0.184)
0.0835
(0.184)
0.136
(0.299)
0.0292
(0.0644)
No Data
TABLE 9
75
-------
Categorv._iy
This category, as seen in Figure 22, includes four types of free stall
barn systems:
1. Mechanical Scrape
2. Liquid Storage
3. slotted Floor
U. Liquid Flush
Figure 24 is a flow diagram for the most common free stall system,
mechanical scrape.
Feed ^
15-25 kg/head/day
(32-55 Ib/head/day)
Water ^
106-132 lit/head/day
(28-35 gal/head/day
Bedding
(1-2 Ib/head/day)
Volatilization of Organics
and Evaporation (No Data)
FREE STALL BARN
WITH
MILKING CENTER
Milk
9.1-25.0 kg/head/day
(20-55 kg/head/day)
Milking Center Wastes: 15.3 kg/head/day
(33.6 Ib/head/day)
Manure and Bedding: 47.7 kg/head/day
(105 Ib/head/day)
DAIRY CATTLE CATEGORY IV FLOW DIAGRAM
FIGURE 24
76
-------
The wastes for the mechanical scrape system are shown in Tables 10 and
11. As with the previous category, the data for milking center wastes
is sparse and only the average value is indicated (even this value is
uncertain) .
Table 12 provides rough estimates of the average values for the liquid
storage and slotted floor waste systems based on the wastes of Table 10
and limited data on the characteristics of fresh manure. Table 13 is
based on Table 10, fresh manure and an increased water usage. Real data
are insufficient for estimating minimum and maximum values for Tables 12
and 13.
Category V
Cow yards with milking centers are depicted in Figure 25 and have three
types of waste streams as shown in Tables 14, 15 and 16. As in the
previous cases, milking center wastes are very rough estimates of only
the average values because of a lack of data. Yard manure is the waste
scraped from the floor of the cow yard and is estimated on the basis of
the biodegraded wastes of beef feedlots since actual data is not
available. Runoff from the cow yard is likewise estimated on the basis
of beef feedlot runoff. In these cases, only certain average values can
be estimated.
77
-------
Volatilization of 1
Organics and Evaporation!
(no data) I
Feed — ^
14.5-25.0 kg/head/day
(32-55 Ib/head/day)
Water »
120-320 lit/head/day
(32-85 gal/head/day)
Bedding .
0-1.4 kg/head/day
(0-3 Ib/head/day)
1
Rain and Snow
(Variable)
COW YARDS
WITH
MILKING CENTER
Milk
9.1-25.0 kg/head/day
(20-55 Ib/head/day)
Milking Center Wastes:
38.1 kg/head/day average
(84 Ib/head/day average)
Yard Manure:
5.897 kg/head/day average
(12.99 Ib/head/day average)
Runoff:
472 kg/head/day average
(1040 Ib/head/day average)
DAIRY CATTLE CATEGORY V FLOW DIAGRAM
FIGURE 25
78
-------
ANIMAL TYPE: Dairy Cattle
ANIMAL WEIGHT: 590 kg Average (1300 Ibs. Average)
TYPE OF WASTE: Free Stall Barn - Milking Center Waste
Parameter
Total (wet solids)
Moisture
Dry Solids
Volatile Solids
Suspended Solids
PH
BOD5
COD
Ash
Total Nitrogen
Ammonia Nitrogen
Nitrate Nitrogen
Total Phosphorus
Total Potassium
Magnesium
Sodium
kg/head/day
(Ib/head/day)
Minimum
No Data
ii
ii
ii
n
it
n
n
n
ii
ii
n
n
n
n
ii
Average
15.3
(33.6)
15.2
(33.4)
0.077
(0.17)
No Data
0.04
(0.08)
8.0
0.059
(0.13)
No Data
No Data
0.0068
(0.015)
0.0020
(0.0044)
No Data
0.0009
(0.002)
No Data
n
n
Maximum
No Data
n
n
ii
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
M
n
n
n
rag/1
Minimum
—
No Data
n
n
n
n
No Data
n
H
M
n
ii
n
n
ii
n
Average
—
995,000
5,060
No Data
2,380
No Data
3,870
No Data
No Data
446
131
No Data
60
No Data
M
n
Maximum
—
No Data
n
n
ii
n
No Data
ii
n
n
n
H
n
M
n
n
TABLE 10
79
-------
ANIMAL TYPE: Dairy Cattle
ANIMAL WEIGHT: 590 kg Average (1300 Ibs. Average)
TYPE OF WASTE: Free Stall Barn - Manure and Bedding
PERCENT CONFINED: 90%
Parameter
Total (wet solids)
Moisture
Dry Solids
Volatile Solids
PH
BODs
COD
Ash
Total Nitrogen
Ammonia Nitrogen
Nitrate Nitrogen
Total Phosphorus
Total Potassium
Magnesium
Sodium
kg/head/day
(Ib/head/day)
Minimum
36.7
(80.9)
27.8
(61.3)
4.1
(9.0)
3.39
(7.47)
5
0.776
(1.71)
3.27
(7.20)
0.286
(0.629)
0.143
(0.314)
0.041
(0.090)
0
0.033
(0.072)
0.0695
(0.153)
0.041
(0.090)
No Data
Average
42.9
(94.5)
34.7
(76.4)
8.2
(18)
6.95
(15.3)
7
0.899
(1.98)
5.72
(12.6)
0.695
(1.53)
0.225
(0.495)
0.138
(0.305)
0.082
(0.18)
0.041
(0.090)
0.143
(0.315)
0.0490
(0.108)
No Data
Maximum
52.2
(115)
47.2
(104)
14.3
(31.5)
13.1
(28.8)
9
1.23
(2.71)
12.3
(27.1)
1.43
(3.15)
0.327
(0.720)
0.245
(0.540)
0.16
.(0.36)
0.16
(0.36)
0.266
(0.585)
0.0572
(0.126)
No Data
TABLE 11
80
-------
ANIMAL TYPE: Dairy Cattle
ANIMAL WEIGHT: 590 kg Average (1300 Average)
TYPE OF WASTE: Free Stall Barn-Liquid Storage and Slotted Floor
PERCENT CONFINED: 100%
Parameter
Total (wet solids)
Moisture
Dry Solids
Volatile Solids
PH
BOD5
COD
Ash
Total Nitrogen
Ammonia Nitrogen
Nitrate Nitrogen
Total Phosphorus
Total Potassium
Magnesium
Sodium
kg/head/day
(Ib/head/day)
Minimum
No Data
ii
ii
ii
ti
ii
ii
n
ii
n
n
M
it
n
ii
Average
43.5
(95.8)
38.3
(84.4)
5.162
(11.37)
No Data
n
0.885
(1.95)
No Data
n
0.228
(0.503)
0.0627
(0.304)
II
II
»
n
M
Maximum
No Data
n
n
"
n
ii
n
it
n
n
ii
ii
n
n
n
TABLE 12
81
-------
ANIMAL TYPE: Dairy Cattle
ANIMAL WEIGHT: 590 kg Average (1300 Ibs. Average)
TYPE OF WASTE: Free Stall Barn - Liquid Flush
PERCENT CONFINED: 100%
e = estimate
Parameter
Total (wet Solids)
Moisture
Dry Solids
Volatile Solids
PH
BOD5
COD
Ash
Total Nitrogen
Ammonia Nitrogen
Nitrate Nitrogen
Total Phosphorus
Total Potassium
Magnesium
Sodium
kg/head/day
(Ib/head/day)
Minimum
No Data
"
ti
"
n
"
"
"
11
"
"
"
"
"
"
Average
284. 6e
(626.0e)
279. 2e
(615. Oe)
5.162
(11.37)
No Data
"
0.885
(1.95)
No Data
"
0.228
(0.503)
0.138
(0.304)
No Data
••
n
"
11
Maximum
No Data
"
"
»
"
11
"
11
11
11
"
"
"
n
"
TABLE 13
82
-------
ANIMAL TYPE: Dairy Cattle
ANIMAL WEIGHT: 590 kg Average (1300 ibs. Average)
TYPE OF WASTE: Cow Yard - Milking Center Waste
Parameter
Total (wet solids)
Moisture
Dry Solids
Volatile Solids
Suspended Solids
PH
BOD5
COD
Ash
Total Nitrogen
Ammonia Nitrogen
Nitrate Nitrogen
Total Phosphorus
Total Potassium
Magnesium
Sodium
kg/head/day
(Ib/head/day)
Minimum
No Data
n
M
n
ii
ii
n
n
ii
n
it
n
ii
n
»
n
Average
38.1
(84.0)
37.8
(83.2)
0.4
(0.8)
No Data
0.10
(0.22)
8.0
0.17
(0.38)
No Data
n
0.068
(0.15)
0.02
(0.05)
No Data
0.0068
(0.015)
No Data
n
ii
Maximum
No Data
ti
n
n
ii
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
mg/1
Minimum
—
No Data
n
n
n
No Data
n
ii
n
H
n
n
n
n
n
Average
—
990,500
9,530
No Data
2,620
4,530
No Data
n
1,790
596
No Data
179
No Data
»
II
Maximum
—
No Data
n
n
ii
No Data
ii
n
n
n
n
n
ii
n
M
TABLE 14
83
-------
ANIMAL TYPE: Dairy Cattle
ANIMAL WEIGHT: 590 kg Average (1300 Ibs. Average)
TYPE OF WASTE: Cow Yard - Yard Manure
e = estimate
Parameter
Total (wet solids)
Moisture
Dry Solids
Volatile Solids
pH
BOD5
COD
Ash
Total Nitrogen
Ammonia Nitrogen
Nitrate Nitrogen
Total Phosphorus
Total Potassium
Magnesium
Sodium
kg/head/day
(Ib/head/day)
Minimum
No Data
ii
ii
ii
n
n
n
n
n
n
ii
n
n
n
n
Average
5.897e
(12.99e)
1.67e
(3.67e)
4.23e
(9.32e)
2.92e
(6.43e)
No Data
0.499e
(l.lOe)
1.77e
(3.90e)
1.31e
(2.89e)
0.133e
(0.292e)
No Data
n
0.063e
(0.140e)
0.095e
(0.211e)
No Data
n
Maximum
No Data
11
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
it
ii
it
ii
ii
TABLE 15
84
-------
ANIMAL TYPE: Dairy Cattle
ANIMAL WEIGHT: 590 kg Average (1300 Ibs. Average)
TYPE OF WASTE: Cow Yard - Runoff
AREA 18.6 meter square/head (200 feet square/head)
e = estimate
Parameter
Total (wet solids)
Moisture
Dry Solids
Volatile Solids
Suspended Solids
PH
BOD5
COD
Ash
Total Nitrogen
Ammonia Nitrogen
Nitrate Nitrogen
Total Phosphorus
Total Potassium
Magnesium
Sodium
kg/head/cm Runoff
(Ib/head/inch runoff)
Minimum
No Data
ii
ii
M
n
ii
n
n
M
n
n
n
n
M
ii
H
Average
186e
(1040e)
184. 67e
(10317e)
1.49e
(8.32e)
0.707e
(3.95e)
No Data
ii
0.279e
(1.56e)
0.652e
(3.64e)
0.782e
(4.37e)
0.029e
(0.16e)
No Data
n
O.Ole
(O.OSe)
0.063e
(0.35e)
No Data
ii
Maximum
No Data
ii
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
mg/1
Minimum
—
No Data
ii
n
n
No Data
n
"
ii
H
n
n
n
n
n
Average
—
992,000e
8,000e
4,000e
No Data
l,500e
3,500e
No Data
150e
No Data
it
80e
340e
No Data
n
Maximum
—
No Data
n
n
ii
No Data
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
TABLE 16
85
-------
SWINE
Figure 26 identifies the types of wastes for each of the swine
categories.
SWINE
61,600,000 ON FEED
15% BREEDER
85% MARKET
SOLID CONCRETE
FLOOR
15,400,000
1 T
•WATER WASHED
WASTE
TABLE 17
CATEGORY VI
J L.
SLOTTED
FLOOR HOUSES
9,200,000
1 T
-MANURE PIT
TABLE 18
OX. DITCH
TABLE 19
LAGOON
TABLE 20
CATEGORY VII
DIRT LOT OR
PASTURE
37,000,000
J L-
•MANURE
TABLE 21
•RUNOFF
TABLE 22
CATEGORY VIII
FIGURE 26. SWINE INDUSTRY WASTE IDENTIFICATION
86
-------
As shown in Figure 27, the only waste emanating from the solid concrete
floor units is water washed waste, which has been hosed from the floor.
It is defined in Table 17. Estimates were made for the amount of water
used and amount of biodegradation which would occur.
Food
2.3 kg/head/day
(5 Ib/head/day)
Water
0 - 11.4 lit/head/day
(0-3 gal/head/day)
I
Volatilization of Organics
and Evaporation (no data)
SOLID CONCRETE
FLOOR FACILITY
T
Water Washed Waste:
41 kg/head/day average
(90 Ib/head/day average)
FIGURE 27
87
-------
Category VII
Slotted floor units depicted
options built into the system:
in Figure 28 have one of the following
a. Pit Storage (Table 18)
b. Oxidation Ditch (Table 19)
c. Lagoon (Table 20)
For the pit system the maximum value is based on freshly voided
manure. The average value assumes 20% biodegradation of the
degradable constituents while the minimum value assumes 40%
biodegradation. Biodegradation of volatile solids in the oxidation
ditch were assumed to be a minimum of 50%, an average of 80%
and a maximum of 90%. These values are estimated since data on
oxidation ditches which includes a complete material balance is
not available. Lagoon values are estimated on the basis that
in the minimum case there is no overflow of liguid from the
lagoon. The flow and biodegradation for the average and maximum
values are estimates. The smallest volatile solids reduction
is assumed to be 60%.
k
Volatilization of Organics
and Evaporation (no data)
Food
2.3 kb/head/day
(5 Ib/head/day)
Water 1
0-23 lit/head/day
(0-6 gal/head/day)
SLOTTED
FLOOR
HOUSES
Wastes:
Pit Manure - 7.7 kg/head/day avg.
- (17 Ib/head/day avg.)
Oxidation Ditches -
5.9 kg/head/day average
(13 Ib/head/day average)
Lagoons - 4.1 kg/head/day average
- (9 Ib/head/day average)
SWINE CATEGORY VII FLOW DIAGRAM
FIGURE 28
88
-------
ANIMAL TYPE: Swine
ANIMAL WEIGHT: 45 kg Average (100 Ib. Average)
TYPE OF WASTE: Solid Floor Waterwashed Waste
e = estimate
Parameter
Total (wet solids)
Moisture
Dry Solids
Volatile Solids
Suspended Solids
PH
BOD5
COD
Ash
Total Nitrogen
Ammonia Nitrogen
Nitrate Nitrogen
Total Phosphorus
Total Potassium
kg/head/day
(Ib/head/day)
Minimum
20e
(50e)
20e
(50e)
O.le
(0.3e)
O.lle
(0.25e)
O.le
(0.3e)
6
0.068e
(0.15e)
0.16e
(0.35e)
0.02e
(O.OSe)
O.Olle
(0.025e)
0.0068e
(O.OlSe)
0
0.0064
(0.014)
0.0095
(0.021)
Average
40e
(90e)
40e
(90e)
0.2e
(0.5e)
0.2e
(0.4e)
0.2e
(0.5e)
7
0.09e
(0.2e)
0.25e
(0.55e)
0.05
(O.le)
0.02e
(0.04e)
O.Olle
(0.025e)
0
0.0064
(0.014)
0.0095
(0.021)
Maximum
50e
(HOe)
50e
(HOe)
0.29
(0.64e)
0.21
(0.47)
0.29
(0.64)
8
0.13
(0.28)
0.32
(0.71)
0.077
(0.17e)
.0.022
(0.048e)
0.012
(0.027)
0
0.0064
(0.014)
0.0095
(0.021)
mg/1
Minimum
—
987,000e
3,000e
2,500e
3,000e
3,500e
3,000e
450e
250e
150e
0
150e
200e
Average
—
995,000e
5,500e
4,500e
5,500e
12,000e
6,000e
l,000e
450e
300e
0
150e
250e
Maximum
—
997,000e
13,000e
9,500e
13,000e
35,000e
14,000e
3,500e
l,000e
600e
0
300e
400e
TABLE 17
89
-------
ANIMAL TYPE: Swine
ANIMAL WEIGHT: 45 kg Average (100 Ib Average)
TYPE OF WASTE: Solid Floor Waterwashed Waste
e = estimate
Parameter
Magnesium
Sodium
Chlortetracycline
Copper
kg/head/day
(Ib/head/day)
Minimum
2.0 x
1CT3
(4.5 x
10-3)
2xlO-3
(4x10-3)
0
3xlO-5
(6x10-5)
Average
2.0 x
ID"3
(4.5 x
10~3)
2xlO"3
(4xlO-3)
4xlO-5
(8xlO-5)
3x10-5
6x10-5)
Maximum
2.0 x
10-3
(4.5 x
ID"3)
2xlO-3
(4x10-3)
O.SxlQ-4
(IxlO-4)
4xlO-4
(8x10-4)
mg/1
Minimum
40e
35e
0.5e
Average
50e
45e
le
Maximum
lOOe
80e
15e
TABLE 17 (Continued)
90
-------
ANIMAL TYPE: Swine
ANIMAL WEIGHT: 45 kg Average (100 Ibs. Average)
TYPE OF WASTE: Slotted Floor - Pit Manure
e = estimate
Parameter
Total (wet solids)
Moisture
Dry Solids
Volatile Solids
Suspended Solids
PH
BOD5
COD
Ash
Total Nitrogen
Ammonia Nitrogen
Nitrate Nitrogen
Total Phosphorus
Total Potassium
kg/head/day
(Ib/head/day)
Minimum
4e
(9e)
3.9
(8.5)
0.2e
(0.4e)
O.le
(0.3e)
O.OSe
(O.le)
6
0.068e
(0.15e)
0.2e
(0.4e)
0.02e
(O.OSe)
O.Ole
(0.03e)
0.009e
(0.02e)
0
0.0064
(0.014)
0.0095
(0.021)
Average
7.7e
(17e)
7.49e
(16. 5e)
0.2e
(0.5e)
0.2e
(0.4e)
0.068e
(0.15e)
7.5
0.09e
(0.2e)
0.25e
(0.55e)
O.OSe
(O.le)
0.02e
(0.04e)
O.Olle
(0.025e)
0
0.0064
(0.014)
0.0095
(0.021)
Maximum
19e
(42e)
18. Be
(41. 5e)
0.29
(0.64e)
0.21
(0.47e)
0.09
(0.2)
9
0.13
(0.28)
0.32
(0.71)
0.077
(0.17)
0.022
(0.048)
0.012
(0.027e)
0
0.0064
(0.014)
0.0095
(0.021)
:i
mg/l
Minimum
—
923,000e
9,500e
7,000e
2,500e
3,500e
9,500e
l,200e
700e
450e
0
350e
500e
Average
—
970,000e
30,000e
25,000e
9,000e
12,000e
35,000e
6,000e
2,500e
l,500e
0
850e
l,300e
Maximum
'if
990,000e
77,000e
56,000e
25,000e
35,000e
85,000e
20,000e
5,800e
3,300e
0
l,700e
2,500e
TABLE 18
91
-------
ANIMAL TYPE: Swine
ANIMAL WEIGHT: 45 kg Average (100 Ibs. Average)
TYPE OF WASTE: Slotted Floor - Pit Manure
e = estimate
Parameter
Magnesium
Sodium
Chlortetracycline
:opper
kg/head/day
(Ib/head/day)
Minimum
2.0 x
ID'3
(4.5 x
10-3)
2xlO"3
(4xlO-3)
0
3x10-5
(6xlO-5)
Average
2.0_x
ID'3
(4.5 x
10-3)
2xlO-3
(4x10-3)
4xlO-5
(8 5i
ID'5)
3xlO~5
(6xlO"5)
Maximum
2.0,x
ID'3
(4.5 x
10-3)
2xlO-3
(4x10-3)
0.5x10-4
(1 x
10-5)
4xlO-4
(SxlO-4)
mg/1
Minimum
lOOe
lOOe
0
le
Average
250e
250e
5e
5e
Maximum
550e
500e
lOe
lOe
TABLE 18 (Continued)
92
-------
ANIMAL TYPE: Swine
ANIMAL WEIGHT: 45 kg Average (100 Ibs. Average)
TYPE OF WASTE: Oxidation Ditch Mixed Liquor
e = estimate
Parameter
Total (wet solids)
Moisture
Dry Solids
Volatile Solids
Suspended Solids
PH
BOD5
COD
Ash
Total Nitrogen
Ammonia Nitrogen
Nitrate Nitrogen
Total Phosphorus
Total Potassium
kg/head/day
(Ib/head/day)
Minimum
2e
(4e)
1.6e
(3.5e)
0.068e
(O.lSe)
0.02e
(O.OSe)
0.068e
(O.lSe)
6
0.0068e
(O.OlSe)
O.OSe
(0.07e)
0.02e
(O.OSe)
0.0009e
(0.002e)
0
O.OOOSe
(O.OOle)
0.0064
(0.014)
0.0095
(0.021)
Average
5.9e
(13e)
5.68e
(12. 5e)
0.09e
(0.2e)
0.04e
(0.09e)
0.09e
(0.2e)
8
O.Ole
(O.OSe)
O..09e
(0.2e)
O.OSOe
(O.lle)
O.OOSe
(O.Ole)
O.OOle
(O.OOSe)
O.OOle
(O.OOSe)
0.0064
(0.014)
0.0095
(0.021)
Maximum
7.7e
(17e)
7.49e
(16. 5e)
O.le
(O.Se)
O.lle
(0.25e)
O.le
(O.Se)
9
0.068e
(0.15e)
O.le
(O.Se)
0.068e
(O.lSe)
O.Olle
(0.025e)
O.OOSe
(O.Ole)
0.009e
(O.v02e)
0.0064
(0.014)
0.0095
(0.021)
mg/1
Minimum
—
900,000e
9,000e
3,000e
9,000e
900e
4,000e
3,000e
lOOe
Oe
50e
850e
l,300e
Average
—
985,000e
15,000e
7,000e
15,000e
2,500e
15,000e
9,000e
800e
250e
250e
l,000e
l,700e
Maximum
—
991,000e
100,000e
75,000e
100,000e
45,000e
100,000e
45,000e
7,500e
3,000e
6,000e
4,500e
6,500e
TABLE 19
93
-------
ANIMAL TYPE: Swine
ANIMAL WEIGHT: 45 kg Average (100 Ibs. Average)
TYPE OF WASTE: Oxidation Ditch Mixed Liquor
e = estimate
Parameter
Magnesium
Sodium
Chlortetracycline
Copper
kb/head/day
(Ib/head/day)
Minimum
2.5 x
10-3
(4.5 x
10-3)
2xlO-3
(4x10-3)
0
3xlO-5
(6xlO-5)
Average
2.5 x
10-3
4.5 x
10-3)
2x10-3
(4x10-3)
0
3x10-5
(6x10-5)
Maximum
2.5 x
10-3
4.5 x
10-3)
2x10-3
(4xlO-3)
0.5 x
10-4
(lxlO~4)
4x10-4
(8xlO~4)
mg/1
Minimum
250e
250e
0
5e
Average
350e
300e
0
35e
Maximum
l,400e
l,200e
30e
250e
TABLE 19 (Continued)
94
-------
ANIMAL TYPE: Swine
ANIMAL WEIGHT: 45 kg Average (100 Ibs. Average)
TYPE OF WASTE: Unaerated Lagoon Effluent
e = estimate
Parameter
Total (wet solids)
Moisture
Dry .Solids
Volatile Solids
Suspended Solids
pH
BOD5
COD
Ash
Total Nitrogen
Ammonia Nitrogen
Nitrate Nitrogen
Total Phosphorus
Total Potassium
kg/head/day
(Ib/head/day)
Minimum
Oe
Oe
Oe
Oe
Oe
6
Oe
(0.04e)
Oe
Oe
Oe
Oe
0
Oe
(0.007e)
Oe
(O.Ole)
Average
4e
(9e)
3.9e
(8.5e)
0.068e
(0.15e)
0.03e
(0.07e)
0.068e
(0.15e)
7
0.02e
(0.15e)
O.OSe
(O.le)
0.04e
(O.OSe)
0.009e
(0.02e)
0.0068e
(O.OlSe)
0
0.003e
(0.013e)
O.OOSe
(0.02e)
Maximum
54e
(120e)
52. 2e
(115e)
O.lle
(0.25e)
0.091e
(0.20e)
O.lle
(0.25e)
8.5
0.068e
O.le
(0.3e)
O.OSe
(O.le)
O.Ole
(O.OSe)
O.Olle
(0.025e)
0
0.0059e
0.009e
mg/1
Minimum
-
970,000e
Oe
Oe
Oe
Oe
Oe
Oe
Oe
Oe
0
Oe
Oe
Average
-
991,000e
9,000e
9,000e
9,000e
2,500e
6,000e
5,000e
l,200e
900e
0
400e
600e
Maximum
-
1,000,0006
30,000e
30,000e
30,000e
20,000e
40,000e
12,000e
3,600e
3,000e
0
l,500e
2,500e
TABLE 20
95
-------
ANIMAL TYPE: Swine
ANIMAL WEIGHT: 45 kg Average (100 Ibs. Average)
TYPE OF WASTE: Unaerated Lagoon Effluent
e = estimate
Parameter
Magnesium
Sodium
Chlortetracycline
Copper
kg/head/day
(Ib/head/day)
Minimum
Oe
Oe
0
Oe
Average
0.9 x
10~3e
(2 x
10-3e)
0.9 x
10~3e
(2 x
10~3e)
0
0.5 x
10-5
(1x10-5)
Maximum
2 x
I0~3e
4 x
10~3e)
2 x
10-3e
(4 x
10-3e)
0
0.5 x
10-4
(IxlO'4)
mg/1
Minimum
Oe
Oe
0
Oe
Average
lOOe
lOOe
0
5e
Maximum
500e
500e
0
lOe
TABLE 20 (Continued)
category._vill
As depicted in Figure 29, dirt lots have two types of wastes:
a. Manure (scraped from the surface)
b. Runoff.
The maximum value for the manure (Table 21) is based on swine
96
-------
Volatilization of Organics
and Evaporation (no data)
Rain and Snow
(Variable)
Food
2.3 kg/head/day
(5 Ib/head/day)
Water
0-23 lit/head/day
(0-6 gal/head/day)
DIRT LOT
Manure: 2.3 kg/head/day average
(5 Ib/head/day average)
Runoff: 409 kg/head/cm of Runoff avg,
(900 Ib/head/inch of Runoff,
avg.)
SWINE CATEGORY VIII FLOW DIAGRAM
FIGURE 29
97
-------
manure as voided. The average is based on SOX biodegradation
of volatile solids. The minimum values of zero are based on a
stocking density low enough not to require scraping of the surface.
Runoff (Table 22) is based on 10% of the wastes being washed away
at most, 5% on the average and none for very low stocking densities
and dry climates.
CHICKENS
Category IX
As discussed in section IV, the entire broiler industry is in
one category. Both the breeding flocks and the growing birds
are kept on litter. Litter is a highly variable item both in
terms of quantity and quality. The following is a list of some
of the materials used as litter:
pine straw
peanut hulls
pine shavings
chopped pine straw
rice hulls
pine stump chips
pine bark and chips
pine bark
corn cobs
pine sawdust
clay
Obviously these materials vary considerably in their composition. The
amount of litter used is likewise quite variable depending on the type
of litter, its ability to absorb moisture and its availability. In
breeding flock houses the litter usage is approximately 0.9 kg (2 Ibs.)
of litter per bird per year. In the broiler house the value is about
2.7 kg (6 Ibs) of litter per bird per year. These values are highly
dependent on individual management. Another variable is the
biodegradation of the wastes. Virtually no data is available along this
line. Because of the lack of test data available and because the type
98
-------
ANIMAL TYPE: Swine
ANIMAL WEIGHT: 45 kg Average (100 lt>s. Average)
TYPE OF WASTE: Manure
e = estimate
Parameter
Total (wet solids)
Moisture
Dry Solids
Volatile Solids
PH
BOD5
COD
Ash
Total Nitrogen
Ammonia Nitrogen
Nitrate Nitrogen
Total Phosphorus
Total Potassium
Magnesium
kg/he ad/day
(Ib/head/day)
Minimum
0
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Average
2e
(5e)
2e
(4e)
0.15e
(0.32e)
O.lOe
(0.23e)
-
0.064e
(0.14e)
0.16e
(0.35e)
0.04e
(0.09e)
O.Olle
(0.024e)
0.0064e
(0.014e)
0
0.0064
(0.014)
0.0095
(0.021)
2.0x10-3
(4.5x10-3)
Maximum
4
(9)
4
(8)
0.29
(0.64)
0.21
(0.47)
-
0.13
(0.28)
0.32
(0.71)
0.077
(0.17)
0.022
(0.048)
0.012
(0.027)
0
0.0064
(0.014)
0.0095
(0.021)
2.0x10-3
(4.5x10-3)
TABLE 21
99
-------
ANIMAL TYPE: Swine
ANIMAL WEIGHT: 45 kg Average (100 Ibs. Average)
TYPE OF WASTE: Manure
e = estimate
Parameter
Sodium
Chlortetracycline
Copper
kg/head/day
(Ib/head/day)
Minimum
0
0
0
Average
2xlO-3
(4x10-3)
0
(1x10-4)
3x10-5
(6xlO"5)
Maximum
2xlO-3
(4x10-3)
0.5x10-4
(4xlO~4
(8x10-4)
TABLE 21 (Continued)
100
-------
ANIMAL TYPE: Swine
ANIMAL WEIGHT: 45 kg Average (100 Ibs. Average)
TYPE OF WASTE: Dirt Lot Runoff
AREA: 124 - 618 head/hectare (50 - 250 head/acre)
e = estimate
Parameter
Total (wet solids)
Moisture
Dry Solids
Volatile Solids
Suspended Solids
pH
BOD5
COD
Ash
Total Nitrogen
Ammonia Nitrogen
Nitrate Nitrogen
Total Phosphorus
Total Potassium
kg/head/cm runoff
(Ib/head/inch runoff) "is/1
Minimum
Oe
Oe
Oe
Oe
Oe
6e
Oe
Oe
Oe
Oe
Oe
Oe
Oe
Oe
Average
161e
(900e)
161e
(900e)
0.21e
(1.2e)
0.16e
(0.09e)
0.21e
(1.2e)
7e
0.09e
(0.5e)
0.23e
(1.3e)
O.OSe
(0.3e)
0.016e
(0.09e)
0.007e
(0.04e)
O.OOSe
(0.03e)
0.004e
(0.02e)
0.007e
(0.04e)
Maximum
806
(4500e)
806e
(4500e)
0.41e
(2.3e)
0.30e
(1.7e)
0.41e
(2.3e)
8e
0.18e
(l.Oe)
0.47e
(2.6e)
O.lle
(0.6e)
0.032e
(0.18e)
0.18e
(l.Oe)
0.032e
(0.18e)
0.009e
(O.OSe)
0.014e
(O.OSe)
Minimum
—
997,400e
Oe
Oe
Oe
Oe
Oe
Oe
Oe
Oe
Oe
Oe
Oe
Average
~
999,700e
260e
200e
260e
lOOe
300e
20e
20e
lOe
5e
5e
lOe
Maximum
™*
1,000, OOOe
2,600e
2, OOOe
2,600e
l,000e
3, OOOe
200e
200e
lOOe
200e
50e
lOOe
TABLE 22
101
-------
ANIMAL TYPE: Swine
ANIMAL WEIGHT: 45 kg Average (100 ibs. Average)
TYPE OF WASTE: Dirt Lot Runoff
AREA: 124 - 618 head/hectare (50 - 250 head/acre)
e = estimate
Parameter
Magnesium
Sodium
Chlortetracycline
Copper
kg/head/cm runoff
(Ib/head/inch runor
Minimum
Oe
Oe
Oe
Oe
Average
1.4 x
10~3
(8x10-3)
1.3 x
10-3
(7x10-3)
Oe
0.2 x
10-4
(1x10-4)
Maximum
2.9,x
ID'3
(16x10-3)
2.7 x
10-3
(15x10-3)
Oe
0.5 x
10-3
(3x10-3)
f) mg/1
Minimum
Oe
Oe
Oe
Oe
Average
2e
2e
Oe
O.OSe
Maximum
20e
20e
Oe
3e
TABLE 22 (Continued)
102
-------
ANIMAL TYPE: Chicken
ANIMAL WEIGHT: 1 Kg (i Ib.) (Normalized Value
TYPE OF WASTE: i'resh Manure
Parameter
Total (wet solids)
Moisture
Dry solids
Volatile Solids
PH
BOD5
COD
Ash
Total Nitrogen
Ammonia Nitrogen
Nitrate Nitrogen
Total Pnosphorus
Total Potassium
Magnesium
Sodium
kg/kg/ or bird/day
Ub/lb of bird/day)
Minimum
No Data
ii
ii
H
ii
ii
ii
••
••
H
H
••
ii
H
H
Average
0.0b9
0.0416
O.U174
0.0129
No Data
0.0044
0.0157
No Data
O.Ollb
No Data
No Data
0.0098
0.011
0.0003
0.0003
Maximum
No Data
ii
H
ii
••
H
»
II
ii
II
II
II
t?
TABLE 23
103
-------
of litter cannot be readily determined, no detailed waste definition can
be presented. Instead a table (Table 23) of the known characteristics
of fresh chicken manure is included with no estimation made for litter,
biodegradation or evaporation. For purposes of generality the values
are reported in kg/kg of bird/day (Ib/lb of bird/day).
Categories X and XI
As developed in Section IV, the layer industry comprises two categories.
The same difficulties in defining waste loads for broilers apply to
laying chickens. In addition, the laying chicken industry includes
types of housing in both categories which do not use litter. There is
no definitive data as to the waste outputs of such systems nor is there
sufficient information about management techniques which would allow
estimation of the waste loads. Cages over dry pits with or without
ventilation involve drying and possibly biodegradation of the wastes to
an unknown extent. Cages over wet pits involve the added complication
of water addition which is also not documented by test data. Because of
these reasons waste characteristics for laying hens and the respective
breeding flocks cannot be estimated. The waste characteristics of fresh
manure given in Table 23 are also applicable to layers.
104
-------
SHEEP
2,270,000 SHEEP
1,944.000 LAMBS
4,214,000 ON FEED
(JAN. 1 VALUES)
r
— — h — — •
HOUSED
610,000
r
i
— — (.
OPEN LOT
3,604,000
~l
o
en
1 1
SHEEP
520,000
— MANURE
TABLE 24
TABLE 25
LAMBS
90,000
— MANURE
TABLE 26
TABLE 27
CATEGORY XII
r
I
PARTIAL
CONFINEMENT
2,148,000
I
SHEEP
1,400,000
|
DIRT LOT
1,456,000
|
— MANURE
TABLE 28
— RUNOFF
TABLE 30
—CORRAL
MANURE
TABLE 31
LAMBS
748,000
— MANURE
TABLE 29
— RUNOFF
TABLE 30
— CORRAL MANURE
1
1 1
SHEEP
350,000
— MANURE
TABLE 33
— RUNOFF
TABLE 30
LAMBS
1,106,000
— MANURE
TABLE 34
—RUNOFF
TABLE 30
TABLE 32
CATEGORY XIII I
FIGURE 31. SHEEP AND LAMB INDUSTRY WASTE IDENTIFICATION
-------
SHEEP
A substantial amount of the sheep waste characteristics are estimated.
The basis of these estimates are:
a. Documented data on the characteristics of fresh manure
b. Reported values of total quantities and moisture content of wastes
removed from open lots.
c. Literature values of the maximum and minimum values of Nitrogen,
Phosphorus and Potassium as well as average BOD's and COD'S for
wastes removed from open lots.
d. Estimates of bedding used in housed facilities.
e. Estimates of water added in liquid handling systems.
f. Estimates of expected biodegradation of the wastes.
g. Maximum and minimum values of the constituents of runoff reported in
the literature.
h. Average weights of 68 kg (150 lb.) for sheep and 39.4 kg (86.7 Ib.)
for lambs.
Figure 31 identifies the wastes from each of the sheep industry
categories.
106
-------
Volatilization ot Organics
and Evaporation (no data)
Food -
1.7-3.0 kg/head/day
(3.8-6.6 Ib/head/day)
Water •—•—— *-
(Solid) 3.J-5.7 kg/head/day
(7.2-12.5 Ib/head/day)
(Liquid) 7.3-12.7 kg/head/day
(16-28 Ib/head/day)
Bedding • '••
(Solid) 3.9-6.8 Kg/head/day
(B.7-15 ib/head/day)
(Liquid) 0 kg/head/day
(0 Ib/head/day)
HOUSED FACILITY
Wastes:
Solid Manure:
4.1-7.0 Kg/head/day average
(9.0-15.5 Ib/head/day average)
Liquid Manure:
7.8-13.5 kg/head/day average
(17.2-29.7 Ib/head/day average)
SHEEP AND LAMBS CATEGORY XII FLOW DIAGRAM
FIGURE 32
107
-------
Category XII
As seen in Figure 32, two types of waste streams generated from housed
facilities depending on whether solid or liquid handling systems are
used. In the solid handling system manure and bedding (usually straw)
is removed mechanically from the facility. The waste characteristics
for sheep and lambs are given in Table 24 and 26 respectively. In
liquid handling systems water is added to the manure to produce a
pumpable slurry and no bedding is used. Tables 25 and 27 detail the
applicable waste characteristics.
Category XIII
In partial confinement operations, shown in Figure 33, manure and
bedding from the confinement house is essentially the same as that from
full confinement buildings except that not all the waste is left in the
confinement building. Fifty per cent (50%) confinement is assumed as an
average; consequently, half the waste is left in confinement and half
outside (see Tables 28 and 29). Runoff from the corral area due to
rainfall and snowmelt is defined by Table 30 which applies for both
sheep and lambs. The manure which builds up on the corral surface must
be scraped off periodically and is shown in Table 31 for sheep and Table
32 for lambs (compensated for 5055 confinement) . Dirt lots have the same
type of waste characteristics as the partial confinement operations
except that there is not manure from a housed facility. The applicable
waste tables are:
a. Tables 33 and 34 for manure scraped from pens.
b. Table 30 for runoff
108
-------
ANIMAL TxPE: Sheep
ANIMAL WEIuHT: 68 kg Average (15u Ibs. Average)
TYPE OF WASTE: Housed-Manure (Solid)
e = estimate
Parameter
Total (wet solids)
Moisture
Dry Solids
Volatile Solids
PH
BOD5
COD
Ash
Total Nitrogen
Ammonia Nitrogen
Nitrate Nitrogen
Total Phosphorus
Total Potassium
Magnesium
Sodium
kg/head/aay
(Ib/he ad/day)
Minimum
3.84e
(8.46e)
2.96e
(b.52e)
0.881e
(i.94e)
0.0708e
(1.56e)
6.5e
0.0495e
(0.109e)
0.708e
(I.s6e)
0.22e
(U.48e)
0.039e
(O.u85e)
0. 000039e
(0.00u085e)
Oe
0.0024e
(O.u054e)
U.0095e
(0.021e)
0.0035e
(U.0078e)
O.OOlSe
(0.00^9e)
Average
7.02e
(15.48e)
S.Oye
(11.23e)
1.93e
(4.25e)
1.57e
(3.45e)
6.9e
0.16e
(0.35e)
2.2e
(4.8e)
0. J6e
(O.BOe)
0.0631e
(O.lj9e)
0.00563e
(O.Ul24e)
0.0032e
(u.0070e)
O.OlSe
(O.u39e)
O.U79e
(0.174e)
0.009be
(u.021e)
O.Olle
(0.02be)
Maximum
a.917e
(19.64e)
6.138e
(13.b2e)
2.78e
(6.12e)
2.34e
(S.lbe)
7.4e
O.l^e
(u.27e)
4.20e
(9.25e)
0.44e
(0.97e)
0.25e
(0.55e)
O.u25e
(O.u55e)
0.020e
(u.044e)
0.0622e
(O.U7e)
0.024e
(U.52e)
0.016e
(0.036e)
O.u24e
(0.053e)
TABLE 24
109
-------
ANIMAL TxPE: Sheep
ANIMAL WEIGHT: 68 kg Average (15u Average)
TYPE OF WASTE: Housed-Manure (Liquid)
e = estimate
Parameter
Magnesium
Sodium
kg/ head/day
llb/head/aay)
Minimum
0.002U6
(0.0045e)
0.000749e
(0.00l65e)
Average
0.0059e
(O.OlSe)
0.00676e
(0.0149e)
Maximum
O.OlOe
(U.023e)
O.Ole
(0.03e)
mg/1
Minimum
280e
HOe
Average
480e
540e
Maximum
980e
l,280e
TABLE 24
110
-------
ANIMAL TYPU: Sheep
ANIMAL WEIGHT: 68 kg Average (150 IDS. Average)
TYPE OF WASTE: Housed-Manure (Liquid)
e = estimate
Parameter
Total (wet solids)
Moisture
Dry Solids
Volatile Solids
Suspended Solids
PH
BOD5
COD
Ash
Total Nitrogen
Ammonia Nitrogen
Nitrate Nitrogen
Total Phosphorus
Total Potassium
Kg/head/day
(Ib/heaa/day)
Minimum
3.47e
(7.64e)
2.96e
(6.53e)
O.b04e
11. He)
0.39e
(0.87e)
0.15e
(0.33e)
6.5e
0.032e
(0.070e)
0.39e
(0.87e;
O.lle
(0.24e)
O.OOUSOe
(O.OOlle)
O.u0025e
(0.0u055e)
Oe (
(
0.0003be
O.OOOSOe)
O.OO^Oe
(0.0043e)
Average
i3.46e
(29.65e)
12.35e
(27.21e)
2.44e
(2.44e)
0.917e
U.02e)
0.434e
(l.OOe)
6.9e
0.091e
(0.20e)
i.3e
(2.8e)
0.21e
(0.46e)
O.Olle
(0.025e)
0.0040e
(O.u089e)
).00u27e)
0.0u059e)
0.0059e
(0.013e;
0.027e
(O.OGOe)
Maximum
25.be
(56. 3e)
24. Oe
(52. 8e)
J.53e
(3.5J6)
1.36e
(3.uOe)
0.795e
(l.75e)
7.<*e
0.16e
(0.35e)
2.5e
(5.4e)
0.24e
(0.53e)
0.0649e
(0.143e)
0.020e
(O.u45e)
(0.0025e)
(O.u056e)
U.035e
(0.076e)
0.15e
(0.32e)
mg/1
Minimum
—
850,000e
63,0u0e
49,uOOe
I9,000e
3,900e
49,000e
14,OOUe
60e
30e
Oe
94e
500e
Average
—
906,uOOe
84,000e
68,OOUe
34,000e
6,800e
95,000e
16,000e
810e
300e
20e
420e
J.,900e
Maximum
—
937,0u0e
150,000e
126,000e
75,000e
lb,000e
225,000e
iJ4,OOOe
6,000e
l,000e
lOOe
l,35oe
5,6uOe
TABLE 25
111
-------
ANIMAL TYPE: Lambs
ANIMAL WEIGHT: 3y.4 kg Average (86.7
TYPE OF WASTE: Housed-Manure
e = estimate
IDS. Average)
(Solid)
1
Parameter
Total (wet solids)
Moisture
Dry Solids
Volatile Solids
pH
BOD5
COD
Ash
Total Nitrogen
Ammonia Nitrogen
Nitrate Nitrogen
Total Phosphorus
Total Potassium
Magnesium
Sodium
kg/head/day
(Ib/head/day)
Minimum
2.2Je
(4.91e)
1.72e
(3.78e)
O.Sl^e
(1.13e)
(0.41e)
(O.yOe)
6.5e
u.029e
(0.063e;
0.41e
(u.90e)
0.13e
(0.28e)
0.022e
(u.049e)
0. 000022e
(0.0u0049e)
Oe
0.00l4e
(0.0u31e)
0.0054e
(U.012e)
0.00206
(O.u045e)
0.00073e
(0.0016e)
Average
4.08e
(8.98e)
2.96e
(6.51e)
1.12e
(2.47e)
(0.908e)
(2.00e)
6.9e
0.0922e
(0.203e)
l.^:6e
(2. /8e)
0.21e
(0.46e)
O.OJ7e
(O.OSle)
0.0033e
(0.0072e)
O.OOuSe
(O.U04e)
O.OlOe
(0.023e)
0.0459e
(O.lOle)
0.00556
(O.ul2e)
0.00658e
(0.0145e)
Maximum
5.i8e
(il.4e)
3.56e
(7.84e)
l.ble
(J.55e)
(l.36e)
(2.99e)
7.4e
0.071J6
(O.l57e)
2.44e
(5.37e)
0.25e
(0.56e)
0.15e
(0. J2e)
0.015e
(0.032e)
0.012e
(u.026e)
0.036e
(0.07ye)
O.le
(O.Je)
0.00956
(O.O^le)
0.014e
(O.OJle)
TABLE 26
112
-------
ANIMAL TYPE: Lamos
ANIMAL WEIGHT: 39.4 kg Average (86.7 Ibs. Average)
TYPE OF WASTE: Housed-Manure (Liquid)
e = estimate
Parameter
Total (wet solids)
Moisture
Dry Solids
Volatile Solids
Suspended Solids
PH
BOD5
COD
Ash
Total Nitrogen
Ammonia Nitrogen
Nitrate Nitrogen
Total Phosphorus
Minimum
2.01e
(4.43e)
1.72e
(3.79e)
0.29e
(0.64e)
0.229e
(0.505e)
0.26e
(0.58e)
6.5e
0.019e
(0.04le)
0.229e
(0.505e)
0.0631e
(0.139e)
0.00029e
(0.00064e)
O.OOOlSe
(0.00032e)
Oe
0.00021e
(0.00046e)
Average
7.ble
(17. 2e)
7.17e
(15. «e)
0.645e
(1.42e)
0.531e
(I.l7e)
0.463e
(1.02e)
6.9e
0.0527e
(0.116e)
0.740e
(1.63e)
0.121e
(0.267e)
0.0068e
(O.OlSe)
0.0024e
(0.0052e)
O.OOOlSe
0.00034e)
O.u034e
(0.0075e)
Maximum
14. 8e
(32. 7e)
13. 9e
(30. 6e)
0.931e
(2.05e)
0.7yOe
(1.74e)
0.86?e
(1.91e)
7.4e
0.0922e
(0.203e)
1.42e
(3.13e)
0.139e
(0.307e)
0.038e
(0.083e)
0.012e
(0.026e)
O.OOlSe
(0.0032e
0.02ue
(0.044e)
Minimum
-
850,000e
b3,000e
49,000e
19,000e
3,900e
49,000e
14,000e
60e
30e
Oe
94e
Average
-
916,000e
84,000e
68,000e
34,000e
6,800e
95,000e
16,000e
810e
300e
20e
420e
Maximum
—
9J7,OOOe
150,UOOe
I26,000e
75,000e
I5,000e
225,000e
24,000e
6,OOUe
l,000e
lOOe
i,350e
TABLE 27
113
-------
ANIMAL TYPE: Lambs
ANIMAL WEIGHT: 39.4 kg Average (86.7 Ibs. Average)
TYPE OF WASTE: Housed-Manure (Liquid)
e = estimate
Parameter
Total Potassium
Magnesium
Sodium
kg/head/day
(JLb/head/day)
Minimum
O.OOlOe
(U.0023e)
O.OUl2e
(0.002be)
0.00044e
(0.00096e)
Average
0.0l6e
(u.035e)
0.0034e
(0.007be)
O.U039e
(U.0086e)
Maximum
0.0844e
(0.186e)
0.0059e
(0.013e)
O.OOV90e
(U.0174e
mg/1
Minimum
500e
^80e
llOe
Average
l,90ue
480e
540e
Maximum
5,600e
9«0e
128e
TAaLE 21 (Continued)
114
-------
ANIMAL TYPE: Sheep
ANIMAL WEIGHT: 68 kg Average (150 IDS. Average)
TYPE OF WASTE: Partial Confinement Manure
PERCENT CONFINED: 30%
e = estimate
Parameter
Total (wet solids)
Moisture
Dry Solids
Volatile Solids
PH
BOD5
COD
Ash
Total Nitrogen
Ammonia Nitrogen
Nitrate Nitrogen
Total Phosphorus
Total Potassium
Magnesium
Sodium
kg/head/clay
(lb/ he ad/day)
Minimum
1.92e
(4.23e)
1.48e
(3.26e)
0.44e
(U.97e)
0.35e
(0.7«e)
6.5e
0.025e
(0.055e)
0.35e
(0. /8e)
O.lle
(U.24e)
0.020e
(0.043e)
0.000020e
(0. 000043e)
Oe
0.0012e
(0.002/e)
0.00477e
(O.OlOSe)
O.OOlSe
(0.0039e;
0. 000658e
(0.001456)
Average
3.5le
(7. /4e)
2.5be
(5.62e)
0.967e
(2.l3e)
0.785e
(1.73e)
6.9e
0.07y5e
(0.1756)
l.le
(2.4e)
0.^6
(0.4e)
0.0316e
(O.U695e)
0.0028e
(0.0062e)
0.0016e
(0.0035e)
O.OU885e
(0.01956)
O.u39e
(0.087e)
0.004/76
(O.OlOSe)
0.00568e
(O.Ol^Se)
Maximum
4.46e
(9.82e)
3.07e
(6.76e)
1.39e
(3.06e)
1.17e
(2.58e)
7.4e
0.0613e
(0.135e)
2.10e
(4.63e)
0.220e
(0.485e)
0.125e
(0.275e)
0.01256
(0.0275e)
O.OlOe
(0.022e)
0.01416
(0.068be)
0.12e
(b.26e)
0.0082e
(O.OlBe)
O.Ol^Oe
(0.0265e)
TABLE 28
115
-------
ANIMAL TYPE: Lambs
ANIMAL WEIGHT: 39.4 kg Average (86.7 Ibs. Average)
TYPE OF WASTE: Partial Confinement - Manure
PERCENT CONFINED: 5u%
e = estimate
Parameter
Total (wet solids)
Moisture
Dry Solids
Volatile Solids
PH
BOD5
COD
Ash
Total Nitrogen
Ammonia Nitrogen
Nitrate Nitrogen
Total Phosphorus
Total Potassium
Magnesium
Sodium
kg/heaa/day
(Ib/head/day)
Minimum
l.lle
(2.45e)
0.858e
(1.89e)
0.256e
(0.563e)
0.205e
(0.452e)
6. be
0.01i>e
(0.032e)
0.205e
(0.452e)
0.063le
(O.l39e)
O.Olle
(0.025e)
O.OOOOlle
(0.00002be)
Oe
0. 000713e
(0.0l57e)
0.0028e
(0.006le)
O.OOlOe
(O.U023e)
0.00038e
(0.00084e)
Average
2.04e
(4.4ye)
1.47e
(3.23e)
O.i>63e
(1.24e)
0.454e
(l.OOe)
6.9e
0.0463e
(O.l02e)
0.6316
(I.j9e)
O.lOSe
(0.232e)
O.OlSJe
(U. 0403e)
0.00166
(0.0036e)
0.00092^e
(0.00203e)
0.00513e
(0.0ll3e)
O.U2296
(O.OSObe)
0.0028e
(O.U061e)
0.0033e
(0.0073e)
Maximum
2.58e
(5.69e)
1.78e
(3.92e)
0.804e
(1.77e)
0.676e
(1.49e)
7.4e
0.0355e
(0.0783e)
1.22e
(2.69e)
0.128e
(0.28le)
0.0722e
(0.159e)
0.00722e
(O.OlSye)
0.00581e
(0.0128e)
O.Ul73e
(0.382e)
0.0686e
(O.lSle)
0.004726
(O.U1046)
0.00699e
(0.0154e)
TABLE 29
116
-------
ANIMAL TYPE: Sheep and
ANIMAL WEIGHT: b8 and 39.4 Kg Average Kespectively
(150 and 86 Ibs. Average Respectively)
TYPE OF WASTE: Open Lot - Runoff
AKEA: 2.8 meter square/head (Sheep)
(30 feet square/head) (Sheep)
1.4 meter square/head (Lambs)
(15 feet square/head) (Lambs)
e = estimate
Parameter
Total (wet solids)
Moisture
Dry Solids
Volatile Solids
Suspended Solids
pH
BOD5
COD
Ash
Total Nitrogen
kg/head/cm runoff
(Ib/head/inch runoff)
Minimum
27.9
(156)
26.5
(148)
0.07
(0.4)
0.029
(0.16)
0.030
(0.17)
5.8
0.011
(0.062)
(0.036)
(0.20)
0.039
(0.22)
(0.0014)
(0.0078)
Average
27.9
(1S6)
27. 6e
(154e)
0.43
(2.4)
0.18e
(0.98e)
0.13e
(0.70e)
6.9e
0.084e
(0.47e)
(0.279e)
(1.56e)
0.17e
(0.97e)
(0.029e)
(0.16e)
Maximum
27.9
(156)
27.9
(156)
1.4
(7.8)
0.39
(2.2)
0.38
(2.1)
8.0
0.335
(1.87)
(2.18)
(12.2)
0.474
(2.65)
(U.16)
(O.yO)
mg/1
Minimum
950,000
2,400
1,000
1,100
400
1,300
1,400
50
Average
987,000e
12,500e
b,200e
4,500e
3,000e
10,000e
6,200e
I,u00e
Maximum
987,600
bO,000
14,000
13,500
12,000
7«,000
17,000
5,000
TABLE 3U
117
-------
ANIMAL TYPE: Sheep and Lambs
ANIMAL WEIGHT: 68 and 39.4 kg Average Respectively
(150 and 86.7 Ibs. Average Respectively)
TYPE OF WASTE: Open Lot - Runorf
AREA: 2.a meter square/head (Sheep)
(30 teet square/head) (Sheep)
1.4 meter square/head (Lambs)
(15 feet square/head) (Lames)
e = estimate
Parameter
Ammonia Nitrogen
Nitrate Nitrogen
Total Phosphorus
Total Potassium
Magnesium
Sodium
Chloride
kg/head/cm runorf
(Ib/heaa/inch runoff)
Minimum
0
0
0.00014
(0.00078)
0.0011
(0.0062)
0.0017
(0.0093)
0.0017
(0.0093)
0.0055
(0.031)
Average
0.0029e
(O.Ul6e)
0.00055e
(0.0031e)
0.00224e
(0.0125e)
0.020e
(O.lle)
0.00296
(0.016e)
0.014e
(0.078e)
0.013e
(0.072e)
Maximum
0.055
(0.31)
0.00224
(0.0125)
0.021
(0.12
0.057
(0.32)
O.Ull
(0.062)
0.045
(0.25)
0.021
(0.12)
mg/1
Minimum
0
0
5
40
60
60
200
Average
lOOe
20e
80e
700
lOOe
500e
460e
Maximum
2,000
80
750
2,100
400
1,600
780
TABLE 30 (Continued)
118
-------
ANIMAL TYFE: Sheep
ANIMAL WEIGHT: 68 kg Average (150 ibs. Average)
TYPE OF WASTE: Partial Confinement-Corral Manure
PERCENT CONFINEMENT: 50%
e = estimate
Parameter
Total (wet solids)
Moisture
Dry Solids
Volatile Solids
PH
BOD5
COD
Ash
Total Nitrogen
Ammonia Nitrogen
Nitrate Nitrogen
Total Phosphorus
Total Potassium
Magnesium
Sodium
kg/ne ad/day
Ub/nead/day)
Minimum
0.477e
(l.OSe)
0.184e
(0.405e)
0.24e
(0.536)
0.04776
(O.lOSe)
6.5e
O.OlOe
(0.023e)
O.U34e
(0.075e)
0.19e
(0.42e)
0.00167e
(O.u0368e)
0.000ul7e
(0.000037e)
Oe
0.00024e
(0.00053e)
0.00u40e
(0.00089e)
0.000717e
(0.00158e)
0.00038e
(O.OOOSJe)
Average
0.73e
(1.6e)
0.2le
(0.47e)
0.504e ^
(l.lle)
0.17e
(0.37e)
6.9e
0.024e
(0.053e)
0.17e
(0.37e)
0.325e
(0.7156)
0.01166
(0.02556)
0.000b68e
(O.OU1256)
O.OUOOSOe
(O.OOUlle)
0.002156
(U. 004736)
0.007496
(0.01656)
0.00184e
(0.00405e)
0.002796
(0.006l5e)
Maximum
0.9i!2e
(2.03e)
0.24e
(0.53e)
0.735e
(1.62e)
0.37e
(O.Sle)
7.5e
0.034e
(0.075e)
0.443e
(0.975e)
0.37e
(O.Sle)
0.0222e
(0.0488e)
0.002u7e
(O.U04556)
0.0012e
(0.0u26e)
U. 00406
(0.00896)
0.012e
(0.027e)
0.0037e
(U.OOSle)
0.006276
(O.OljSe)
TABLE 31
119
-------
ANIMAL TYPE: Lambs
ANIMAL WEIGHT: 39.4 kg Average (86.7 Ibs. Average)
TYPE OF WASTE: Partial Continement - uorral Manure
PARTIAL CONFINEMENT: 50%
e = estimate
Parameter
Total (wet solids)
Moisture
Dry Solids
Volatile Solids
pH
BOD5
COD
Ash
Total Nitrogen
Ammonia Nitrogen
Total Phosphorus
Total Potassium
Magnesium
Sodium
kg/head/day
(Ib/head/day)
Minimum
0.276e
(O.b09e)
0.108e
(0.273e)
0.13ye
(0.3u7e)
O.U28e
(0.061e)
6.5e
0.00604e
(0.0133e)
0.0197e
(0.0435e)
O.ille
(0.244e)
0.000967e
(0.00213e)
0.0000095e
(0.000021e)
O.OOUl4e
(0.00031e)
0.00024e
(0.000526)
0.00042e
(0.00092e)
0.00022e
(0.00048e)
Average
0.421e
(0.928e)
O.lAe
().31e)
0.292e
(0.644e)
0.097be
(0.215e)
6.9e
0.013ye
(0.0307e)
0.0976e
(0.2l5e)
0.188e
(0.4l5e)
0.00672e
(O.ul48e)
0. 000329e
(0.000725e)
O.OOl^e
(0.00276)
0.0044e
(0.00966)
O.OOlOe
(0.0023e)
0.00166
(0.0036e)
Maximum
0.536e
(1.18e)
2.831e
(6.235e)
0.426e
(0.939e)
0.213e
(0.470e)
7.5e
0.0197e
(0.0435e)
0.0257e
(0.566e)
0.213e
(0.470e)
O.ul28e
(O.U283e)
0.001196
(0.002636)
0.0024e
(0.0052e)
0.0073e
(0.016e)
0.0021e
(0.0047e)
0.004e
(O.OOSe)
TABLE 32
120
-------
ANIMAL TYPE: Sheep
ANIMAL WEIGHT: 68 kg Average (150 Ibs. Average)
TYPE OF WASTE: Dirt Lot - Manure
e = estimate
Parameter
Total (wet solids)
Moisture
Dry Solids
Volatile Solids
PH
BOD5
COD
Ash
Total Nitrogen
Ammonia Nitrogen
Nitrate Nitrogen
Total Phosphorus
Total Potassium
Magnesium
Sodium
kg/head/day
(Ib/he ad/day)
Minimum
0.95e
(2.1e)
0.37e
(0.81e)
0.477e
(1.05e)
0.095e
(0.21e)
6.5e
0.020e
(0.045e)
0.068e
(0.15e)
0.38e
(0.84e)
0.00334
(0.00735)
0.000034e
(0. 000074e)
Oe
0.000477
(O.OOlOe)
0.000808
(0.00178)
0.00143e
(0.00315e)
0.000749e
(0.00165e)
Average
1.43
(3.15)
0.43e
(0.94e)
l.OOe
(2.21e)
0.34e
(0.74e)
6.9e
0.0477
(0.105)
0.34
(0.74)
0.649e
(1.43e)
0.023e
(O.OSle)
O.OOlle
(0.0025e)
0.00022e
(O.OOOlOe)
0.00429e
(0.00945e)
0.015e
(0.033e)
0.0037e
(O.OOSle)
0.000558e
(0.00123e)
Maximum
1.84e
(4.05e)
0.477e
(l.OSe)
1.47e
(3.24e)
0.735e
(1.62e)
7.5e
0.068e
(0.15e)
0.885e
(1.95e)
0.735e
(1.62e)
0.0443
(0.0975)
0.0041e
(0.0091e)
0.0052e
(0.0024e)
0.00808
(0.0178)
0.025
(0.054)
0.00735e
(0.0162e)
0.0125e
(0.0276e)
TABLE 33
121
-------
ANIMAL TYPE: Lambs
ANIMAL WEIGHT: 39.4 kg Average (86.7 Ibs. Average)
TYPE OF WASTE: Dirt Lot - Manure
e = estimate
Parameter
Total (wet solids)
Moisture
Dry Solids
Volatile Solids
PH
BOD5
COD
Ash
Total Nitrogen
Ammonia Nitrogen
Nitrate Nitrogen
Total Phosphorus
Total Potassium
Magnesium
Sodium
kg/head/clay
(Ib/head/day)
Minimum
0.554e
(1.22e)
0.2le
(0.47e)
0.28e
(0.61e)
0.054e
(O.l2e)
6.5e
u.012e
(U.026e)
O.U39Q
(0.087e)
0.22e
(U.49e)
O.OU20
(0.0043)
0.00u020e
(0.000043e)
Oe
O.OU028
(0.00061)
0.000468
(0.00103)
0.00082e
(O.OOlBe)
0.00044e
(0.00096e)
Average
0.831
(1.83)
0.2be
(0.55e)
0.58le
(1.28e)
0.20e
(0.43e)
6.9e
0.028
(0.061)
0.20
(0.43;
0. J8e
(O.a3e)
O.Ole
(0.03e)
0.00u68e
(O.OOiSe)
0.000059e
(0.00013e)
0.00256
(0.0055e)
0.0086e
(0.0l9e)
0.0021e
(0.0047e)
0.0032e
(0.0071e)
Maximum
1.07e
(2.35e)
0.28e
(0.61e)
0.854e
(l.Sde)
0.43e
(0.94e)
7.5e
0.039e
(0.0b7e)
0.513e
(1.13e)
0.43e
(0.94e)
0.026
(0.057)
0.00246
(0.00b3e)
O.OOle
(0.003e)
0.00468
(0.0103)
0.014
(0.031)
0.0043e
(0.0094e)
0.0073e
(0.016e)
TABLE 34
122
-------
Food •
1.7-3.0 kg/head/day
(3.8-6.6 Ib/head/day)
Water »-
3.3-5.7 kg/head/day
(7.2-12.5 Ib/head/day)
Bedding <——
1.8-3.6 kg/head/day
(4-8 Ib/head/day)
(Confinement only)
Rain and Snow
(Variable)
Volatilization of
Organics and
Evaporation (no data)
OPEN LOT
Wastes:
Partial Confinement: <.
Manure - 2.0-3.6 kg/head/day average
(4.5-8 Ib/head/day average)
Runoff - 70.8 kg/head/day average
(156 Ib/head/day average)
Corral Manure:
0.4-0.7 kg/head/day average
(0.9-1.6 Ib/head/day average)
Dirt Lot:
Manure - 0.8-1.5 kg/head/day average
(1.8-3.2 Ib/head/day average)
Runoff - 70.8 kg/head/day average
(156 Ib/head/day average)
SHEEP AND LAMBS CATEGORY XIII FLOW DIAGRAM
FIGURE 33
123
-------
Lgure 31 identifies the wastes from each of the turkey categories.
itegory XIV
•Che wastes from this category are a mixture of manure and litter. There
are, however, two types of wastes, manure and litter from breeding birds
and that from market birds. These two types are estimated in Tables 35
and 36 respectively. The data are estimated on the basis of a limited
amount of data on fresh turkey waste and some data on laying hens.
Biodegradation of the wastes, evaporation and litter usage are not
considered due to the lack of actual test data.
TURkEYS
90,200,000
ON FEED
HOUSED
19,700,000
— MANURE
1
AND
LITTER
TABLES 35 & 36
1
OPEN LOT
70,500,000
— MANURE
SEE TEXT
-RUNOFF
SEE TEXT
CATEGORY XIV 1 I CATEGORY XV
FIGURE 34. TURKEY INDUSTRY WASTE IDENTIFICATION
124
-------
Category XV
In open lot. operations where animal densities are high, removal of
accumulated solids may be required. There is no data available on this
type of waste. Similarly there is no runoff data available.
Manure and runoff characteristics are dependent on stocking density,
vegetative cover and land use practices. Land use varies from about 10X
to 30% of the year. This low usage is a result of the sensitivity of
turkeys to disease. Since there is an undefined variability in open lot
practices, and since no actual manure or runoff data is available, no
tables of waste characteristics are included. This is not to say that
manure and runoff are not present in some cases but that documentation
of such wastes does not exist.
Figure 35 identifies the wastes for each duck category.
Category XVI
Dry lots operate with no water except for drinking and, in some cases,
washing out the wastes. This type of system is relatively new and no
test data on waste outputs are available. As a result, no waste
characteristic tables are included for this category.
Category XVII
Some waste water characteristics have been measured for Long Island duck
farms and are given in Table 37. The characteristics of solid manure
and litter removed from the confinement house have not been measured.
The degree of biodegradation and the amount of bedding used are unknown;
consequently, a table defining this waste is not included.
HORSES
Category XVIII
The wastes from this category are a mixture of manure and bedding. The
quantities and variations of quantities are based on a survey of several
racetracks conducted by the Thoroughbred Racing Association. Quantities
for some specific constituents were from the literature. Inorganic
salts were estimated on the basis of a similarity to the wastes of beef
cattle. The characteristics are detailed in Table 38.
125
-------
DUCKS
1,800,000 ON FEED
95% MARKET
5% BREEDER
L
1 |
DRY LOT
380,000
— WASTE WATER
SEE TEXT
— MANURE AND
LITTER
SEE TEXT
1 1
II
1
1 1
1 '
•
| 1
. i
— — -
WET LOT
1 ,480,000
WASTE WATER
TABLE 37
MANURE AND
LITTER
SEE TEXT
CATEGORY XVI
j CATEGORY XVII |
FIGURE 35. DUCK INDUSTRY WASTE IDENTIFICATION
126
-------
ANIMAL
ANIMAL WEIGHT: 11.4
TYPE OF WASTE:
TYPE: Turkeys
kg Average (25 Ibs. Average)
Breeding - Fresh Manure
e = estimate
Parameter
Total (wet solids)
Moisture
Dry Solids
Volatile Solids
pH
BOD5
COD
Ash
Total Nitrogen
Ammonia Nitrogen
Nitrate Nitrogen
Total Phosphorus
Total Potassium
Magnesium
kg/head/day
(Ib/head/day)
Minimum
No Data
n
0.147e
(0.323e)
0.0876e
(0.193e)
6.4e
O.OlSe
(0.033e)
0.0844e
(0.186e)
0.034e
(0.075e)
0.0073e
(0.016e)
O.OOle
(O.OOSe)
No Data
0.002e
(O.OOSe)
O.OOle
(0.003e)
O.OOOle
(0.0003e)
Average
0.681e
(l.SOe)
0.5108e
(1.125e)
0.170e
(0.375e)
O.llOe
(0.243e)
6.7e
0.039e
(0.85e)
O.llSe
(0.259e)
0.040e
(0.089e)
0.0082e
(O.OlSe)
0.004e
(O.OOSe)
No Data
0.0068e
(O.OlSe)
0.003e
(0.006e)
O.OOOle
(0.0003e)
Maximum
No Data
it
0.216e
(0.476e)
0.131e
(0.288e)
7.0e
0.0822e
(O.lSle)
0.147e
(0.323e)
0.0477e
(O.lOSe)
0.0086e
(0.019e)
0.0059e
(0.013e)
No Data
O.Olle
(0.025e)
0.004e
(0.009e)
o.ooeie
(0.0003e)
TABLE 35
127
-------
ANIMAL TYPE: Turkeys
ANIMAL WEIGHT: 11.4 kg Average (25 Ibs. Average)
TYPE OF WASTE: Breeding - Fresh Manure
e = estimate
Parameter
Sodium
Arsenic
kg/head/day
(Ib/head/day)
Minimum
0.0054e
(0.012e)
No Data
Average
0.0054e
(0.012e)
0.0003
(0.0007)
Maximum
0.0054e
(0.012e)
No Data
TABLE 35 (Continued)
128
-------
ANIMAL WEIGHT
TYPE OF
ANIMAL TYPE: Turkeys
: 6.8 kg Average (15 Ibs. Average)
WASTE: Growing - Fresh Mnaure
e = estimate
Parameter
Total (wet solids)
Moisture
Dry Solids
Volatile Solids
PH
BOD5
COD
Ash
Total Nitrogen
Ammonia Nitrogen
Nitrate Nitrogen
Total Phosphorus
Total Potassium
kg/head/day
(Ib/head/day)
Minimum
No Data
ii
•
0.0881e
(0.194e)
0.0527e
(0.116e)
6.4e
0.0091e
(0.020e)
0.0508e
(0.112e)
0.020e
(0.045e)
0.0045e
(O.OlOe)
O.OOle
(0.002e)
No Data
O.OOle
(0.003e)
O.OOle
(0.002e)
Average
0.41e
(0.90e)
0.306e
(0.675e)
0.102e
(0.225e)
0.0663e
(0.146e)
6.7e
0.023e
(O.OSle)
0.0708e
(0.156e)
0.025e
(0.054e)
O.OOSOe
(O.Olle)
0.002e
(O.OOSe)
No Data
0.004e
(0.009e)
0.002e
(0.004e)
Maximum
No Data
ii
O.UOe
(0.286e)
0.0785e
(0.173e>
7.0e
0.0495e
(O.lOSe)
O.OSSle
(0.194e)
0.029e
(0:063e)
0.0054e
(0.012e)
0.004e
(O.OOSe)
No Data
0.0068e
(O.OlSe)
0.003e
(0.006e)
TABLE 36
129
-------
ANIMAL TYPE: Turkeys
ANIMAL WEIGHT: 6.8 kg Average (15 Ibs. Average)
TYPE OF WASTE: Growing - Fresh Manure
e = estimate
Parameter
Sodium
Arsenic
\
kg/head/day
(Ib/head/day)
Minimum
O.OOSe
(0.007e)
No Data
Average
O.OOSe
(0.007e)
0.0003e
(0.0007e)
Maximum
0.003e
(0.007e)
No Data
TABLE 36 (Continued)
130
-------
ANIMAL WEIGHT:
TYPE OF
ANIMAL TYPE: Ducks
1.6 kg Average (3.5 Average)
WASTE: Wet Lot Waste Water
Parameter
Total (wet solids)
Moisture
Dry Solids
Volatile Solids
Suspended Solids
PH
BOD5
COD
Ash
Total Nitrogen
Ammonia Nitrogen
Nitrate Nitrogen
Total Phosphorus
Total Potassium
Magnesium
Sodium
kg/head/day
(Ib/head/day)
Minimum
18.2
(40)
18.2
(40)
0.012
(0.026)
No Data
0.005
(0.01)
6.2
0.0050
0.0086
(0.019)
No Data
0.0021
(0.0047)
No Data
ii
0.001
(0.003)
No Data
n
H
Average
No Data
ii
0.044
(0.096)
No Data
0.0248
(0.0546)
6.9
No Data
0.037
(0.082)
No Data
ii
it
n
n
n
n
n
Maximum
454
(1000)
454
(1000)
0.15
(0.32)
No Data
0.108
(0.237)
8.0
0.030
0.12
(0.26)
No Data
0.0029
(0.0064)
No Data
n
0.010
(0.022)
No Data
n
n
mg/1
Minimum
-
993,000
330
No Data
17
26
140
No Data
7
No Data
11
9
No Data
n
n
Average
-
998,000
1,010
No Data
337
No Data
810
No Data
n
n
n
n
n
n
ti
Minimum
—
999,670
£,340
No Data
4,630
490
7,520
No Data
50
No Data
n
7?
No Data
II
II
TABLE 37
131
-------
ANIMAL TYPE: Horses
ANIMAL WEIGHT: 454 kg Average (1000 Ibs. Average)
TYPE OF WASTE: Manure and Bedding
e = estimate
Parameter
Total (wet solids)
Moisture
Dry Solids
Volatile Solids
PH
BOD5
COD
Ash
Total Nitrogen
Ammonia Nitrogen
Nitrate Nitrogen
Total Phosphorus
Total Potassium
Magnesium
Sodium
kg/head/day
(Ib/head/day)
Minimum
23.4
(51.5)
15.0
(33.0)
8.40
(18.5)
6.31e
(13. 9e)
6.0e
0.16e
(0.36e)
0.899e
(1.98e)
2.1e
(4.6e)
0.114e
(0.252e)
0.029e
(0.063e)
0.0197e
(0.0433e)
0.12
(0.26)
0.0157e
(0.0345e)
0.0126e
(0.0278e)
Average
37.2
(82.0)
20.0
(44.0)
17.3
(38.0)
12. 9e
(28. 5e)
7.0e
0.4e
(0.8e)
2.0e
(4.5e)
4.3e
(9.5e)
0.261
(0.574)
0.068e
(0.15e)
NEGLIGIBLE
0.045
(0.10)
0.24
(0.52)
0.04
(0.08)
0.03e
(0.06e)
Maximum
51.08
(112.5)
24.5
(54.0)
26.6
(58.5)
19. 9e
(43. 8e)
S.Oe
0.663e
(1.46e)
3.65e
(8.05e)
6.67e
(14. 7e)
0.463e
(1.02e)
0.116e
(0.256e)
0.0799e
(0.176e)
0.38
(0.84)
0.0636e
(0.141e)
0.05108e
(0.1125e)
TABLE 38
132
-------
SECTION VI
SELECTION OF POLLUTANT PARAMETERS
DEFINITION OF POLLUTANT
This study deals with animal feedlot waste, which is one of many
different types of agricultural wastes. In accordance with Section 502
of the "Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972," all
agricultural wastes are defined as pollutants; hence animal feedlot
wastes are pollutants in a legal sense.
In the context of this investigation the primary general discharge
constituents of concern for pollution may be described as organic
solids, nutrients, salts, and bacterial contaminants. Within these
general constituents, the following specific pollutant parameters have
been identified as being of particular importance in characterizing
discharges from feedlots:
1. Biochemical Oxygend Demand
2. Chemical Oxygen Demand
3. Fecal Coliforms
4. Total Suspended Solids
5. Phosphorus
6. Ammonia (and other Nitrogen forms)
7. Dissolved Solids
There is no question that animal wastes can cause water pollution from
any one or all of the groups listed. The exact degree of pollution,
however, will be different for each set of circumstances. For instance,
the ratios of the concentrations of animal waste constituents remain
constant to a practical extent throughout the wide range of types of
animal waste; however, in one in-stream situation phosphorus may be a
limiting nutrient for excessive algae growth and nitrogen, BOD, COD, or
salts may be the limiting pollutant in another. These differences vary
with the normal characteristics of the water in question and can only be
specified by studying each situation individually. Moreover, even
though the available data shows a number of specific pollutant
parameters are contained in animal wastes, the degree of specificity is
not absolute since waste flows (particularly runoff) have apparently not
been sampled and analyzed for some types of animal feeding operations
(e.g., turkeys, sheep, low density swine lots) as shown by the estimates
provided in Section V. The following general discussion therefore
centers upon those parameters for which data provides confidence in
requiring control of discharges and (conversely) the lack of data
highlights a need for concern that is not as completely well documented.
133
-------
Animal wastes contain both plant and animal biological materials. The
composition of this biological material is as follows:
1. Undigested and partially digested feed.
2. Partially broken-down organic matter resulting from body
metabolism.
3. Expired and viable micro-organisms from the digestive tract.
U. Cell wall material and other organic debris from the
digestive tract.
5. Excess digestive juices.
6. Any other organisms which may have grown in the wastes after
leaving the animal.
All of these components can biodegrade further as measured or expressed
by the above specific parameters, and in so doing deplete the oxygen
level of surface waters, thus killing fish or causing other aquatic
degradation.
Biochemical Oxygen Demand
Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) is a measure of the oxygen consuming
capabilities of organic matter. The BOD does not in itself cause direct
harm to a water system, but it does exert an indirect effect by
depressing the oxygen content of the water. Sewage and other organic
effluents during their processes of decomposition exert a BOD, which can
have a catastrophic effect on the ecosystem by depleting the oxygen
supply. Conditions are reached frequently where all of the oxygen is
used and the continuing decay process causes the production of noxious
gases such as hydrogen sulfide and methane. Water with a high BOD
indicates the presence of decomposing organic matter and subsequent high
bacterial counts that degrade its quality and potential uses.
Dissolved oxygen (DO) is a water quality constituent that, in
appropriate concentrations, is essential not only to keep organisms
living but also to sustain species reproduction, vigor, and the
development of populations. Organisms undergo stress at reduced DO
concentrations (the reduced DO being a manifestation of the presence of
constituents exerting BOD) that make them less competitive and able to
sustain their species within the aquatic environment. For example,
reduced DO concentrations have been shown to interfere with fish
population through delayed hatching of eggs, reduced size and vigor of
embryos, production of deformities in young, interference with food
digestion, acceleration of blood clotting, decreased tolerance to
certain toxicants, reduced food efficiency and growth rate, and reduced
maximum sustained swimming speed. Fish food organisms are likewise
affected adversely in conditions with suppressed DO. Since all aerobic
-------
aquatic organisms need a certain amount of oxygen, the consequences of
total lack of dissolved oxygen due to a high BOD can kill all
inhabitants of the affected area.
If a high BOD is present, the quality of the water is usually visually
degraded by the presence of decomposing materials and algae blooms due
to the uptake of degraded materials that form the foodstuffs of the
algal populations.
Chemical Oxygen Demand jCQDl
Chemical oxygen demand (COD) is another measure of oxygen consuming
pollutants in water. COD differs from BOD, however, in that COD is a
measure of the total oxidizable carbon in the waste and relates to the
chemically-bound sources of oxygen in the water (i.e. Nitrate which is
chemically expressed as NO3.) as opposed to the dissolved oxygen.
Materials exerting COD are not readily biodegraded (as is the case, for
example, with the cellulosic material from poorly digested grain feeds
in cattle feedlot runoff) and as a result chemical balances in streams
are altered. Since COD is usually encountered coincident with BOD, the
combined effect is highly deleterious.
Fecal Cpliforms
Fecal coliforms are used as an indicator since they have originated from
the intestinal tract of warm blooded animals. Their presence in water
indicates the potential presence of pathogenic bacteria and viruses.
The presence of coliforms, more specifically fecal coliforms, in water
is indicative of fecal pollution. In general, the presence of fecal
coliform organisms indicates recent and possibly dangerous fecal
contamination. When the fecal coliform count exceeds 2,000 per 100 ml
there is a high correlation with increased numbers of both pathogenic
viruses and bacteria.
Many microorganisms, pathogenic to humans and animals, may be carried in
surface water, particularly that derived from effluent sources which
find their way into surface water from municipal and industrial wastes.
The diseases associated with bacteria include bacillary and amoebic
dysentery, Salmonella gastroenteritis, typhoid and paratyphoid fevers,
leptospirosis, chlorea, vibriosis and infectious hepatitis. Recent
studies have emphasized the value of fecal coliform density in assessing
the occurrence of Salmonella, a common bacterial pathogen in surface
water. Field studies involving irrigation water, field crops and soils
indicate that when the fecal coliform density in stream waters exceeded
1,000 per 100 ml, the occurrence of Salmonella was 53.5 percent.
135
-------
Total Suspended Solids
Suspended solids include both organic and inorganic materials. The
inorganic components include sand, silt, and clay. The organic fraction
includes such materials as grease, oil, tar, animal and vegetable fats,
various fibers, sawdust, hair, and various materials from sewers. These
solids may settle out rapidly and bottom deposits are often a mixture of
both organic and inorganic solids. They adversely affect fisheries by
covering the bottom of the stream or lake with a blanket of material
that destroys the fish-food bottom fauna or the spawning ground of fish.
Deposits containing organic materials may deplete bottom oxygen supplies
and produce hydrogen sulfide, carbon dioxide, methane, and other noxious
gases.
In raw water sources for domestic use, state and regional agencies
generally specify that suspended solids in streams shall not be present
in sufficient concentration to be objectionable or to interfere with
normal treatment processes. Suspended solids in water may interfere
with many industrial processes, and cause foaming in boilers,'or
encrustations on equipment exposed to water, especially as the
temperature rises. Suspended solids are undesirable in water for
textile industries, paper and pulp, beverages, dairy products,
laundries, dyeing, photography, cooling systems, and power plants.
Suspended particles also serve as a transport mechanism for pesticides
and other substances which are readily sorbed into or onto clay
particles.
Solids may be suspended in water for a time, and then settle to the bed
of the stream or lake. These settleable solids discharged with man's
wastes may be inert, slowly biodegradable materials, or rapidly
decomposable substances. While in suspension, they increase the
turbidity of the water, reduce light penetration and impair the
photosynthetic activity of aquatic plants.
Solids in suspension are aesthetically displeasing. When they settle to
form sludge deposits on the stream or lake bed, they are often much more
damaging to the life in water, and they retain the capacity to displease
the senses. Solids, when transformed to sludge deposits, may do a
variety of damaging things, including blanketing the stream or lake bed
and thereby destroying the living spaces for those benthic organisms
that would otherwise occupy the habitat. When of an organic and
therefore decomposable nature, solids use a portion or all of the
dissolved oxygen available in the area. Organic materials also serve as
a seemingly inexhaustible food source for sludgeworms and associated
organisms.
Turbidity is principally a measure of the light absorbing properties of
suspended solids. It is frequently used as a substitute method of
136
-------
quickly estimating the total suspended solids when the concentration is
relatively low.
Phosphorus
During the past 30 years, a formidable case has developed for the belief
that increasing standing crops of aquatic plant growths, which often
interfere with water uses and are nuisances to man, frequently are
caused by increasing supplies of phosphorus. Such phenomena are
associated with a condition of accelerated eutrophication or aging of
waters. It is generally recognized that phosphorus is not the sole
cause of eutrophication, but there is evidence to substantiate that it
is frequently the key element in all of the elements required by fresh
water plants and is generally present in the least amount relative to
need. Therefore, an increase in phosphorus allows use of other, already
present, nutrients for plant growths. Phosphorus is usually described,
for this reasons, as a "limiting factor."
When a plant population is stimulated in production and attains a
nuisance status, a large number of associated liabilities are
immediately apparent. Dense populations of pond weeds make swimming
dangerous. Boating and water skiing and sometimes fishing may be
eliminated because of the mass of vegetation that serves as an physical
impediment to such activities. Plant populations have been associated
with stunted fish populations and with poor fishing. Plant nuisances
emit vile stenches, impart tastes and odors to water supplies, reduce
the efficiency of industrial and municipal water treatment, impair
aesthetic beauty, reduce or restrict resort trade, lower waterfront
property values, cause skin rashes to man during water contact, and
serve as a desired substrate and breeding ground for flies.
Phosphorus in the elemental form is particularly toxic, and subject to
bioaccumulation in much the same way as mercury. Colloidal elemental
phosphorus will poison marine fish (causing skin tissue breakdown and
discoloration). Also, phosphorus is capable of being concentrated and
will accumulate in organs and soft tissues. Experiments have shown that
marine fish will concentrate phosphorus from water containing as little
as 1 mg/1.
Ammonia
Ammonia is a common product of the decomposition of organic matter.
Dead and decaying animals and plants along with human and animal body
wastes account for much of the ammonia entering the aquatic ecosystem.
Ammonia exists in its non-ionized form only at higher pH levels and is
the most toxic in this state. The lower the pH, the more ionized
ammonia is formed and its toxicity decreases. Ammonia, in the presence
of dissolved oxygen, is converted to nitrate (NO3J by nitrifying
bacteria. Nitrite (NO2), which is an intermediate product between
137
-------
ammonia and nitrate, sometimes occurs in quantity when depressed oxygen
conditions permit. Ammonia can exist in several other chemical
combinations including ammonium chloride and other salts.
Nitrates are considered to be among the poisonous ingredients of
mineralized waters, with potassium nitrate being more poisonous than
sodium nitrate. Excess nitrates cause irritation of the mucous linings
of the gastrointestinal tract and the bladder; the symptoms are diarrhea
and diuresis, and drinking one liter of water containing 500 mg/1 of
nitrate can cause such symptoms.
Infant methemoglobinemia, a disease characterized by certain specific
blood changes and cyanosis, may be caused by high nitrate concentrations
in the water used for preparing feeding formulae. While it is still
impossible to state precise concentration limits, it has been widely
recommended that water containing more than 10 mg/1 of nitrate nitrogen
(NO3-N) should not be used for infants. Nitrates are also harmful in
fermentation processes and can cause disagreeable tastes in beer. In
most natural water the pH range is such that ammonium ions (NHJ4+)
predominate. In alkaline waters, however, high concentrations of un-
ionized ammonia in undissociated ammonium hydroxide increase the
toxicity of ammonia solutions. In streams polluted with sewage, up to
one half of the nitrogen in the sewage may be in the form of free
ammonia, and sewage may carry up to 35 mg/1 of total nitrogen. It has
been shown that at a level of 1.0 mg/1 un-ionized ammonia, the ability
of hemoglobin to combine with oxygen is impaired and fish may suffocate.
Evidence indicates that ammonia exerts a considerable toxic effect on
all aquatic life within a range of less than 1.0 mg/1 to 25 mg/1,
depending on the pH and dissolved oxygen level present.
Ammonia can add to the problem of eutrophication by supplying nitrogen
through its breakdown products. Some lakes in warmer climates, and
others that are aging quickly are sometimes limited by the nitrogen
available. Any increase will speed up the plant growth and decay
process.
Dissolved Solids
In natural waters the dissolved solids consist mainly of carbonates,
chlorides, sulfates, phosphates, and possibly nitrates of calcium,
magnesium, sodium, and potassium, with traces of iron, manganese and
other substances.
Many communities in the United States and in other countries use water
supplies containing 2000 to UOOO mg/1 of dissolved salts, when no better
water is available. Such waters are not palatable, may not quench
thirst, and may have a laxative action on new users. Waters containing
more than 4000 mg/1 of total salts are generally considered unfit for
human use, although in hot climates such higher salt concentrations can
138
-------
be tolerated whereas they could not be in temperate climates. Waters
containing 5000 mg/1 or more are reported to be bitter and act. as
bladder and intestinal irritants. It is generally agreed that the salt
concentration of good, palatable water should not exceed 500 mg/1.
Limiting concentrations of dissolved solids for fresh-water fish may
range from 5,000 to 10,000 mg/1, according to species and prior
acclimatization. Some fish are adapted to living in more saline waters,
and a few species of fresh-water forms have been found in natural waters
with a salt concentration of 15,000 to 20,000 mg/1. Fish can slowly
become acclimatized to higher salinities, but fish in waters of low
salinity cannot survive sudden exposure to high salinities, such as
those resulting from discharges of oil-well brines. Dissolved solids
may influence the toxicity of heavy metals and organic compounds to fish
and other aquatic life, primarily because of the antagonistic effect of
hardness on metals.
Waters with total dissolved solids over 500 mg/1 have decreasing utility
as irrigation water. At 5,000 mg/1 water has little or no value for
irrigation.
Dissolved solids in industrial waters can cause foaming in boilers and
cause interference with cleaness, color, or taste of many finished
products. High contents of dissolved solids also tend to accelerate
corrosion.
Specific conductance is a measure of the capacity of water to convey an
electric current. This property is related to the total concentration
of ionized substances in water and water temperature. This property is
frequently used as a substitute method of quickly estimating the
dissolved solids concentration.
139
-------
-------
SECTION VII
CONTROL AND TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
GENERAL
To put each of the technologies into proper perspective within the
framework of total feedlot waste management, a series of groupings and
classifications has been performed. The first logical grouping step is
to differentiate between "in-process" and "end-of-process" technologies.
In-process technology is discussed in detail under the heading "FEEDLOT
ANALYSIS." End-of-process technology is discussed in detail under the
heading "END-OF-PROCESS CONTROL AND TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
IDENTIFICATION," and each technology is then discussed under its own
heading.
In-Process Teghnoloqy
This term refers to the physical and operational characteristics of the
feedlot and their impact on waste management. specific elements are
feed formulation and utilization, water utilization, bedding and litter
utilization, site selection, housekeeping, and selection of method of
production. All of these elements are directly concerned with what is
happening within the feedlot itself, although they all have a direct
effect on the waste materials leaving the feedlot. Facilities for
collection and storage of waste that are physically part of the feedlot
and are closely associated with the livestock are considered in-process
technology. Therefore pen design, pen or stall cleaning, underfloor
manure pits, and manure stockpiling are included in this category.
Settling basins, lagoons, and remote waste treatment processes are not.
End-of-Process Technology
These technologies affect the waste materials after they leave the
feedlot proper. A considerable number of end-of-process technologies
are evaluated later in this section. In preparation for that
evaluation, it is helpful to classify those processes.
As presented in Section V, waste materials are either raw or partially
degraded manure or contaminated runoff. The technologies for manure
treatment may be classified as either partial or complete, although
classification of some of the experimental technologies is uncertain.
For the purposes of this report, partial treatment is defined as one
that produces a product that is neither sold nor completely utilized on
the feedlot or is one that produces a by-product, residue, or waste
water stream of questionable economic value. A complete treatment, on
the other hand, produces a readily marketable product or a product that
may be entirely reused on the feedlot, and has no appreciable by-
products, residues, or polluted water. Some examples will illustrate
-------
these definitions. The Dehydrate and Sell technology is a complete
treatment. The Dehydrate and Feed technology is an incomplete treatment
because, taking laying hens as an example, only half of the manure
(corresponding to about 15 percent of the dry feed ration) can be
utilized efficiently. At higher refeeding rates, egg production drops
off and other problems arise. The Fly Larvae Reduction technolgoy is a
partial treatment. Although all the manure can subsequently be
utilized as a feed supplement growth medium, disposal of the by-product
composted manure must be accomplished, requiring an additional activity
such as land spreading or a marketing program. Gasification is a
partial treatment because although the gas may be marketable, a
significant quantity of ash must be disposed of.
Treatment of runoff also can be classified as partial or complete, but
an additional function is required: containment. Containment is
covered largely under the heading "RUNOFF CONTROL." However, it is also
mentioned under "LAGOONS FOR WASTE TREATMENT" and "EVAPORATION," both of
which serve the dual purposes of containment and partial treatment.
These technologies are classified under partial treatment because lagoon
effluent is generally not suitable for discharge, and both lagoons and
evaporation ponds generally require sludge disposal. Most of the other
technologies classified under runoff are also partial treatments. Thus,
even if algae and hyacinths are entirely feedable, the water from which
they derive their nutrients remains significantly polluted. Trickling
filters and the rotating contractor leave an algae mat or sludge that
requires disposal, and spray runoff requires disposal of the grass. The
"Barriered Landscape Water Renovation System" (BLWRS) may prove to be a
complete treatment.
This classification of waste treatment technologies is important to an
economic analysis, because it assures that the analysis will be as
complete as available data permits. A feedlot generally requires some
management of both manure and runoff. If the selected treatment for
either manure or runoff falls in the "partial" category, a "complete"
treatment — probably land utilization — will be required as a
supplement.
FEEDLOT ANALYSIS
The process of feedlot operation can be diagramed very simply as shown
below. In addition to feed formulation and usage, water usage, and
bedding or litter utilization, three other factors should be considered
as in-process parameters: site selection, housekeeping practice and
selection of method of production.
142
-------
Feed
Water
Feedlot
In-Process
Technology
Wastes
•End-of-Process
Technology
Waste Utilization
or Disposal
Bedding
or
Litter
Products
Meats, Eggs, etc.
Feed_Formulatj.on and Ut i 1 izatjgn
The two most important factors which determine the character and
guantity of wastes voided by an animal are the type of animal and the
type of feed. However, for a given type of animal, the feed formulation
is relatively fixed. ' The causes for this are as follows:
a. Each animal has a general set of dietary needs.
b. An animal feeder must use an "optimum" diet in order to remain
economically competitive, and this diet is then essentially the same at
each facility.
The actual ingredients of a diet may vary depending on the market price
variations of different ingredients; however, the nutrient content of
the diet in terms of protein, fat, fiber, etc., will remain relatively
fixed.
It is interesting to note that different types of animals have a wide
range of feeding efficiencies (kilograms or pounds of feed reguired for
each kilogram or pound of weight gain). This gives an indication of
what percentage of the feed passes through the animal without being
absorbed or utilized (digested). The following are typical feed
efficiencies for growing animals:
143
-------
Beef: 7-9 kilograms (pounds) of feed
kilograms (pound) of gain
Swine: 3-4 "
Chickens: 2-3 "
Sheep: 5-7 "
Turkeys: 3-4 "
Ducks: 2-3 "
For purely economic reasons, it is in the interest of the animal feeder
to keep these numbers as low as practical. It is possible that
improvements can be made by breeding, but this process of improvement is
slow.
It is evident that although the feed formulation has a major effect on
the character and quantity of the wastes, there is very little room for
in-process changes in this area which could reduce pollutional loads.
Water Utilization
As evidenced by the waste tables in Section V, water is the largest
variable in feedlot waste loads. This is due to two reasons:
a. Climate (specifically precipitation versus evaporation)
b. Water use practices.
Climate is best discussed under the topic of site selection, so remarks
here will be limited to a discussion of water use practices.
water is not a pollutant; however, it has a marked effect on pollution
control. If wastes are to be bi©degraded, water is a necessity. On the
other hand, if the organic content of the wastes is to be processed into
a useful product, biodegradation may not be advantageous. In this case,
the wastes should be stored in a relatively dry form. In addition,
odors and flies are reduced by keeping the wastes dry. However,
handling of wastes by "dry" handling practices such as scraping
equipment, bucket loaders, etc., is often more expensive than the
practice of flushing out pens and pumping the resulting slurry in or out
of storage tanks. It is general practice in many feedlots, particularly
dairies, to add water to the wastes in order to allow them to be pumped,
and thus reduce the cost or labor requirements of handling. Of course,
in an area where water is at a premium, such a practice is not suitable.
144
-------
Reuse of water is a possible means of water savings which in turn
decreases the gross pollutional load to be handled. There are two major
arguments against water reuse. Where water is abundant and inexpensive,
it is not economical to reuse water because it requires additional
equipment. In addition, many commercial feedlot operators fear disease
problems caused by recycled water. This is especially true for poultry
and swine, although experiments at universities and at least one
commercial swine facility have involved reuse of processed waste wash
water, and no problems have yet been encountered. Since the presence of
large quantities of water in the wastes may or may not present a
problem, it is necessary that each situation be reviewed individually.
Bedding or Litter Utilization
Litter is a term for various absorbent materials used as a floor
covering in many types of poultry houses. It provides both moisture
absorbing capability and a medium for biodegradation of the wastes.
Bedding is used for larger animals; swine (to a minor extent), cattle,
sheep, and horses. The bedding provides a moisture absorbing
capability, a medium for biodegradation of the wastes, and in some cases
protects the animals from hard or cold floors. The use of bedding or
litter results in increased waste output of a feedlot; however, it aids
in biostabilization of the wastes, minimizes odors, helps control fly
problems, and sometimes helps control disease. Some users add
commercial enzymes to the bedding or litter to aid in the biodegradation
of the wastes.
Bedding and litter materials are becoming more expensive and difficult
to obtain. As a result, their use is kept to a minimum, and reuse of
litter is becoming more prevalent, especially in confinement housing of
turkeys.
SitewSelectiQn
Although site selection would not be considered an in-process control
for most other industries, the feedlot industry depends to a great
extent on weather and other environmental factors for efficient
operation. Efficient site selection can minimize the adverse effects of
nearly all environmental factors including runoff, odor or dust. A
recent EPA report on beef cattle site selection stated: "The actual
application of good site selection principles is a matter of common
sense... There are no standard numerical guidelines and mathematical
formulas applicable to each site selection in every part of the
country." This statement holds true for the entire feedlot industry.
However, major considereations are: climate (general and local) ,
geography and geology.
Climate - These considerations include rainfall, snowfall, winds and
temperature. Variations, both local and national can be quite large.
145
-------
Rainfall and snowmelt relate directly to runoff problems; consequently,
open feedlots in areas of high rainfall and snowmelt will have to
provide more extensive runoff diversion and collection facilities. With
proper feedlot layout, this can be accomplished, but it represents a
cost which a housed feedlot does not have to consider. Prevailing winds
have an effect on open feedlots in that odors may be carried long
distances to populated centers. Here, of course, the best solution is
to locate downwind from population centers or at a distance which
provides sufficient dilution of the odors. Furthermore, odors from open
feedlots are likely to be stronger in wet areas of the country.
Geography - Important mainly to open feedlots, major geographical
considerations are:
a. Slope of land for good drainage.
b. Streams running through or adjacent to the feedlot.
c. Proper grading to prevent puddles in low spots.
d. Topography of surrounding land in reference to adding to feedlot
runoff and also isolating the feedlot as far as wind-carried odors
are concerned.
Good drainage is essential if feedlot surfaces are to dry quickly. A
slope of at least 2% is recommended for beef feedlots. This may have to
be accomplished by earth moving, which will also take care of low spots
and puddles. Ditches and holding ponds for collecting and holding
runoff are also necessary. Streams running through the property or land
uphill of the feedlot complicate the problem by requiring extra dikes to
isolate the feedlot from such features, thereby preventing stream
pollution and preventing excess runoff water from crossing the feedlot.
The proximity of hills, mountains, and wooded areas can provide
isolation of the feedlot from population centers but can also complicate
the determination of wind direction.
Geology - Geological considerations relate mostly to the pollution of
groundwater; however, some soil and rock formations may transport
polluted seepage water directly to surface water. In some areas of the
country, it is virtually impossible to prevent groundwater
contamination. A good example of this is Florida, where groundwater is
essentially at the surface. Such an area does not lend itself well to
open concentrated feedlots. Local geology should always be considered
in site selection to prevent water pollution. A clay soil is
advantageous as it tends to hold water and prevent seepage of
pollutants. Some states have required that holding ponds have clay
bottoms in order to prevent seepage.
Housekeeping Practices
Housekeeping in a feedlot generally involves the maintenance- and
cleaning of equipment and the removal of animal wastes. Cleaning and
146
-------
pest control compounds are an insignificant addition to the feedlot
waste load. Proper maintenance of equipment, such as waterers, can have
a significant effect on feedlot waste loads, since leakage from watering
equipment can add large quantities of water to the feedlot wastes. This
is particularly true of continuous overflow waterers.
The removal of animal wastes from feedlot surfaces can have significant
effects on the total waste load both from the standpoint of how often
the wastes are removed and how they are removed. The practice of
infrequent cleaning allows both biodegradation and evaporation to occur.
On the other hand, a greater volume of solids and pollutants may be
carried off these lots in a given runoff event. In addition, infrequent
cleaning may be the cause of odor and fly problems. Biodegradation of
wastes on a beef feedlot which is cleaned only once each six months
generally results in a 2056 decrease in total solids, while evaporation
may decrease water content from 85% to about 30%. In view of the
possibility of increased amounts of pollutants in runoff and odor and
fly problems, the question of how often to clean a feedlot depends on
the following considerations:
a. Climate
b. Type of facility
c. Economics
d. Method of ultimate disposal or utilization of the wastes
(biodegradation may decrease the value of the wastes as
a useful product)
e. site location
f. animal husbandry requirements
The method of waste removal can likewise be significant. Some feedlots
will scrape dirt pens only down to the point where a thin layer of
compacted wastes remain. This is most prevalent in the beef industry.
The layer of manure remaining is often a good barrier to moisture and
nutrient infiltration into groundwater. Where potential groundwater
contamination is not a problem, removal of all wastes and some
underlying soil is sometimes practiced. This then requires back
filling. This method of cleaning has no particular advantage except
that the pens are kept cleaner and the soil then absorbs more of the
moisture in the wastes. As a result of this, however, the feedlot waste
load is somewhat higher and usually contains a higher percentage of
inert solids. This may be a disadvantage to some processes of ultimate
disposal but in all probability will not affect the use of the wastes as
fertilizer other than to increase spreading costs slightly.
selection of Method of Production
The type of production method selected for use on a feedlot can produce
large differences in the type of wastes to be handled as well as smaller
differences in the quantities of waste solids to be handled. In each
147
-------
case, sufficient storage capacity must be provided to contain the wastes
during the period of time when they cannot be utilized. The basic types
of facilities and their respective waste outputs are listed below:
Type of Facility Type of Waste
Open Lot Manure scrapings and runoff
*
Housed Solid Floor Manure (liquid or solid)
with or without bedding or litter
Housed Slotted Floor Manure (liquid or solid)
biodegraded or fresh
Housed in Cages Manure (liquid or solid)
biodegraded or fresh
Description of these types of facilities and the wastes emanating from
them are given in detail in Sections IV and V of this report.
Facility choice is usually determined by one or more of the following
factors:
a. Type of animal
b. Climate
c. Cost of land
d. Cost of construction
e. Cost of labor
f. Availability of water
Enclosed facilities are generally best suited to areas where rainfall
exceeds evaporation and areas of cooler weather. These facilities offer
the ability to control the wastes better and also control secondary
pollution such as flies and odors. However, the cost of such facilities
is very high compared to open lots, and in dry, mild climates away from
population centers, open feedlots do not generally present pollution
problems that can justify the cost of housed facilities. This is
especially true in view of the fact that in spite of potentially
increased feedlot waste loads (runoff) open facilities thus located may
readily manage waste problems. It simply becomes a question of the
relative cost of land and the handling of increased waste loads, such as
runoff, as compared to the high cost of housed facilities. Other than
pollutional or cost aspects, the type of facility is usually chosen on
the basis of the type of animal involved and individual cultural
practices.
148
-------
END-OF-PROCESS CONTEOL AND TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY IDENTIFICATION
As discussed earlier, -the end-of-process technologies can be classified
in terms of their applicability to manure or runoff, and the
completeness of the process. Table 39 presents this classification of
all the technologies studied, by indicating whether the technology
applies to manure or runoff, and whether it represents containment,
partial treatment, or complete treatment. It also indicates whether the
technology is "Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available,"
(BPCTCA), "Best Available Technology Economically Achievable," (BATEA,
or experimental, as discussed in Section IX, X and XI. Finally, the
table indicates whether the technology is primarily a biological or a
physical-chemical process.
The discussion which follows in this Section deals first with the two
major technology concepts being used by, and available to, feedlot
operators—land utilization and runoff control. Following these, the
technologies are presented as two subgroups as shown in Table 39—those
alternatives related to treatment as control of manure solids, and those
alternatives related to treatment and control of runoff. Except as
offered in Table 39, no preference is intended to be conveyed with
respect to either the order of presentation or degree to which any
technology may be implemented.
LAND UTILIZATION OF ANIMAL WASTES
The use of animal waste as fertilizer is a long standing practice. At
normal (i.e., commensurate with recommended fertilization requirements
of crops) application rates it is beneficial to soils and crops and
provides an excellent means for the utilization of wastes from animal
feedlots. Although experience with normal application rates is
extensive, no specific rules for such applications can be formulated.
Each situation must be reviewed for nutrient requirements in order to
establish proper application rates. Application of animal wastes to
croplands at higher rates for the purpose of disposal is a new idea and
does not have a long history. Disposal rates of application has many
problems which still need to be solved, such as poor crop response. In
addition, it has a higher potential for secondary pollution such as
seepage or runoff of nutrients and odor.
Land utilization of animal wastes in any form has a natural
applicability to feedlot pollution abatement since equipment is readily
available and the system is generally understood by the agricultural
community.
149
-------
TABLE 39 - END-OF-PROCESS TECHNOLOGY CLASSIFICATION
TECHNOLOGY
Land Utilization
Compost and Sell
Dehydration
(Sell or Feed)
Converstion to
Industrial Products
Aerobic SCP Production
Aerobic Yeast Production
Anaerobic SCP Production
Feed Recycle
Oxidation Ditch
(Spread or Feed)
Activated Sludge
Wastelage
Anaerobic Fuel Gas
Fly Larvae Production
Biochemical Recycle
Conversion to Oil
Gasification
Pyrolysis
Incineration
Hydrolysis
Chemical Extraction
Runoff Control
BLWRS
Lagoons for Treatment
Evaporation
Trickling Filters
Spray Runoff
Rotating Biological
Contactor
Water Hyacinths
Algae
APPLICATION
Run-
Manure off
X X
\ X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
FUNCTION
Com-
plete Partial
Contain Treat- Treat-
ment ment ment
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X
X X
X
X
X
X
X
STATUS
Experi-
BPCTCA BATEA mental
X
X
X X
(Sell) (Feed)
X
X
X
X
X
X X
(Spread) (Feed)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
TYPE OF PROCESS
Bio-
chem- Physical
ical Chemical
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Ul
o
-------
Technical Description
Two approaches to land utilization of animal wastes have been considered
in this study:
a. Land spreading for crop fertilization and irrigation
b. Land spreading for waste disposal.
Land spreading for fertilization and irrigation encompasses those
situations where no more waste matter is applied than that necessary to
provide the optimum crop growth conditions. Land spreading for the
purpose of waste disposal encompasses those situations where wastes are
applied to cropland at a rate in excess of that required for crop
fertiliztion or irrigation. Both systems of waste utilization are
schematically the same. The utilization system encompasses only the
loading, hauling and application of the wastes since the removal and
storage of the wastes is considered a normal part of feedlot operations.
Land utilization of animal wastes can be schematically shown as:
Animal Wastes from Feedlot-
t
Evaporation and volatilization of
organics and inorganics
Land
Harvested Crop
Seepage and runoff of nutrients
Due to the variability of waste characteristics, the type of crop, soil,
the climate, etc., no numerical values are assigned to the inputs and
outputs. It is again necessary to note that a separate analysis must be
made for each situation in order to set up a properly balanced system.
Seepage and runoff from cropland receiving fertilization and irrigation
rate applications are not considered to be excessive. In any event,
land would be fertilized with inorganic fertilizers if the animal waste
was not available. Disposal rate application may not have excessive
seepage and runoff losses either but there is not enough experience with
this system to prove it. In any case, these losses can be minimized by
151
-------
proper land management such as proper site selection, contour plowing,
and tail water collection.
Fertilization and Irrigation - Conceptually speaking, land spreading for
crop utilization is simple; however, each situation is unique. In
general, the amount applied and method of application is dependent upon
the following:
a. Physical and chemical characteristics of the waste as applied
b. Chemical and physical characteristics of the soil
c. Type of crop.
Waste Characteristics - The variation in character of wastes as removed
from the feedlot has a marked effect on the rate at which the wastes are
applied to the land. Major considerations are type of animal, amount of
litter or bedding used, moisture content of the waste, residual salts
content, nutrient content, and the amount of dirt or sand which may be
included in the wastes when pens are scraped. Stockpiling, liquid
storage or treatment of the collected wastes can change the character of
the wastes. A review of waste characteristics in Section V gives a good
indication of how difficult it is to generalize about waste outputs of
different feedlots. However, should it be required, chemical testing
can be done by commercial or government laboratories to determine the
character of wastes from a particular feedlot. A few states have put
out publications which provide basic characteristic data about animal
wastes and on this basis recommend certain levels of cropland
application. These recommendations, however, may not always be optimum
and individual crop, soil and waste considerations need careful
attention before any "design11 is implemented.
The significant characteristic which generally governs the method of
application of feedlot wastes to cropland is moisture content. The
three major means of application are:
1. Solid spreading (for wastes which cannot be pumped)
2. Liquid spreading (for thick waste slurries which can be pumped)
3. Irrigation (for thin waste slurries).
Equipment for hauling and spreading animal wastes are commonly
available. Liquid hauling and spreading are usually accomplished by the
same piece of equipment (usually a tank truck or trailer with a built in
spreader). Hauling and spreading of solid wastes may be accomplished by
the manure spreader itself; however, in cases where large hauling
distances are involved, trucks are usually used with transfer of the
wastes to a spreader at the application site.
Removal of the wastes from a feedlot prior to land spreading is also
accomplished on a solids or liquids handling basis. Typical of solids
handling equipment are bucket loaders, bulldozers, etc. Liquid handling
152
-------
equipment can be anything from gravity feed piping or ditching to high
pressure, high volume pumping equipment.
Removal and land application are integrated in some feedlots. A number
of dairies, for instance, pump liquids directly from lagoons or holding
tanks to irrigation systems for pasture irrigation.
Soil Characteristics - Chemical and physical characteristics of soils
vary greatly from one area of the country to another. The major
characteristics are the natural nutrient content of the soil, its
ability to hold applied nutrients, its water holding capacity and its
ease of cultivation.
Relatively simple tests can be made to determine these characteristics.
The ability of a soil to hold nutrients and water and its ease of
cultivation can almost always be improved or at least maintained by the
addition of organic matter. If, in addition, the organic matter applied
has a significant nutrient content, the nutrient level of the soil can
likewise be improved. Animal wastes indeed have both of these qualities
and therefore can be used advantageously on cropland.
Each crop has a given ability to remove nutrients from the soil.
Usually, the major nutrients (micronutrients) to be considered are
nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium. The approximate application
requirements in kilograms/hectare/crop (pounds/acre/crop) for corn and
wheat are given below to provide indication of the wide variation in
crop requirements.
Nitrogen JN) Phosphorus (P2O5) Potassium (K2Q)
Corn 202 (180) 78 (70) 157 (140)
Wheat 78 (70) 22 (20) 28 (25)
This utilization is not totally efficient even under the best of
circumstances. For instance, the uptake of nitrogen from soil by a crop
is typically only 50% of what is applied. The remaining nitrogen (in
the form of nitrates, nitrites or ammonia) is lost by means of
volatilization, seepage, or surface runoff. Phosphorus usually becomes
fixed by minerals in the soil and therefore is not generally lost.
Potassium on the other hand, usually remains soluable and can be lost by
runoff or seepage. Other elements (micronutrients) are also required by
crops but usually only in trace amounts. Animal wastes usually contain
much of the necessary trace elements and more than enough phosphorus and
potassium. The limiting nutrient is usually nitrogen. Therefore,
fertilization rates are normally based on nitrogen requirements and due
to normal losses, the actual application rate is usually about twice the
theoretical requirement of the crop. Of course, crops also require
water for growth. Runoff water (and other thin slurry waste) from open
feedlots can be and is used as irrigation water. It has an additional
153
-------
advantage of containing nutrients such as nitrogen; however, the wastes
may contain high levels of salts (sodium chloride, etc) which must be
considered to preclude excess salt accumulation in soils which can occur
even at application rates based upon nutrient and moisture needs. It is
a frequent practice to run fresh water through an irrigation system
after the waste slurry has been applied. This cleans the irrigation
equipment and washes plant surfaces of harmful salt residues.
In order to determine the proper application rate, a full analysis of
the above parameters must be made and reviewed by experienced personnel
(usually state or federal personnel involved in agriculture). It is
virtually impossible to generalize, although fertilization rates are
typically less than 3U kkg (dry basis) per hectare (15 tons dry basis
per acre) for fresh manure. In many instances where this type of waste
utilization is being practiced, the actual application rate is not
monitored and is determined by experience. No doubt, in some of these
cases, the proper application rate may actually be exceeded. In any
case, it is evident that land spreading for crop fertilization and
irrigation is a technically sound means for animal waste utilization.
Diseosal - The spreading of animal wastes on land for the purpose of
disposal is conceptually identical to spreading for fertilization. The
main difference is that disposal application of animal waste is a high
rate application in terms of metric tons (tons) of waste per hectare
(acre). In some cases, this requires special equipment for spreading.
A number of experiments are underway to prove the feasibility of this
concept. Some of the problems encountered are as follows:
1. Crop response problems due to salt toxicity
2. Lack of commercial equipment capable of applying large quantities
of waste per hectare (acre)
3. Odor problems
4. Reduced economic value of the wastes as fertilizer
5. Increased cost of application
6. Excess nitrates for given moisture levels in growing crops
7. Possible indiffuse (nonpoint) pollution runoff and groundwater
contamination
8. Improper nutrient balance
9. Fly control problems.
Experiments so far have been limited to determining the maximum
allowable application rate of animal wastes on the basis of whether or
not the crop growth is diminished. Some plants, such as corn and
coastal bermuda grass, have shown high tolerances to intense
applications of animal waste. Others show low tolerances with the major
problem being late or no germination due to salt or ammonia toxicity.
Application rates have run as high as 2000 kkg (wet)/hectare (900 tons
(wet)/acre) or about 1400 kkg per hectare (630 tons per acre) on a dry
154
-------
basis. Except for irrigation equipment, commercially available manure
spreaders are designed for maximum application rates of 22 to 45 k! -7
(wet) /hectare (10 to 20 tons (wet)/acre) on a one-pass basis. As i.
result, some experimenters have built their own special equipment. In
addition, some equipment has been built for deep plowing methods of
manure application which offers two potential advantages:
1. The roots can be isolated from high waste concentrations (i.e.,
salts) and still receive an adequate supply of nutrients.
2. Objectionable odors are reduced due to the depth of soil cover
especially if the furrow or ditch is covered simultaneously with waste
application.
It is evident from the experiments that the value of manure in terms of
dollars per kkg (ton) is decreased significantly when applied at a
disposal rate because the return in crop yield is not increased above
that experienced when the wastes are applied at a fertilization rate.
Secondary Pollution
The potential for secondary pollution, aesthetic or actual, is similar
for both fertilization and disposal schemes. These include runoff,
seepage, odor, and possible soil contamination. The differences are
mainly a question of degree. It is evident that fertilization rate
application of animal wastes generally does not have secondary pollution
characteristics in excess of inorganic fertilization. To some extent,
it may have less since the ability of the soil to hold moisture is
usually increased by the application of animal wastes. Disposal rate
application, on the other hand, has an undetermined potential for
pollutional runoff or seepage and for adverse soil effects. Future
experiments may show this question to be insignificant if proper
procedures are followed; however, due to a present lack of information
to the contrary, the secondary pollution potential of disposal rate
application of animal wastes must be considered to be in excess of that
encountered with normal crop fertilization.
Development Status
Fertilization - For the most part, the use of animal wastes as
fertilizers is governed by the same considerations which govern the use
of inorganic fertilizers. Some states publish guidelines for
fertilization of crops grown in their agricultural regions and all
states have the capability of determining fertilization rates based on
crop and soil characteristics. Although the use of animal wastes as
fertilizer is not practiced as extensively as it could be, there is a
history of successful use extending far back before the introduction of
inorganic fertilizers. It must be concluded that the use of animal
155
-------
wastes as fertilizer is developed to the point of full scale operation.
here are innumerable examples of such practice.
Disposal - Seven references were reviewed that discussed experimental
work applying animal wastes at disposal rates. These experiments are
only beginning to answer the many questions involved. As a result, the
status of disposal rate application of animal wastes is considered to be
experimental at this time.
Reliability and Applicability
Reliability - Due to the extensive history of fertilization of crops
with animal wastes and the present analytical capabilities of
agriculturists to determine proper fertilization rates, the reliability
of this system of animal wastes utilization is considered to be
excellent.
Experiments with disposal have been underway for only a few years with
only a limited number of parameters having been considered. The
reliability of the system as a valid scheme for waste utilization is
therefore questionable. This is especially true if one considers asking
a farmer to practice this method on a crop which represents his only
income.
Applicability - There is no definable limit due to climate, geography,
size of operation, crop, etc., which may preclude the use of animal
wastes on cropland.
However, these factors will influence the amount of wastes and the
period of time they must be stored prior to land utilization. The
storage facilities required must be determined on an individual basis
due to the variability of the factors discussed above.
RUNOFF CONTROL
Runoff control undoubtedly constitutes the single most important
technology available to the feedlot industry for preventing discharge to
navigable water bodies. The uniqueness of each feedlot operation adds
enormously to the entire task of implementing satisfactory runoff
control schemes for each situation. In mitigation of the difficult
variations is the fact that the required control concepts are
fundamentally simple, readily implemented, and very flexible for
application to a vast range of conditions. Nevertheless, each runoff
control problem must be addressed separately and may require the
attention of several organizations, generally including the state agency
responsible for pollution control, the Environmental Protection Agency,
Soil conservation service, Agricultural Extension Service of the
applicable state university, or possibly consultants hired to design the
system. At present, only a relatively small percentage of the total
156
-------
number of feedlot operators have instituted runoff controls, but the
situation is improving at an increasing rate.
The majority of large operations for all animal types, for example, have
installed or are now building runoff control facilities.
To better understand the runoff control problem, a look at the nature
and extent of runoff from animal feedlots is required. First, the
runoff from feedlots is not readily amenable to classical methods of
treating water borne wastes from a pipe or similar very discrete
conveyance. Second, the waste flow is almost completely dependent upon
rainfall or snowmelt for conveyance from the lot and is therefore
unpredictable in duration and quality. Third, the wastes are extremely
variable in quality while remaining consistently strong in organic
constitutents. Fourth, the raw wastes vary widely in characteristics
depending upon many factors, among which are the type of feed, the
ambient temperature, the species and age of the animal, the type of
housing, and many other factors.
Animal waste not controlled and permitted to enter streams, such as
rainfall runoff or snowmelt, can cause stream pollution, result in fish
kills, upset the ecological balances of the stream, and seriously
degrade the water for further domestic and recreational uses. A
potential also exists for pollution of underground water by percolation
of contaminants through the soil to the ground water. In actual
practice, however, only a relatively small percentage of the waste, 10%
or less, actually leaves the lot area. This percentage could grow with
the increased practice of confined animal feeding if pollution abatement
is not implemented.
With respect to the Water Quality Act of 1965, all states are required
to have, by Federal law, approved water quality standards. This is a
fact regardless of whether or not the state has a specific law governing
animal waste storage, transport, or disposal. A number of states have,
however, either enacted animal waste pollution legislation or proposed
laws dealing with feedlot construction and/or operation. A review of
some of the states having specific animal waste control regulations
reveals a great deal of difference in the content of the regulations
because of variances in livestock types, climatic regimes, drainage
conditions, and cultural and institutional practices
Most of the regulations contain information on water pollution abatement
facilities. They establish a procedure for determining the need for
such facilities, their design requirements, operation, and upkeep. The
major livestock feeding states generally require or recommend that a
complete retention system (i.e., terraces, ponds, etc.) be installed. A
fairly common requirement is the control of runoff for the entire
feeding area capable of holding the runoff from a 10 year to 24 hour
storm. These rules emphasize that these pond systems are not treatment
157
-------
structures. Rather, as soon as possible after an occurance, the liquids
should be pumped or irrigated onto the land and the solids removed
periodically in order to maintain the required capacity for subsequent
runoff activity. In most instances, diversion of "clean" or "foreign"
waters around the yard is also required. Diversion of outside runoff is
one of the more important considerations for any given feedlot location.
Effective site selection may obviate the need for structural diversions.
On the other hand, if diversion (e.g. ditches and berms) are required
they help to offset total storage requirements and generally aid in
reducing land areas needed for control structures.
The economic impact of installing proper runoff controls can vary widely
depending upon many factors for any specific feedlot site. The fact
that many existing feedlot operation sites were selected for reasons
other than runoff control may compound the problem. Permitting drainage
of large areas of land through the confinement area, for instance, can
result in fairly elaborate, hence expensive, runoff control structures.
At the other extreme, a feedlot located such that all runoff is confined
to a natural low spot, wholly within the properties of the operator and
not involved with any navigable water course, will require little, if
any, runoff controls. Many of the runoff control structures presently
in existence were completed on a cost sharing basis under the Rural
Environmental Assistance Program (REAP).
Complete runoff control goes beyond that associated with confined
feedlot operations. Runoff controls are not a waste treatment facility
in themselves and subsequent treatment or disposal of the wastes is
required. While treatment may be incorporated within the runoff control
structure (e.g. aerators on the holding pond) , ultimate disposal usually
involves land spreading of the liquids and solids. Again, the
implementation of these controls is dependent upon the specific set of
conditions involved with the operation in question.
Proper management is the key to any waste control system and runoff
control is no exception. With an adequate design and disciplined
maintenance, a runoff control system should give long life and trouble-
free results.
Technical Description
Some type of runoff controls would appear necessary for any feedlot with
a pollution potential. This pollution potential may be the result of
land slope, location or management and may be related to surface or sub-
surface water. Ideally runoff control from feedlots should be an
integral part of the feedlot design and operation; however, the basic
control concepts are sufficiently flexible to permit modifications or
"add on" for existing installations.
158
-------
There is a variety of alternatives for the handling, treatment and
disposal of runoff carried wastes as shown in the diagram below.
[Precipitation
Wastes
Runofr|
|Pen Drainage
Jcollection Drains!
-- . * t
r Solids Removal}—I Settling Basins]
Continuous Flow]
Be
itch |
Broad
Basin
Terraces
Low
Slope
Ditch
Solids Removal]
_L
Detention
Resevoir
1
Anaerobic
Lagoon
Solids Removalj Playa
Irrigation]
Evaporation]
Pond |
I
Series of
Anaerobic
Lagoons
i
1
Aerobic
Lagoon
1
I Irrigation]
I Evaporation]
159
-------
The system consists of the pen drainage system, collection and transport
drains, solids settling area for some designs, holding or treatment
area, and ultimate disposal, chiefly by irrigation or evaporation.
There are many variables which influence feedlot runoff both as to
volume of water and amount of waterborne wastes. Factors include the
size of the lot, the density of livestock in the pens, the cleanliness
of the lot, general topography of the area, antecedent moisture and
slope of the lot, the amount and intensity of rainfall, and the nature
of the drainage basin.
Consequently, pollution control requires a system that prevents feedlot
runoff from entering the streams, helps stabilize the runoff, returns
the waste to the land, or some combination of these methods. The
solution for runoff control consists essentially of retaining the runoff
and returning the collected runoff to cropland by irrigation. The
design of a feedlot runoff control facility requires knowledge of the
hydrology of the geographical area and the application of hydraulic
principles to the specific lot.
Precipitation and evaporation are two climatic variables that must be
known for the particular site. The site selection of the feedlot is a
very major consideration when designing the collection and runoff
control facilities. As noted above, it is recommended that diversion
terraces be constructed above (uphill side) the feedlot to prevent
runoff from adjacent land from traversing the feedlot. This practice
will allow smaller collection and disposal facilities. Of particular
importance is the cleanliness of the pens. In addition to implementing
sound husbandry practices for the livestock, regular program of solids
removal will often help lessen the amount of solids flushed into
internal drainage facilities and overall runoff control facilities and
reduce the amount of dissolved organics in the liquid runoff. However,
it should be pointed out that according to some studies, it is a good
practice to leave a thin layer of manure on the lot surface during the
cleaning operation in order to reduce the possibility of movement of
nitrates and other pollutants into the ground water. This is
particularly advantageous in humid areas wherein the residual layer
maintains a physical/chemical barrier to subsurface pollution. A number
of considerations enter into the location and design of the retention
facilities. Some of these considerations are the availability of a
suitable site, the terrain, the feedlot runoff conveyance systems,
accessability and allowance for expansion.
The optimum capacity of the retention facility will be determined
essentially by the size of the feedlot, climatic conditions, and
terrain. Properly designed debris basins make the removal of the solids
that have been flushed from the feedlot surface easier than cleaning the
bottom of a large volume pond.
160
-------
Development Status
The acceptability, reliability and feasibility of runoff control systems
is well established by virtue of the relatively large number of
commercial applications that have been designed and installed within all
major segments of the feedlot industry. Vast amounts of design data
have been developed and are readily available to the agricultural
community.
Reliability and Applicability
Properly designed and managed runoff control systems are very reliable.
No moving parts are involved with the exception of the waste servicing
and disposal equipment.
The runoff control system is particularly applicable to all open feedlot
and partially housed operations where potential runoff pollution clearly
exists and adequate land is available to construct the necessary runoff
control structures. Similarly, controls may complement those already in
place for totally housed operations wherein retention systems control
otherwise direct discharges from manure pits, under-house oxidation
ditches, etc.
Runoff Containment Requirements
In the feedlot industry the amount of discharge from open lots in the
form of runoff is dependent on uncontrolled weather phenomena. Since
weather data are statistical in nature, the sizing of containment
systems must likewise be based on statistics. No matter what size
containment facility is constructed there is always some finite chance
or probability that it will overflow under some extreme condition. A
good example of such a situation is the "25 year 24 hour rainfall"
criteria for runoff containment used in Texas. Texas feedlots are
required to have runoff retention ponds which can hold the runoff from
that 2U hour rainfall which has a 456 probability of being exceeded in
any one year. Under these conditions the feedlot is said to meet "zero
discharge" requirements. However, the amount of pollutants discharged
in the improbable case when the capacity is exceeded remains
undetermined.
In the South, where application of runoff liquids on land can be done at
virtually any time of year, it might be sufficient to base retention
pond capacity on a particular worst case rainfall and require that
runoff holding ponds be emptied by irrigation of cropland within a
specified number of days after a rainfall event. In the North,
conditions are not so simple. Cropland irrigation may be prevented by
frozen ground, low air temperatures or muddy field conditions due to
spring rains. It may be necessary in the North to contain the runoff or
161
-------
snowmelt from several months of precipitation. Much of the
climatological data required for setting up requirements for various
areas of the country already exists in one form or another. Even so,
other data, such as that for the muddy field conditions mentioned above,
does not exist at present. These conditions vary across the country and
dividing lines between one dominant criterion and another are extremely
difficult to determine purely on the basis of available data. In
addition, establishing the requirement in terms of animal live weight
represents a further complication because of the different feedlot
management techniques used for different animals.
Given the basic general philosophy being implemented within the industry
of eliminating waste discharges to the degree economically feasible and
technically reasonable, a number of fundamental criteria serve this end.
These criteria are almost universally applied (by individual operators,
state or federal agencies) as a requisite design capacity or design
standard which directly establishes a capacity for waste water control
facilities. Experience has shown that this capacity, coupled with
reasonable operation and management, is sufficient to preclude a direct
discharge of any type except under unusual climatic conditions
(extensive precipitation) or accident. Among the criteria which clearly
are successful in controlling discharges are those given below.
Table 39A-Summary of Principal Feedlot Runoff
Control Criteria
Basic Production Example of Remarks
Criteria System Area or
for control Commonly Region where
Assoc. Used or
Encountered
Rainfall
runoff:
5 year, 48 open livestock State of Oklahoma Containment,
hour rain- operations retention, diver-
fall sion structure,
etc. Approximately
equal to 10 year,
24 hour rainfall,
periodic dewater-
ing may be needed,
successful degree
of performance
to date, evap-
oration rates
in area help
overall efficiency
162
-------
Table 39A (Cont'd)
10 year, 24
hour rain-
fall
open livestock
operations
States of Kansas,
California and
recommended in
many areas
25 year, 2
hour rain-
fall
open livestock
operations
States of Texas,
Minnesota
Long Term
(60,90) or
120 day)
rainfall
precipita-
tion
open livestock
operations
States of
Illinois,
Indiana, Far
Northwestern
regions
Containment, re-
tention, diver-
sion structure,
etc. Basic control
of discharge very
good, only in-
frequent discharge
from chronic rain-
fall, most common
criteria in use
at present
Containment, re-
tention, diver-
sion structure,
etc. 30-day
cumlative rain-
fall also assoc-
iated (Texas),
accounts for fro-
zen ground
(Minnesota) , high-
est level or design
related to a storm
(or equivalent)
now in practice
Apparent highest
degree of control
during frozen and
wet (snowmelt)
conditions,
capacity generally
largest of all
criteria, helps
assure year-round
crop water supply.
Containment, re-
tention structures
but size and
storage time pro-
vide for treatment
also.
163
-------
Table 39A (Cont'd)
Washdown, Totally or Midwest Plans Used for lagoon
flushing and partially housed Service (Iowa) (treatment systems)
rainfall: livestock and State Univ.) , particularly used
or precipi- poultry North Carolina when runoff in a
tation operations minimum, overall
capacity for long
term storage, fre-
quently sufficient
to use in lieu of
rainfall event for
initial design (to
provide equivalent
capacity).
Instances wherein a combination of lagooning (treatment) and containment
are involved may also be encountered particularly in those areas where
lagooning has historically been the method of choice but has proven
inadequate due to operational or other difficulties, or a
"factor-of-safety" (i.e. containment) was added, or washdown and
flushing of pens or lots contribute substantial waste flows in addition
to rainfall.
With respect to the above summary of criteria, site visits discussions
with responsible state and federal officials and literature sources
serve to indicate that several thousands of feedlot operations over the
range of animal types have installed waste water control facilities
meeting the locally applicable criteria. An analysis of the amount of
waste flows contained by any one of the above criteria shows that the
runoff volume from a ten year, 24 hour storm event would be controlled
using any of the design criteria with a possible exception in the
smaller specification for lagoons (less than 150 cubic feet per head).
As such, the 10 year, 24 hour storm or equivalent volume of lesser
chronic events represents a basis for relatively equitable and
reasonably uniform national control requirements. This is not to say
that all regions will be confronted by the same capacities for control
systems. The 10 year storm itself varies from as little as 1.5 inches
in the arid west to as much as 9.0 inches near the Gulf coast.
Moreover, the frequency of recurring smaller precipitation events which
result in equivalent rainfall/runoff increases from arid to humid areas.
However, control of the 10 year level of storm runoff in all areas
provides a reasonable degree of protection of watercourses and the
variation in control requirements in the major livestock growing areas
is not nearly as large as the national variation with a storm magnitude
of 3.0 to 6.0 inches encountered in these areas.
Some examples of the application of the 10 year, 24 hour event to
"typical" circumstances will help clarify the impact of this control
level in various areas. Emphasis must be given to the fact that any
164
-------
control facilities built in compliance to this requirement will perform
to achieve no discharge of pollutants except in unusual climatic
circumstances. Any overflow will contain an unknown quantity of
pollutants and will occur at some frequency which can be approximated
particularly for larger feedlots.
Turning to the examples, two questions are vital to the implementation
of feedlot pollution control to achieve zero discharge for a 10 year, 24
hour storm basis: (a) what would be the basic control capacity?; (b)
when is a permissible overflow (capacity exceeded even with reasonable
management) generally going to occur?
1 - A feedlot located in the corn belt area has records which show:
o annual rainfall - 30.0 inches
o 10 year, 24 hour storm - 4.5 inches
o overflow water troughs discharge - 500 gpd
o average time ground is not available for manure or
liquid disposal - 30 days
o precipitation averages 5.0 inches for this 30 day period
(A) Answer to Question (a): The basic control requirements would
be (assuming runoff at 100* of precipitation for ease of calculation) to
provide facilities capable of providing no discharge of pollutants for
U.5 inches of runoff from the feedlot site, plus 15,000 gallons (500
gallons per day X 30 days), plus 4.5 inches rainfall on the surface of
retention structures or lagoons.
(B) Answer to Question (b): For any given year, this example shows
that an overflow may occur during the 30 day period when the control
facilities (presumably) could not be emptied or dewatered and
precipitation inputs would exceed basic design capability. If these 30
days are not consecutive for any given year, a discharge may not occur.
2 - The above feedlot located in the southwest plains has records to
show:
o annual rainfall - 15 inches
o 10 year, 24 hour storm - 3.5 inches
o no overflow watering systems used
o can irrigate year round
(A) Answer to question (a): Control facilities would be sufficient
to hold 3.5 inches of runoff (100J& of rainfall assumed) from the feedlot
site plus rain on pond.
(B) Answer to question (b): Dewatering can be carried out as
needed to help assure the capacity is available for recurring events.
An overflow will occur only from storm(s) in excess of the 10 year
event.
165
-------
3 - A feedlot with a totally housed operation and some open pens
adjacent to the housed operation has records which show:
o annual rainfall is 10 inches
o 10 year, 24 hour storm is 5.0 inches
o 1000 gallons per day are used to washdown indoor pens
with a discharge through the open pen area
o saturated conditions on nearby cropland exist for 15
consecutive days in any given year
o rainfall during this period is 2.0 to 3.0 inches
(A) Answer to question (a): Since both rainfall and washdown water
are discharged, the waste water control facilities would have a capacity
to contain 5.0 inches of runoff from the open pens, plus 1000 gallons of
washdown water per day for 15 days (15,000 gallons), plus 5.0 inches of
rain intercepted by control facilities (acute storm), plus 2.0 - 3.0
inches of rainfall intercepted by control facilities during the period
dewatering can not be accomplished.
These conceptually simple examples demonstrate that the use of an
acute storm event is a fundamentally advantageous way to prescribe
pollution control systems that are dependent upon rainfall. Moreover,
it becomes clear that unless an absolute restriction on a discharge is
provided, climatic or operational circumstances will be encountered
which lead to a discharge at some time even though a "reasonable"
attempt to preclude any such occurence is implemented. Minimizing the
likelihood of a discharge, regardless of the original design basis of
facilities, requires the application of management and operation
principles to help assure that control facilities are available for
subsequent inputs of runoff, washdown or other contaminated flows. In a
number of instances this will mean that emergency pumping and irrigation
capability will be required. Emergency "dewatering" capability of this
kind is currently being practiced at rates commensurate with such
criteria as (1) emptying a full impoundment with a certain number of
consecutive days, usually from 5 to 14 days, (2) disposal at an
effective rate of one inch of water for each acre of feedlot surface,
with receiving land rates not exceeding one-fourth inch of water per day
for any day irrigation is practiced. On the other hand, conditions at
any given site may dictate requirements for additional "management"
storage, covering some or all pen areas with roofs, or other course of
action for efficient operation.
With specific reference to the effluent limitations and standards of
performance set forth in Sections IX, X and XI of this report, the above
examples help establish two fundamental facts: (1) the basic
performance of feedlot pollution control facilities is no discharge of
pollutants to navigable waters; (2) an occasional overflow due to
"abnormal" climatic conditions may be both reasonably anticipated and
authorized without specific regard to volume, duration or quantity of
pollutants. This latter point is particularly critical since certain
166
-------
types of discharges are clearly precluded even with abnormal climatic
conditions. That is, only the overflow from facilities is a legitimate
discharge; consequently, an operation cannot "pull the plug" and empty
runoff control systems simply because an overflow is occurring.
Table 39B
Estimated Minimum Management
Periods Governing Storage of Process Generated Waste Water
State, Area or
Region
Applicable
Period of
Consecutive
Days Storage
Required
Nature of
Circumstance
Affecting
Period
New England, Great 90
Lakes States, Northern
Great Plains, Pacific
Northwest
Mid-Atlantic, 30
Mideast (Kentucky,
Tennessee, West
Virginia)
Southeast, except 21
Florida, Lousiana,
Southern Mississippi,
Southern Alabama,
Southeast Texas
Southeast, all Gulf 30
coast areas
Central Midwest 60
Southwest, Texas 14
(except Gulf Coast
areas)
Rocky Moutain states 30
Snow, frozen
soil, and
saturated soil
in early spring
Snow, saturated
soil
Saturated soil,
adverse winter
crop response
High rainfall,
soil saturation
Snow, frozen soil
Rainfall, short
term, intense
Intense rainfall, snow
Therefore, the actions taken by the feedlot operator to minimize
overflows from his control facilities serve to help protect the
structural integrity of facilities against erosion or washout and to
essentially eliminate day-to-day worry about having an "unauthorized"
overflow.
In the above examples, the basic capacity of facilities is the sum of
the runoff attributable to the 10 year, 2U hour storm event plus the
167
-------
process generated was-te waters for the time period during which a
discharge of waste waters to land could not be accomplished. As a
practical matter, this time period is often known as a "rule-of-thumb"
by any given feedlot operator because of practicl experience with the
weather, soils, and crops for his location. These "rules-of-thumb" may
be quite variable from operator to operator and certainly from region to
region. Fortunately, however, certain minimum general periods may be
indicated for regions with comparable climatic, topographic and geologic
conditions even though no specific reference on the subject has been
compiled. Investigations of in-place systems, state design or
regulatory criteria, and recommended practices of federal or state
agricultural agencies or universities lead to the following general
consecutive day periods during which dewatering could not or should not
be accomplished due to adverse climatic crop or soil conditions.
One final aspect of feedlot waste water management that is of relevance
is the option of utilizing what may be termed the "100 percent rule" for
ascertaining potential discharge volumes; in turn, sizing storage or
other control facilities. The "100 percent rule" evolves empirically
from the presumption that regardless of infiltration, evaporation or
other losses which may occur, 100 percent of the input water (the entire
rainfall amount, all input wash water, etc.) will be a surface discharge
and therefore must be contained or controlled. Because losses can and
do occur, control facilities designed by the "100 percent rule" have a
built-in factor of safety in addition to any other practical safety
margins which may be applied (e.g., additional freeboard for
impoundments, diversion through debris basins) .
Considerable evidence exists which shows that about one-half inch of
moisture will be absorbed by feedlot surfaces (for open, dirt lots)
before runoff occurs except if the surface is completely frozen or fully
saturated. Even in the latter instances, a very light rainfall may be
at least partially absorbed before runoff occurs. As a result,
utilizing an assumption that all rainfall becomes runoff for any given
storm event provided an addititional degree of assurance of up to 15X in
excess volume in capacity of containment or retention structures, some
areas (such as the State of Kansas) already utilize this criteria, and
in practical application, many engineers and farmers have used the "100
percent rule" concept thus achieving both a simplification of design
specifications and additional managment flexibility in control
capability.
CQMPQSTING
Composting is a biochemical method of solid, organic waste decomposition
which can be effected by microorganisms of the aerobic, thermophilic
variety. Aerobic thermophilic composting has advantages because it is
hygienically effective and produces a humus-like product that may be
168
-------
recycled into the environment as a soil additive. If oxygen is not
available within the material, anaerobic microorganisms take over, and
some of the decomposition compounds have objectionable odors. The
aerobic process does not produce offensive odors, is faster, and
produces more heat. Other important environmental factors that affect
the rate and type of decomposition include particle size of the
material, moisture content, aeration, temperature, pH, initial carbon-
nitrogen ratio, and size and shape of the mass.
Two major methods are presently being used to implement the composting
process for animal waste — turned compost windrow and aerated compost
windrow. Both concepts are presently active on a fullscale basis.
Costs of from $0.55 to $13.25 per kkg ($0.50 to $12.00 per ton) of
composted material have been reported.
Thus, composting is an available technology practiced on a large scale.
Air pollution by ammonia is minor. To be economical, a reliable market
is required. This market exists, but it is limited in size.
Technical Description
Manure is scraped from the floor of the pen areas and loaded for
transportation to the composting site. Here, the manure is either
spread in windrows three to four feet high or deposited in tanks or
bins. Often, the manure will contain sawdust, woodchips, or straw from
bedding, or else these substances or previously composted manure will be
added to aid in the compost process. Figure 36 schematically depicts
the process.
Aeration of the manure is accomplished by turning the windrow over with
a special machine or pumping air through the tank containing manure. In
addition, periodic agitation is required to break up chunks, provide a
uniform mixture, and prevent channeling of circulating air. Initial
temperature of the manure is usually near ambient. The mixture is
subjected to an aerobic, thermophilic composting process. Temperature
within the pile climbs to the 140° to 175°F range for rapid composting.
The heat for maintaining the temperatures is released by thermophilic
organisms. Lower temperatures may result, depending on the composition
of the manure, and time for biodegradation will increase. Moisture
content is an important criterion for the composting process and should
be maintained between U0% and 60%. Lower moisture will delay the
process, and higher levels may allow anaerobic organisms to form,
causing malodorous gas release. Moisture levels above 75% will also
result in lower temperatures and longer process times.
The products of the composting process are carbon dioxide, ammonia,
water vapor, and humus, and a mass balance is shown in Figure 36.
Process times are from 7 to 14 days for forced aeration in tanks to
about 30 days for windrowing. A post'COmposting cure time is usually
169
-------
incorporated prior to bagging for sale. Location of an adequate market
for the composted material may be a problem with this process.
Development Status
Composting is a relatively well established concept for handling animal
waste products. Full-scale commercial operations have been in business
for many years. More recent developments in rapid composting, effected
by mechanical aeration, have also been demonstrated in a commercial
operation.
Reliability and Applicability
Basically, composting is a very simple system with high reliability.
The primary restraint for large-scale composting operations is location
of an adequate market for the final product. Otherwise, composting is
applicable to all animal waste. At facilities where the composting
occurs out of doors, control of the process due to rainfall may be more
difficult.
DEHYDRATION
Drying of animal waste is a practiced, commercial technology with the
dehydrated product sold as fertilizer, primarily to the garden trade.
It is an expensive process which can only be economical where the market
for the product exists at a price level necessary to support the
process. Recent experimental work has been directed towards refeeding
the dried waste back to the animals as a feed ingredient. Due to the
higher value of animal feedstuffs, the cost to dry can be more readily
borne when utilized as a feed ingredient. A major university has
demonstrated this refeeding technique by incorporating dried poultry
waste at several levels to a 400 bird flock of laying hens for over one
year. The best results were obtained at the 10 to 1534 feed level for
all the poultry tests reviewed, which represents only about fifty
percent of the total waste produced. Thus, the remaining waste must
still be disposed of in some other manner. Also, the lack of FDA
approval for the use of manure as a feed ingredient is a restraint upon
the large-scale commercial acceptance of this technology.
Full-scale drying operations have been established with animal manure,
in some cases for over eight years. Size of units reported range from
small portable units to systems capable of processing 136,000 kkg
(150,000 tons) per year. Costs for the drying operation of from $16 to
$39 per kkg (15 to $35 per ton) have been reported. As a feed
ingredient, a value of up to $70 per kkg ($70 per ton) has been assigned
to dried poultry waste based on nutritional value of the product.
170
-------
908KG (2000#)MANURE
499KG (1100#)H2O
409KG (900#)SOLIDS
CO2 GAS H2O
/ SCRAPE \
\ MANURE /
\ /
HAUL TO /"
SITE V
T
H2O
/ \
)ST1NGJ
1
AIR
(o2)
v / \ x
SCHEMATIC
THERMOPHILIC
DECOMPOSITION
T I
CO,
H2O
690KG(1520#)
MASS BALANCE
FIGURE 36. COMPOSTING
218KG (480#)COMPOST
50KG(111#)H2O
168KG (369#)SOLIDS
171
-------
Technical Description
Feedlot manure is collected and dried from an initial moisture content
of about 75% to a moisture content of from 10% to 15%. The drying
process is usually accomplished utilizing a commercial drier shown
typically in Figure 37. The input requirement for most commercial
driers requires that the raw material be mixed with previously dried
material to reduce the average moisture content of the input mixture to
less than 40% water. This is required to facilitate process handling of
the material to be dried.
The mixture is fed into a hammermill where it is pulverized and injected
into the drier. An afterburner is generally incorporated to control
offensive odors. The resultant dried material is either stockpiled or
bagged, depending on the ultimate method of disposal selected.
The output material (dried to less than 10% moisture content) is an
odorless, fine, granular material. With a moisture content of from 10%
to 15%, a slight odor may be noted. Crude protein levels of from 17% to
50% have been reported in dried poultry waste. When utilized as a feed
ingredient, the dried waste is blended with selected feed ingredients,
with the dried waste material supplying from a portion to a majority of
the crude protein in the feed ration, and fed directly to the animals.
Figure 38 presents a mass balance based on a refeed program for 1000
laying hens. A refeed portion of the ration has been arbitrarily set at
12-1/2% on a dry weight basis.
Development Status
The status of dehydrating animal manure is well established. A number
of manufacturers offer a line of dehydration equipment specifically
designed for this purpose. Some drying operations have existed for over
172
-------
BULK
STORAGE
OR
BAGGING
HAMMERMILL
FIGURE 37. DEHYDRATION
-------
RAW MANURE
87KG(192#)DAY
26. 1KG (57. 6#)/DAY SOLID
61. OKG (134. 4#)/DAY WATER
DRIED MANURE (14%)
HAMMER\
MILL /
232.4KG(512#)/DAY
151. OKG (332. 8#)SOLIDS
81.3KG(179.2 WATER)
125#/DAY WATER
'TO AMBIENT
145.3KG(320#)/DAY
20. 3KG (44. 8#)WATER
124.9KG (275.2#) SOLIDS
• 175.7KG(387#)/DAY
24.6KG(54.2#)WATER
151. 1 KG (332. 8#)SOLIDS
•26.1KG(57.6#)SOLIDS
4.3KG(9.4#)VVATER
DRY RATION
90.3KG
(199#)/DAY
13. 1KG(28.9#)/DAY /
11.3KG(24.8#)SOL1DS
1.9KG(4. 1#)WATER
12.5%
\ DPW
V 30. 4KG
\67#
\ EXCESS
(TO LAND
DISPOSAL)
17.3KG(38. 1#)/DAY
14.9KG (32.8#)SOLIDS
2.4KG (5.3#)WATER
FIGURE 38. DEHYDRATION-MASS BALANCE
174
-------
eight years. Some brands of commercial dryers have experienced
development problems but generally reliable operation has been reported.
Sizes range from small portable models to systems capable of processing
136,000 kkg (150,000 tons) per year.
Operating efficiencies of from 37% to 69% are reported, based on
kilograms (pounds) of water removed per kilogram-calorie (BTU) of
thermal energy. These units are high consumers of fuel oil or natural
gas, the usual soruces of thermal energy. Energy requirements are
highly dependent on the initial moisture content of the raw manure.
Refeeding in pilot lot quantities, under controlled conditions, has been
achieved on numerous occasions for ruminents, swine, and poultry.
Operations for herds of up to 75 steers has been reported from Denmark,
where dried poultry waste constituted up to 40% of the total ration.
For poultry, the optimum reported from most tests is 10% to 15% of the
ration.
In general, good results were obtained from these refeed programs, both
in terms of economics and performance. Carcass inspections of test
animals revealed no reported indications of problems from having been
fed a partial animal waste diet. The primary restraint for full-scale
operation in the United States appears to be lack of Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) approval.
Reliability and Applicability
Reliability of the dehydration process is fairly good. Routine
maintenance of the equipment is required.
Dehydration is generally applicable to all feedlot programs; however, a
majority of refeed development effort has been directed toward poultry
litter with subsequent refeed of the dried material to ruminants and
poultry. Extended periods of reprocessing the same waste and refeeding
has reportedly resulted in a gradual reduction in protein content. This
may be due to loss of ammonia during the drying process.
CONVERSION TO INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTS
Manure has been pyrolyzed at temperatures exceeding 300°c to form a
black powder. The developer calls the product TCD (Treated Cow Dung).
The powder is being promoted as a substitute for lamp-black, with
potential application in tire and printing ink manufacture. Other uses
for the TCD have also been developed, based on mixing the powder with
melted, recycled glass. Mixing the powder with an equal weight of glass
results in a high quality ceramic tile. Mixing the powder (5 - 10
percent) with glass (90 - 95 percent) and aerating the mixture results
in a product similar to styrofoam (at low density) or brick (at higher
density). These processes are applicable to solid wastes from any type
of livestock. Two pilot plants are now operating, one to produce the
175
-------
powder and the other to produce the tile or foamed products. The powder
plant processes 9 kkg (10 tons) of stockpiled manure per day. The
ceramic plant produces .23 cubic meters (100 board-feet) of foamed glass
per day. Manufacturing cost is estimated at $12.86 per cubic meter
(three cents per board-foot), or five cents per unit for the denser
brick.
The value of the process will be based on the ability to establish a
market at a price greater than the production cost. Until a good market
and large scale production have been established, the approach must be
considered experimental.
AEROBIC PRODUCTION OF SINGLE CELL PROTEIN
Aerobic treatment of animal waste to produce a colony of proteinaceous
single cell microorganisms has reached the demonstration phase.
However, difficulties ensued, and these latest efforts have been
unsuccessful. Consequently, the technology must be considered
experimental.
The process produces a valuable product (protein) with little or no
pollutional discharge.
Technical Description
The nutrient reclamation system utilizes selected thermophilic bacteria
to treat waste material. Figure 39 is a schematic of this process.
Entering manure stock is shredded and weighed. The material is then
directed to a slurry tank where both recycled and, when necessary, fresh
make-up water are added. Sand is separated at this point. The fibrous
mixture is then screened to separate the liquid fraction from the fiber.
The liquid fraction then goes to a "solubles treatment tank" where
additions of nitrogen are made, dilution to volume occurs, and the
temperature is increased to the thermophilic range. This mixture is
then piped directly to the last fermentation tank to provide a nutrient
broth for the propagation of bacteria.
The fiberous material, on the other hand, is treated with alkalai to
assist in the breakdown of the fibrous material, thereby facilitating
microbial attack of its structure. The alkalai is then neutralized,
before nitrogen additions and volume dilutions occur. The material then
flows through a series of connected fermentation tanks where oxygen is
added and microbial conversion of the materials to additional bacteria
occurs. The time required for this fermentation to occur is reported to
be three days. At each stage, a portion of the soluble fraction is sent
to the final fermentation tank to provide additional nutrient material
to aid growth of the bacterial colony.
176
-------
FIGURE 39. AEROBIC PRODUCTION OF SINGLE CELL PROTEIN
177
-------
The effluent from the final fermentation tank is collected in a surge
tank before transfer to a vacuum filter where the bacterial product is
removed as a wet cake. This product is delivered to a drum dryer where
the remainder of the water is evaporated. Dried, the product is then
ready for use as an animal feed supplement. The bulk of the water
removed by filtration is recycled to the beginning of the process. Air
compressors and a steam generator are required to maintain the proper
environment in each of the fermentation tanks for the growth of the
bacteria.
The end product would be utilized as a refeed ingredient by acting as a
substitute for a portion of the protein-providing feed ingredients
(e.g., soybean meal). Early indications are that the product has a
protein content of 50% to 55% (versus 44% for a common soybean meal) and
a 10% digestibility.
Available quantitative information is insufficient for a mass balance.
Overall 227 kilograms (500 pounds) (dry basis) of manure input to the
system results in 113.5 kilograms (250 pounds) of output, which is 50%
protein.
Development Status
A pilot plant utilizing this concept of nutrient reclamation has been
built and operated at Casa Grande Arizona, with the goal of gathering
enough information to proceed with full-sized production facilities.
Besides the anitcipated production of proteinaceous material, factors
such as costs involved and the results of feeding trials were
anticipated. However, since late 1972, the facility has been shut down.
Available information indicates that the reasons for the closing are
complex and include dififculties with maintenance of the pure bacterial
cultures utilized in the process.
A suggestion has been made that the fermentations might be adequately
performed in ditches rather than the fermentation tanks currently
envisioned. This concept has not yet been investigated and would
require extensive effort to maintain the proper environment for the
culture medium.
Discussions with the program technical director have indicated that re-
opening of the pilot plant is not expected until late 1973.
Investigations are currently underway back at the laboratory facilities.
News releases have indicated that clearance by the Food and Drug
Administration for use of the product would be required. The original
timetable estimated that enough information concerning the product would
have been reviewed by the FDA to allow an opinion by mid-1973. That
timetable has been extended for some indefinite time due to the closure
of the Casa Grande facility.
178
-------
Reliability and Applicability
While much of the equipment utilized appears to be standard and
commercially available, the use of "pure" bacterial cultures as a
processing mechanism presents problems. Maintenance of the "purity" of
the environment is foremost among these. Depending upon the sensitivity
of the particular cultures used, "invasion" by other species may prove
highly damaging.
All efforts to date have centered around beef cattle waste products. It
should be a relatively easy matter to extend the process to cover dairy
cattle manures, too. However, use of swine and poultry manures may
prove a problem due to their relatively low fiber level. A facility
built along the lines of the pilot plant should eliminate geography and
climate as potential difficulties. If, however, use of oxidation
ditches instead of fermentation tanks is developed, some care must be
exercised in their placement and operation.
AEROBIC PRODUCTION OF YEAST
A process for the growing of yeast is in the preliminary laboratory
stage of development. Basically, the process includes separating swine
waste into solid and liquid fractions. The liquid fraction is
concentrated and is added directly to the yeast fermentation system
while the solid fraction is treated by various chemical, microbial, and
enzyme hydrolysis techniques to produce substrates which are then added
to the fermentation system. The yeast is harvested and its cell wall
disintergrated to improve digestibility before use as a feed supplement.
Insufficient effort has been performed to economically evaluate the
process. Discussions with the program microbiologist indicate that the
approach taken was one of sophisticated laboratory exploration without
consideration of engineering practicalities. The system utilizes many
stages for processing, advanced separation techniques, etc., and will
have to be engineered into a practical system once the technical basis
has been established.
Technical Description
The laboratory facility is a fourteen liter fermentation tank, and the
steps in the operation are shown in Figure 40. The separations occur
continuously and utilize membrane filters. After initial separation,
chemical hydrolysis utilizing a 2% HCL solution is employed to remove
any hemicellulose present.
This is followed by several microbial hydrolysis steps utilizing
specific cultures (Trichoderma viride QM 9123, Puria subacida FP 94457-
SP, and Streptomycetes Sp.). Use of culture extracts instead of the
actual microorganism is now under consideration.
179
-------
| RAW MATERIAL |
jr
| SEPARATION
f
| CHEMICAL HYDROLYSIS
|
| SEPARATION
f
| MICROBIAL HYDROLYSIS
f
[ SEPARATION
t
| MICROBIAL HYDROLYSIS
t
| SEPARATION
f
| MICROBIAL HYDROLYSIS
f
| SEPARATION
t
| BALL-MILLED
f
| ENZYME HYDROLYSIS
f
| SEPARATION
\
\ ENZYME HYDROLYSIS
t
| SEPARATION
|
| ENZYME HYDROLYSIS
f
| SEPARATION
t
| DEL1GNIFICATION
t
1 WASHING
| ENZYME HYDROLYSIS
f
| SEPARATION
t
| KOJI CULTURE
— »-j LIQUOR (-^
-»-| LIQUOR |-»-
-w| LIQUOR !-*•
— •-] LIQUOR [-*.
-~\ LIQUOR \*~
-wj LIQUOR |-»-
-*-j LIQUOR}-^
-»^ LIQUOR [»•
-*4 LIQUOR J-wJ
-»^ YEAST FERMENTATION |
*
| COLLECTION |
f
| WASHING |
f
| ENZYME HYDROLYSIS |
t
| DRYING |
t
1 FEED |
FIGURE 40. AEROBIC PRODUCTION OF YEAST
180
-------
After ball milling, several enzymatic hydrolysis steps occur utilizing
specific enzymes such as cellulase to aid in the total solubilization of
the material. Through use of the membrane filters, the enzymes remain
in the active feed and are reuseable. After additional separation, the
remaining material undergoes deliquification. This is accomplished
through the use of peracetic acid (highly corrosive, explosive at 43.3°C
±110°F1, and a strong oxidizing agent). Additional washing and
separation then precede use of a Kojiculture. This is a continuous-type
culture mechanism which proceeds at a slow rate.
Afterwards liquid portions from all the separation stages are sent to a
yeast fermentation tank. After collection and washing, the material
undergoes another hydrolysis step to aid in the disintergration of the
cell wall and an aid to digestibility of the material. The remaining
material is then dried prior to use as a feed supplement.
Development Status
The system described is still in a preliminary laboratory stage. After
deciding on a purely microbiological basis what processes are required
to perform the various functions and coming up with a rather unwieldy
system, the investigators involved are giving the system another look to
determine where steps could be modified or eliminated.
No economic analysis work has been performed mainly due to the fact that
the system is not really completely defined. The process developers
judge that at least three more years are required before a system
capable of being shown to interested parties is available.
Reliability and Applicability
An analysis of reliability must await better system definition.
Although swine waste is the only material tried so far, it would appear
that the process (from a technical standpoint) could be utilized for
cattle wastes. In fact, due to the higher fiber content of cattle
wastes, the process would probably work better.
ANAEROBIC PRODUCTION OF SINGLE CELL PROTEIN
This experimental technology recycles cattle waste by means of anaerobic
fermentation into a proteinaceous feed ingredient and a fuel gas
(methane) . The process has been operated successfully in the laboratory
and some limited evaluations of the nutrient quality of the material as
a feed ingredient have been performed. Analyses indicate that the
process can be profitable for cattle feedlots 5000 head or larger. The
processing utilizes relatively little power which, in fact, is generated
during the fermentation. Since all process materials are recycled,
there is a zero pollutional discharge. Investigations of the process
181
-------
and improvement in the nutritional quality of the effluent solids are
still under active investigation.
Technical Description
Anaerobic fermentation is usually considered to be a biological two-step
process. Firstly, a solubilization process occurs in which
carbohydrates are enzymatically reduced to sugars. These sugars are
then capable of absorption through the cell wall of the microorganism.
The products of the first state of fermentation consist primarily of
simple acids and alcohols as well as hydrogen and carbon dioxide. The
materials then act as substrates for the second phase of the process, in
which methane and carbon dioxide are formed. The usual nomenclature for
these phases are "acid-forming" and "methane-forming" respectively. The
process of anaerobic fermentation may be directed towards maximized
growth of the bacterial colony (for "harvesting" and use as a refeed
ingredient) or maximized fuel (methane) production.
The system, as practiced, utilizes cattle manure slurry at a solids
concentration of 10%. Manure is mixed with water and ground in a
blender in an attempt to achieve a solids concentration of approximately
20%. The material is then frozen until needed. Before use, additonal
water is added to achieve a 10% solids concentration. Use of a maximum
of 1031 solids mixture has been dictated by the size of the laboratory
equipment. The material is then automatically fed to the fermenters at
levels as high as 16.2 kilograms volatile solids/cubic meter/day (1.0
pound volatile solids/cubic foot/day). During the fermentation, the
microbial colony present (no specific culture is used) reduces the
original mass while producing methane and carbon dioxide. The effluent
liquid is discharged at a solids concentration of 5% indicating a mass
destruction rate of 50%. The material is then dewatered and the
proteinaceous microbial colony "harvested."
A schematic for a full-size plant utilizing anaerobic fermentation of
cattle wastes is shown in Figure 41. The entering material is mixed in
the slurry tanks with water that has been separated from the output
material by centrifuges. The solids content inside the slurry tanks is
maintained at 10%. Within the slurry tanks, the material is
recirculated to assure thorough homegeneity. After leaving the slurry
tanks, the material is passed through a heat exchanger in order to heat
the incoming material to the operating temperature of the fermenter.
Some additional heat must also be provided to compensate for heat losses
from the surface of the fermenter. Within the fermenter, the contents
are mixed continuously. The microbial population is capable of
utilizing the raw materials in its metabolic activities and, in so
doing, additional microorganisms are produced as well as gaseous
discharge consisting of methane and carbon dioxide. This gaseous
effluent is burned to provide all the heat required for the process and.
182
-------
through the use of an engine-generator, all of the electrical energy
required.
The liquid/solid effluent discharged from the fermenter contains half
the solids of the incoming material, the other half having been utilized
in the digestion process. This material then passes into a centrifuge
for dewatering. The excess moisture is pumped back for use in slurrying
the incoming material. The solids cake leaving the centrifuge is then
sent to a rotary kiln dryer for final processing. The finished product
may then be stored for future use.
Due to conservation of nitrogen, the product contains twice the nitrogen
concentration of the incoming material. Laboratory analysis has shown
that the amino acid concentration has quadrupled, indicating a
substantial conversion of non-protein nitrogen sources into
proteinaceous material. The quality of the product's amino acids is
similar to that of soybean meal, which it can replace in a diet. Chick
feeding trials utilizing the product have indicated that the material is
neither toxic nor inhibiting. An analysis of utilization of the
material as a refeed ingredient for cattle has indicated that an iso-
nitrogeneous and iso-energy ration can be formulated using this product.
The diet would contain sightly more mass than the standard diet but this
amount is small enough not to be a problem.
In the mass balance, shown in Figure 42, rates are shown on a daily
basis. The waste material is indicated as entering the system at 53.8%
moisture, because this is the value that conserves water within the
system. At higher moisture levels, facilities for temporary storage of
excess water must be provided. Makeup water facilities will also be
needed. A water storage lagoon could fulfill both of these needs.
Development Status
The system is currently in the laboratory stage. A pilot plant
operation is needed to establish operational and design specifications
regarding actual cattle feed systems.
Reliability and Applicability
The laboratory test program has shown the anaerobic fermentation process
to be stable and reliable. Changes in temperature, loading rate,
residence time and addition of various minerals have not led to failure
conditions. The components used in the system are off-the-shelf
hardware.
Since the waste material is being processed, climate and geography do
not bear on the applicability of the concept. However, some care must
be taken with the input material. Poultry manure having a high uric
183
-------
EXHAUST (WATER VAPOR & CO2)
MAKE UP
WATER
HEAT
POWER
ENERGY
CONVERSION
HEAT
POWER
TEMPORARY
LAGOON ING
EXHAUST
(WATER
VAPOR)
FEED
INGREDIENT
RECYCLE WATER
FIGURE 41. ANAEROBIC PRODUCTION OF SINGLE CELL PROTEIN
-------
acid concentration, for example, could lead to adverse effects on
organisms in the fermenters.
FEED RECYCLE PROCESS
The Feed Recycle Process is a proprietary process which has undergone a
number of recent modifications. The process separates non-digestible
sand and fiber from the digestible portion of the manure by physical-
chemical means with reported 89% protein recovery; the value of the
protein is not reported. The process is not yet fully developed and is,
therefore, regarded as experimental.
Technical Description
Figure 43 represents the latest simplified version of the Feed Recycle
Process. Raw manure enters a settling tank. If the raw manure contains
less than 50% moisture, it is first broken up in a mill. After a one-
hour residence time in the settling tank, where sand is removed, the
material is centrifuged. This centrifugation separates fibrous material
from protein, fats, and sugars, which are liquified or held in
suspension. The liquid next goes through a flocculation step, which
involves pH adjustment and iron solubilization. The slurry is then
dewatered in a rotary drum vacuum filter. The liquid is recycled to the
settling step. The filter cake is delivered to a rotary drying unit
operating at 121 - 126 °C (250 - 260°F). The resulting product is
granular and sterile. It consists of 20% protein, 6% fats and sugars,
19% starch, 37% cellulose and lignin, 6% salts, and 12% salt-free ash.
6
Based on 0.9 kkg (one ton) (dry basis) of manure scraped from a sandy
feedlot 91 kilograms (200 pounds) of sand will be removed in the
settling tank, and 91 kilograms (200 pounds) of fiber will be removed by
the Tolhurst centrifuge. This leaves 726 kilograms (1600 pounds) of dry
product. This product (composition listed earlier) contains 89% of the
protein in the raw manure. These figures appear to be somewhat
optimistic because they imply that the raw manure is 18% protein, and
they also neglect biological reduction of some of the material to gases,
which occurs to some extent.
Development Status
A pilot plant has been operating for several months at a California
feedlot. Capacity has been estimated at 13.6 kkg (15 tons) per day (dry
basis). One series of feeding trials resulted in elimination of
molasses extraction from the fiber, simplifying the process. A second
set of feeding trials is now underway. In these trials, recycled
material constitutes from 5% to 13% of the feed ration.
185
-------
45,400KG(100,000#)S
52.936KG (116,600#)L
98,336KG(216,600#)M
45,400KG(100.000#)S
408, 600KG (900.000#)L
454, OOOKG (1, 000.000#)M
(10.0% SOLID)
ELECTRIC
GENERATOR
PUMP
PUMP
22,700KG(50,000#)S
408.600KG (900.000#)L
431,300KG(950,000#)M
I
355,664KG(783,400#)L
CENTRATE
PUMP
22.700KG (50,000#)S
52,936K6(116,000#)L'
75,636KG(166,600#)M
(30% SOLID)
CENTRIFUGE
MOIST
SOLIDS
DRIER
45,400KG(100,000 LB) DRY WASTE PER DAY
PRODUCTION FACILITY
L - LIQUID
S - DRY SOLIDS
M - MIXTURE
PRODUCT
22,700KG (50,000$S
2t542K6(5.600#)L
25,242KG(55,600#)M
FIGURE 42. ANAEROBIC PRODUCTION OF SINGLE CELL PROTEIN-
MASS BALANCE
186
-------
MANURE
<50% MOIST
oo
MANURE
>50% MOIST
SAND
rr,Dro FLOCCULATING
FIBER AGENT
GASES AND
WATER VAPOR
ROTARY
VACUUM
FILTER
FILTER
CAKE
ROTARY
DRYER
PRODUCT
FOR FEEDING
FIGURE 43. FEED RECYCLE PROCESS
-------
'r" .Liability and Applicability
Equipment used in the process is moderately complex. Malfunction
jrrection may thus require relatively frequent attention.
The Feed Recycle Process can be used to process manure from any feedlot
situation. In fact, certain types of operation (e.g., slatted floor
systems) may permit a high degree of automation in manure collection,
assuring a steady supply to the processing equipment
OXIDATION DITCH
The oxidation ditch is made up of two principle parts, a continuous open
channel ditch, usually shaped like a race track, and an aeration rotor
that circulates the ditch contents and supplies oxygen. The oxidation
ditch is a modified form of the activated sludge process and may be
classed as an extended aeration type of treatment. Aerobic bacteria use
the organic matter in the waste deposited in the ditch as food for their
metabolic processes, thus reducing the biologically degradable organics
to stable material with carbon dioxide and water as the major by-
products.
The oxidation ditch is a commercially used technology in the feedlot
industry and offers the primary benefits of near odorless operation plus
reduced waste management labor and clean feeding facilities when
incorporated with slotted floor animal confinement. The system is,
however, a relatively high rate consumer of electrical power and water.
Although biological reduction of solids in the ditch has been
demonstrated, the removal of solids is required in order to maintain a
solids concentration of the mixed liquor at a near optimum level to keep
the aerobic bacteria metabolism more active. Sludge removal can be
effected by pumping from a trap constructed for this purpose, diluting
by adding water to the ditch and collecting the overlfow for further
treatment and disposal, pumping from the ditch and mixing with the
ration for refeed use, or a combination of the methods.
The results obtained to date on a refeed program suggests that animal
waste biologically processed through the oxidation ditch system has an
acceptable nutritional value and can be used effectively as a partial
protein and mineral supplement in the feed ration of ruminants. There
appear to be no animal health or meat quality problems. However,
investment in the oxidation ditch for the purpose of refeeding is not
presently practical due to lack of FDA approval of the concept. Costs
of $120 per head of beef cattle have been reported for a complete
housed, slotted floor, oxidation ditch facility. With other costs
reported for housed, slotted floor facilities of $65 to $75 per head,
the cost attributed to the oxidation ditch alone is about $50 per head
to install.
188
-------
Technical Description
Raw manure is deposited directly into the oxidation ditch, either on a
continuous basis where livestock are confined on slotted floors over the
ditch, or periodically by collecting and transporting the manure to the
ditch. Oxidation ditches have been shown to be relatively insensitive
to batch loading. A rotor, immersed from 5 cm (2 inches) to 15 cm (6
inches) in the mixed liquor, rotates at sufficient speed to circulate
the ditch contents so that solids will be kept in suspension and not
settle. The rotor also supplies the oxygen to the mixed liquor for
biological oxidation in which residual plant material and intestinal
bacteria are broken down. Figure 44 shows this system schematically.
Water is added to maintain the depth in the ditch at a constant level,
in conjunction with an overflow device, and to maintain a relatively
constant solids percentage in the ditch by diluting the ditch contents
and carrying entrained solids out the overflow. Effluent from the
oxidation ditch is piped to a settling tank or lagoon where solids can
be periodically removed and spread on land for fertilizer. The
biological oxidation product, CO2, is released to the atmosphere.
For animal refeed, the liquid animal waste material is pumped directly
from the oxidation ditch into a mixing wagon containing the adjusted
control ration, thoroughly mixed and then augered into the feed bunk.
The feed mixture is prepared and fed on a twice daily basis.
The data for the mass balance in Figure 45 were supplied by one of the
principal developers of the oxidation ditch concept for beef feedlot
application. The balance is based on one 384 kilogram (845 pound)
steer.
Development status
The oxidation ditch is in a relatively advanced stage of development.
Over 400 installations are reported with a significant number in full-
scale operation. The oxidation ditch is one of the simplest and easiest
to maintain of all waste treatment systems. However, every system must
have regular maintenance and good management if it is to function
properly over an extended period of time.
189
-------
ANIMAL-
WASTES
DILUTION-
WATER
I REFEED
I
-ROTOR
OXIDATION DITCH-
DITCK
EFFLUENT
LAGOON
TO LAND
DISPOSAL
FIGURE 44. OXIDATION DITCH
-------
The most critical period of operation is system start-up. Excessive
foaming, gases and odors have been reported, especially when septic
manure is present. Periods of up to 12 weeks have been reported before
a ditch becomes acclimated to the waste loading. Also, when the ditch
contents approach freezing temperatures, oxidation rate slows
considerably and heat may have to be added. Once proper operation of an
oxidation ditch has been established, the contents should probably never
be completely pumped out, but rather a portion of the ditch contents
should be replaced with tap water when the solids or mineral
concentration becomes too high. A properly operated oxidation ditch has
been shown to be effective for odor control, manure handling in
conjunction with slotted floor installations, and reported solids
reduction of 3U% to 90%.
o
03K
. 68#
CO
6
s*.
8.24KG
(18. 15#)DRY WT./
_DAY/HD.
4.50KG(9.92#)
WATER/DAY/HD.
•25.6KG (56.4#)DILUTION WATER/
DAY/HD.
— 8.15KG(17.95#)
FEED/DAY/HD
O
U)
|
Q
\
1.04KG (2.29#)SOLIDS/ ' 0.78KG (l. 73#)SOLIDS/
DAY/HD. ^ _1 i-. DAY/HD.
18. 16KG(40.0#)WATER/DAY/HD \ REFEED |
=tei
s-
'
i r
23. 26KG (51 . 23#)WATER VAPOR.
13.66KG
(30. 08#)WATER/
DAY/HD.
CO2. NH3. OTHER WASTES/DAY/HD.
TO ATMOSPHERE
TO LAGOON
AND
LAND DISPOSAL
FIGURE 45. OXIDATION DITCH-MASS BALANCE
191
-------
Extensive research data are still needed to adequately evaluate the
systems as an approved feeding concept. Additional feeding outlets or
methods of concentrating the effluent material are needed if feeding is
the desired procedure for utilizing all the animal waste production.
The simplicity of recycling the material from the ditch and the
potential economic value makes the oxidation ditch system a worthwhile
concept for further study. To date, over 500 cattle have been fed a
diet supplemented with oxidation ditch effluent in five different
experiments.
Reliability and Applicability
The reliability of the oxidation ditch is relatively high as it is a
fairly simple system if it is operated properly.
The oxidation ditch is generally applicable to all feedlot operations.
The concept has been utilized for cattle, poultry, and swine
applications as an odor and waste management technique. Refeed of ditch
effluent has been experimentally demonstrated for beef cattle. On the
other hand, maintenance requirements, power and water use can be quite
high, and release of harmful gases can occur during shutdown (such as
following a mechanical failure).
ACTIVATED SLUDGE
For this discussion, these processes are defined as bacterial digestion
in an aerated tank. Most of the currently active programs are on a
demonstration scale, and are summarized below.
These processes are relatively complex, but they greatly reduce land
spreading, and they can be operated in winter conditions. Power and
operating costs are high. Activated sludge, as developed in Program E,
is considered ready for commercial application and is, therefore BATEA
technology.
Main Post
Program Waste Operation Pretreatment Treatment Treatment Reference
dairy
flush
and
wash
Batch
(24 hour)
Grit removal
Aeration-
setting
Aeration -
chlorination
B
flushed continuous None
swine
manure
beef Continuous None
feedlot
runoff
Aeration Evaporation
Aeration Clarification
113
114,115,
120,124
125,126
121,122,
127
192
-------
D
dairy
manure,
etc.
dairy
manure
etc.
continous
Semi-batch
or
continuous
Comminu-
tion
None
Aerated None
thermophilic
digestion
Aerated
thermo-
philic
digestion
Flotation
116,123,
128
117,118,
119,129
Technical Description
Some activated sludge processes are more sophisticated than others, and
each has some distinguishing characteristic. The Location A operation
is conducted batchwise, with an aeraation phase and a settling phase.
Following the settling phase, liquid is drawn off to another tank, where
it is aerated and chlorinated before being recycled as flush water. The
Location B treatment is the simplest, consisting of a single tank with
floating aerator. The effluent goes to an evaporation pond, ultimately
leaving an odor-free mass of dead bacteria (sludge) suitable for
spreading on cropland. The Location C approach is closest to the
standard municipal activated sludge process. Liquid is continuously
transferred from an aerated mixed liquor tank to a conical-bottom
clarifier. Liquid drawn off the clarifier goes to a lagoon, while
sludge is continuously air lifted back to the aerated tank. The
Location D installation provides continuous, multistage, temperature-
controlled, aerated digestion of liquid wastes. The Location E
operation is similar but adds (when desired) a flotation tank and drying
bed for sludge removal and dewatering, a settling tank for liquid
clarification, a chemical precipitation stage for decolorizing, and a
chlorination stage for sterilization.
The Location E approach is shown in Figure 46 because it is a flexible,
modular concept that contains the elements of most of the other
approaches. The one exception is the concept of sludge recycling (by
means of the aeration compressor) used at Location C. Depending on the
type of waste and the degree of treatment desired, the Location E system
may comprise anything from a single aerated tank to the complete system
shown in Figure 46. Mass balance information is available for
operations at Locations A, B and E. The Location B information
represents actual data, whereas the other information may be actual or
projected. In general, the mass balance represents:
Input: animal waste, oxygen, chlorine (optional)
Output: carbon dioxide, ammonia, renovated water, sludge
Operation A handles wastes associated with 175 dairy cows.
inputs are as follows:
System
193
-------
INFLUENT
WASTE
DRYING
BED
DIGESTION
TANK
NEUTRALIZER
CHLORINE
CHEMICAL
PRECIPITANT
CHLORINATION
TANK
X
X A.
SETTLING
TANK
SETTLING
TANK
1 I
PERIODIC
SLUDGE
RECYCLE
LIQUID
EFFLUENT
FIGURE 46. ACTIVATED SLUDGE
194
-------
FLOW BOD
INPUT LITERS (GAL)/DAY KG (LB)/DAY
Waste:
Flush Water 33,120 (8,750)
Manure 4,540 (1,200) 51 (112)
Wash Water* 75,700 (20,000) 6 (13)
Domestic 190 (50) - (1)
Total 113,550 (30,000) 57 (126)
Rain 0-156,700 (0-41,400)
Oxygen 113.50 (250)**
*From milking parlor and processing plant.
**Oxygen absorbed in kg/day (Ib/day). Requires 9260 liters/min
(327)/cfm) air throughput.
System output is not defined, except that dissolved oxygen must exceed 5
mg/liter and residual chlorine must exceed 1.0 mg/liter. Operation B
has a stated capacity of 1000 90 kilogram (200 pound) hogs, but the
available data represents 750 hogs during a 14 week period where the
average weight increased from 23 to 80 kilograms (50 to 175 pounds). In
the following table, the influent represents manure diluted with flush
water, while the effluent represents the average of conditions in the
aeraation tank before and after waste addition. The manure was flushed
with 5700 to 10,200 liters (1500 to 2700 gallons) of water, generally
three times each week.
CONCENTRATION, MG/LITER
WASTE COMPONENT INFLUENT EFFLUENT
BOD 46,400 1,680
COD 99,100 8,210
Suspended Solids 75,800 8,130
Total Nitrogen 6,760 703
Location E mass balance information is presented on the basis of 100
dairy cows:
WASTE COMPONENT INPUT OUTPUT
OR SOURCE L/DAY KG/DAY L/DAY KG/DAY
GAL/DAY LB/DAY GAL/DAY LB/DAY
Milkhouse 2540 2550
(670) (5,620
Manure 4540 4585
195
-------
Reliability and Applicability
Wastelage is basically a simple process, so reliability should be good.
Care is required to maintain consistent wastelage quality.
Application is limited to ruminants maintained on hard surface or
slotted floors.
ANAEROBIC PRODUCTION OF FUEL GAS
The production of methane fuel gas by anaerobic fermentation of animal
wastes is currently under investigation at several locations. While
considerable laboratory work has been performed, no field demonstration
plant is yet in operation. Economic projections for the various systems
indicate that fuel production is economically practical only for systems
that are sized for the largest commercial feedlots. Therefore,
profitable operation is available only to processing plants that are
regional in nature. This would, in turn, invite additional costs for
purchase and transportation of the raw material. Economic utilization
of the remaining sludge is necessary to avoid the added expense of
sludge removal and disposal.
Technical Description
A schematic of one version of the process is shown in Figure 47, which
also indicates a mass balance. The manure enters a feed tank after
having been slurried. This material then enters primary fermentation
tanks for partial digestion. Fermentation of the effluent material
continues in secondary fermenters.
The liquid effluent from these secondary units is then thickened using
"flotation" techniques before being sent to dewatering beds. Waste
water from the thickening process is sent to an oxidation pond for
storage. The dewatered solids are then dried for use as a soil
conditioner.
The effluent gases from the fermenters are sent to a compressorscrubber.
Here, the carbon dioxide and hydrogen sulfide are removed, and the
resultant methane-rich gas is compressed for introduction into a
pipeline. Estimates of methane production range from 374 liter/kg (6.0
cubic foot/pound) volatile solids to 480 liter/kg (7.7 cubic foot/pound)
volatile solids.
Figure 48 depicts an alternative version of the process. It should be
noted that this system is based on utilizing municipal waste; however,
utilization of animal manures would lead to essentially the same
processing.
198
-------
MAKE-UP WATER
SOIL
CONDITIONER
2585KKG (2850 TON) (DMB) f
DAY
85 X 107 J?/DAY (30 X 105)
(FT3/DAY)
8.58 X 10 KG/DA\
(1.89 X 106)
(LB/DAY) (DMB)
FIGURE 47. ANAEROBIC PRODUCTION OF FUEL GAS
-------
...,K,,^.r,A, TRANSFER STATION
MUNICIPAL AND SALVAGE TR
SOLID AND S|ZE
WASTE REDUCTION
WASTE WATER PURIFIC/>
OR SLURRY LIQ
DIGESTER FOR
ANSPORTAT10N B|OLOGICAL
CONVERSION
OF SOLID WASTE
f
i 1 ION Oh '"
ATANT « EFFLUENT
LJOR SEPARATION
GAS SEP
i
PRODUCT
^ METHANE
CO2 DISCARD
DIGESTER SLUDGE
PROCESSING OR
DISPOSAL
FIGURE 48. CONVERSION OF SOLID WASTES TO METHANE
-------
Development status The process has not yet progressed to the pilot plant
stage. Arrangements are in the formulation stage to build a pilot plant
in either New Mexico or Texas, because both areas have high
concentrations of feedlot waste available. An estimate of 18 months
before completion of the plans is anticipated. A pilot plant may be
part of a large waste water treatment facility at the site. A verbal
agreement with the gas company for purchase of all substitute natural
gas (SNG) or methane produced has been made, but a legal contract has
yet to be executed.
Obtaining sufficient manure from local feedlot owners is proving a
problem. The preferred set-up is use of feedlot equipment to load
trucks which would then deliver the manure to the processing plant. In
this manner, no "purchase" is necessary. However, long-term contracts
are required before a plant can be built, and the feedlot owners are
reluctant to sign any agreements, believeing that their manure pile will
soon "turn to gold. " Most likely, if contracts are signed, some purchase
price will be involved.
The process developer indicated last year that estimates of construction
and operating costs of the scrubbing equipment had been substantially
incorrect. It also indicated that based on gas sales alone (no credit
for byvproduct sales) the sale price required for the SNG to be
profitable had doubled from the original figure.
Before constructing a full-size production facility, extensive pilot
plant development work is necessary.
Reliability and Applicability
Almost all of the components used in the system are standard items. The
"thickener" is the one non-standard hardware item and may, therefore,
tend to be a potential trouble spot.
Location of a SNG plant is limited to a relatively small area close to
feedlots. Haulage rates can drastically affect production costs. If
credits are to be taken for sale of by-products, shipping costs also
become a factor. Access to significantly more than 100,000 head of
cattle within a relatively small radius is necessary for economic
production of SNG.
REDUCTION,. WITH FLY _
Utilization of livestock manure as a growth substrate for fly pupae,
which would be used as a high protein feed supplement, is in the
experimental stage. Work in the laboratory on poultry manure has
produced a product with an attractive nutrient analysis. Economics are
uncertain, and feed utilization needs to be demonstrated in feeding
201
-------
trials. The residual waste solids should be marketable as composted
manure.
Technical Description
Manure is placed in a rotating drum resembling a cement mixer and is
inoculated with house fly eggs< As the drum rotates, air is sparged in
through the perforated shaft. The air is pre-heated to 25-35°Cr and is
pre-dried to less than 40% relative humidity. During a period of about
five days, fly larvae hatch from the eggs and tunnel through the manure,
promoting thorough aeration and rapid biodegradation. The mixture is
then removed and spread on a screen. The top of the screen is exposed
to a bright light, which drives the larvae through the screen into a
dark box, where they pupate. The pupae are then ready for drying and
grinding to form a high protein meal. The material remaining on the
screen may be used for land fill or as a soil conditioner. Air emerging
from the processor passes through an acid bath, an alkaline bath, and a
dehumidifier before recycling through the processor. These steps remove
ammonia, volatile acids, and moisture. The process is represented in
Figure 49.
Each fly produces 200 to 300 eggs in a batch. These eggs are used at
the rate of 3.0 eggs per gram of manure. Then, one ton of manure
requires 10,000 - 14,000 flies to produce about 2.7 million eggs. The
process results in 23 to 27 kilograms (50 to 60 pounds) of protein feed
supplement (dried, ground pupae) and 450 to 540 kilograms (1000 to 1200
pounds) of "semi-dry practically odorless soil conditioner." About 0.6
kilograms (1.4 pounds) of the pupae produced may be saved for fly
breeding. Most of the balance of the original .9 kkg (ton) of manure
will have been removed in the air stream as water vapor and carbon
dioxide, along with some ammonia and small quantities of volatile acids,
ketones, skatol, etc. The resulting protein meal is 63.1% protein,
15.5% fat, 3.9% moisture, 5.3% ash, and 12.2% nitrogen free extract,
fiber, and other. It contains many amino and fatty acids.
Development Status
All work thus far has been on a laboratory scale. However, a small
automatic demonstration unit is nearly ready for operation. This unit
will process a 1.8 kkg (two ton) batch of manure. In the laboratory,
the process has been successfully applied to manure from several types
of animals.
Reliability and Applicability
Equipment may be rather conventional, but it is uncertain how much
complexity the air scrubbing operation adds. In addition, good control
of parameters such as temperature, humidity, processing duration, and
202
-------
EGGS
O
Ul
RAW
MANURE
i AIR, GAS, WATER VAPOR
DEHUMI-
DIFICATION
PROTEIN
MEAL
FIGURE 49. REDUCTION WITH FLY LARVAE
-------
inoculation rate is required. Thus, unexpected problems in reliable
operation may arise.
Although most effective for swine manure, the process may be used for
any animal manure. The developers claim that a single processing unit
would require only part-time attention (a few hours, once every five
days) from someone with no special skills. A large, multi-unit
installation would probably need full-time attention.
BIOCHEMICAL RECYCLE PROCESS
The Biochemical Recycle Process, designed for flushed dairy waste,
produces roughage or bedding, fertilizer, and good purity water from
liquid manure. The process is essentially biological (aerobic) and is
carried out in chemical processing equipment. The value of the fiber as
a feed roughage has not been established, and the fertilizer is a wet
product not suitable for transportation to market.
The process is proprietary, and available information was not sufficient
to substantiate the developer's claims. The process appears to be
complex and expensive, with no demonstratable payback. The first full-
scale demonstration is now being started.
Technical Description
The Biochemical Recycle Process is described in Figure 50. From the
manure pit, liquid manure is pumped to two countercurrent classification
stages. In the primary classifier, water from reaction stage (described
later) is added, and the fibrous solids are separated from the liquid
and sent to the final classifier.
In the final classifier, water from the second settler (described later)
is used to rinse the fibers, which are separated, squeezed-dried to not
more than 25% moisture, and collected for later use as feed roughage or
bedding. Liquid from the final classifier and from the squeeze-dryer is
sent to the flocculation step (described later).
Liquid from the primary classifier is discharged into the top of a
reaction tower. Also entering the top of the reaction tower are air and
recycled liquid. In the tower, the liquid passes down through a series
of sieve trays (perforated plates), and foaming occurs, saturating the
liquid with oxygen and promoting growth of aerobic bacteria. The base
of the tower is called the reaction vessel and provides 80 minutes
holdup time for aerobic digestion of the waste. The liquid overflows
from the reaction vessel to an "enzyme vessel," which provides an
additional 80 minutes holdup time. Liquid flows through this reaction
system at a net rate of about 3.8 liter per minute (one gallon per
minute) but liquid from the reaction and enzyme vessels is recycled to
the top of the reaction tower at a rate of about 380 liter per minute
204
-------
RINSE WATER
FIBER FOR
ROUGHAGE
OR BEDDING
FLOCCULATION
CHEMICALS
WATER TO
^-FURTHER
TREATMENT
FERTILIZER
LIQUID
FIGURE 50. BIOCHEMICAL RECYCLE PROCESS
205
-------
(100 gallon per minute). Some of this liquid is also recycled to the
primary classifier for fiber rinsing.
From the biochemical reaction stage, the liquid overflows to a
flocculation tank, where chemicals (alum, ferrous sulfate, ferric
chloride, and/or polyelectrolytes) are added to form the floe and adjust
the pH to between 4.5 and 5.0. The resulting slurry is then transferred
to a two-stage settling operation. The first settler overflows into the
second settler, which is vented to the atmosphere. Part of the liquid
from the second settler is recycled to the final classifier for fiber
rinsing. The rest of the liquid is discharged for use as flushing water
or treatment with ion exchange resins and charcoal before release to a
natural waterway. This settler effluent has a BOD of less than 20 ppm
and 1000 - 2000 ppm dissolved solids, mainly sodium salts.
Floe is emptied from the two settlers once or twice a week into a sand
filter. The filtrate is returned to the manure pit. The solids are
removed for use as fertilizer.
The following mass balance is for a 100 cow system:
Inputi Total manure - 4240 - 5750 kg/day
(9330 - 12,670 Ib/day)
Solids - 658 - 1070 kg/day
(1450 - 2350 Ib/day)
Alum - 1.3 - 1.6 kg/day
(3 - 3.5 Ib/day)
Output: Roughage (5>25SS H2O) - 110 - 200 kg/day
(240 - 440 Ib/day)
Fertilizer - unknown
Specification water - unknown
NH3. and CO.2 - unknown
Development Status
The system manufacturer stated that the first full-scale unit is now
ready to begin operation but would not divulge the location of this
system. The device is being built for 100 cow size units (45
kg/cow/day) (100 Ib/cow/day) and has been under development for several
years. The system still requires full-scale verification and refeed
data.
Reliability and Applicability No reliability data are available, but the
system is relatively complex, so that above average maintenance is
anticipated.
206
-------
This system was designed and sized specifically with a dairy operation
in mind. However, this system would problably be applicable to other
feedlot operations. No limitations due to geography or climate are
apparent. Sizing accommodation would require installation of multiple
units based on specific requirements.
CONVERSION TO OIL
Manure is predried to 20* water and dispersed in recycled product oil.
The reaction mixture is then heated with synthesis gas (carbon monoxide
and hydrogen) to 325°C at a pressure of more than 205 atmospheres (3000
psi) for about 15 minutes. Manure conversion is roughly 90%, forming a
thick oil that must be heated to make it flow. Heating value is about
8,800 kg/cal/kg (16,000 Btu per pound). Operating costs are high, and
the value of the oil is low. Consequently, this experimental process is
not economically attractive at this time.
The basic problem is that under economically practical operating
conditions (synthesis gas reactant, no catalyst, relatively low
temperature) the properties of the product limit its application.
Viscosity and oxygen content are very high, and the quantity of water in
the raw manure makes separation of the product oil difficult. In
addition, high pressure (272 atmospheres) (4000 psi) is needed to obtain
even fair yields.
GASIFICATION
Manure is partially oxidized in the presence of steam to form a
synthesis gas that can be used as an intermediate in ammonia production
by conventional manufacturing plants. The ammonia plants would produce
fertilizer. A thorough economic evaluation has not been made to date.
Classified as experimental technology, development is in the early
laboratory stage. Product value is moderately high, but the relatively
complex process has a high power requirement and is economically
restricted to a centralized location with regard to feedlots.
Technical Description
The concept is based on coal gasification, where coal is partially
oxidized in the presence of steam to form carbon monoxide and hydrogen,
with additional coal burned to provide the heat of reaction. Manure
gasification is similar, except that air is used instead of pure oxygen,
because nitrogen is needed to react with the hydrogen to form ammonia
rather than pipeline gas. In essence, the gasification process extracts
hydrogen from manure and nitrogen from air for subsequent combination to
form ammonia. Gasification is the first of three steps in the ammonia
production process:
207
-------
a. Manure plus air plus water equals carbon monoxide plus hydrogen plus
nitrogen
The remaining two steps are carried out in the conventional ammonia
production plant, with addition of water and physical removal of carbon
dioxide formed in the shift reaction:
b. Carbon monoxide plus hydrogen plus nitrogen plus water equals carbon
dioxide plus hydrogen plus nitrogen.
c. Hydrogen plus nitrogen equals ammonia.
Thus, the first reaction, which converts manure to synthesis gas, is of
primary interest here, with the synthesis gas regarded as a saleable
product.
Manure is partially oxidized with a controlled quantity of air at an
elevated temperature. Water for the reaction is already contained in
the manure. The temperature range used for thus far is 370°C - 400°C
(700°F - 750°F) , but higher temperature as well as a catalyst may be
needed to obtain a practical reaction rate. Atmospheric pressure has
been used thus far, but a higher pressure may be desirable. Heat to
drive the endothermic reaction is supplied by burning additional manure
in air. Figure 51 represents the entire process schematically.
The objective is to control the process to obtain a 3:1 hydrogen:
nitrogen mole ration for Step c. This is done by using just enough air
in Step a. to result in the following molar balance (where the first
term representa manure):
a- C3.14Ha.601.67 + 0.4902 + 1.96N2 + 0.49H2O = 3.14 CO +
1.96N2 + 2.79H2 + residue
Step b. adds additional water to obtain:
b. 3.14 CO plus 3.14H2O equals 3.14CO2 plus 3.14H2
This brings the total moles of hydrogen (per mole of manure) from a. and
b. to 5.93, which is roughly three times the 1.96 moles of nitrogen
liberated from the air.
Assuming that the effective molecular weight of manure averages 100
(including sand and other inorganics) , the mass balance for Step a. is
as follows:
Kilograms Reacted Kilograms Formed
(Pounds Reacted) (Pounds Formed)
Manure (Dry basis) 45.4 (100.0)
208
-------
STEAM-
AMMONIA PLANT
NJ
O
<£>
WASTE PROCESSING PLANT
AIR
CO,, ASH
H2O
C02, ETC.
. (CONVERTED
I TO FERTILIZER
J BY FURTHER
PROCESSING)
FIGURE 51. GASIFICATION
-------
Air 32.0 (70.6)
Wacter 4.0 (8.8)
Carbon monoxide — 39.9 (87.9)
Nitrogen — 24.9 (54.9)
Hydrogen — 2.5 (5.6)
Residue — 14.1 (31.0)
Total 81.4 (179.4) 81.4 (179.4)
In the ammonia plant, the carbon monoxide would be reacted with
additional water to form 2.9 more kiligrams (6.3 more pounds) of
hydrogen, and the total of 5.4 kilograms (11.9 pounds) of hydrogen would
be reacted with the 24.9 kilograms (54.9 pounds) of nitrogen to form
30.3 kilograms (66.8 pounds) of ammonia.
However, because the heat of reaction is 1806 kg cal/kg (3254 Btu/lb)
manure reacted and the heat of combustion is about 3330 kg cal/kg (6000
Btu/lb) manure burned, 1806/3330 = 0.542 kilograms (3254/6000 =
0.542 pounds) must be burned as fuel for every kilogram (pound)
converted to synthesis gas. Hence, the gasification process generated
(71.4-14.!)/(!.542 x 100) = 0.44 kilograms 179.4-31.01/1.542 x 1001 =
0.96 pounds) of synthesis gas for every kilogram (pound) of manure (dry
basis) consumed. Ultimately, the three-step process results in
30.3/(1542x100) = 0.19 kilograms (66.8/(1.542 x 100) = 0.43 pounds)
of ammonia per kilogram (pound) of manure (dry basis) consumed.
The dry basis used for these values is somewhat misleading. For
example, if the manure contains only 25X moisture, every kilogram
(pound) (dry basis) of manure consumed (as reactant and fuel) actually
results in 0.41 kilograms (0.91 pounds) of synthesis gas and 0.19
kilograms (0.41 pounds) of ammonia. As the moisture content increases,
the process rapidly becomes less attractive.
Development Status
A tremendous amount of work has been done on coal gasification.
However, coal and manure gasification each have their own special
problems, and they are not the same. The gasification process, as
applied to manure, is in the earliest laboratory stage. Initial work on
feasibility of the conversion is in progress. No work has been done on
the combustion aspect or on conversion-combustion integration.
Reliability and Applicability
If this manure gasification becomes commercial, equipment is likely to
be relatively complex. It will need careful control and constant
attention to achieve a reliable operation.
210
-------
The process would probably be economically limited to areas with high
concentrations of feedlot animals, where an ammonia plant could be
assured a predictable and adequate supply of manure. Disposal of the
granular, inert by-product (largely sand) would be necessary.
PYROLYSIS
Wastes may be decomposed by heating to high temperatures in an oxygen
deficient atmosphere. Pyrolysis of animal manure has been carried out
as an offshoot of application of the process to municipal and industrial
wastes. However, ash disposal is necessary and air pollution must be
controlled. Product value is low. A recent experimental study has
concluded that "The pyrolysis process applied to cattle feedlot wastes
is uneconomical....11 Work now in progress is strictly experimental.
Technical Description
Waste material is dried and is then heated to a high temperature (400°C
- 900°C) in an atmosphere deficient in oxygen. Under these conditions,
the solid waste decomposes to form gases, liquor (oil), and char (ash).
These gases include hydrogen, water, methane, carbon monoxide, and
ethylene. They are recycled and burned to provide fuel to heat the
pyrolyzer. Hence the process is sometimes called pyrolysis-
incineration. A proposed system is shown in Figure 52. A material and
enrgy balance is shown in Figure 53.
Development status
Two developers have pyrolyzed animal manure using laboratory glassware.
In addition, research groups from two large corporations have run small
scale experiments and have proposed large scale processing plants. The
Bureau of Mines has done related work on pyrolysis of municipal and
industrial wastes.
Reliability andApplicability
The pyrolysis process is highly complex, and reliability is
questionable. However, definitive data are not available, due to the
experimental nature of the process.
If developed, pyrolysis could obviate the need for land spreading of
animal waste. It can operate in any weather and (assuming efficient use
of solid, liquid, and gaseous products as fuels) is potentially non-
polluting.
INCINERATION
Incineration requires supplemental fuel to evaporate water from the
manure. It destroys any useful value the waste may have, and the
211
-------
FLUE
GAS
149°C (300°l
RECOVERABLE OILS
CONDENSATE OUT
RECIRCULATION
GAS 93°C (200°F)
INCINERATOR
CHAMBER
COMBUSTION
TRAVELING
GRATE
AIR LOCK
ASH
OUT
RECIRCULATION
FAN
FIGURE 52. PYROLYSIS
212
-------
secondary air pollution problem requires considerable ancillary
equipment. Incineration of pyrolysis gases to supply heat for pyrolysis
is covered under "PYROLYSIS." The most recent experimental work on
simple incineration of manure appears to have been done in 1966 and
further work does not appear to be justified.
908KG (2.000 LB) FRESH MANURE
80% MOISTURE, 2% ASH *"
504KG CAL/KG
(1.816.000)
(BTU/TON)
FOR DRYING
40. 320KG CAL
(160.000 BTU)
FOR PYROLYSIS
PYROLYSIS
PROCESS
CHAR - 64.9KG(143 LB)
ASH- 16.7KG (36.8 LB)
CARBON - 46.8KG (103 LB)
285.000KG CAL (6100KG CAL/KG)
1.133.000 BTU (11.000 BTU/LB)
LOW BOILERS - 13. 3KG (29. 2 LB)
73,600KG CAL (5550KG CAL/KG)
292,000 BTU (10,000 BTU/LB)
TARRY VOLATILES - 25. 8KG (56. 8LB)
186,200KG CAL (7200KG CAL/KG)
739,000 BTU (13,000 BTU/LB)
EVAPORATED MOISTURE -
726KG (1.600 LB)
REACTION WATER -
30.3KG(66.8 LB)
EXHAUST GASES - 47. 4KG (104.4 LB)
N2. CO. CO2. CH4. C2H4
C2H6
1 10.400KG CAL (2330KG CAL/KG)
438,000 BTU (4.200 BTU/LB)
FIGURE 53. PYROLYSIS-MASS BALANCE
213
-------
HYDROLYSIS AND CHEMICAL TREATMENT
Hydrolysis, especially when aided by -treatment with a chemical such as
sodium hydroxide, makes animal waste used for refeeding more digestible.
The process is experimental and has the potential of producing a more
digestible feed supplement than simple drying, but cannot compete with
it economically at this time.
Technical Description
Hydrolysis is reaction of a material with water, breaking chemical bonds
that block digestibility. This discussion has been extended to include
chemicals used at lower temperatures for the same purpose. Work on
hydrolysis has been performed at a number of locations, summarized
below.
PROGRAM SOURCE OF WASTE TREATMENT REFERENCES
A Poultry Manure Pressurized 170, 179,
Steam 180, 181
B Sewage Sludge Sulfur Dioxide 171
C Poultry Manure Pressurized 172, 182,
Steam 183,174
D Forage, Crop Residue Sodium Hydroxide 173, 174,
175;185
E Cow Manure Sodium Hydroxide 175, 176, 186
F Beef Cattle Manure Enzyme 177
Most of the programs were directed either at feeding or at refeeding
various waste materials following physical and/or chemical treatment.
The Location A program emphasized commercial scale development of a
hydrolysis process for refeeding poultry manure to poultry. The
Location B program concerned the effects of chemical treatment on the
properties of activated sludge and the effect of including sludge
molasses in the diets of rats. The Location C program demonstrated the
acceptability of feeding either dried or hydrolyzed poultry manure to
lambs and beef cattle, using material processed by commercial hydrolysis
equipment. The Location D program emphasized the effect of feeding
chemically treated forage and crop residue to sheep, and the Location E
program did the same thing with cow manure. Finally, the Location F
program investigated the influence of enzymatic pretreatment on
biological stabilization of manure to facilitate disposal.
214
-------
A schematic, based on Reference 170, is shown in Figure 54.
Mass balance information on the hydrolysis of manure is generally not
avialable. However, Reference 173 compares hydrolyzed poultry waste
with dried poultry waste. For dried, hydrolyzed material crude protein
is 35.44X, while for dried material it is 24.88%. The hydrolyzed
material is correspondingly lower in crude fiber, ether extract, ash,
and nitrogen-free extract.
A mass balance on hydrolysis of cattle feces can be determined by
comparing an analysis of untreated feces with an analysis of chemical
treated feces. The following data are based on chemical treatment with
3 grams sodium hydroxide per 100 grams of wet feces, using feces from
cattle on two different feeds. Cell walls include some of the other
constituents, so that the percentages are not additive.
Percent of Dry Matter
Untreated Feces Treated Feces
Component Orchard Alfalfa Orchard Alfalfa
Grass Grass
Cell Walls 64.2 68.7 39.5 43.2
Hemicellulose 18.4 13.0 2.8 2.1
Cellulose 25.4 28.4 23.0 21.9
Lignin 14.7 27.1 10.1 18.9
Insoluble Ash 5.7 — 3.1
Development Status
•V
Much of the work in the hydrolysis and chemical treatment area has been
directed toward the effects of refeeding poultry and steer manure to
either lambs or steers. In general, this work has shown that the
concept is technically practical. Refeeding has generally resulted in
good weight gains, carcass characteristics, and eating characteristics.
The process has been operated commercially as a sideline, but this was
discontinued due to odor and handling problems and interference with
marketing of other product lines. Chemical treatment with enzymes has
been used as the first step in the microbial breakdown of manure for
disposal but is not applicable to refeeding.
Reliability and Applicability
Equipment is moderately complex with many moving parts. Corrosion and
errosion are problems. Considerable routine mechanical maintenance
should be expected.
215
-------
MANURE
to
M
a\
HYDROLYZER
HOPPER
NONCON-
DENSIBLES
FEED
WATER
AFTERBURNER CONDENSER
BAG LINE
DRIED
MATERIAL
SHAKER
SCREW
CONVEYOR
FUEL
CONDENSATE
FIGURE 54. STEAM HYDROLYSIS
-------
Hydrolysis and chemical treatment apply to preparation of manure for
refeeding to livestock. The process may result in digestibility
advantages over drying alone.
CHEMICAL EXTRACTION
Of the two major exponents of chemical extraction treatment of animal
waste, one has been investigating processing of poultry manure for
approximately 1-1/2 years. This process involves a separation step
(proprietary) during which the uric acid, soluble proteins, etc., are
removed as a liquid, leaving a material containing, primarily, the
undigested food. These solids are then dried at a sufficiently high
temperature for pasteurization or about 65°C (150°F) to sterilize the
mixture. This material is then to be utilized in the poultry diet. An
economic analysis of this experimental process has been performed, but
the results are still proprietary. The other exponent feels that this
process is neither "usable in practice with commercially avialable
enzymes nor economically feasible." These chemical extraction processes
are not now available for general use.
Technical Description
The raw material for this process is poultry manure which has been
collected as soon as possible after deposition for processing on a 24-
hour basis. As shown in Figure 55, separation (involving a proprietary
process) is used to isolate the solid from the liquid fractions.
According to the developer, the "true" excretory products produced by
the chicken are removed with the liquid portion. The solid material
remaining is primarily food that was not utilized by the chicken during
its first ingestion. In addition, some feather protein, egg shell
calcium and mucoid protein are included. Most of the heavy metals,
antibiotics, soluble material salts, and small molecular material of all
types will be in the liquid fraction. The solid material thus separated
is then dried at approximately 65° (150°F) to sterilize the end product.
It is this dried material that is to be incorporated into the poultry
diet. An analysis of this material is as follows:
Nutrient
Ash
Carbohydrate
Fiber
Protein
Fat
H20
Other
Calories
Content
31. H%
30. a*
17. 6«
11. 7X
4.9X
3.6%
2.8U cal/gm
217
-------
POULTRY _
FECES ""
SEPARATION
PROCESS
i
1
1
1
SOLID FRACTION
UNUSED FOOD
FEATHER PROTEIN
EGG SHELL CALCIUM |
jMUCOID PROTEIN
T
1
1
1
riR vi wcz
RECOVERED
FOOD
K>
\->
CO
LIQUID FRACTION
| HEAVY METALS I
.SOLUBLE MINERAL SALTS
• ANTIBIOTICS I
I TRUE METABOLIC EX- i
1 CRETORY PRODUCTS '
[WATER J
DISPOSAL
FIGURE 55. CHEMICAL EXTRACTION
-------
Development Status
Development of the proposed system has been underway at a relatively lew
level for approximately 1-1/2 years. The laboratory facility must be
quite limited in size since they have been able to collect only enouq
material for a feeding trial utilizing rats. A recycling scheme feeding
poultry their own manure after processing has not been attempted.
During the rat feeding trials the diet was composed entirely of
processed waste material. The only conclusion drawn from this trial was
that the rats were able to extract some nutritive value from the
material. However, at the 100% level, ration nutrient balancing
problems were evident.
A limited number of amino acids analyses have been performed, resulting
in data which indicates that while some of the amino acids are present
in quantities corresponding to a standard reference diet (leucine,
isoleucine, lysine, histidine, valine, threonine, glycine, arginine),
others were very deficient (methionine, cystine, tyrosine,
phenylalanine). This material obviously could not be fed at
exceptionally high levels without upsetting the ration balance. In
fact, approximate feedback rates of only 20% are anticipated. Although
chemical analysis indicates carbohydrate present, there is no
information as to whether or not any or all of this is liquified.
Additionally, it would appear to be very difficult to digest feather
protein. Considering the high ash content (more than half of which
comes from the egg shell calcium), dumping of the entire batch to
prevent build-up on a regular basis is anticipated.
While the system may technically work on a small laboratory scale, a
large amount of effort in the areas of chemical analyses of the product
and extensive feeding trial results are needed before the process may be
considered commercially applicable. Effort is still being expended in
choosing the various methods for each of the processing steps involved.
Reliability and Applicability
While the drying operation probably utilizes standard commercially
available equipment, the technique for the separation of the liquid and
solid fractions is unknown. An estimate of total reliability is,
therefore, not possible.
Use of this process is probably limited to animals fed a relatively low
fiber roughage diet. Only in this way can the excrement contain
nutrients worth reclaiming as opposed to material utilizable only for
roughage.
219
-------
BARRIED LANDSCAPE WATER RENOVATION SYSTEM.
"" .e Barriered Landscape water Renovation System, or BLWRS, is a modified
-oil plot for treating waste water. Effluent water may be recycled for
f "ashing or allowed to dissipate. The approach permits waste disposal
.c. rates significantly above the limits for spray irrigation of
Cropland. Cost is low, although economics are not well defined.
BLWRS is classified as experimental, although the concept is ready for a
realistic field demonstration at a feedlot. Its potential lies in low
power, decreased land use, and an effluent with very low pollution
potential. It is applicable only to sprayable wastes and is limited by
soil and climatic conditions.
Technical Description
Waste water sprayed on a mound of modified soil or sand is purified as
it flows through aerobic and anaerobic zones of the mound. Figure 56
describes a typical BLWRS. There is no specific practical limitation on
size. Waste water sprayed on the top of the mound percolated downward
to the plastic sheet (barrier) and then flows laterally to the edges of
the sheet. Effluent water may be collected for recycle back to the land
or for manure flushing.
In the aerobic zone, organic materials are oxidized to water and carbon
dioxide, organic nitrogen and ammonia are converted to nitrates, and
phosphates are absorbed by the lime or the soil. In the anerobic zone,
nitrates are denitrified to form nitrogen gas. When needed, energy may
be injected into the anaerobic zone in some convenient form such as
molasses. The BLWRS or each section of a large BLWRS must be rested
periodically to allow drying. Waste water application rate is
hydraulically limited to 1.0 to 2.0 centimeters (0.4 to 0.8 inches) per
day, based on mound area. Typical data for an application rate of 2.1
centimeters (0.84 inches) per day is:
CONCENTRATION. MG/L
POLLUTANT INLET OUTLET
Organic N + NH3 532.0 1.5
NO3 7.0 1.01
NH4 438.0 69.0
P04 11.2 0.02
BOD 1200.0 3.4
COD 2300.0 57.0
220
-------
ro
to
T
1.2 - 1.8M (4-6 FT)
30 - 75CM
(12-30 IN.)
NOTE: PUMP AND PIPING NOT SHOWN.
RECYCLE PUMP AND SUMP (IF
APPLICABLE) NOT SHOWN.
PLANT COVER
-LIMESTONE
ORIGINAL SOIL LEVEL
PLASTIC SHEET BARRIER
RENOVATED
WATER
FIGURE 56. BARRIERED LANDSCAPE WATER RENOVATION SYSTEM
-------
Development Status
The process is ready for experimental application to a large feedlot.
Two BLWRS were installed in each of two applications: (1) flush water -
manure mixture from 80 sows, collected for recycle; and (2) milking
parlor holding pen flush water from a 200-300 cow dairy operation. At
each installation, the two BLWRS are used alternately. In a larger
installation, which is now planned, a single BLWRS would be operated,
with parts of the mound being rested periodically.
Reliability and Applicability
Equipment is simple and conventional. Mechanical breakdown problems
should be minimal. Coarse material may need to be sieved out to prevent
clogging of the spray equipment.
Application is limited to wastes that are sprayable. Thus, the concept
could be applied to flush water, storn runoff, or lagoon effluent. The
soil must be permeable. Rainfall may use all of the hydraulic capacity
(10 to 20 centimeters 4 to 8 inches) for any particular day of
operation. Icing of the spray nozzle or freezing of the BLWRS surface
prevents waste water disposal during freezing weather.
LAGOONS FOR WASTE TREATMENT
Lagoons are excavated ponds for biological treatment of waste water
and/or manure. They are used extensively in most parts of the country.
They work well when properly designed and used, but they do not provide
total treatment. Lagoon water is usually used for cropland irrigation,
but it is sometimes given further treatment (e.g. final clarification
and/or chlorination) and discharged such as is encountered on duck
farms. Sludge must generally be removed every few years. Ambient
temperature influences design and function. Economics often favor
anaerobic rather than aerobic lagoons, although odor control requires
close attention.
Technical Description
Naturally aerated lagoons are called oxidation ponds. They are shallow,
and sizing is based on surface area, since aerobic oxidation takes place
only in the upper H5 centimeters (18 inches) of water. Mechanically
aerated lagoons (aerated lagoons) are much deeper, and sizing is based
on volume since oxygen (air) is dispersed throughout the lagoon volume
by a compressed air diffuser or floating aerator. Anaerobic lagoons are
also deep but contain essentially no dissolved oxygen. Detention or
holding ponds and evaporation ponds are not for biological treatment of
wastes, and they are therefore not discussed here. On the other hand, a
lagoon is often needed primarily for its storage capacity but is still
designed to assure maximum treatment before its contents are used on the
cropland. This reduces odor during irrigation with lagoon water.
222
-------
Lagoons are biological systems and contain microbial sludges. Oxidation
ponds depend on warmth, light, and wind. These factors support a
symbiotic relationship between saprophytic bacteria and algae. Thus,
the bacteria utilize oxygen released by photosynthesis in the algae, and
the algae utilize carbon dioxide and other substances released by
bacterial metabolism of the organic waste. In aerated lagoons, the
bacteria utilize oxygen dissolved in the water by action of the aerator.
The anaerobic lagoon contains a balance of two main types of bacteria.
The first type converts the waste to organic acids and related sub-
stances, while the second type converts these substances to methane and
carbon dioxide gas. Intermediate substances are highly odorous.
In general, an anaerobic lagoon decreases BOD by 70% to 90%, reduces
settleable solids in the supernatant by nearly 100%, removes 60% - 80%
of total solids from the supernatant, does not affect pH, and increases
nitrate nitrogen drastically. When an aerobic lagoon follows an
anaerobic lagoon in series flow, the anaerobic lagoon may be assumed to
remove 50% of the influent BOD, for purposes of designing the aerobic
lagoon.
Development Status All types of lagoons are in common commercial use.
Reliability and Applicability
Serious upsets may occur in each type of lagoon. The oxidation pond may
generate too much algae growth, upsetting the bacteria algae symbiotic
balance. The aerated lagoon can quickly turn anaerobic and odorous if
the aerator stops working. The anaerobic lagoon can turn sour (acid)
and odorous if it is shock loaded with too much waste at one time or
when it is dredged or disturbed in some other manner. Recovery from
these upsets may take weeks. Oxidation ponds are economical where land
prices are low and can be used in climates where evaporation is slow.
Where land is more expensive, anaerobic lagoons, which do not use much
land and require no power, may be the best choice. Aerated lagoons are
useful where land is severly limited or where odors are a serious
problem. Lagoons provide improved solids, dewatering, reduced solids
volume, odor reduction of solids spread on cropland, and (for anaerobic
lagoons) pretreatment ahead of aerobic lagoons.
Sizing
Aerobic lagoons or oxidation ponds are generally sized based on
allowable loadings expressed as kilograms (pounds) of BOD per day per
hectare (per acre) of surface area. Detention time is also used as a
supplemental criterion. Loadings as high as 110 kg BOD/day/hectare (100
Ib. BOD/day/acre) are given for Southern Florida, but recommendations
for more northern areas generally run from 9 (20) in colder areas to 23
(50) in milder areas. Recommended detention times run from 25 days in
Southern Florida to 120 days for cold areas. Loadings are also
223
-------
translated into terms of
loading with raw manure:
specific animals. For example, based on
Poultry
Swine
Dairy
Beef
0.92 meter square/kg of animal
(4.5 foot square/pound of animal)
0.51 meter square/kg of animal
(2.5 foot square/pound of animal)
0.31 meter square/kg of animal
1.5 foot square/pound of animal)
0.31 meter square/kg of animal
(1.5 foot square/pound of animal)
For mechanically aerated lagoons, allowable loadings are based
on lagoon volume, because oxygen is dispersed throughout. One
guideline recommends 1700 liter/kg (60 cubic foot/pound)
BOD/day. Another states that volume should be 50 times the "daily
manure production," with a 2 - 3 year detention. The following
guideline for mechanically aerated lagoons is expressed in terms
of specific animals and may be compared with the values given
earlier for oxidation ponds, allowing a depth of 0.9 to 1.2
meters (3-4 feet) for oxidation ponds:
Poultry
Swine
Dairy
Beef
47 liters/kg of animal
(0.75 cubic foot/pound of animal)
62 liters/kg of animal
(1.00 cubic foot/pound of animal)
78 liters/kg of animal
(1.25 cubic foot/pound of animal)
47 liters/kg of animal
(0.75 cubic foot/pound of animal)
Another reference suggests that the volume of the lagoon be double that
of all the waste it will receive during the five cold months of the
year, assuming the lagoon is half full at the beginning of that period.
Anaerobic lagoon loadings are generally based on volatile solids,
although one reference suggests 1.6 to 8.2 kg BOD/day/100 cubic meter
(10 to 50 Ib. BOD/day/1000 cubic foot), where the volume does not
include that occupied by sludge (e.g., 0.34 cubic meter/ year/hog) (12
cubic foot/year/hog). Based on volatile solids, references generally
give a loading range of 16 to 160 or 240 grams vs/day/cubic meter (0.001
to 0.01 or 0.015 Ib. vs/day/cubic foot). Some specific values are 65
(0.004) for Texas, 80 (0.005) for the moderate Midwest, and 115 grams
vs/day/cubic meter (0.007 Ib. vs/day/cubic foot) for Southern Florida
with a 15 day minimum detention time. The State of Missouri guideline
is 120 grams vs/day/cubic meter (0.0075 Ib. vs/day/cubic foot), with a
temperature adjustment factor. Guidelines are also expressed in terms
224
-------
of specific animals, with a 1.5 multiplier for sever winter, and 0.75
multiplier for mild winter:
Swine 78 liters/kg of animal
(1.25 cubic foot/lb of animal)
Steer 93 liters/kg of animal
(1.50 cubic foot/lb of animal)
Hen 125 liters/kg of animal
(2.0 cubic foot/lb of animal)
EVAPORATION
Evaporation is an alternative to disposing of liquid runoff wastes by
land irrigation. Under proper climate conditions, evaporation can
significantly reduce the total quantity of waste material and thereby
help to minimize the waste disposal problem. However, solids must be
periodically removed and disposed of. For proper operation, this
process is limited to those geographical regions where the annual
evaporation rates exceed annual precipitation by a reasonable margin.
To be effective, large areas of land are required since evaporation
rates are a function of exposed surface area as well as low relative
humidity, ambient temperature, air movement and solar energy.
Evaporative pond design must also consider the quality of waste effluent
being discharged. The accumulation of debris or scum on the evaporative
surface will significantly hinder the process, even under the best of
climatic conditions.
Costs associated with the pond evaporation treatment process will vary
widely depending upon many factors, including climatological influence,
waste characteristics of the effluent, land values, and geographical
features.
Although this natural phenomenon occurs in all geographical regions at
some period during the year, in those areas where evaporation is most
effective, the water usually represents a valuable resource for the
irrigation of cropland and is so used. As a result, the applicability
of evaporation as a viable concept for reducing the total quantity of
waste handling is probably limited to the more arrid regions not
suitable for raising crops.
TRICKLING FILTER
The trickling filter is a compact, effective means of treating waste
water that may be applied to effluent water from a settling basin.
Effluent water may be used for flushing or direct discharge to a natural
waterway. Although large scale application to treating municipal sewage
225
-------
is common, use in treating feedlot wastes has been limited to the
laboratory. The process is, therefore, regarded as experimental.
Technical Description
The trickling filter provides an extended active surface for biological
stabilization of waste water within a small land area and volume. The
trickling filter is basically a pile of stones, but other materials and
configurations are often used. Plastic media have been used in
municipal treatment plants. Stones, Douglas fir bark, and a fiberglass
ramp or inclined plane have been applied to animal waste. Operation is
either batch with repeated recycle or continuous with recycle. Figure
57 represents a unit sized for one dairy cow. Settleable solids must be
removed in the primary sedimentation tank to prevent clogging of the
trickling filter. A bacterial scum continuously builds up on and
sloughs off the stones. Water is aerobically purified as it flows over
the surface of the stones. The final sedimentation tank separates
sloughed slime. The accumulated slime is nearly free of odor and is
suitable for spreading on cropland.
Trickling filter effectiveness is variable, depending on such factors as
contact time and recycle rate or duration. The following representative
data, however, indicate capability:
Type of Trickling Influent Effluent Removal
Filter BOD mg/lit BOD mg/lit Efficiency (%)
Stones 1600 100 94
Bark 300 30 90
Inclined Plane — — 52.U*
*Single pass efficiency
Only partial system mass balance information is available. For example,
the following values are based on data from Reference 233. The
trickling filter represented by the data contained a 0.9 meter (3 foot)
depth of 3.8 centimeter (1-1/2 inch) bark with 0.03 square meters (0.35
square foot) superficial area, and the recycle rate within the system
(through the filter) was 12.0 kg (26.4 Ib.) minimum.
226
-------
FLUSHING
WATER
DISTRIBUTOR
to
NJ
PRIMARY
SEDIMENTATION
TANK
OVERFLOW
TO DISPOSAL
FINAL
SEDIMENTATION
TANK
SLUDGE TO
DISPOSAL
FIGURE 57. TRICKLING FILTER
-------
Waste Component
Total (daily batch)
Total Solids
Nitrogen
BOD
*Assumed
Daily Balance -
Input
378 (833)
0.27 (0.60)
0.03U ((0.075)
0.11 (0.25)
Kilograms (Pounds)
Output
378 (833*)
0.08 (0.18)
0.0036 (0.008)
0.01U (0.03)
Development Status Use of trickling filters for treating animal waste
water is limited to the laboratory. Work on the unit using stones was
discontinued several years ago. The other two units are active, but
there are no definite plans for larger scale demonstrations. The
capacity of the systems operated thus far is indicated in the following
table:
Trickling Filter
Type
Stones
Bark
Inclined Plane
Source of
Waste Water
One dairy cow
(diluted)
Poultry
(diluted and
decanted)
Swine Waste
Lagoon
Characteristic
Dimensions
0.6 meter
(2 ft. diam.)
1.2 meter
(U ft deep)
20 cm
(8 in diam)
0.9 meter
(3 ft deep)
0.3 meter
(1 ft wide)
2.4 meter
(8 ft long)
System Influent
Rate I/day (gal/day)
231
(61)
378
(100)
87
(23)
Reliability and Applicability
Equipment is simple and basically conventional.
problems should be minimal.
Mechanical breakdown
Trickling filters provide waste water treatment using small land area.
The influent must be free of settleable solids. Effluent water may be
228
-------
recycled for flushing and probably can be suitable for discharge to
natural waterways after sufficient recycling. In cold climates, the
unit must be housed to prevent water temperatures below 7°C (45°F).
SPRAY RUNOFF
Spray runoff is an experimental technology. Waste water is sprayed on a
grass covered slope, and effluent water is collected at the bottom. The
grass and surface soil particles are covered with films of aerobic and
anaerobic microorganisms, which act on the pollutants in the water. The
process has been applied to at least three large feedlots, but it is in
an early stage of development. Its potential lies in low power and
decreased land use. Present application is limited to storm runoff.
Technical Description
Figure 58 describes a typical spray runoff system. Running downward
from the top of the slope, typical distances are as follows:
Top to first nozzle row 18 - 21 meters (60 - 70 feet)
Nozzle row to terrace 46 - 76 meters (150 - 250 feet)
Terrace to next nozzle row 18 - 21 meters (60 - 70 feet)
Running across the slope, typical distances are:
Between nozzles 9 meters (30 feet)
Side to Side 22 meters (400 feet)
Grading data are as follows:
Slope grade 1-6 percent
Terrace grade 0.2-1.0 percent
The grass must be moisture and salt tolerant. Selected varieties
include Native Bermuda, Reed Canary, Tall Fescue, and K31 Fescue. The
spray pattern from each nozzle forms a 30 meter (100 foot) diameter
circle. Waste water is sprayed on the grass covered slope and is
renovated as it runs down the slope. The water is collected at the
bottom (or at intervals) by means of a terrace (lateral channel).
Recycling is probably necessary to further purify the water before
release to a natural waterway, but a recycling technique has not yet
been worked out. A mass of microorganisms (mainly aerobic) builds up on
the grass and on surface particles of the soil. These microorganisms
adsorb organic components of the runoff and convert them to carbon
dioxide and water. Similarly, organic nitrogen is converted to ammonia
and then to nitrates. It has been hypothesized that the nitrates are
either assimilated by the grass or converted to nitrogen and nitrous
229
-------
ro
w
o
SLOPED
FEEDLOT
RECYCLE
RECYCLE
PUMP
COLLECTED'
RUNOFF
SPRAY
PUMP
RECYCLE
TANK
SPRAY
NOZZLE
ROW
SPRAY
NOZZLE
ROW
TERRACE
COLLECTION
kPOND
FIGURE 58. SPRAY RUNOFF
-------
oxide by anaerobic bacteria. Phosphates are either assimilated by the
grass or adsorbed on soil particles.
Application rate is hydraulically limited to 0.15 to 0.5 centimeters
(0.06 to 0.20 inches) per hour for eight hours, three or four times per
week. Recommended spray rate is 19 liters per minute (5 gallons per
minute) per nozzle. As the sprayed water runs down the slope, 65* to
75% is lost, mainly by evaporation. Typical parameters are:
Influent Removal
Pollutant Concentration (ppm) Efficiency (%)
Suspended Solids 195 9a
COD U30 71
BOD 63-350 50-80
Phosphate 13.5 0-96
Total nitrogen 28-250 40-81
Ammonia nitrogen 100-125 45-50
Where a range is shown in the preceding tabulation, two different data
sources are represented and the lower concentration is associated with
the higher removal efficiency.
Two Kansas installations have operated less than one season, as of March
1973. Effluent water has not been found satisfactory for direct release
to natural waterways. An effective recycling technique has yet to be
worked out. An installation in Texas ran for six months, but the
feedlot is no longer operating. Data on this operation are limited and
unconfirmed.
Reliability and Applicability
Equipment is simple and conventional. Mechanical breakdown problems
should be minimal.
Applicability is limited to wastes that are sprayable. Spray runoff has
been considered only in terms of storm runoff, but it could also be
applied to flush water or lagoon effluent. Freezing weather prevents
use. It is applicable to limited cropland situations, where spray
irrigation is not practical.
ROTATING BIOLOGICAL CONTACTOR
The Rotating Biological Contactor or RBC achieves a very high density of
biologically active surface per unit volume. It is potentially valuable
only where land availability is severely limited. Purchase price is
uncertain but relatively high. Work on this experimental approach has
been discontinued.
231
-------
Technical Description
The RBC consists of a row of 104 closely spaced, 3 meter (10 foot)
diameter, polystyrene discs. The discs rotate on a horizontal shaft and
dip into a waste water bath. An aerobic bacterial film on the discs
removes and decomposes organic materials from the waste water. In work
carried out at a university facility, success of the RBC in treating
swine wastes was limited. There were indications that increasing the
waste water residence time (1.2 to 2.5 hours was used) might result in
improved performance. In actual use, formation of calcium carbonate
deposits resulted in degraded operation and mechanical breakdown.
WATER HYACINTHS
Water hyacinths, when placed in a series of four lagoons located
downstream of an anaerobic lagoon, provided partial treatment of the
effluent from the anaerobic lagoon. The plants require relatively
dilute supernatant concentrations (less than 1000 ppm COD) to provide
proper growth cycles. The effluent from the last hyacinth lagoon showed
significant reductions in COD, phosphate, and nitrogen content. The
plant also has a high rate of evapotranspiration, with water loss from
the leaves reported to be over three times that of the free water
surface. Extrapolating the harvest data reveals a dry matter production
rate of approximately eleven metric tons per hectare (five tons per
acre). A major deterrent to the profitable use of water hyacinths is
the high water content of the plant. Once harvested, this leads to
rapid spoilage and causes handling problems. The average dry matter
content of water hyacinths is 5.9%.
The economic feasibility and attractiveness of this system will require
that uses for the harvested plants be devised. Limited use has been
made of the plants as livestock roughage, although data is insufficient
to establish this as an economic practice and palatability is
questionable. Work on this concept was at the laboratory level and is
no longer being pursued. Hence, it is classified as experimental.
Potential application is to warm climates.
Technical Description
A series of lagoons is prepared such that the flow of effluent from an
anaerobic lagoon to the prepared lagoons can be controlled. Water
hyacinths are placed in this series of lagoons. These plants multiply
rapidly, growing on the nutrients contained in the effluent from the
anaerobic lagoon, which is periodically allowed to replenish the level
of supernatant in the initial water hyacinth lagoon. Effluent from the
downstream lagoon, with its lowest level of organic matter, is disposed
of either by application to cropland, where less land is required per
unit volume discharged, or possible to receiving streams if organic
matter and nutrients are sufficiently lowered. Sequentially, the more
232
-------
concentrated supernatant from the lagoon immediately upstream is pumped
or allowed to flow, replenishing the level of the downstream lagoons
until the initial water hyacinths lagoon is replensished from the
anaerobic lagoon.
A portion of the water hyacinths from each lagoon is harvested
periodically. These plants may be used for livestock roughage, although
data is lacking to establish the feasibility of this practice. Thse
plants also exhibit a high rate of evapotranspiration so that over three
times the quantity of water evaporated from a free water surface is
released by the water hyacinths.
Development status
The water hyacinths process is in the early stages of laboratory
development. The process is not presently being pursued as viable waste
treatment concept.
Reliability and Applicability
No mechanical equipment is involved.
Evidence from the reported experiment shows that dilute effluent
concentrations from the anaerobic lagoon are required, or stunted growth
will take place. Also, climatic conditions will limit the growing
season, thus limiting utilization of this process to that period.
ALGAE
Growing algae in the supernatant from a hydraulically flushed animal
confinement facility is presently under development on an experimental
basis by a major university. The concept utilizes photosynthetic
reclamation of the animal wastes in the form of algae production as a
method of waste disposal. In theory, the water loop is closed; however,
some water is lost in practice and makeup water is required.
Settled solids from the hydraulic flush are discharged to an anaerobic
digester with digester supernatant also pumped to the algae growing
pond. The stabilized sludge, reduced from 40% to 50% on a total solids
basis, requires subsequent disposal when removed from the anaerobic
digester.
Effluent from the algae growing pond is pumped either to the animal
facility for gutter flushing or, depending on algae concentration,
processed so the algae are removed. The harvested algae in either the
dried state or as dewatered paste can be used as a protein supplement in
the diet of chickens, ruminants, or swine. The product could be used as
a high grade fertilizer.
233
-------
Since the photosynthetic reclamation system is in the earlier stages of
development and not practiced on a large scale basis, cost data has not
been developed. However, the proponents of this system have estimated
that in a large scale operation, dried sewage grown algae could be
produced for about $0.09 per kilogram ($0.04 per pound).
An obvious limitation of the photosynthetic process is the quality of
the environment in which the system is operated. Abundant sunlight and
mild temperatures are necessary ingredients conducive to the growing of
algae.
Technical Description
Algae is an artificial grouping of plants consisting of seven remotely
related phyla of Thallophyla which have attained about the same level of
rudimentary development and which possess chlorophyll, carry on
photosynthesis, and are therefore independent (able to make their own
food). The system described here is being developed at a university
research laboratory. The concept is designed to develop a partially
closed system based on integration of an anaerobic and aerobic phase,
recycling of water and reclamation of a usable product. The pilot plant
includes a poultry enclosure, a hydraulic system for handling the
wastes, a heated anaerobic digester with ancillary equipment, and an
algae production pond. Figure 59 shows the flow pattern for this
concept.
The animals' wastes are flushed to a holding tank in which settleable
solids are separated from the liquid phase. The supernatant is pumped
directly to an algae pond and the settled solids are discharged to an
anaerobic digester. Digester supernatant is pumped directly to the
algae pond, and the settleable stabilized sludge (dewatered) is removed
for disposal. Depending upon the algae concentration, pond effluent
either is recycled directly to the animal quarters for flushing the
wastes or can be processed so that the algae are removed. A portion of
the supernatant from the separation process is pumped to animal quarters
for waste flushing. The algae are dried for use as a foodstuff.
Two inputs to the system are of significance: The chicken manure and
tap water overflow from the drinking troughs. Outputs are harvested
algae, settled solids from the sedimentation tank, grit, digester gas
and sump output. Data were compiled on the input, output, and system
changes with respect to total solids, volatile solids, unoxidized
nitrogen, and energy (not including solar energy) . An analysis of the
data in terms of the system as a whole reveals that biological activity
in the sedimentation tank, digester, and pond decreased the TS by 60X;
the VS by 62%; the total unoxidized nitrogen by 45%; and the energy by
56X. Algae yield was extrapolated to be about 45 metric tons of algae
234
-------
FEED
WATER
DIGESTER
ICH-
I ! HX
1
SUPERNATANT
SUPERNATANT
SEDIMENTATION
TANK
ALGAE POND
FIGURE 59. ALGAE
235
-------
(dry weight per hectare (20 tons of algae (dry weight) per acre) of pond
surface per year on a year-round basis.
Development Status
Although algae have long been recognized for their biological oxidation
effects, the investigation of their potential use on farm animal wastes
is limited to the past few years. Continued development of the system
is still required before it can be prudently tried on a large scale.
Major technology gaps pertain to the following areas: (1) the length of
time in which the system can be operated as a closed system, i.e.,
without excessive build-up of salts, of toxic (to microorganisms)
materials, of sludge, and of pathogens; (2) the extent of concentration
of toxic substances (pesticides, trace metals, etc.) by the algae when
the algae are harvested; and (3) the regional limitations because of
climatological factors.
Reliability and Applicability
Reliability is probably lower than average due to the systems reliance
on weather factors for proper, economical operation. A supplemental
aeration system is needed for the algae growing pond during periods of
inclement weather.
Applicability is limited to geographical regions where abundant sunlight
and warmer ambient temperatures are prevalent.
PRETREATMENT REQUIREMENTS
In general, a municipal treatment system is not available to a feedlot.
Real estate which has sewer collection systems for transportation of
wastes to a treatment plant is usually in close proximity to
municipalities, very high priced, and therefore, not economically
justifiable to the feedlot. Feedlots with animals for producing milk
and eggs are encountered near to cities but even in these cases there
will not be a sewer distribution system available. To install a sewer
system for this purpose is not normally economical for most feedlots and
to transport the wastes to a treatment plant or sewer system would
involve most of the costs presently incurred in spreading these wastes
on land. Special circumstances where animal wastes might be considered
for treatment in a municipal system of which one feedlot-type of
operation might be from a stockyard or "order-buyer" located within a
municipality.
If this situation does arise, animal wastes are generally the same as
those being treated in the municpal system. The major characteristics
of animal wastes as presented in Section V which would create
difficulties are the concentration of these wastes and the inclusion of
materials with low rates of biodegradation such as litter and bedding.
236
-------
The presence of trace amounts of heavy metals and antibiotics may also
inhibit the normal biological processes of the treatment plant although
such effects have not been documented regarding stockyard or feedlot
runoff into a municipal system.
Solids Concentration
The high concentration of solids present in animal waste can vary all
the way from semi-solid wastes containing 50% moisture scraped from
floors to the liquid wastes resulting from runoff containing 2% solids.
Animal waste, because of its high solids concentration, if added in
significant quantities to a municipal system which operates with waste
flows containing about .1% solids, will exceed the design capability of
the primary treatment systems unless special provisions are made.
Because of large solids concentrations, secondary treatment systems such
as trickling filters would become clogged and not capable of functioning
while activated sludge systems would probably operate with impaired
performance. A judgement should be made on an individual basis as to
the amount of animal waste which should be allowed to enter a particular
treatment system. Consideration should be given to the specific solids
type and concentration in the animal waste, the present municipal waste
load, and the treatment system and component capacity available to
insure that a proper degree of dilution is maintained and the system's
operational capacity is not exceeded.
Inhibitory Substances
Inhibitory substances are those which may affect the normal operation of
biological systems processing municipal waste. The amount and type of
these substances present in animal waste are primarily a function of
animal type. Table HO indicates the inhibitory substances present in
animal wastes, the level which is inhibitory to bacterial action, and
the maximum levels at which the substances are present in liquid animal
wastes. In those instances noted as "no data," the substance may be
present but is not prevalent. The table designations refer to the waste
tables in Section V. Note that concern would be directed at only those
"open" systems such as cattle or swine with dirt lots since the other
production systems are not found in municipalities. These systems, e.g.
swine with slotted floor are given only to serve as a guide in the rare
circumstance that a new source of this type is encountered.
The substance which most often exceeds the inhibitory level is
potassium. The only other substances which exceed in inhibitory level
are magnesium and copper. In any case, the dilution required (because
of total solids concentration) prior to the waste being admitted into a
municipal plant would lower these inhibitory concentrations to an
acceptable level.
237
-------
The organic content of animal wastes (if at a proper dilution level)
would be removed from the waste stream by a municipal plant equally as
well as the organic content of normal sewage. However, the inorganic
contents may or may not pass through the system depending on their form.
If they are present as suspended solids, primary settling would most
likely remove them.
238
-------
TABLE 40 - INHIBITORY SUBSTANCES
INHIBITORY
SUBSTANCE
Potassium
Magnesium
Sodium
Ch lor otetr acycline
Copper
Zinc
Calcium
Manganese
Iron
r-H
0>
0>
J
>>
rH
O
•rH *-^.
a B
j=, a
s a
r-t *— '
2500
1000
3500
57
137
100
2500
548
137
TYPE OF WASTE
"8 £
(§ §
0) O
cv: rt ~-
QJ ^^ C2
r-H
oi CD d
H PQ ft
1600
140
950
noc
\
ata
t
"S
G
CD
S O rt
_2 >> ^
rt '3 O
H Q u
340
no data
\
'
\
ft
-1 m
|l
TT O)
a rt
,2 g CD
H d t5
400
100
80
2
15
nod
>
ata
f
f
<
3
^
E
"8
-M
-4-t
O CD
r— 1 £_i
oo M 3
^ ' rt
CD CD 5)
i— i C3 p=5
-g -S -M
C3 > -r-j
H cS ft
2500
550
500
10
100
noc
\
ata
/
-i
a
£
-4
3
§
• rH
4-*
rt L.
2 2
b
-------
-------
SECTION VIII
COST, ENERGY, AND NON-WATER QUALITY ASPECT
GENERAL
Cost is somewhat related to both energy and non-water quality aspect,
and these topics are discussed under two major headings. All of the
information in this section relates directly to the technologies
discussed in Section VII, Control and Treatment Technology.
Consequently, an examination of Section VII is essential for proper
interpretation of much of the material in this section.
COST
Investment and operating costs are classified according to the
technology with which they are associated. Assuming sufficient
information is available for each technology, these costs may be
combined (as discussed in Section VII with regard to Table 39) to
estimate the costs of various techniques for managing the wastes from
any of the feedlot categories.
In general, any feedlot category can be managed by a technology
combination consisting of runoff control, a complete or partial
treatment technology, and land utilization. For example, the category
"cow yard with milking center" could be managed by runoff control
(diversion ditches and lagoon), activated sludge (partial treatment),
and land utilization (spray irrigation of lagoon water and spreading of
sludge on crops). Of course, land utilization alone may serve as the
complete treatment. On the other hand, both land utilization and runoff
control may be unnecessary for a category using total confinement and a
complete treatment such as dehydration for sale.
Utility of the cost data is limited by two major factors. In the case
of BPCTCA (see Table 39) technologies, these methods are widely
practiced, and cost data is plentiful. However, there is a great deal
of data scatter caused by differences in climate, soil, state
guidelines, implementation philosophy, and other factors. The cost
impact of pollution abatement is difficult if not impossible to separate
from the feedlot cost structure. This is due in part to the fact that
those owners which do document their costs may be producing more than
one animal, or are engaged in other businesses, agricultural or
otherwise. With the experimental technologies, there is poor cost
definition due to the relatively undeveloped state of the technology.
As these technologies become better developed, costs are better defined
but are often proprietary and therefore unavailable.
241
-------
For BPCTCA technologies, the cost data to follow were primarily
collected first-hand during the study. They are, however, supplemented
by data or correlations from the literature for comparison or were
obtained by contacting the process developer whenever the data were not
available in the literature.
Land Utilization
The cost of land utilization of feedlot wastes is a complex subject.
Unlike a specific chemical or biological process for use with a
particular type of animal wastes, land utilization is applicable, in
some degree to all types of animal wastes, crops, soils and climates.
All of these factors can vary greatly, with a corresponding variation in
the methods and costs of land spreading. Although waste spreading
systems can be characterized as either liquid or solid handling systems,
both categories have innumerable variations depending on available
equipment, farm and crop management schemes and personal preference.
For all these reasons, it is virtually impossible to present economic
data which have a broad applicability. However, to put the subject in
perspective, the following discussion will indicate the major cost
considerations and present some actual fertilization cost data for
specific situations. Economic data for disposal rate (as opposed to
fertilization rate, which is lower) applications are not presented
because they would be misleading in that the disposal scheme is only in
the early experimental stages of development.
Value of Animal Waste as a Fertilizer - The major factors affecting the
value of animal wastes as a fertilizer are:
a. Value and quantity of nutrients in the wastes
b. Availability of nutrients to crops
c. Fringe benefits of animal waste utilization.
The value of fertilizer nutrients are generally based upon the increased
value of the crop produced from fertilized land. This determination is
difficult to generalize about or even estimate for specific situations.
This is because of:
a. The condition of manure in terms of nutrient content and balance as
applied is highly variable.
b. The type of soil, the method and time of application as well as the
climate directly affect how much of these nutrients will be aviailable
to crops.
c. The type of crop and requirements for specific nutrients and ratios
of nutrients directly affects actual utilization of fertilizers by the
crop.
242
-------
d. Each crop has a different value and therefore will show a different
return on the basis of nutrients used.
Animal wastes, unlike inorganic fertiizers, do not release all of their
nitrogen to crops immediately. This is because much of the nitrogen in
animal wastes is in an organic form and must first be reduced to ammonia
before it is converted to nitrate for crop uptake. Inorganic
fertilizers are applied in the form of nitrates or ammonia thus making
them available to the crop immediately.
It is generally concended that only half of the nitrogen in animal waste
is released in the year of application with only half of the remainder
being released in the next year. This again complicates determining the
nutrient value of the wastes.
The most common fringe benefits of animal waste utilization on land are
increased tilth, increased water retention, and decreased runoff
nutrient losses. Each of these is difficult to evaluate without data
for each specific instance.
Cost of Hauling and Application - The general scope of the information
to follow is for transferring the waste from the collection point to
cropland. The collection point may be a stockpile, a deep pit, a
lagoon, or some functionally similar facility. The data are classified
as:
(1) Solid manure
(2) Liquid Manure
(3) Irrigation
The data are presented in both tabular and graphical form and also in
the form of examples. They are generalized to represent any animal
category whereever possible. The data collected first hand for this
report are supplemented with data from the literature for comparison.
The correlations must be regarded as representing typical rather than
average data, because individual points show wide variation depending on
local economics, state guidelines, type of soil (sand, clay, rocky, wet,
etc.), moisture content of waste, crop management approach, climate, and
other factors. In addition, the particular operation may be barely
adequate or overdesigned.
Solid Manure - Figure 60 represents investment in equipment for loading,
hauling and spreading. Often, the same equipment is also used for pen
cleaning. Most of the data derives from beef cattle feedlots. In
reducing these data, a partly biodegraded, semi-dry waste rate of eight
pounds per animal per day was assumed. The correlation is based on work
by Butchbaker extended by data collected for this report.
243
-------
300
METRIC TONS SPREAD PER DAY
100 200
a: 250
O
Q
U.
O
I
Q
I
O
UJ
I
UI
UJ
QL
O
UJ
200
150
NOTE: CORRELATION REPRESENTS
BUTCHBAKER DATA EX-
TENDED BY HAMILTON
STANDARD DATA.
100
50
100 200
SHORT TONS SPREAD PER DAY
300
FIGURE 60. LAND UTILIZATION INVESTMENT COST - SOLID MANURE
244
-------
The following equipment investment cost ranges for individual pieces of
equipment were noted:
Loader:
Truck:
Spreader:
$5000 (100,000 turkeys) to $38,000 (27,000 beef cattle)
$3000 to $7300
$2000
Figure 61 shows ranges of typical operating costs exclusive of pen
cleaning and stockpiling (which are considered part of the animal
husbandry function rather than waste management). All of the costs
include loading. They may be paid either by the feedlot owner himself,
or by a neighboring farmer to the feedlot owner or to a contractor.
A surcharge of 2.8 cents per kilometer (5 cents per mile) is sometimes
added for contract hauling beyond some minimum distance such as nine
kilometers (five miles).
Liquid Manure - Investment costs for managing liquid manure are shown in
Figure 62. These costs include pump, container, and locomotion but do
not include the cost of the manure pit or other waste storage container.
The pump may be an ordinary manure pump or chopper pump. The container
may be a tank spreader, tank truck, or vacuum wagon. Locomotion may be
self-propulsion or supplied by a tractor. Individual equipment costs
collected for this report are as follows:
Manure pump:
Chopper pump:
Tank Spreader:
Self-propelled spreader:
Vacuum wagon:
Tractor:
$1450 - $1600
$1800 - $2000
$1000 - $3200, 11,355 liters
{3000 gal.)
14,000, 5.44 metric ton
(6 ton, all weather)
$1500 - $3000, 7,949 liters
(2100 gal.)
$2000 - $12,000
Operating costs associated with spreading liquid manure from beef
cattle are shown in Figure 63.
Irrigation - Runoff water collected in holding ponds or lagoons
is often used for crop irrigation. Investment costs for three
types of irrigation systems are shown in Figure 64 based on the
literature. In addition, the following data, collected for this
report, may be useful:
245
-------
QUANTITY HANDLED, THOUSANDS OF METRIC TONS
100 200
400
U)
DC
O
Q
U.
O
(/)
Q
1
g
H
te
O
O
300
200
100
100 200
QUANTITY HANDLED, THOUSANDS OF SHORT TONS
300
FIGURE 61. LAND UTILIZATION OPERATING COSTS-SOLID MANURE
246
-------
EQUIPMENT INVESTMENT, DOLLARS
m
O
m
O
>
z
H
m
>
p
O
m
O
m
o
>
H
U)
13
3D
m
-------
00
O
Q
fc
O
O
UI
Q.
O
2500
1000
QUANTITY SPREAD, THOUSANDS OF LITERS
2000 3000 4000
2000
1500
1000
5000
6000
500
BUTCHBAKER
CORRELATION
HAMILTON
STANDARD
TRIP REPORTS
200
400 600 800 1000 1200
QUANTITY SPREAD, THOUSANDS OF GALLONS
1400
1600
FIGURE 63. LIQUID MANURE MANAGEMENT - OPERATING COST
-------
6000
200 400 600 800 1000
BEEF FEEDLOT CAPACITY, NUMBER OF HEAD
1200
FIGURE 64. IRRIGATION EQUIPMENT - INVESTMENT COST
249
-------
Pump system: $5300 - three pumps totalling
158 liter/second (2500 gallons per minute)
Gated Pipe: $0.50, 10 cm diameter (4 in.) to
$1.00, 15 cm diameter (6 in.)
Sprinkler System (including
pipe valves): $9200 (22,000 beef cattle)
Traveling gun: $6900 (75 dairy cattle) to
$17,000 (3500 hogs)
Center pivot system: $12,000 (1000 beef cattle) to
$32,000 (10,000 beef cattle)
Irrigation operating costs, taken from the literature, are shown in
Figure 65.
Examples - Because the cost data are sketchy (from a statistical
standpoint), the following examples of actual operations are provided:
1. Management of Farm Animal Wastes, ASAE, 1966, pub. no. SP-0366, Pg.
122 - Spreading of liquid hog manure from under slotted floors.
Average analysis of manure was:
0.56X N
0.30X P205
0.25X K2(T
9U% H20
Waste was spread (application rate not specified) on cropland (corn and
soybeans) for October 15 through June 15 and on non-cropland for June 15
through October 15. Equipment required was a tank spreader and pump and
a tractor. The cost of the tractor was assumed to be chargeable to
normal farm operation and was ignored. Costs were given as follows
(1966 figures increased 5X/year to apply to 1973 dollar value).
The return on investment was calculated by comparing it with the cost of
the same amount of nutrients in the form of inorganic fertilizers. As
stated previously, this is not considered valid in that the nitrogen in
manure is not immediately nor completely available for crop growth and
the nutrient balance in manure may not be optimum. For this reason the
return figures are not included in this report.
2. Management of Farm Animal Wastes, ASAE, 1966, pub. no SP-0366, Pg.
126.
250
-------
UJ
o:
LU
Q.
0)
DC
to
O
O
UJ
Q.
O
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
PUMPING RATE, LITERS PER SECOND
10 20 30
200
300
400
PUMPING RATE, GALLONS PER MINUTE
500
FIGURE 65. IRRIGATION EQUIPMENT -OPERATING COSTS
251
-------
""'ifi economics of -this article are based on a "paper study" only, but
_ney do include an estimate of the value of manure relative to inorganic
fertilizer which attempts to account for the relative fertilization
fficiency of manure versus inorganic fertilizer.
Value of Manure as Fertilizer
a. Manure nitrogen kg for kg (Ib for Ib) is 50% of the value of
inorganic fertilizer nitrogen.
b. Manure phosphorus kg for kg (Ib for Ib) is 67% of the value of
inorganic fertiizer phosphorus.
c. Manure potassium kg for kg (Ib for Ib) is 75% of the value of
inorganic fertiizer potassium.
Equipment^ Costs (liquid manure system only)
(1966 figures increased 5X/yr. to apply to 1973 dollar value)
Equipment
Vacuum Wagon
2839 liters
(750 gallons)
5678 liters
(1500 gallons)
Tank Wagon 6 Pump
5678 liters
(1500 gallons)
Capital
Cost - $
$1500
$2250
$4300
Fixed Annual
Cost - $
262
394
875
Operating Cost
$/kkg spread
($/ton spread)
0.61
(0.55)
0.37
(0.34)
0.42
(0.38)
3. Animal Waste Management, Cornell University, 1969,
393.
(conference) Pg.
This study incorporates costs for hauling and spreading dairy wastes
in New York as well as data from experimental plots at the Cornell
Research Farm. The study is fairly extensive. All test plots used
for crop evaluation, with or without manure application, received
the same amount of supplementary inorganic fertilization. The value
of manure usage was based on increased crop yields of plots which
received manure versus those which did not.
A summary of data from the study follows (1969 figures increased
5%/year to apply to 1971 dollar value).
252
-------
Cost of hauling and spreading
Free stall barns $2.33/kkg
($2.11/ton)
Stanchion barns $3.86/kkg
($3.50/ton)
Crop increases for manure versus no manure
Ranged from 0.4% for oats to 6,6% fox alfalfa.
Value of crop increases
Ranged from $1.56 return to $0.29 deficit. (The deficit figure
appears because of compensating estimation to allow for below
average crop management) .
4. A Beef Feedlot in Iowa
This is a 405 head, slotted floor/deep pit beef facility. on the
average, the pit contents are pumped out 2.5 times per year and
spread on 24 to 28 hectares (60 to 70 acres) of corn and alfalfa
cropland. The data is as follows:
Labor: 315 man hours/year
Application rate: 82 kkg/hectare/year
(37 tons/acre/year)
Capital equipment
Pump: $1600
2 tank spreaders: $4000
Three $12,000 tractors are used during this operation; however the
spreading task represents only a small portion of their use. The
slotted floor facility cost $27,5000 in 1970. This is a cost of $68
per head.
5. A Beef Feedlot in Iowa
This is a 500 head slotted floor/oxidation ditch beef facility. The
ditch effluent flows into a pit followed by two lagoons in series.
Lagoon contents are spread on 48.6 hectares (120 acres) of corn
cropland in the spring and fall. The data is as follows:
Labor: 100 man hours/year or (at $2.25/man hour)
$225/year
Application rate: 94 kkg/hectare/year
(42 tons/acre/year)
Capital cost: $1500 vacuum wagon
253
-------
The complete facility cost was $60,000 in 1970 or $120/head.
6. A Beef Feedlot in Texas
This is an 80,000 head capacity open dirt feedlot. Pens are scraped
twice each year. The feedlot pays 55 cents per kkg (50 cents per
ton) to farmers who spread the manure on cropland at a rate of 11
kkg per hectare (5 tons per acre) or higher. A private contractor
hauls and spreads the manure at a cost of $1.21 per kkg ($1.10 per
ton) plus 3.6 cents per kkg per km (5 cents per ton per mile).
Farmers using the manure report higher silage yields of 60.5 versus
44.8 kkg per hectare (27 versus 20 tons per acre).
7. A Swine Feedlot in Illinois
This is a 4800 head, slotted floor/deep pit, swine facility, on the
average, 25% of the pit volume (about 15% of the solids) overflows
to a lagoon. Manure pumped from the pit is spread on 192 hectares
(475 acres) of corn. The data is as follows:
Labor: 0.25 man years/year
Application rate: 60,750 I/hectare or 6500 gal/acre/year
(135 kg or 120 Ibs of nitrogen per acre)
Capital Cost:
Vacuum tank wagon $3000
Tractor $10,000 (50% usage)
8. A Turkey Feedlot in North Carolina
This company raises 2.5 million turkeys per year in open lots. No
costs are available on waste control on the range land; however, the
company also operated a few experimental full confinement houses.
Litter and manure was removed and spread on farm land by a
contractor. A house containing 10,000 birds is cleaned once each
year at a cost of 88 cents per kkg (80 cents per ton). The total
tonnage is about 45 metric tons (50 tons).
Composting
Detailed capital and operating costs are not available. However, the
total cost of processing manure by composting was estimated by operators
at between $0.55 and $13.23 per kkg ($0.50 and $12.00 per ton) of
product.
254
-------
Dehydration
Investment. Cost -
2
3
Purchased Equipment - $30,000 for a rotary drum dryer that produces
0.22 kkg (0.2 tons) per hour of dried waste.
Buildings - None required, system usually installed outdoors.
m
(20'
Land - Minimal, 6.1 m x 12.2
machine.
Site Work - Purchase price includes
concrete pad, and auxiliary equipment.
Operating Cost -
40') plot required per
price of dryer, shipping,
Materials and Supplies - None required for refeed program
unless excess is bagged and sold. Maintenance costs are
$0.55/kkg ($0.50/ton).
Utilities -Electrical - 22 KWH/kkg (20 KWH/ton) at S0.23/KW
equals $0.55/kkg ($0.50/ton)
-Fuel - 36.0 lit/hr x 5.5 hr/kkg x $0.05/lit
equals $9.90/kkg
(9-1/2 gal/hr x 5 hr/ton x $0.20/gal
equals $9.50/ton)
Labor - 5.5 hr/kkg at $2.50/hr equals $13.78/kkg
(5 hr/ton at $2.50/hr equals $12.50/ton)
indirect costs - Depreciation and interest cost based on
$30,000 purchase price of 5 years at 9-1/2% interest and
operating 60 hours per week for 50 weeks per year is
$13.89 per kkg ($12.60 per ton).
Total Cost - Cost per kkg (ton) of dried material is:
Materials and Supplies
Utilities
Labor
Indirect
$0.55
11.03
13.78
13.89
($0.50)
($10.00)
($13.50)
($12.60)
TOTAL $39.25 per kkg ($35.60 per ton)
Conversion to Industrial Products
Processing costs are not available. Product value has been stated to be
$12.86 per cubic meter ($0.03 per board foot) for low density material
and $0.05 per unit for brick.
Aerobic Production of Single_Cell Protein
Cost information is not avialable. The maximum value of the product is
about $0.18 per kilogram ($0.08 per pound) of protein or $0.09 per
255
-------
kilogram ($0.04 per pound) of product. Costs for processing the manure
into reusable nutrients must therefore fall below these figures.
Aerobic Production of Yeast
No figures are available, but in its current configuration, the process
appears to be excessively expensive.
Anaerobic Production of single Cell Protein
Investment Cost - In the 45,000 kg/day (100,000 Ib/day) system, the
capital costs consists of the sum of the slurry system, fermenter
system, centrifuges, dryers and power generator for a total estimated
capital cost of approximately $550,000.
Operating Costs - For labor, supplies, maintenance and repairs, taxes
and insurance and financing, operating costs are estimated to be
$168,000/year for an operating cost of $20.UO/kg ($18.50/ton) for a
product worth $44.10/kkg ($40/ton) based on 1971 feed grain prices.
Feed Recycle Process
Investment Cost - Cost of a plant to process 90.7 kkg (100 tons) (dry
basis) of manure per day has been estimated at about $250,000. A plant
this size would service about 35,000 head of cattle.
Operating Cost - Operating cost for a 90.7 kkg (100 ton) per day plant
was estimated at $1000/day for direct costs and (based on a five year
write-off) $200/day indirect costs. Value of the product is estimated
at $4400/day for the 90.7 kkg (100 ton) per day plant.
Oxidationj Ditch
Investment Cost - Purchased Equipment - $50 per head of cattle
Building •* $65-75 per head
Land - Cost of land negligible to other
costs
Site Work - Included in cost of equipment
Operating Cost - Based on 10 year equipment depreciation, operating cost
on a non-feed basis is estimated at $0.13 per day per animal.
Investment Cost -
1. Equipment: Program A equipment (see Section VII) is described in
detail in Reference 113. Program B equipment cost, adjusted for a
recent increase in aeration requirement, if $9700, based on a maximum
capacity of 1000 hogs. The Program C cost of $110 (to treat runoff from
0.336 hectare, 0.83 acre, or 166 beef cattle) is probably high because
256
-------
of high prototype equipment costs. Program E equuipment is described in
Reference 117; cost is roughly $155 per cow capacity.
2. Buildings: Buildings are not required.
3. Land: Land requirements are very low. The general order of
magnitude for the demonstration units previously described is an area of
7.6 meters by 22.9 meters (25 feet by 75 feet).
4. Site Work: Excavation for tank foundations is required. In some of
these processes, the top of the tank is at ground level.
Operating Cost -
1. Supplies: The only raw material is chlorine, which may not be
needed, depending on the degree of treatment required.
2. Utilities: All of the activated sludge processes need aeration
power. Estimated annual costs are $1255 for Program B and $900 for
Program D.
3. Labor: Although these processes are capable of full automation,
they will require significant attention for monitoring and maintenance.
4. Total: Total operating costs are estimated at $0.60 - $0.70 per hog
capacity for the Program B operation (based on 8% ammoritization) and at
$0.60 per animal fed for the Program C operation (based on 6X
ammoritization). Figure 66 demonstrates that standard municipal sewage
treatment costs are not applicable, because the processing rate for
feedlot installations is generally well under 3.785 million liters (one
million gallons) per day.
Wastelaqe
Emphasis has been placed on technical evaluation of the concept, rather
than on cost analysis.
Anaerobic Production of Fuel Gas
Investment cost for one concept is estimated at $16,500,000 with annual
operating and maintenance costs estimated at $5,812,000. These figures
are based upon local experience and manufacturer list price. Prices are
for a plant capable of producing 840,000 cubic meters (30 million cubic
feet) of synthetic natural gas per day and requiring a cattle base well
in excess of 500,000 head. These values yield a cost to produce of
approximately $2.14/100 cubic meter ($0.60/1000 cubic foot).
Another system results in production costs of approximately $1.54/100
cubic meter ($0.43/1000 cubic foot).
257
-------
PLANT SIZE. MILLIONS OF LITERS PER DAY
100 200 300
400
NOTE: BOD AFTER SECONDARY j|
I TREATMENT IS TYPICALLY 20 PPM
FOR A 3 . 785 MLD (1.0 MGD) PLANT
PRIMARY TREATMENT $11. 62/ML ($44/MG)
SECONDARY TREATMENT^ 4. 53/ML($55/MG)
SLUDGE HANDLING $28 . 53/ML ($108/MG)
CHLORINATION $2. 1 I/ML ($8/MG)
, SLUDGE HANDLING
(THICKtNING AND DEWATER.NG)
- •-..._...
SECONDARY TREATMENT
BOD REMOVAL (CUMULATIVE)
PRIMARY TREATMENT
35%
BOD REMOVAL
CHLORINATION
PLANT SIZE, MILLIONS OF GALLONS PER DAY
FIGURE 66. COST OF SEWAGE TREATMENT UNIT OPERATIONS (1970 BASIS)
258
-------
These figures would place methane produced in this fashion in a
competitive position vis a vis imported liquified gas and, possibly
even, domestically produced gas.
Reduction by
Cost estimates have not been made. The value of the protein product has
been estimated at $230/kkg ($209/ton) , based on soy bean meal (44
percent protein) at $176/kkg ($160/ton) . Operating cost has been
claimed to inclde only part time attention from someone with no special
skills.
Biochemical Recycle Process
Each 100 cow unit - 4.54 kkg/day (5 ton/day) sells for under $20,000
including a 2.4 x 2.4 x 3.0 meter (8 x 8 x 10 foot) weatherproof
enclosure. Land usage is negligible, and site work consists of a
concrete slab.
Total operating cost is not available. Materials costs include $0.60
per day for 1.6 kg (3.5 Ibs.) of alum. The electric power requirement
is 50 KWH per day, costing about $1.25 per day.
Conversion to oil
Aerobic Production of Single Cell Protein - Despite use of the Operating
costs of this complex process would be very high, especially with the
pre-drying operation. The value of the product does little to offset
these costs. Consequently, conversion to oil does not appear to be
economically attractive.
Gasification
The gasification process is not developed enough for meaningful capital
and operating cost estimates. Synthesis gas as an ammonia plant
intermediate is estimated to have a value of $13.78/kkg ($12.50/ton) .
Pyrolysis
The basis for the following capital and operating costs is as follows:
Reference 154 40,000 head capacity or 907 kkg manure per day
(1000 ton manure per day)
Reference 155 181 kkg (200 ton) per day capacity (40% moisture,
30% ash)
Reference 156 30,000 head capacity.
259
-------
Investment Cost -
1. Equipment:
Reference 154: $5,5000,000
Reference 155: $624,000
2. Building and Site Preparation: These are undefined additional
costs.
3. Land: 3.6 - 4.1 hectares (9 - 10 acres).
Operating Cost -
COST ITEM
Fuel
Labor
Maintenance
Taxes and Insurance
Depreciation
Capital Charges
Other
Total
Offsetting Costs
Net Cost
ANNUAL COST
Reference 154
$ 182,000
180,000
220,000
275,000
550,000
330,000
110,000
2,477,000
464,000
2,013,000
(cost)
Reference 155 Reference 156
$ 0
131,000
25,000
31,200
62,400
75.000
12,500
337,100 $1,148,400
379,700
42,600
(profit)
Incineration
There is no activity on this technology as it applies to animal waste.
Chemical Extraction
Economic information is proprietary.
Hydrolysis and Chemicaln Treatment
Investment Cost - The only available capital cost information is that
projected for Program A operation (see Section VII). The actual
operation was not implemented as intended and was later suspended.
Projected system capacity was 2,724 kg (6,000 Ib.) batches of wet
poultry manure, with a processing time of one hour, or a capacity of
22.7 kkg (25 tons) of raw manure per day.
Installed equipment cost was estimated at $49,700, including $7,000 for
a steam boiler." Pollution abatement equipment was an additional
260
-------
$10,900. An additional $7900 was required for an automatic bagging
operation, including screw conveyer, hopper, and bagging line, and fork
lift. Cost of a building was estimated at $25,000.
Operating Cost - Operating cost information is not available. Cost
would include either fuel for the steam boiler in the case of steam
hydrolysis, or a chemical (probably potassium hydroxide) for chemical
treatment.
Runoff Control
The major cost item for runoff control is the holding pond, costs of
dikes, berms, ditches, settling diversion terraces, and settling basins
are small by comparison. In fact, these features are often included in
the cost data for ponds and lagoons. The reader is therefore referred
to cost data under the heading "Lagoons."
Barriered Landscape Water Renovation System
Meaningful cost information is not yet available. Purchased equipment
includes pumps, sprayers, lines, valves, and plastic sheeting.
Buildings are not needed, and land requirements are much less than for
spray irrigation. Site work includes excavation up to 0.6 meters (two
feet), backfill and mound buildup (with soil, sand, or a mixture), and a
collection channel and sump if water is to be recycled. A plant cover
is desireable.
Operation is largely automatic, and maintenance is low. Electrical
power is needed for pumping. Periodic limestone replacement is needed,
and molasses or other supplemental energy sources may be used to promote
anaerobic microorganism growth.
Lagoons
Investment cost for lagoons is shown in Figures 67 and 68. The data
apply to all types of lagoon, including holding ponds. In addition,
associated runoff control features such as settling basins are often
included. Figure 67 indicates the characteristic data scatter caused by
variations in local economics, soil characteristics, topography, and
individual state requirements.
An enlargement of the boxed portion of Figure 67 is shown in Figure 68.
The actual ASCS data points, which fall within the indicated oval
envelopes, were taken from ASCS files and represent individual designs
meeting all government guidelines. The Butchbaker correlation
represents an average of typical installations, while the data points
gathered for this report are actual installations. The George
correlation represents lagoons built on a slope by constructing an
earthen dam. Lagoons built on a flat or less ideal topography would
cost more.
Lagoon costs are often presented for specific animals. The following
tabulation of investment cost is an example from the literature, costs
are on a 1966 basis. The same author suggests an annual cost of 11
percent to cover depreciation, interest,
261
-------
to
CT>
to
20
VOLUME. THOUSANDS OF CUBIC METERS
40 60 80 100
120
140
ou
50
§ 40
0
Q
U.
O
en
Q 30
COST, THOUS
— to
O 0
n
/7x7
W''-'-
i
X
• HAMIL
1^129 AJ
-]
^
1
.TON S'
CS DA"
S
TAND
•A PC
X
ARD TRIP
UMTS
^
R
$
'
i
EPORT DAT
^
\
^
S
.X
r
/
/
\s
^
/
'
.
^
1
20
40 60 80 100 120
VOLUME,THOUSANDS OF CUBIC YARDS
140
160
180
FIGURE 67. LAGOONS AND PONDS - INVESTMENT COST
-------
18,000
1 6,000
14,000
12,000
LAGOON VOLUME, CUBIC METERS
5,000 10,000 15,000
20,000
J
I
^HAMILTON STANDARD TRIP REPORT"
I DATA POINTS
ASCS DATA
K24 BEEF CATTLE HOLDING PONDS
2M7 BEEF CATTLE LAGOONS
3M2 DAIRY CATTLE HOLDING PONDS
4:25 DAIRY CATTLE LAGOONS
SMO HOG HOLDING PONDS
6'.1 5 HOG AEROBIC LAGOONS
7:26 HOG ANAEROBIC LAGOONS
5,000
25,000
10,000 15,000 20,000
LAGOON VOLUME, CUBIC YARDS
FIGURE 68. LAGOONS AND PO:NDS — INVESTMENT COST
(DETAIL OF FIGURE 67)
30.00C
263
-------
taxes, insurance, maintenance, and repairs.
Earth Moving
Fencing
Sealing (tile)
Total
500
$889
137
120
1146
Hogs Produced Per Year
1500 ~~ 2500
$2667
219
120
3006
$4445
277
240
4962
Evaporation
Cost of evaporation ponds is included under "Lagoons".
Trickling Filters
Investment Cost - No cost estimates have been made for commercial sized
trickling filters for treating animal wastes. Municipal sewage plant
trickling filters can be used as a guide.
Purchased Equipment - Sedimentation tanks, trickling filter (including
distributer), pumps, and valves. Sizing is usually based on hydraulic
loading. The following guidelines have been developed based on the
laboratory work.
Trickling
Filter
Type
Stones
Bark
Inclined
Plane
Source
of
Waste
Water
Dairy
Cows
Poultry
Swine Waste
Lagoon
Sizing Guideline
for Costing
21-77 ft3 /cow or
45-170 ft3/lb BOD/day*
14-17 ft3/lb BOD/day
30-250 ft2/gpm*
More
Information
Reference 232
Reference 233
Reference 234
* Depending on desired BOD removal efficiency
Sedimentation Source of
Tank Waste Water
Primary Dairy Cow
Barn
Final Flushing
Sizing More
Guideline Information
200 ft3/cow
114 ft3/cow
Reference 232
264
-------
Buildings - Housing to maintain 7.2°C (45°F) minimum waste water
temperature required.
Land - Much less than required for spray irrigation disposal.
Site work - Equipment foundations and building erection.
Operating Cost - Operation is largely automatic. Maintenance is
normally low, but upsets can clog the trickling filter. Electric power
is needed for pumps. Labor costs include periodic sedimentation tank
cleaning.
Spray Runoff
A 4.4 hectare (10.9 acre) spray runoff system incurred the following
investment costs:
Earth moving $1188
Concrete ditch 698
Pipe 2445
Valves 316
Grass seed 177
Fertilizer 131
Total $4965
These costs do not include labor. In addition, modifications to obtain
recycling capability will cost $1276. Operating costs include power or
fuel for the pump and harvesting the grass. Operation is largely
automatic, and maintenance is low.
Rotating Biological Contactor
The RBC is potentially valuable only where land availability is severely
limited. At the present time, this is not generally the situation at
feedlot locations. Land spreading, spray irrigation, and lagoon
treatment are therefore far less expensive than use of an RBC.
Water Hyacinths
Economic information is not available.
Proponents of this experimental technology claim that a full scale
operation could be implemented for about $0.09 per kilogram ($0.04 per
pound) of dry algae harvested.
265
-------
ENERGY_AND_NON-WATER_QUALITY ASPECT
Energy and non-water quality aspect are separate considerations, but
both are related to cost. Technologies with high energy input tend
toward high investment costs and high operating costs. As pointed out
in the following discussion, however, a high energy input technology may
be a low net energy user. Often, those technologies such as conversion
to oil that have high energy input and low net energy consumption are
expensive, relatively complex, and potentially heavy polluters. By-
products can be disposed of without pollution, and air pollution can be
controlled, but this requires additional expense.
With the exception of some runoff control situations, every non-
polluting waste management technology uses energy from electric power or
consumption of a common fuel. For technologies such as land
utilization, the energy is used mainly for transferring or transporting
the waste material. For others, energy provides the mixing or aeration
needed for efficient biological treatment of the waste. For still other
technologies such as dehydration and pyrolysis, energy input forces
rapid physical or chemical changes in the waste material.
Nevertheless, almost all of these technologies should receive an energy
credit that tends to offset the energy input. Thus, land utilization of
wastes results in reduced requirements for chemical fertilizer, saving
the energy needed to produce, distribute, and spread the fertilizer.
Similarly, technologies that convert manure to feed supplements reduce
the energy that would otherwise be expended in planting, fertilizing,
harvesting, and processing such crops as soybeans. Processes such as
gasification can extract the energy they need from the product they make
and still have enough product left to act as an energy source for other
industries. Thus, energy input for the process may be high, while net
energy consumption is low, or the process may actually convert the waste
to an energy producing product.
In addition to useful products, many of the waste management
technologies produce by-products of questionable value. This sludge,
fiber, ash, or other residue often has value as a soil conditioner and
can sometimes be used in other applications. Thus these byproducts of
the waste management technologies may be disposed of without affecting
the water quality of natural waterways.
Technology Characteristics
In the rest of this section, each technology is considred with regard to
energy usage and non-water quality aspect. Table Ul summarizes these
considerations, noting whether net energy consumption is high or low,
thus providing an indication of the ultimate impact of the technology on
our energy resources.
266
-------
Land Utilization - Energy used for loading, hauling, spreading, pumping,
and spraying solid or liquid wastes is offset by reduced fertilizer
needs and consequent saving in energy for producing, transporting, and
spreading the fertilizer. Net energy usage is therefore low. There are
no by-products, and odor is non-objectionable if suitable techniques are
used.
Composting - Energy is needed for periodic turning of the composting
material, but input energy is still relatively low. Proper operation
minimizes odor, and there are no by-products. The product is a useful
soil conditioner.
Dehydration - The product is useful as a fertilizer or feed supplement,
but net energy to remove the water is still relatively high. Proper
design minimizes odor, and there is no by-product.
Conversion to Industrial Products - This is basically a prolysis process
with a useful product. The gases evolved in the process may be used as
fuel to supply the heat required, so that net energy consumption is
potentially low. Positive measures to prevent odor are required.
Aerobic Production of Single Cell Prgtein-Despite the use of the product
as a feed supplement, net energy usage is relatively high due to the
number of steps in which forced air aeration is required. There are no
odor or by-product problems.
Aerobic Production of Yeast - The comments for the preceding technology
also apply to yeast production.
Anaerobic Production of Single Cell Protein - Energy input to this
process is relatively low, and the feed supplement produced represents
an energy credit. Even if dehydration of the product is desirable, the
fuel gas by-product is adequate to supply the required energy.
Feed Recycle Process. T This process is basically a low energy physical-
chemical separation, and the product represents an energy credit. The
process is free of objectionable odors, but a practical use or means of
disposal for the fiber by-product must be found.
Oxidation Ditch - Despite potential value of the resulting sludge as a
feed supplement, net energy for mechanical aeration is high. There is
no odor problem.
Activated Sludge - Energy for aeration is high. There is no odor but
by-product sludge must be used as a soil conditioner or for land fill.
Wastelac[e - Input energy is very low, there is no by-product, and odor
is controlled.
267
-------
Anaerobic Production of Fuel Gas - Input energy is relatively low, and
the product has a high energy value. By-product sludge may be used as a
soil conditioner.
Reduction with Fly Larvae - Energy input for mixing and air circulation
is moderate, and energy for drying is offset by the high protein value
of the product. Pending further development, net energy usage is
regarded as low. By-product compost may be used as land fill or as a
soil conditioner.
Biochemical Recycle Process - Expensive equipment is used to achieve low
energy aeration. There is no odor, but a practical use must be found
for the fiber by-product.
Conversion to oil - The energy requirement is high, but the product
itself has a high energy content which can be used for the process.
Thus, net energy usage is potentially low, although practical use of the
product as a fuel is in some doubt.
Gasification - High input power is offset by potential use of the
product as a fuel and primary use of the product to save the energy
associated with a major step in the production of ammonia. The
synthesis gas product must be considered toxic, and by-product ash
requires disposal.
Pyrolysis - The endothermic reaction requires high input energy, which
may be supplied by burning by-product gases. The by-product ash must be
disposed of or used (see "Conversion to Industrial Products"). Odor
must be controlled.
Incineration - The waste material itself provides much of the energy
required for incineration of wet waste. Positive control of air
pollution is required, and ash requires disposal. There is no product,
although utilization of the heat released may be possible.
Hydrolysis and Chemcial Treatment - Energy for steam hydrolysis can be
minimized by use of regenerative heat exchangers and is somewhat offset
by the nutritional value of the product. Energy for the chemical
treatment approach is low, except possibly for the energy associated
with producing the chemical. Pending further development, net energy
usage is regarded as low.
Chemical Extraction - This process appears to use low energy physical-
chemical separations. Energy for drying the product is somewhat offset
by its nutritional value. Disposal of the liquid by-product is a
problem.
268
-------
Runoff control - No energy is required. Solid and liquid by-products
are disposed" of by land utilization. There is a potential for
groundwater contamination or objectionable odor.
Barriered Landscape Water Renovation System - Energy for pumping is low.
There is no product or by-product, and odor is limited.
Lagoons for waste Treatment - Aerated lagoons are really an activated
sludge technology. Other lagoons have negligible energy requirements
for maintenance. Poor design or operation can result in stream
pollution or objectionable odor. Solid and liquid by-products are
disposed of by land utilization.
Evaporation - Except for solar energy, there is no energy input. Poor
management can result in stream pollution or odor generation. Sludge
generally requires disposal by land utilization.
Trickling Filler - Despite the high recycle rate, pumping energy is
relatively low. The process should be odor free, but solid and liquid
byproducts require disposal.
Spray Runoff - This is essentially a trickling filter technology using a
living medium. Consequently, grass must be harvested in addition to
water disposal. However, due to potential contaminants on the grass
surfaces, its use as a feed needs to be demonstrated.
Rotating Biological Contactor - This is essentially a form of trickling
filter.
Water Hyacinths - Energy for harvesting and preparation is hopefully
offset by nutritional value of the product.
Algae - The algae technology is similar to that of hyacinths.
269
-------
ENERGY AND NON-WATER QUALITY ASPECT
Technology
Net Energy Usage
By-Product
Land Utilization
Composting
Dehydration
Conversion to Industrial
Products
Aerobic SCP Production
Aerobic Yeast Production
Anaerobic SCP Production
Feed Recycle Process
Oxidation Ditch
Activated Sludge
wastelage
Anaerobic Fuel Gas
Fly Larvae Production
Biochemical Recycle
Conversion to Oil
Gasification
Pyrolysis
Incineration
Hydrolysis
Chemical Extraction
Runoff Control
BLWRS
Lagoons for Treatment
Evaporation
Trickling Filters
Spray Runoff
Rotating Biological
Contactor
Water Hyancinths
Algae
*Note: Unless otherwise
system residuals, if any,
Low
Low
High
Low
High
High
Low
Low
High
High
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
LOW
Low
Low
Low
LOW
Low
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
Low
Low Sludge, liquid
Low None*
Low None*
specifically indicated ash, salts or similar
are not fully established at full scale.
None
None
None*
None*
None*
None*
None*
Fiber
Sludge,
Sludge,
None*
Sludge
Compost
Fiber
Ash
Ash
Ash
Ash
None*
Liquid
Liquid,
None
Sludge,
Sludge
Sludge,
Grass,
liquid
liquid
solids
liquid
liquid
liquid
TABLE 41
270
-------
SECTION IX
EFFLUENT REDUCTION ATTAINABLE THROUGH THE APPLICATION
OF THE BEST PRACTICABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY CURRENTLY
AVAILABLE—EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES
INTRODUCTION
The effluent limitations which must be achieved by July 1, 1977 for
feedlots, is generally based upon the average of the best existing
performance by feedlots of various sizes, ages, and unit processes
within its category or subcategory. This average is not based upon a
broad range of feedlots within the feedlot industry, but is based upon
performance levels achieved by exemplary ones. The technology applied
by these feedlots to achieve these effluent limitations is termed Best
Practicable Control Technology Currently Achievable.
Consideration has also been given to:
a. The total cost of application of technology in relation to the
effluent reduction benefits to be achieved from such application.
b. The age and size of equipment and facilities involved.
c. The processes employed.
d. The engineering aspects of the application of various types of
control techniques.
e. Process changes.
f. Non-water quality environmental impact (including energy
requirements).
Best Practicable Control Technology Currently available emphasizes
treatment technology applied at the end of the normal feedlot processes
but includes the control technologies within the feedlot itself when the
latter are considered to be normal practice within the industry.
A further consideration is the degree of economic and engineering
reliability which must be established for the technology to be
"currently available." There should be a high degree of confidence in
the engineering and economic viability of the technology, at the time of
commencement of actual construction of the control facilities, resulting
from general use or from pilot plants and demonstration projects.
EFFLUENT ATTAINABLE THROUGH THE APPLICATION OF THE
BEST PRACTICABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY AVAILABLE
For the purposes of this Section, wastewater refers to (1) rainfall
runoff, and (2) flush or washdown water for cleaning animal wastes from
pens, stalls, milk center areas, houses, continous overflow watering
systems or any similar facility, spillages, duck swimming areas, washing
271
-------
of animals, dust control or related water use activity discharging
pollutants (these latter waste flows may be termed process generated
waste water to differentiate essentially "man-made" sources from natural
precipitation sources). Based upon the information contained in Section
III through VIII of this report, a determination has been made that a
total effluent elimination is attainable through the application of the
Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available. The effluent
limitation shall be "no discharge" of process waste water pollutants to
navigable water bodies except for a reasonable exclusion for overflows
due to severe or unusual climatic events (e.g. acute or catastrophic
rainfall, prolonged chronic rainfall conditions and the like). In this
regard, BPCTCA is well documented as runoff control facilities which are
fundamentally designed and operated to achieve no discharge (except as
noted) for process generated waste water and runoff from the 10 year, 24
hour rainfall event as established by the U.S. Weather Bureau for the
location of the point source, and applicable to the following animal
types and all identified subcategories thereof cited in Section IV:
beef cattle, dairy cattle, swine, chickens, turkeys, sheep, and horses.
The animal type, ducks and the subcategories thereof, is an exception in
that there is an effluent discharge with pollutant limitations as shown:
Effluent Characteristic Limitation
BOD5 Maximum for any one day
~ 1.66 kg per 1000 ducks
(3.66 lb/1000 ducks)
Maximum average of daily
values for any period of
30 consecutive days
.91 kg per 1000 ducks
(2.00 lb/1000 ducks)
Coliform bacteria At any time not to exceed 400
fecal coliform per 100 ml
IDENTIFICATION OF THE BEST PRACTICABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY
CURRENTLY AVAILABLE
Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available for the feedlot
industry is containment of all contaminated liquid runoff resulting from
rainfall, snowmelt, or related cause, and application of these liquids,
along with the generated solid wastes to productive cropland at a rate
which will provide moisture and nutrients that can be utilized by the
crops. The technology for containment and application to cropland can
achieve the stated goal of "no discharge" to navigable water bodies. To
implement this technology requires the following:
272
-------
a. Provisions for the containment of all contaminated runoff, liquid
manure, and seepage in order to prevent the uncontrolled discharge of
these liquids across the feedlot boundaries and through the feedlot
surface. Among the alternatives for containment may simply be a holding
pond, or perhaps a lagoon or oxidation ditch that provides biological
pretreatment to the wastes in order to reduce the land required for
application, or may be, in applicable geographic regions, an evaporation
pond with collection of solid residues for application to the land.
b. Provisions for applying liquid and solid wastes to cropland for the
efficient utilization of the contained moisture and nutrients by the
crop. The solid wastes may be subjected to a pretreatment of
dehydration or composting where these wastes must be stored,
transported, and sold for use on land not immediately available to the
feedlot.
c. As part of the above containment and land utilization concepts,
where necessary, provisions should be made for efficient site selection;
diversion of outside runoff away from or around the feedlot using berms,
dikes, or ditches; inclusion of emergency dewatering capability for
runoff storage structures to minmize problems encountered with multiple
precipitation events.
The Best Practicable control Technology Currently Available for the
animal type, ducks, consists of primary settling, aeration, secondary
settling, and chlorination prior to discharge.
The technologies described above are all presently found in commercial
practice and are described further in Section VII.
RATIONALE FOR THE SELECTION OF THE BEST PRACTICABLE
CONTROL TECHNOLOGY CURRENTLY AVAILABLE
The Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available for the
feedlot industry is dependent upon the ability of available cropland to
receive feedlot wastes and efficiently recycle them into useable crops.
Both the amount of waste and their strength, as well as the type of crop
produced, are direct functions of climatic conditions which vary
exceedingly with location and time of year. In addition, the local
variation in soil condition and topography will affect the application
of the technology, as will traditional agricultural practices. Because
of these highly variable circumstances, the application of the Best
Practicable Control Technology Currently Available must be tailored on
an individual basis to the local prevailing situation. This should be
done in accordance with the advice of the knowledgeable technical
experts available to the agricultural community.
273
-------
Age and Size of Equipment and Facilities
There are no inherent technical restrictions in the application of the
Best Practicable Control Technologies Currently Available based upon
feedlot age and/or size. Regardless of age or size of the facility for
any given animal type, the essential characteristics of both the waste
products and their means of production and treatment are the same.
However, smaller sized feedlots may incur higher costs of implementation
per unit of production than larger feedlots. These smaller feedlots may
be less profitable and more affected by these costs; however, they do
account for a significant percentage of the industry.
Total Cost of Application in Relation to Effluent Reduction Benefits
As noted above, because of the total size and diversity of the feedlot
industry, its geographical distribution, and the associated variations
in climate, topography and soil conditions, a completely reliable
estimate of total investment costs required of the industry in achieving
the specified effluent limitation is beyond the scope of known
information. However, based upon what may be synthesized from available
information, between $0.5 and $1.0 billion approximates the range of
total investment for the remaining costs to be incurred. Furthermore,
the selection of the Best Practicable Control Technology Currently
Achievable was based upon the existence of feedlots representative of
all sizes and types presently applying this technology in all parts of
the country, and the lack of available alternative technologies. Of
importance is that among the smaller, less commercial types of feeding
operations, relatively less implementation of runoff controls has taken
place for any type of storm condition. Consequently, the 10 year, 24
hour rainfall event serves as a reasonable baseline upon which to
develop a nationally uniform runoff control requirement for all
operations which conforms to the purposes of the Act and which available
data indicates is economically within reason for the industry to
implement. There is, therefore, a high likelihood of achieving the
elimination of pollutant discharge to navigable water bodies which would
warrant this investment.
Processes Employed
The processes employed in the feedlot industry are described in Section
IV of this report, and result in the industry categorization and sub-
categorization described in that section. All of the feedlots within a
subcategory use the same or similar production methods which result in
discharges which are also similar. There is no evidence that operation
of any current production process or sub-process will substantially
affect capabilities to implement the Best Practicable Control Technology
Currently Available.
274
-------
For ducks, the treatment technology is based on processes employed at
the present time by nearly 50% of the industry in response to state
regulations.
Engineering Aspects of Control Technology Applications
These technologies have a long history of application and represent, to
a great extent, the prevalent agricultrural practices prior to the
1940's. These technologies are presently in full scale use on
commercial operational feedlots with a high degree of reliability and
technical efficiency.
The amount of wastes that must be contained and/or stored in order to
implement zero discharge is dependent upon the length of the crop
growing season and the amount of contaminated runoff which occurs during
the storage period and must be determined individually for each local
situation.
With respect to duck growing operations, data were insufficient for
detailed effluent analysis of even the most efficient treatment systems.
The limitations therefore are based upon biological treatment (with
equivalent of a five day contact time) followed by settling and
chlorination to a BOD reduction of 90 percent; which when applied to an
average raw waste load of 20 Ib BOD per 1,000 ducks per day results in
an effluent of 2.0 Ibs BOD per 1,000 ducks per day. The current New
York State limiation of 50 mg/1 BOD results in a similar effluent
quality when related to a flowrate of 4.0 gallons per duck per day (as
currently achieved by several wet lot and dry lot operations). Coliform
levels were established following a review of limits recommended by the
National Technical Advisory committee which was established under the
Water Quality Act of 1965. The median in-stream coliform limit of 70
MPN (Most Probable Number) for shellfish water was the recommended
level. The Environmental Protection Agency manual, Recommended Uniform
Ef_fluent Concentration provides for fecal coliform levels of 400 counts
per 100 bml (months May to October) and 2,000 counts per 100 ml (months
November to April). The former number particularly will protect
watercourses for contact recreation. The in-stream limit of 70 MPN
would also afford this protection but may require extreme levels of
chlorination of effluents which can create problems if chlorine
residuals inhibited beneficial in-stream aquatic organisms.
Consequently, the effluent limits for fecal coliform were selected.
Process Changes
These technologies are completely end-of-process technologies and will,
therefore, not require any process changes to the feedlots within the
industry.
275
-------
Certain areas (particularly nrothern, humid regions) of the country have
climate conditions which are such as to require a runoff control system
which contains both a peak event (specific storm) and a period of
precipitation storage during which time ground is frozen or too wet for
usual land utilization practices. Other areas (such as the southern
regions) require more dependence on a specific design event since access
to land for waste disposal is normally available. In either case, if a
design event is known, minimum runoff control requirements can be
readily implemented.
Non-Water Quality Environmental Impact
The application of the waste products from feedlots to the land for the
efficient production of crops is judged to have no additional impact
upon the environment than does the use of chemical fertilizers for the
same purpose. Where wastes are stored in an exposed manner under
anaerobic conditions, there will be unpleasant odors and this situation
should be limited to circumstances where potentially affected local
populations are sufficiently removed.
276
-------
SECTION X
EFFLUENT REDUCTION ATTAINABLE THROUGH THE APPLICATION
OF THE BEST AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY ECONOMICALLY ACHIEVABLE
EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES
INTRODUCTION
The effluent limitations which must be achieved by July 1, 1983 has been
determined by identifying the very best performance by a specific
feedlot within its category or subcategory. The technology applied by
these feedlots to achieve these effluent limitations is termed Best
Available Technology Economically Achievable.
Consideration has also been given to:
a. The age of equipment and facilities involved.
b. The process employed.
c. The engineering aspects of the application of various types of
control techniques.
d. Process changes.
e. The cost of achieving the reduction in effluent resulting from the
application of the technology.
f. Non-water quality environmental impacts (including energy
requirements).
In-process control options which have been considered in establishing
the effluent limitations have included:
- Alternative water used
- Water conservation
" Waste stream segregation
- Water re-use
- By-product recovery
- Re-use of waste water constituents
- Waste treatment
- Good housekeeping.
EFFLUENT REDUCTION ATTAINABLE THROUGH THE APPLICATION,OF THE
BEST AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY ECONOMICALLY ACHIEVABLE
For the purposes of this section, wastewater refers to (1) rainfall
runoff, and (2) flush or washdown water for cleaning animal wastes from
pens, stalls, milk center areas, houses, continuous overflow watering
systems or any similar facility. The effluent limitation reflecting
this technology for all animal types and all identified subcategories
thereof cited in Section IV: beef cattle, dairy cattle, swine, chickens,
turkeys, sheep, horses, and ducks, is "no discharge" of process waste
waters pollutants to navigable water bodies except for a reasonable
exclusion for overflows due to severe or unusual climatic events (e.g.
acute or catastrophic rainfall, prolonged chronic rainfall conditions
277
-------
and the like). In this regard, BPCTCA is well documented as runoff
control facilities which are fundamentally designed and operated to
achieve no discharge (except as noted) for process generated waste water
and runoff from the 25 year, 24 hour rainfall event as established by
the U.S. Weather Bureau for the location of the point source.
IDENTIFICATION OF THE BEST AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY
ECONOMICALLY ACHIEVABLE
In addition to the technologies cited as Best Practicable control
Technology Currently Available, there are technologies which are either
not fully available for general use or sufficiently demonstrated to
provide a high degree of confidence in the engineering and viability of
the technology. These technologies are included under the category of
Best Available Technology Economically Achievable because they offer an
opportunity for a future choice toward providing increased flexibility
and economic viability.
These technologies are presently being demonstrated in field operation
on a feedlot or at a university with wastes collected and utilized in a
manner representative of a commercial situation. Hardware components,
configuration, and controls accurately represent full scale operation.
At the present time, sufficient confidence in the systems appears to
exist to warrant investment by industry for commercial application. The
following technologies are thus designated Best Available Technology
Economically Achievable in addition to those technologies described in
Section IX.
Wastelacre - A technology in which cattle manure is ensiled along with
standard feed ingredients and refed to cattle. This is a partial
treatment utilizing HQ% - 50% of the available waste. The required land
for spreading of the remaining waste is reduced and there is the
potential for reducing the cost of production. The technology of
wastelage has been demonstrated over the past eleven years with a total
of over 300 head of cattle. The lack of Food and Drug administration
(FDA) approval for the use of manure or the products from manure for
refeeding is a restraint upon the large scale commercial acceptance of
this technique.
Dehydration With Refeed - A technology in which poultry manure is
thermally dried and used as a feed ingredient in the diet fed to
poultry. This is a partial treatment utilizing 50% - 15% of the
available waste. The land required for spreading of the remaining waste
is significantly reduced and there is the potential for reducing the
cost of production. The technology has been demonstrated by refeeding
for over one full year with a 400 bird flock of laying hens. The lack
of FDA approval for the use of manure or the products from manure for
refeeding is a restraint upon the large scale commercial acceptance of
this technology.
278
-------
Oxidation Ditch With Refeed - A technology which utilizes the mixed
liquor from cattle and "swine oxidation ditches as an animal feed
ingredient. This is a partial treatment utilizing about H0% of the
oxidation ditch effluent. The required land for spreading of the
remaining waste is reduced and there is the potential for reducing the
cost of production. This technology of oxidation ditch mixed liquor
refeed has been demonstrated over the past two years in five feeding
trials and over 400 animals.
Activated Sludge - A technology for the treatment of dairy wastes at
thermophilic temperatues with extended aeration which produces a
reuseable water and a soil conditioner. The soil conditioner is a wet
product which must be disposed of by application to the land or further
processed for storage, transportation and sale for use on land not
immediately available to the feedlot. This is a proprietary process
which is presently being demonstrated on an 80 head experimental dairy
farm.
Complete Confinement Dry Lot Duck Process - A technology in which ducks
are produced in complete confinement with the entire growing cycle
within one building. There are no outside duck runs. The water usage
is a minimum, and water is recycled.
The housing is partially solid floor with waste gutters under a screen
floor. Gutter wastes are flushed out of the building with recycle
water, and solid wastes with litter are scraped for removal. The flush
water passes through a "clarifier" where the solids are settled and
pumped to holding ponds. The liquid effluent from the clarifier is
treated in an aerated lagoon and then in a settling pond prior to being
used for recycle flush water. The excess recycle flush water is used to
irrigate pasture or cropland. The solids from the manure holding ponds
and the scraped solids from the houses are spread on cropland for
fertilizer. This system has been practiced by a commercial duck grower
without the flush recycle and will be expanded to include recycle flush
in some buildings if state authorities approve the plans.
Recycle Water Wetlot Duck. Process - A technology in which ducks are
produced on outside duck runs with the effluent water subjected to
treatment and then reused. The treatment consists of primary settling
followed by aeration and final settling. Subsequent to final settling,
the water is chlorinated and pumped to a storage pond which is used to
feed the duck runs. Make-up water from wells is added to the storage
pond as necessary. Once a year the duck run and settling ponds are
dredged to recover settled solids for land spreading. This system is
presently being implemented by a commercial duck producer in a major
duck production region.
279
-------
RATIONALE FOR THE SELECTIONOF ^BEST^ AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY
ECONOMICALLY ACHIEVABLE
The factors considered in selecting the effluent limitation for the
animal types, beef cattle, dairy cattle, swine, chickens, turkeys,
sheep, and horses, is the same as described in Section IX.
With respect to runoff, a number of feedlot operations have controls
which serve not only to implement the concepts addressed as Best
Practicable Control Technology Currently Available, but also accomplish
a higher degree of control than normally encountered. That is, runoff
controls are sufficient to eliminate discharge of runoff from a storm
equivalent to a 25 year, 24 hour event. As a matter of initial design,
consideration of the runoff from this event is about 10.0 percent more
than for a 10 year, 24 hour storm. As with control requirements for the
smaller event, however, practical application is such that any one of a
number of in-place systems would meet the storage requirement: (1)
design for the 25 year event; (2) design for net storage structure
performance to control the 25 year event, e.g., a design storage period
and a peak flow storage; (3) an extended (one to several months) design
storage period.
The additional degree of runoff controls thus required for Best
Available Technology Economically Achievable will provide a logical
endpoint for pollution control of runoff. Beyond the 25 year, 24 hour
situation, rainfall is likely to fall into the area of "natural diaster"
or outright flooding for which practical application of controls at the
individual farm level is neither economical nor technically viable.
Moreover, the relatively modest additional storage or containment
requirement further enhances the likelihood that "slug" flow discharges
from a series of very small rainfall events will be minimized.
The effluent limitation of "no discharge" to navigable water bodies for
the duck feedlot industry is based upon the existence of commercial
operations presently in the process of implementing the described
technologies on a commercial basis. These examples include both dry and
wet lot production which are the major processes practiced by the
industry. There is some technical risk associated with these
technologies which will be resolved when they are in complete operation.
These technologies are being implemented by these commercial operations
by changes to existing facilities.
280
-------
SECTION XI
NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
NEW SOURCE,PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
Introduction
A new source is defined to mean "any source, the construction of which
is commenced after the publication of proposed regulations prescribing a
standard of performance." Technology to be utilized for new sources has
been evaluated by considering the best in-process and end-of-process
control technology identified as Best Available Technology Economically
Achievable in Section X and considering the utilization of alternative
production processes and operating methods.
The following specific factors have been taken into consideration in the
determination of performance standards for new sources:
a. The type of process employed and process changes
b. Operating methods
c. Recovery of pollutants as by-products.
New Source Effluent Limitation
For the purposes of this Section, wastewater refers to (1) rainfall
runoff, and (2) flush or washdown water for cleaning animal wastes from
pens, stalls, milk center areas, houses, continous overflow watering
systems or any similar facility. The effluent limitation for new
sources is no discharge of process waste water pollutants to naviagable
water bodies except for a reasonable exclusion for overflows due to
severe or unusual climatic events (e.g. acute or catastrophic rainfall,
prolonged chronic rainfall conditions and the like). In this regard,
BPCTCA is well documented as runoff control facilities which are
fundamentally designed and operated to achieve no discharge (except as
noted) for process generated waste water and runoff from the 25 year, 2U
hour rainfall event as established by the U.S. Weather Bureau for the
location of the point source.
End^-of-Process Technology
The initial end-of-process technology utilized should be that defined as
Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available for all animal
types except ducks, for which the Best Available Technology Economically
Achievable should be utilized. It should be kept in mind that at a
future time some of the technologies defined as Best Available
Technology Economically Achievable and those listed below as
281
-------
Experimental Technologies, may provide a more effective and economical
production-treatment system:
- Aerobic Fermentation and Refeed
- Algae culture and Refeed
- Anaerobic Fermentation and Refeed
- Anaerobic Production of Fuel Gas
- Barriered Landscape Water Renovation System
- Biochemical Recycle Process
- Chemical Extraction and Refeed
- Conversion to Industrial Products
- Conversion to Oil
- Fly Larvae Production and Refeed
- Gasification
- High Rate Land Disposal
- Hyacinth culture and Refeed
- Hydrolysis and chemical Treatment
- Oil Pooduction by Pyrolysis
- Spray Runoff Treatment
- Trickling Filter Treatment
The above technologies are further described in Section VII.
In-Process Technology
The in-process features which should be considered for all new sources
should include:
Site selection - Considered on a national and local basis, the factors
to be considered are: suitability of the geographic area for the
production of specific animals, local topography, climate, location of
receiving surface waters, availability of cropland, soil conditions,
sub-surface water location and quality, population locations, and the
prevailing wind direction.
Method of Production - The method should be best suited to the animal
type and site location. This involves choice between open or confined
housing, liquid or solid waste management systems, type of waste
management pre-treatment, good housekeeping practices, and the use of
recycled water. The above technologies are described further in Section
IV and Section VII of the report.
282
-------
SECTION XII
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The Environmental Protection Agency expresses appreciation for the
support in preparing this document provided by Hamilton Standard
Division, United Aircraft Corporation, which program was directed by Mr.
Daniel J. Lizdas, Project Manager, assisted by Mr. Warren B. Coe, Lead
Project Engineer. The major contributing Project Engineers were Messrs.
Eric E. Auerbach, Arthur K. Davenport, Donald R. McCann and Michael H.
Turk.
Special recognition is offered to the consultants who provided
invaluable technical assistance as cited:
Dr. Dan M. Wells, P.E.
Director, Water Resources Research Center
Texas Tech University
Lubbock, Texas (Beef Cattle)
Dr. Raymond C. Loehr, P.E.
Diector, Environmental Studies Program
Cornell University
Ithaca, New York (Dairy Cattle)
(Chickens)
(Ducks)
Dr. Frank J. Humenik
Professor, Department of Agricultural Engineering
North Carolina State University
Raleigh, North Carolina (Swine)
Dr. John M. Sweeten
Agricultural Engineer
Animal Waste Management
Agricultural Extension Service
Texas A and M University
College Station, Texas (Sheep)
Dr. Joseph G. Berry
Department of Animal Sciences
Purdue University
West Lafayette, Indiana (Turkeys)
Appreciation is expressed to Mr. Jeffery D. Denit, Chief, Impact
Analysis Branch, Technical Analysis and Information Branch, Effluent
Guidelines Division, who served as Project Officer and provided
supervision, guidance and assistance throughout the conduct of the
project.
283
-------
Ir _ra-»-agency review, analysis, and assistance was provided by the
^edicts Industry Working Group/Steering Committee comprised of the
following EPA personnel:
4-r. Ernst P. Hall, Effluent Guidelines Division
(Committee Chairman)
Mr. Lynn Shuyler, Office of Research and Development
Mr. William LaVeille, Office of Research and Development
Mr. Donald Anderson, Office of Research and Development
Mr. Ronald R. Ritter, EPA, Region VII
Mr. Norman Klocke, EPA, Region VII
Mr. Osborne Linguist, EPA, Region VI
Mr. Gary Polvi, EPA, Region VIII
Mr. John Rademacher, Office of Enforcement and General counsel
Mr. Robert McManus, Office of Enforcement and General Counsel
Mr. Harold Trask, Office of Solid Waste Management
Countless feedlot owners and managers, university professors and
proponents of a variety of waste management techniques contributed
significantly to the project by hosting site visits or discussing their
areas of specialty. Although listing all of their names would be too
lengthy, their assistance is gratefully acknowledged.
The Agency further expresses appreciation to the secretaries and support
staff of the Effluent Guidelines Division who contributed immeasurably
in producing this report: Jane Mitchell, Linda Rose, Kit Krickenberger
and Gary Fischer.
Acknowledgement and appreciation is also given to the following
individuals who played a vital role in the site visits by making
detailed visit arrangements and accompanying the Hamilton Standard
personnel and Project Officer on most of the visits:
Brad Nicolajsen,. Region IV EPA
Ozzie Linguist, Region VI EPA
Paul Glasscock, County Agent, Hillsbourough County, Florida
Dr. Larry Baldwin, University of Florida
Dr. Roger Nordstedt, University of Florida
James Frank, Illinois EPA
James Hunt, Indiana Department of Health
Norman Klocke, Region VII EPA
Gary Polvi, Region VII EPA
Norbert Thule, Kansas Department of Health
Bob George, University of Missouri Agricultrural Extension Service
Ubbo Agena, Iowa Department of Environmental Quality
Lanny Icenogle, Nebraska Department of Environmental Control
Leland Jackson, Nebraska SCS
Phillip O'Leary, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
284
-------
Dr. Lynn Brown, University of Connecticut
Dr. R. G. Light, University of Massachusetts
Dr. W. Urban, Cornell University Duck Research Facility
Ken Johanson, Cornell University Duck Research Facility
285
-------
286
-------
SECTION XIII
REFERENCES
STATISTICAL DATA
1. Milk - Production, Disposition and Income 1970 - 12,
Da 1-2(73), Statistical Reporting Service, U.S. Department
of Agriculture, April, 1973.
2. Chickens and Eggs - Production/ Disposition. Cash Receipts
and Gross Income 1970-72 By States, Pou 2-3 (73) , Statistical
Reporting Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, April, 1973.
3. Changes In Farm Production and Efficiency - 1972 - A Summary
Report, Statistical Bulletin No.233, Economic Research
Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture.
4. Meat Animals/ Farm Production, Disposition and Income
1970-1971-1972, MtAn 1-1 (73), Statistical Reporting Service,
U.S. Department of Agriculture, April, 1973.
5. Livestock Slaughter, Annual Summary 1972, MtAn 1-2-1 (73),
Statistical Reporting Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture,
April, 1973.
LAND UTILIZATION
6. 1973 Cornell Recommends for Field Crops, New York State
College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Cornell University,
Ithaca, New York.
7. Waste Handling and Disposal Guidelines for Indiana Poultrymen,
Cooperative Extension Service, Purdue University, Lafayette,
Indiana.
8. Butchbaker, A. F., Feedlot Runoff Disposal on Grass and Crops,
Oklahoma Agricultural Experiment Station, Oklahoma State
University, Stillwater, Oklahoma.
9. Overman, A. R., Hortenstine, C. C., Wing, J. R., Land Disposal
of Dairy Farm Waste, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York.
10. Smith, G. E., "Land Spreading as a Disposal Process", from
2nd Compendium of Animal Waste Management, U.S. Department
of the Interior, June, 1969.
11. Shuyler, L., "Design for Feedlot Waste Management Using Feedlot
Wastes", ibid.
287
-------
12. Butchbaker, A. F., Groton, J. E., Mahoney, G. W. A., and
Pain/ M. P., Evaluation of Beef Cattle Feedlot Waste Manage-
ment Alternatives, Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, November, 1971.
13. Maine Guidelines for Manure and Manure Sludge Disposal on
Land, Report No. 142, University of Maine, July 1972.
14. Hileman, L. H., "Pollution Factors Associated with Excessive
Poultry Litter (Manure) Application in Arkansas", from
Proceedings of the 1970 Cornell Agricultural Waste Management
Conference, Rochester, New York, pp. 41-48.
15. Symposium on Animal Waste Management, USDA Southwestern
Great Plains Research Center, Bushland, Texas, 1973.
16. Management of Farm Animal Wastes, Proceedings National
Symposium on Animal Waste Management, Michigan State Univ
E. Lansing, Michigan, ASAE Publication No. SP-0366, 1966.
17. Proceedings of the 1972 Cornell Agricultural Waste Management
Conference, Syracuse, New York.
18. Livestock Waste Management and Pollution Abatement, The
Proceedings of the International Symposium on Livestock
Wastes, Ohio State University, Columbiiis, Ohio, ASAE Publication
No. PROC-271, 1971.
19. Proceedings of the 1969 Cornell Agricultural Waste Management
Conference, Syracuse, New York.
20. Management of Nutrients on Agricultural Land for Improved
Water Quality, prepared by Cornell University, Ithaca, New
York, for the Environmental Protection Agency, Project No.
13020 DPB, August, 1971.
21. McKenna, M. F., Clark, J. H., "The Economics of Storing,
Handling and Spreading of Liquid Hog Manure for Confined
Feeder Hog Enterprises", Proceedings of the 1970 Cornell
Agricultural Waste Management Conference, Rochester, New York,
pp. 98-111.
22. Beef and Swine Waste Handling System - Land Application
Considerations, prepared by Dale H. Vanderholm, Regional
Extension Specialist, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa.
23. "The Price Tag to Stop Feedlot Runoff", Beef, April, 1972.
288
-------
COMPOSTING
24. Schecter, S. M., "Manure for Retail Sale:, The Ohio Farmer.
October 7, 1972, pp. 47, 63.
25. Anon., "Composting: One Solution to Feedlot Waste Disposal",
Feedlot Management, May, 1972, pp. 32, 33, 36, 43.
26. Martin, J. H., Decker, M., Das, K. C., "Windrow Composting
of Swine Wastes", Proceedings of the 1972 Cornell Agricultural
Waste Management Conference, Syracuse, New York, pp. 159-172.
27. Willson, G. B., Hummel, J. W. "Aeration - Rates for Rapid
Composting of Dairy Manure", ibid., pp. 145-158.
28. Grimm, A., "Dairy Manure Waste Handling Systems", ibid.,
pp. 125-144.
29. Snell, J. R., A New Economic Approach to the Treatment and
Utilization of Cattle Feedlot Wastes, Report - Cobey Environ-
mental Controls Company Inc., Crestline, Ohio.
30. Gunnerson, C. G./ Demonstration of Composting Dairy Manures
in Chino, California, Report - Terex Division General
Motors Corporation, Hudson, Ohio.
31. Caller, W. S., Davey, C. B., "High Rate Poultry Manure
Composting with Sawdust", Livestock Waste Management and
Pollution Abatement. The Proceedings of the International
Symposium on Livestock Wastes, Ohio State University,
Columbus, Ohio, ASAE Pub. No. PROC. -271, 1971, pp. 159-163.
32. Willson, G. B., "Composting Dairy Cow Wastes:, ibid., pp. 163-165,
Telecons;
33. Sawyer, J., Orleton Farms, London, Ohio and Hamilton Standard
March 21, 1973.
34. Kell, W., Terex Division of General Motors, Hudson, Ohio, and
Hamilton Standard, April 5, 1973.
35. Kinney, G., Grove Compost Company, Grafton, Wisconsin,
and Hamilton Standard, April 11, 1973.
36. Boyd, L., Robers and Boyd Inc., Burlington, Wisconsin and
Hamilton Standard, April 10, 1973.
269
-------
DEHYDRATION
37. Flegal, C. J., Zindel,.H. C., "Dehydrated Poultry Waste
(DPW) as a Feedstuff in Poultry Rations", Livestock Waste
Management and Pollution Abatement/ The Proceedings of the
International Symposium on Livestock Wastes, Ohio State
University, Columbus, Ohio, ASAE Publication No. PROC -271,
1971, pp. 305-307.
38. Bucholtz, H. F., Henderson, H. E., Thomas, J. W., Zindel,
H. D., "Dried Animal Waste as a Protein Supplement for
Ruminants", ibid., pp. 308-310.
39 Hodgetts, B., "The Effects of Including Dried Poultry Waste
in the Feed of Laying Hens", ibid., pp. 311-318.
40 Surbrook, T. C., Sheppard, C. C., Boyd, J. S., Zindel, H. C.,
Flegal, C. J., "Drying Poultry Waste", ibid., pp. 192-194.
41. Berdgoll, J. F., "Drying Poultry Manure and Refeeding the
End Product", Proceedings of the 1972 Cornell Agricultural
Waste Management Conference, Syracuse, New York, pp. 289-294.
42. Flegal, C. J., Sheppard, C. C., Dorn, D. A., "The Effects of
Continuous Recycling and Storage on Nutrient Quality of
Dehydrated Poultry Waste (DPW)", ibid., pp. 295-300.
43. Nesheim, M. C., "Evaluation of Dehydrated Poultry Manure
as a Potential Poultry Feed Ingredient", ibid., pp. 301.-310.
44. Bucholtz, H. F., Henderson, H. E., Flegal, C. J., Zindel, H. C.,
"Dried Poultry jWaste as a Protein Source for Feedlot Cattle",
Michigan State University.Publication AH-BC0700.
45. Johansen, V., "Recycling of Dehydrated Poultry Manure as a
Feed Component in Cattle Rations", A/S ATLAS, Copenhagen,
Denmark.
46. Typical Operating Data and Production Costs of Rotary Manure
Drier in United Kingdon, 20,000 to 40,000 Bird Capacity.
Colman Corp., Rotary Organic Manure Dryer, November 1969.
47. Kiesner, J., "F.D.A. Will Develop Policy on Poultry Waste
for Rations", Feedstuffs, Date unknown.
48. Technical Statistics for OPCCO Organic Waste Conversion Dryer,
Organic Pollution Control Corporation, Grand Haven, Michigan,
December 9, ly71.
290
-------
49. Drying and Processing Machinery, American Dryer and
Equipment Co., Chicago, Illinois
50. Jensen EQuipment News, Jensen Fabricating Engineers, Inc.,
Rockfall, Connecticut.
51. Ovens and Drying Equipment, AER Corporation, Ramsey, New
Jersey, Bulletin No. 7B.
52. Rotary Equipment for Processing Chemical Fertilizers,
Stansteel Corp., Los Angeles, Ca,1 - forma, Bulletin Mo. 686A.
53. Rotary Dryers, Stansteel Corporation, Los Angeles, California,
Bulletin No. 618A.
Correspondence;
54. Michelson, D. J., Stansteel Corporation and Hamilton Standard,
May 14, 1971.
55. Bergdoll, J. F., Big Dutchman, Zealand, Michigan, and Hamilton
Standard, January 24, 1973.
56. Billiard, G. A., Organic Pollution Control Corp., and
Hamilton Standard, December 9, 1971.
57. Michelson, K. J., Stansteel Corporation and Hamilton Standard,
September 10, 1971.
58. Michelson, K. J., Stansteel Corporation and Hamilton Standard,
March 25, 1971.
59. O'Leary, P. R., Wisconsin Department Natural Resources and
Hamilton Standard, May 3, 1973.
Telecons:
60. Deidtrichson, H., Western Beef, Amarillo, Texas, and Hamilton
Standard, January 19, 1973.
61. Scruggs, R. S., Relco Inc., Amarillo, Texas, and Hamilton
Standard, February 6, 1973.
62. O'Leary, P. R., Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
and Hamilton Standard, May 1, 1973.
63. Billiard, G. A., Organic Pollution Control Corp., and Hamilton
Standard, January 25, 1973.
64. Michelson, K. J., Stansteel Corporation and Hamilton
Standard, January 25, 1973.
291
-------
65. Bergdoll, J. F., Big Dutchman Division of U.S.I., and
Hamilton Standard, January 23, 1973.
CONVERSION TO INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTS
66. "Enterprise: End Product", Newsweek, July 26, 1971.
67. "UCLA Professor Develops Versatile Ceramic Product from
Glass and Cow Dung", UCLA Release, July 7, 1971.
68. "UCLA Engineer Develops Decorative Tiles from Sludge and
Glass", UCLA Release, July 7, 1971.
69. "Kershaws give $5000 to UCLA for Research", Calf News,
February, 1972.
70. "Feedlot Manure - The Ecology Inspired Building Material",
Calf News, September, 1971.
71. "Monfort Looks at Treated Manure for Tile and Plastic",
Calf News, August, 1972.
Telecons:
72. Mackenzie, J., UCLA, and Hamilton Standard, January 22, 1973
73. Mackenzie, J., UCLA, and Hamilton Standard, April 23, 1973.
AEROBIC SINGLE CELL PRODUCTION (SCP)
74. "Breeding and Training Hot Bacteria to Convert Steer Manure
into Valuable Protein", Calf News, May, 1972, pp. 4.
75. "G.E. Enters Manure Recycling Race", Calf News, April, 1972,
pp. 1.
76. "General Electric Opens Arizona Pilot Plant for Converting
Cattle Manure to Protein Supplement", Feedstuffs, September
11, 1972, pp. 4.
77. "Manure is Food for Protein", Feedlot Management, October
1972, pp. 18.
78. "GE and The Feedlot Waste Problem", Press Release for
August 31, 1972.
79. "GE Produces Livestock Feed from Manure". Press Release
for August 31, 1972.
292
-------
80. Bellamy, W. D., "Cellulose As A Source of Single Cell
Proteins - A Preliminary Evaluation", General Electric
Technical Series Report No. 69-C-35, September, 1969.
81. "GE Opens Recycling Plant", Calf News/ October, 1972, pp. 34.
82. "Layout of Nutrient Reclamation Plant", Feedstuffs, April
24, 1972, pp. 4.
83. "General Electric to Recycle Beef Manure Into Protein Feed
at New Arizona Plant", Feedstuffs, April 10, 1972, pp. 4.
84. "An Environmental Progress Report", Challenge (Quarterly
published by General Electric Space Division), Fall, 1971,
pp. 18.
95. Bellamy, W. D., U.S. Patent No. 3,462,275, August 19, 1969.
Telecons;
86. Shull, J., General Electric Nutrient Reclamation Division
and Hamilton Standard, March 23, 1973.
AEROBIC YEAST PRODUCTION
87. "Microbial Protein Production", Abstract of Paper present
at 73rd Annual Meeting of the American Society of Microbiology,
Miami, Florida, May, 1973.
Correspondence;
88. Savage, J., Stanford Research Institute and Hamilton
Standard, March 21, 1973.
Telecons:
89. Savage, J., Stanford Research Institute and Hamilton
Standard, April 9, 1973.
ANAEROBIC SCP PRODUCTION
90. "Processing Animal Waste by Anaerobic Fermentation", Paper
presented at the 164th National Meeting of American Chemical
Society, New York City, August, 1972.
91. Hamilton Standard internal study of Anaerobic Fermentation of
Cattle Wastes.
FEED RECYCLE
92. "The Wittingham Venture:, Calf News, March 1972.
93. "The Whittingham Venture", Calf News, September, 1972.
293
-------
94. "Feed REcycling Showing Promise"/ Calf News, January, 1973.
Telecons;
95. McCain, J., Desert Ginning and Hamilton Standard, March 22, 1973.
96. Westing, T., California Polytechnic and Hamilton Standard,
April 19, 1973.
OXIDATION DITCH
97. Vetter, R. L., Christensen, R. D., Feeding Value of Animal
Waste Nutrients From a Cattle Confinement Oxidation Ditch
System,Iowa State University Publication A. S. Leaflet R170,
July 1972.
98. Frankl, G., Masch, W. R., Progress Report on Confinement
Feeding Research, Iowa Beef Processors, Inc., June 1972.
99. Jones, D. D., Day, D. L., Dale, A. C., Aerobic Treatment
of Livestock Wastes, University of Illinois Bulletin 737,
May, 1970.
100. Tanganides, E. P., White, R. K., "Automated Handling and
Treatment of Swine Wastes", Proceedings of the 1972 Cornell
Agricultural Waste Management Conference, Syracuse, New
York, pp. 331-340.
101. Jones, P. H., Patni, N. K., "A Study of Foaming Problems in
an Oxidation Ditch Treating Swine Waste", ibid., pp. 503-517.
102. Mulligan, T. J., Hesler, J. C., "Treatment and Disposal of
Swine Waste", ibid., pp. 517-536.
103. Hegg, R. 0., Larson, R. E., "Solids Balance on a Beef Cattle
Oxidation Ditch", ibid., pp. 555-562.
104. Dunn, G. G., Robinson, J. B., "Nitrogen Losses Through
Denitrification and Other Changes in Continuously Aerated
Poultry Manure", ibid., pp. 545-554.
105. Bridson, R., "Iowa Beef Processors Researching Confinement
Feeding, Recycling Waste", Feedstuffs, Volume 44, Number 33,
August 14, 1972, pp. 35-36.
106. Muehling, A. F., Oxidation Ditch for Treating Hog Wastes,
Bulletin No. AEng-878, University of Illinois Cooperative
Extension Service, August, 1969.
294
-------
107. Loehr, R. C., Anderson, F. F., Anthonisen, A. C., An
Oxidation Ditch for Handling and Treatment of Poultry Wastes",
Livestock Waste Management and Pollution Abatement, The
Proceedings of the International Symposium on Livestock
Wastes, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, ASAE Publication
No. PROC-271, 1971, pp. 209-212.
108. Windt, T. A., Eulley, N. R., Staley, L. M., "Design,
Installation and Biological Assessment of a Pasveer Oxidation
Ditch on a Large British Columbia Swine Farm", ibid.,
pp. 213-216.
109. Larson, R. E., Moore, J. A., "Beef Wastes and the Oxidation
Ditch Today and Tomorrow", ibid., pp. 225-228.
110. Pos, J., Bell, R. G., Robinson, J. B., "Aerobic Treatment
of Liquid and Solid Poultry Manure", ibid., pp. 220-224.
111. Robinson, K., Saxon, J. R., Baxter, S. H., "Microbiological
Aspects of Anaerobically Treated Swine Waste", ibid., pp.
225-228.
Telecons:
112. Vetter, R. L., Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa and
Hamilton Standard, March 19, 1973.
ACTIVATED SLUDGE
113. Kappe, D. S., "Development of a System and a Method for the
Treatment of Runoff from Cattle Holding Areas", Proceedings
of the 1972 Cornell Agricultural Waste Management Conference,
Syracuse, New York, pp. 353-365.
114. Schuster, L. R. , "Treatment of Swine Wastes/', ibid., pp.
267-271.
115. Park, W. R., Ninth Quarterly Progress Report, MRI Project
No. 2449-C, Midwest Research Institute, August 31, 1972.
116. Montgomery Research Proposal for Liquid Aerobic Composting
of Cattle Wastes and Evaluation of Byproducts to Environmental
Protection Agency, June 21, 1971.
117. Crauer, L. S., and Hoffman, B., Technical Aspects of Liquid
Composting, De Laval Corporation, 1972.
118. Braun, D., "Breakthrough in the Fight Against Pollution",
Farm Journal, December, 1972.
295
-------
119. Riemann, U., "Aerobic Treatment of Swine Waste by Aerator-
Agitators (Fuchs)", Proceedings of the 1972 Cornell Agricultural
Waste Conference, Syracuse, New York, pp.537-545.
120. Park, W., and Ellington, G., New Waste Management System
for Confined Swine Operations, Midwest Research Institute,
Kansas City, Missouri.
121. McGhee, T. J., and others, "Laboratory Sudies on Feedlot
Runoff", 23rd Annual Sanitary Engineering Conference,
University of Kansas, February 7, 1973.
122. McGhee, T. J., and others, "Practical Treatment of Feedlot
Runoff, Third Annual Environmental Engineering and Science
Conference, Louisville, Kentucky, March 1973.
Telecons:
123. Anderson, D., EPA, and Hamilton Standard, March 7, 1973.
124. Ellington, G., Schuster Farms, and Hamilton Standard,
December 18, 1972.
125. Ritter, R., EPA and Hamilton Standard, March 16, 1973.
126. McElory, Midwest Research Institute and Hamilton Standard,
March 23, 1973.
127. McGhee, T. J., University of Nebraska and Hamilton Standard,
March 12, 1973.
128. Lynch, M. Jr., Montgomery Engineering and Hamilton Standard,
January 30 and March 22, 1973.
129. Hoffman, B., De Laval Inc., and Hamilton Standard,
February 23, 1973.
WASTELAGE
130. Anthony, W. B., "Cattle Manure as Feed for Cattle", Livestock
Waste Management and Pollution Abatement, The Proceedings of
the International Symposium on Livestock Wastes, Ohio State
University, Columbus, Ohio, ASAE Publication PROC-271, 1971,
pp. 293-296.
131. Anthony, W. B., "Utilization of Animal Waste as Feed for
Ruminants", Management of Farm Animal Wastes, Proceedings
National Symposium on Animal Waste Management, Michigan
State University, E. Lansing, Michigan, ASAE Publication
No. SP-0366, 1966, pp. 109-112.
296
-------
132. Anthony, W. B., "Cattle Manure Reuse Through Wastelage Feeding",
Proceedings of the 1969 Cornell Agricultural Waste Management
Conference, Syracuse, New York, pp. 105-113.
Telecons:
133. Anthony, W. B., Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama and
Hamilton Standard, March 29, 1973.
ANAEROBIC FUEL GAS PRODUCTION
134. Christopher, G., Biological Production of Methane from Organic
Materials (Biomethane Project), prepared for the Columbia
Gas System Service Corporation, United Aircraft Research
Laboratory (UARL) Report No. K910906-13, May 1, 1971.
135. Substitute Natural Gas by Methane Fermentation, Ecological
Research Associates,Inc., Lubbock, Texas.
Telecons:
136. Ort, F., Ecological Research Associates, Inc., and
Hamilton Standard, March 15, 1973.
FLY LARVAE
137. Calvert, C. C., Morgan, N. 0., and Martin, R. D., "House
Fly Larvae, Biodegradation of Hen Excreta to Useful Products",
Poultry Science, March 1970.
138. Calvert, C. C., Martin, R. D., and Morgan, N. 0., "House
Fly Pupae as Feed for Poultry", Journal of Economic Entomology,
August, 1969.
139. Morgan, N. 0., Calvert, C. C., and Martin, R. D., "Biodegrading
Poultry Excreta with House Fly Larvae; The Concept and
Equipment", USDA Agricultural Research Service, Bulletin
No. 33-136, Febuary, 1970.
140. Calvert, C. C., Morgan, N. 0., and Eby, H. J., "Biodegraded
Hen Manure and Adult House Flies: Their Nutritional Value
to the Growing Chick", Livestock Waste Management and
Pollution Abatement, The Proceedings of the International
Symposium on Livestock Wastes, Ohio State University, Columbus,
Ohio, ASAE Publication PROC-271, 1971, pp. 319-321.
141. Morgan, N. 0., and Eby, H. J., Animal Wastes Aeration
Improves Bioreduction by Fly Larvae, presented at ASAE
Annual Meeting, June, 1972.
297
-------
Correspondence;
142. Morgan, N. 0., USDA, and Hamilton Standard, January 31, 1973
and March 20, 1973.
Telecons:
143. Morgan, N. 0., USDA, and Hamilton Standard, January 17, 1973
and April 19, 1973.
BIOCHEMICAL RECYCLE
144. Carlson, L. G., "A Total Biochemical Recycle Process for
Cattle Wastes", Livestock Waste Management and Pollution
Abatement, The Proceedings of the International Symposium
on Livestock Wastes, Ohio State University, Columbus,
Ohio, ASAE Publication PROC-271, 1971, pp. 89-92.
Telecons:
145. Carlson, L. G., Babson Bros. Co., Oakbroook, Illinois and
Hamilton Standard, March 21, 1973.
CONVERSION TO OIL
146. Fu, Y. C., Metlin, S. J., Illig, E. G., and Wender, I.,
"Conversion of Bovine Manure to Oil", Agricultural Engineering,
1972, pp. 37.
147. Appell, H. R., Fu, Y. C., Friedman, S., Yavorsky, P. M., and
Wender, I., Converting Organic Wastes to Oil, U.S. Dept.
of the Interior, Bureau of Mines, Report of Investigations
7560, 1971.
Telecons:
148. Appell, R. R., U.S. Bureau of Mines, and Hamilton Standard,
March 2, 1973.
GASIFICATION
149. Halligan, J. E., and Sweazy, R. M., Thermochemical Evaluation
of Bovine Waste Conversion Processing, Texas Tech. University,
Lubbock, Texas.
150. "Another Possible Process for Manure", Calf News, January, 1973,
151. Conversion of Cattle Feed Wastes to Ammonia Synthesis Gas,
Texas Tech. University, Lubbock, Texas, February,1972,
Application to U.S. Dept. of the Interior for Research,
Development and Demonstration Grant.
298
-------
Correspondence;
152. Halligan, J. E., Texas Tech. University, Lubbock, Texas,
and Hamilton Standard, December 19, 1972.
153. Halligan, J. E., Texas Tech. University, Lubbock, Texas,
and Hamilton Standard, January 26, 1973.
PYRQLYSIS
154. Garner, W., and others, "Pyrolysis as a Method of Disposal
of Cattle Feedlot Wastes", Proceedings of the 1972 Cornell
Agricultural Waste Management Conference, Syracuse, New
York, pp. 101-125.
155. Midwest Research Institute: The Disposal of Cattle Feedlot
Wastes by Pyrolysis, EPA-R2-73-096, January, 1973.
156. White, R. K., and Taiganides, E. P., "Pyrolysis of Livestock
Wastes", Livestock Waste Management and Pollution Abatement,
The Proceedings of the International Symposium on Livestock
Wastes, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, ASAE Publication
PROC-271, 1971, pp. 190-192.
157. Mallan, G. M., and Finney, C. S., "New Techiques in the
Pyrolysis of Solid Wastes", AIChE paper for 73rd Annual
Meeting, August, 1972.
158. McCain, J., News Release, County of San Diego, Sept. 14, 1972.
159. Elkins, B., News Release, County of San Diego.
160. "Incinerator May Solve Plastic Problem", Technology
Forecasts, PWG Publications, September, 1970.
161. Banner, W. S., and others. Conversion of Municipal and
Industrial Refuse into Useful Materials by Pyrolysis,~
U.S. Dept. of the Interior, August, 1970.
162. Grimm, A., "Dairy Manure Waste Handling Systems", Procedings
of the 1972 Cornell Agricultural Waste Management Conference,
Syracuse, New York, pp. 125-145.
Correspondence;
163. Green, G. T., (AiResearch Mfg. Co.) and Hamilton Standard.
164. Willard, K., (EPA) and Hamilton Standard, March 22, 1973.
299
-------
Telecons:
165. Willard, K. , EPA, and Hamilton Standard, March 5, 1973.
166. Mallan, G. S., Garrett Corp., and Hamilton Standard,
March 5, 1973.
167. Anderson, D. S., EPA, and Hamilton Standard, March 2, 1973.
168. Green, G. T., AiResearch, and Hamilton Standard,
February 21, 1973.
INCINERATION
169. Sobel, A. T., and Ludington, D. C., "Destruction of Poultry
Manure by Incineration", Management of Farm Animal Wastes,
Proceedings National Symposium on Animal Waste Management,
Michigan State University, E. Lansing, Michigan, ASAE
Publication No. SP-0366, 1966, pp. 95-98.
HYDROLYSIS
170. Baccarini, J., "Hydrolyzing Poultry Manure for Recycle as
Feed", Proposal to FWPCA, October, 1971.
171. Bouthilet, R. J., and Dean, R. B., "Hydrolysis of Activated
Sludge", Paper from Fifth International Water Pollution
Research Conference, 1970.
172. Long, T. A., Bratzler, J. W., and Frear, D. E. H., "The
Value of Hydrolyzed and Dried Poultry Waste as a Feed for
Ruminant Animals, Proceedings of the 1969 Cornell Agricultural
Waste Management Conference, Syracuse, New York, pp. 98-105.
173. Klopfenstein, T., and Koers, W., "Agricultural Cellulosic
Wastes for Feed", Paper from 164th National ACS Meeting,
New York City, August, 1972.
174. Gugoltz, J., and others, "Enzymatic Evaluation of Processes
for Improving Agricultural Wastes for Ruminant Feeds",
Journal of Animal Science, 33:1, July, 1971.
175. Smith, L. W., and others, 'Influence of Chemical Treatments
Upon Digestibility of Ruminant Feces", Proceedings of the
1969 Cornell Agricultural Waste Management Conference,
Syracuse, New York, January, 1969, pp. 88-89.
176. Smith, L. W., "Nutritive Evaluations of Animal Manures",
Paper from 164th National ACS Meeting, New York City,
August, 1972.
300
-------
177. Elmund, K. G., and others, "Enzyme - Facilitated Microbial
Decomposition of Cattle Feedlot Manure", Livestock Waste
Management and Pollution Abatement, The Proceedings of the
International Symposium on Livestock Wastes"Ohio State
University, Columbus, Ohio, ASAE Publication PROC -271,
1971, pp. 174-176.
178. "Incresing Value of High Fiber Wastes", Calt News, April, 1972,
Telecons;
179. Baccarini, J., True Fresh Farms, Jones, Oklahoma and
Hamilton Standard, February 23, 1973.
180. Lomen, J., OPCCO, and Hamilton Standarrd, February 26, 1973.
181. Mulkey, L., EPA, and Hamilton Standard, March 1, 1973.
182. Long, T., Penn. State University, and Hamilton Standard,
March 21, 1973.
183. Moyer, C., North Bend Hide Co., and Hamilton Standard,
March 27, 1973.
184. Flickinger, H., Byproducts, Inc., and Hamilton Standard,
March 27, 1973.
185. Klopfenstein, T., University of Nebraska, and Hamilton
Standard, March 7, 1973.
186. Smith, L., USDA, and Hamilton Standard, March 17, 1973.
CHEMICAL EXTRACTION
Correspondence;
187. Olson, R., (Manager, Environmental Protection Systems, Boeing)
and Hamilton Standard, forwarding information on Poultry
Food Recovery System, March 22, 1973.
Telecons:
188. Olson, R., (Boeing) and Hamilton Standard, April 11, 1973.
189. Morrison, S. H., (Colorado State University) and
Hamilton Standard, January 23, 1973.
RUNOFF CONTROL
190. Butchbaker, A. E., et. al., Evaluation of Beef Cattle
Feedlot Waste Management Alternatives, Oklahoma State
University, Stillwater, Oklahoma, Environmental Protection
Agency, Water Pollution Control Research Series, Report
No. 13040 FXG 11-71.
301
-------
191. Gilbertson, C. B., Nienaber, J. A., "Feedlot Runoff Control
System Design and Installation - A Case Study", Livestock
Waste Management System Design Conference for Consulting
and SCS Engineers, Nebraska Center, Lincoln/ Nebraska,
Eng
/ 1
February, 1973.
192. Swanson, N. P., Jackson, L. G., "Livestock Waste Management
Systems-Management and .Maintenance Design Considerations", ibid,
193. Swanson, N. P., "Typical and Unique Waste Disposal Systems
Surface Drainage for a Level Feedlot", ibid.
194. Swanson, N. P., "Runoff Control for a Creek Bank Feedlot, ibid.
195. Johnson, P. R., "Feedlot Design With the Steer in Mind, ibid.
196. Last, D. G., "A Review of Animal Waste Regulations Around
the Nation", Proceedings of Farm Animal Waste Conference,
"Farmer Experiences, Codes, Guidelines, Research Progress,
Equipment", University of Wisconsin, Stevens Point, Wisconsin,
February, 1972, pp. 10-15.
197. Yeck, R. G., "The Review of Research Progress in Manure
Management", ibid.
198. "The Price Tag to Stop Feedlot Runoff", Beef, April, 1972,
pp. 6-7.
199. Role of Animal Wastes in Agricultural Land Runoff, North
Carolina State University at Raleigh, Environmental Protection
Agency, Water Pollution Research Series, Report No. 13020
OL X 08/71.
200. USDA-SCS Technical Guide - Section IV-G, Other Lands,
November, 1971, Nebraska Transmittal Sheet No. 85.
201. Department of Natural Resources (Wisconsin) Proposed Animal
Waste Managemnt Rules, Question - Answer Guideline,
presented to DNR Board on December 8,1972.
202. Rules for the Control of Water Pollution From Livestock
Confinement Facilities, Colorado Department of Health
April 10, 1968.
203. Anderson, D. F., 'Implications of the Permit Program in the
Poultry and Animal Feeding Industry", Proceedings of the
1972 Cornell Agricultural Waste Management Conference,
Syracuse, New York, pp. 27-59.
302
-------
204. Agena/ U., "Application of Iowa's Water Pollution Control
Law to Livestock Operations", ibid., pp. 47-59.
205. Levi, R. R., "A Review of Public and Private Livestock
Waste Regulations", ibid., pp. 61-69.
BLWRS
206. Erickson, A. E., Ellis, B. G., and Tiedje, J. M.,
Soil Modification for the Denitrification and Phosphate
Reduction of Feedlot Waste, Annual Report of Project
13040 FYK.
207. Erickson, A. E., Tiedje, J. M., and Hansen, C. M., "Initial
Observations of Several Medium Sized Barriered Landscape
Water Renovation System for Animal Wastes", Proceedings
of the 1972 Cornell Agricultural Waste Management Conference,
Syracuse, New York, pp. 405-411.
208. Erickson, A. E., Tiedje, J. M. Ellis, B. G., and Hansen
C. M., "A Barriered Landscape Water Revnovation System for
Removing Phosphate and Nitrogen from Liquid Feedlot Waste",
Livestock Waste Management and Pollution Abatement, The
Proceedings of the International Symposium on Livestock
Wastes, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, ASAE Publication
PROC -271, 1971, pp. 232-235.
Telecons:
209. Erickson, A. E., Michigan State University, and Hamilton
Standard, February 1, 1973 and March 12, 1973.
LAGOONS
210. Baldwin, L. B., and Norstedt, R. A., "Design Procedures
for Animal Waste Treatment Lagoons in Florida", ASAE Meeting,
Jacksonville, Florida, January, 1971.
211. Crowe, R., and Phillips, R. L., "Lagoons for Milking Center
Wastes", Proceedings of the 1972 Cornell Agricultural Waste
Management Conference, Syracuse, New York, pp.563-569.
212. Humenik, F. J., and others, "Evaluation of Swine Waste
Treatment Alternatives", ibid. pp. 341-353.
213. Dale, A. C., and others, "Disposal of Dairy Cattle Wastes
by Aerated Lagoons and Irrigation", Proceedings of the 1969
Cornell Agricultural Waste Management Conference, Syracuse,
New York, pp. 160.
214. Jones, D. D., and others, "Aerobic Treatment of Livestock
Wastes", University of Illinois Experiment Station Bulletin
737, May, 1970.
303
-------
215. Kesler, R. P., "Economic Evaluation of Liquid Manure Disposal
from Confinement Finishing of Hogs", Management of Farm
Animal Wastes Proceedings/ National Symposium on Animal
Waste Management, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio,
ASAE Publication SP-0366, 1969, pp. 122-126.
126. Loehr, R. C., Pollution Implications of Animal Wastes - A
Forward Oriented View, Cornell University, July 1968.
217. Loehr, R. C., "Liquid Waste Treatment - Oxidation Ponds
and Aerated Lagoons", Proceedings of the 1971 Cornell
Agricultural Waste Management Conference, Syracuse,
New York, pp. 54-79.
218. Loehr, R. C., "Treatment of Wastes from Beef Cattle Feedlots -
Field Results", Proceedings of the 1969 Cornell Agricultural
Waste Management Conference, Syracuse, New York, pp. 225-242.
219. Miner, R. J., Farm Animal - Waste Management, Iowa State
University Agriculture Experiment Station, May, 1971.
220. Mulligan, T. J., and Hesler, J. C., "Treatment and Disposal
of Swine Waste", Proceedings of the 1972 Cornell Agricultural
Waste Management Conference, Syracuse, New York, pp.517-537.
221. Nordstedt, R. A., and Baldwin, L. B., "Lagoon Disposal of
Dairy Wastes in Florida", National Dairy Housing Conference,
Michigan State University, February, 1973.
222. Nordstedt, R. A., and others, "Multistage Lagoon Systems
for Treatment of Dairy Farm Waste", Livestock Waste
Management and Pollution Abatement, Proceedings of International
Symposium on Livestock Wastes, Ohio State University,
Columbus, Ohio, ASAE Publication PROC =271, 1971, pp. 77-81.
223. Turner, D. 0., and Proctor, D. E., "A Farm Scale Dairy
Waste Disposal System", ibid., pp. 85-89.
224. Okey, R. W., and Rickles, R. N., "The Conceptual Design of
an Economically Feasible Animal Waste Disposal Scheme",
Proceedings of the 1970 Cornell Agricultrural Waste
Management Conference, Rochester, New York, pp. 85-88.
225. Person, H. C., and Miner, L. R., "An Evaluation of Three
Hydraulic Manure Transport Treatment Systems, Including a
Rotating Biological Contactor, Lagoons, and Surface Aerators",
Proceedings of the 1972 Cornell Agricultural Waste Management
Conference, Syracuse, New York, pp.27i,289.
304
-------
226. Taiganides, E. P., "Theory and Practice of Anaerobic Digesters
and Lagoons", Second National Poultry Litter and Waste
Management Seminar, Texas A & M university, October i, 1968.
227. Vickers, A. F., and Genetelli, E. J., "Design Parameters
for the Stabilization of Highly Organic Manure Slurries
by Aeration", Proceedings of the 1969 Cornell Agricultural
Waste Management Conference, Syracuse, New York, pp. 37-50.
228. "The Price Tag to Stop Feedlot Runoff", Beef, April, 1972.
229. Butchbaker, A. F., and others, Evaluation of Beef Cattle
Feedlot Waste Management Alternatives, Oklahoma State
University, November, 1971.
Correspondence;
230. Peterson, J., Circle E., Feedlot, Potwin, Kansas and
Hamilton Standard, December 15, 1972.
EVAPORATION
231. Visher, S. S., Climatic Atlas of the United States, Harvard
University Press, Cambridge, 1966.
TRICKLING FILTER
232. Bridgham, D. 0., and Clayton, J. T., "Trickling Filters
as a Dairy-Manure Stabilization Component", Management of
Farm Animal Wastes, Proceedings National Symposium on
Animal Waste Management, Michigan State university,
E. Lansing, Michigan, ASAE Publication No. SP-0366, 1966,
pp. 66-68.
233. Cropsey, M. G., and Weswig, Ph. H., "Douglas-fir Bark as a
Trickling Filter Medium for Animal Waste Disposal Systems',
Tech, Bulletin 124, Ag. Exp. Station, Oregon Si-ate University
February, 1973.
234. Mulkev, L. A., and Smith, R. E., "Inclined Plane Trickling
Filter for Swine Waste", ASAE No. 72-952, December, 1972.
235. Mulkey, L. A. and Smith, K. E., "Inclined Plane Liquid Contact
Time Measure with Radiotracer", ASAa Transactions, 15-5,
1972, pp. 935.
Telecons:
236. Clayton, J. T., University of Massachusetts, and Hamilton
Standard, February 21, 1973.
305
-------
237. Cropsey, M., Oregon State University, and Hamilton Standard,
March 16, 19/3.
^38. Smith, R. E., university of Georgia, and Hamilton Standard,
March y, 1973.
SPKAY RUNOFF
239. Anon, Data Sheet on McKinney, Texas Installation.
Correspondence;
240. Peterson, J. W., Circle E Feealot, Potwin, Kansas, and
Hamilton Standard, December lb, 1972.
241. Eisenhauer, D. £., Kansas state University, ana Hamilton
Standard, March 1, 19/3.
Telecons:
242. Thomas, R., Kerr Water Research Center and Hamilton
Standard, February 28, Iy73.
243. Eisenhauer, D., Kansas State University ana Hamilton
Standard, February 27, 1973.
244. Reeves, T. , Kansas state Div. of Environmental Health,
and Hamilton Standard, February 28, Iy73.
245. Peterson, J., Circle E. Feedlot, Fotwin, Kansas,
and Hamilton Standard, December 15, i972.
ROTATING BIOLOGICAL CONTACTOR
246. Person, h. L., and Miner, J. R., "An Evaluation of Three
Hydraulic Manure Transport Treatment systems, Including
a Rotating Biological contactor, Lagoons, and Surface
Aerators", Proceedings of the i972 Cornell Agricultural
Waste Management Conference, Syracuse, New Yorx, pp. 2T1-289.
247. "waste Treatment Unit Being Tested at Iowa State", Feedstuffs,
August 14, 1971.
Telecons:
248. Smith, R. J., Iowa State University, and Hamilton Standard,
March 13, 1972.
306
-------
WATER HYACINTHS
249. Miner, J. R., Wooten, J. W., Dodd, J. u., "Water Hyacinths
to Further Anaerobic .Lagoon Effluent", Livestock Waste
Management and Pollution Abatement, The Proceedings of the
International Symposium on Livestock Wastes, Ohio State
University, Columbus, Ohio, ASAE Publication PRuC-271,
19/1, pp. 170-173.
Telecons:
250. Miner, J. R., Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon,
and Hamilton Standard, April 13, 197j.
ALGAE
251. Dugan, G. L., Golueke, C. G., Oswald, W. J., Rixford, C. E.,
Photosynthetic Reclamation of Agricultural Solid and Liquid
Wastes", second Progress Report, University or Calif.
Berkley, May, 1970, SERi. Report No. 70-1.
252. Dugan, G. !•., Golueke, C. G., Oswald, W. J., "Recycling
System for Poultry wastes", Journal of Water Pollution
Control Federation, Vol. 44, No. 3, March, 1972, pp. 432-440.
253. Bieber, H., "Engineering of Unconventional Portein Production",
Cnemical Engineering progress Symposium Series, Number 93,
Volume 65, 19b9.
^54. Golueke, C. G., "Closed waste Trearment System for High
Intensity Animal Production", waste Age, March/April Iy71,
pp. 10-11.
255. McGraw-hill Encyclopedia of science and Technology, Volume x,
pp. 235-238.
REGULATIONS
256. "Water Quality Standards Criteria Digest, A Compilation of
Federal/State Criteria on bacteria", environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. August, 19/2.
Telecons:
257. Kaminski, S., New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation and Hamilton Standard, May 15, 1973.
307
-------
-------
SECTION XIV
GLOSSARY
INTRODUCTION
The terminology listed herein is intended as an efrort to maintain
uniformity of understanding ±n terms used throughout this report.
Where applicable, terms and definitions from related rields were
adapted.
Standard procedures determining the analytical terms defined herein
may be found in Standard Methods, American Public Health Association,
New York.
TERMS AND DEFINITIONS
Additives; Microamounts of drugs included in a ration.
Aeration: Tne bringing about of initmate contact betwen air
and a liquid.
Aeration Tank; A tank in whicn sludge, sewage, or other liquid
waste is aerated.
Aerobic: Growing only in air or free oxygen.
Aerobic Bacteria; Bacteria which require the presence of free
^dissolved or molecular) oxygen for their metabolic processes.
Oxygen in chemical combination will not support aerobic organisms.
Aerobic Decomposition; Reduction ot the net energy level of
organic matter by aerobic microorganisms.
Algae; Primitive plants, one or many-celled, usually aquatic
and capable of synthesizing their foodstuffs by photosynthesis.
Alkalinity; A quantative measure of the capacity of liquids or
suspensions to neutralize strong acids or to resist the estabiisn-
ment of acidic conditions. Alkalinity results from the presence
of bicarbonates, carbonates, hydroxides, volatile acids, salts,
and occasionally borates, silicates and phosphates. Numerically,
it is expressed in terms of tne concentration of calcium caroonates
that would have an equivalent capacity to neutralize strong acids.
Anaerobic Bacteria; Bacteria that do not require the presence of
free or dissolved oxygen for metabolism. Strict anaerobes are
hindered or completely blocked by the presence of dissolved oxygen
and in some cases by the presence of highly oxidized suostances
such as sodium nitrates, nitrites, and perhaps sulfates.
Facultative anaerobes can be active in the presence ot dissolved
oxygen but do not require its presence. See aerobic bacteria
ror comparison.
309
-------
Anaerobic Decomposition; Reduction of the net energy level and
change in chemical composition of organic matter caused by micro-
organisms in an anaerobic environment.
ASCS: Agricultural stabilization and Conservation Service.
Backgrounding; The preparation of calves for feedlot by feeding
a high roughage ration from the weignt o± from Ia2 to 204 kilograms
to 212 to 295 kilograms (sOo to 450 pounds to 60u to b50 pounds).
Bacteria: Primitive plants, generally tree of pigment, which
reproduce by dividing in one, two, or tnree planes. They occur
as single cells, chains, filaments, weli-orientea groups or
amorphoous masses. Most bacteria do not require light, but a
limited number are photosynthetic and draw upon light for energh.
Most bacteria are heterotrophic (utilize organic matter tor energy
and for growth materials), but a tew are autotrophic and derive
their bodily needs rrom inorganic materials.
Barrow: Castrated male pig.
Bedding; Material, usually organic, which is placed on the floor
surface of livestock buildings tor animal comtort ana to absorb
urine and other liquids, and thus promote cleanliness in the
building.
Beet Concentrate: A protein supplement that is added to the
cereal grains or other carbohydrate source in the ration to adjust
the protein content to the desired level for the sex and age
of the animal.
Beef Yearling; Bovine being ted for oeet between 1 year ana
2 years of age.
BOD (Biochemical Oxygen Demand): An indirect measure of the
concentration of biologically degradable material present in
organic wastes. It is the amount of free oxygen utilized by
aerobic organisms wnen allowea to attack the organic matter in
an aerobically maintained environment at a specifiea temprature
(20°C) for a specific time period (5 days). It is expressed
in milligrams of oxygen per kilogram of solids present (mg/kg =
ppm = parts per millions parts).
Biological Oxidation; The process whereby, through tne activity of
living organisms in an aerobic environment, organic matter is
converted to more biologically stable (less putritiable) matter.
Biological Stabilization; Reduction in the net energy level,
and the tendency to purify, of organic matter as a result of the
metabolic activity or organisms.
Biological Treatment: Organic waste treatment in which bacteria
and/or biochemical action is intensified unaer controlled conditions.
310
-------
Boar; Male pig.
Bovine; Member of the ramily Bovidae, whicn are hollow-horned
ruminants tnat have been domesticated and used ror meat and milk
and hides.
Breeding Herd: Animals that are maintained for tne purposes of
producing offspring.
Breeding Stock; Usually poultry that are maintained for production
of hatching eggs.
Broiler; chickens or either sex specifically bred for meat production
and marketed at approximately 8 weeks of age.
Bull; Male Bovine.
i
Bulk; Fibrous portion of the ration.
Bunk Feeder or Feed Bunks; A trough that is constructed tor the
purpose of feeding cattle.
Calf; Young bovine, usually up to weaning or even up to 1 year
old. May be called short yearlings.
cellulose; Plant cell walls that are formed by the combination of
many molecules of glucose.
Cereal Grain; The seeds of plants that are high in starch and
eigher low or relatively low in fiber.
Chemical Oxidation; Oxidation of organic substances without oenefit
of living organisms. Examples are by thermal combustion or by
oxidizing agents such as chlorine.
COD (Chemical Oxygen Demand); An indirect measure ot the biochemical
load exerted on the oxygen assets of a body ot water when organic
wastes are introduced into the water. It is determined cy tne
amount of potassium dichromate consumed in a boiling mixutre of
chromic and sulturic acids. The amount ot oxidizable organic
matter is proportional to the potassium dicromate consumed.
Where the wastes contain only readily availaole organic bacterial
food and no toxic matter, the COD values can be correlated with
BOD values obtained from the same wastes.
Chick; Young poultry.
311
-------
Coagulant; A material, which, when added to liquid wastes or
water, creates a reaction wnich forms insuluble rloc particles
that absorb and precipitate colloidal and suspended solids.
The floe particles can be removed by sedimentation. Among the
most common chemical coagulants used in sewage treatment are
ferric sulfate and alum.
Cock; Male chicken.
Composting: present-day composting is the aerotoic, thermophilic
decomposition of organic wastes to a relatively stacle numus.
The resulting humus may contain up to 25% dead or living organisms
and is subject to further, slower decay but should be sufticiently
stable not to reheat or cause odor or fly problems, in composting,
mixing and aeration are provided to maintain aerobic conditions
and permit adequate heat development. Tne decomposition is done
by aerobic organisms, primarily bacteria, actinomycites and fungi.
Contamination; A general term signifying the introduction into
water of microorganisms, chemical, organic, or inorganic wastes,
or sewage, which renders the water unfit ror its intended use.
Crossbreeding; The crossing of two purebred animals to produce
a hybrid offspring.
Dehydration; The chemical or physical process wnereby water,
which is in chemical or physical combination with other matter,
is removed from it.
DES; A synthetic femal sex normone used to improve the feed
efficiency and fattening of steers.
Digestion; Though aerobic digestion is being used, the term
digestion commonly refers to the anaerobic breakdown of organic
matter in water solution or suspension into simpler or more
biologically stable compounds or both, organic matter may be
decomposed to soluble organic acids or alcohols, and subsequently
converted to such gases as methane and carbon dioxide. Complete
destruction or organic solid materials by cacterial action alone
is never accomplished.
Dissolved Oxygen; The oxygen dissolved in sewage, water, or
other liquid, usually expressed as milligrams per liter or as
percent ot saturation.
Droppings; Animal waste or recal matter.
affluent; A liquid which flows from a containing space.
Eutrophication; Applies to a lake or pond - becoming rich in
dissolved nutrients, with seasonal oxygen deficiency.
312
-------
Evaporation Rate: The quantity of water that is evaporated from
a specified surface per unit of time, generally expressed in
inches or centimeters per day, month, or year.
Evapotranspiration; Loss of water from tne soil, both by
evaporation and by transpiration trom the plants growing thereon.
Excrete; To throw off waste matter by a normal discharge.
Facultative Bacteria; Bacteria which can exist and reproduce
under either aerobic or anaerobic conditions.
Facultative Decomposition; Reduction of tne net energy level of
organic matter by microorganisms which are facultative.
Farrowing; The act of giving birth to pigs by the sow.
Farrowing Crate; Equipment to house a sow at farrowing time
to present her from crusning the young offspring.
Feces; Excrement from the boweis consisting of food residues,
oacteria, and intestinal excrement.
Feeder Cattle; Cattle that are to be placed in feedlots
for the purpose of fattening.
seeder Pig; Pigs that are to be placed in finishing lots for
the purpose of tattening.
Feed Supplement; Materials included in the ration to provide
needed nutrients to balance the ration for the specific sex and
age of the animal.
Fertilizer Value; The potential worth of the plant nutrients
tnat are contained in tne wastes and could become available to
plants when applied onto the soil. A monetary value assigned to
a quantity of organic waste represents the cost of obtaining the
same plant nutrients in their commercial form and in the amounts
found in the waste. The worth ot the waste as a fertilizer can
be estimated only for given soil conditions and other pertinent
factors such as land availability, time, and nandling.
Filtration; The process ot passing a liquid through a porous
medium for the removal of suspended or colloidal material contained
in the influent liquid by a physical straining action. The trickling
filter process used in waste water treatment is a metnod of
contacting dissolved and colloidal organic matter with biologically
active aerobic slime growths, and is not a true filtration process.
313
-------
Finish; Feeding animals to improve the quality of lean meat,
by storage of fat between the oundles of ribers, often called
marbling.
Flocculation; Tne process of forming larger flocculant masses
from a large number ot finer suspended particles.
Forage; A crop that is grown for the feeding or the entire plant
ratner than just the seeds.
Giilt; Young or immature remale pig.
Hatchery; A business or building engaged in tne hatcning of chicks
or the production of baby chickens.
Haylage; Silage made from nay.
Heifer; Young or immature female bovine.
Hen; Mature female chicken.
Hog; A domestic swine weighing more than 54.5 kilograms (i20 pounds;
Hydraulic Collection and Transport System; The collection and
transportation or movement of waste material tnrough the use of
water.
Incineration; The rapid oxidation of volatile solids within a
specially designed combustion cnamber.
Infiltration; The process whereby water enters the environment
of the soil througn the immediate surface.
Infiltration Rate; The rate at which water can enter tne
soil.Units are usually inches of water per day.
Influent; A liquid which flows into a containing space.
Inoculum; Living organisms, or an amount of material containing
living oragnisms (such as bacteria or other microorganisms;
which are added to initiate or accelerate a biological process
(e. g., biological seeding).
Lagoon; An all-inclusinve term commonly given to a water impound-
ment in which organic wastes are stored or stabilized, or both.
Lagoons may be described cy the predominant biological cnaracter-
istics (aerobic, anaerobic, or racultative), by location (indoor,
outdoor), by position in a series (primary, secondary, or other)
and by the organic material accepted (sewage, siudge, manure, or
other).
314
-------
Lamb: Young or immature sheep.
Layer; A mature hen that is producing eggs.
Laying Houses; Where ±aying hens are kept.
iiiquification; Any of several processes whereoy solids are con-
verted to liquids. Suspended solids may be liquified by tne
biochemical action of microorganisms, or by the physical-
chemical process of dissolving. Liquification is often used as
a term for the operation whereby water or agitation or both are
used to convert semi-solid manure into thick slurries or somewhat
thinner solid suspensions.
Liquid Manure; A suspension of livestock manure in water, in
which the concentration of manure solids is low enough so the
flow characteristics of the mixture are more like rhose of
Newtonian fluids than plastic fluids.
Litter; Particles of solid material, usually organic but nor
readily decomposable, used as nolding for poultry.
Manure; The fecal and urinary defecations of livestock and
poultry. Manure may often contain some spilled feed, nedding
or litter.
Manure Pit; A storage unit in which accumulations of manure are
collected before subsequent nandling or treatment, or both, and
ultimate disposal. Water may be added in the pit to promote
liquification.
Methemoglobinemia; Nitrate/Nitrite poisoning.
Milking Parlor; A confined sanitary area where cows are milked
mechanically.
Milo; A grain sorghum classed as cereal grain, grown in the more
arid parts of the country, way £>e included in the ration to
replace corn.
Organic content; Synonymous with volatile solids except for
small traces of some inorganic materials sucn as calcium carbonate
which will lose weignt at temperatures used in determining volatile
solids.
Oxidation Lagoon; synonymous with aerocic lagoon.
Oxidation Pond; Synonymous with aerobic lagoon.
Pasture; An area wnere the animals are premitted to harvest
tne forage freely.
315
-------
The symbol for the logarithm of the reciprocol of the nydrogen
on concentration, expressed in moles per liter of a solution,
and used to indicate an acid or alkaline condition. (pH 7 indicates
neutral; less than 7 is acid; greater than 7 is basic.)
Percolation; The movement or water througn the soil profile.
Percolation Kate; The rate, usually expressed as a velocity,
tTwhich water moves througn saturated granular material.
Pig; The young of the hog.
Playa; An undrained basin in an arid region that sometimes
becomes a shallow lake on whicn evaporation leaves a deposit.
Pollution; The presence in a body of water (or soil or air)
of substances of such character and in such quantitiies that the
natural quality of the body of water (or soil or air) is degraded
so it impairs the water's usefulness or renders it offensive to
the senses of sight, taste, or smell. Contamination may accompany
pollution. In general, a puclic healtn hazard is created, but in
some cases only economy or esthetics are involved as when waste
salt brines contaminate surrace waters or when foul odors pollute
the air.
Poult; A young immature turkey.
Pullet; An immature female chicken.
Putrefaction; A process of decomposition in wnicn, as a consequence
of the breakdown of proteins, end products with offensive odors
are formed.
Ram (BUCK) ; A mature male sheep.
Range; Open pasture, usually considered to be the western portion
of the United States, where cattle and sneep are raised on native
grasses grown on rather rougn terrain.
Kesidues; Minute amounts of a drug remaining in tissue following
administration of tne drug to an animal.
Roughage; Foodstuff high in fiber.
Ruminant; A nerbivore that has three forestomachs that digest
cellulose located anead of the true stomach, or abomasum.
Sedimentation Tank; A tank or basin in which a liquid (water,
sewage, liquid manure) containing settleable suspended solids is
retained for a sufficient time so part ot the suspended solids
settle out by gravity. The time interval that the liquid is
retained in the tank is called "detention period". In sewage
treatment, the detention period is snort enougn to avoid
putrefaction.
316
-------
Seepage; The movement of water through the ground surface; influent
seepage is movement of water from surface oodies of water into tne
soil; effluent seepage is discharge of water from tne soil to
surface bodies of water.
Self Feeding; The practice of having feed available to the
animal at all times.
Septic Tank; A single-story settling tank in whicn the organic
portion of the settled sludge is allowed to decompose anaerobically
witnout removal or separation from the oulk of the carrier water
flowing through the tank. Only partial liquifaction and gasification
of the oragnic matter is accomplished, and eventually, the un-
decomposed solids will accumulate to the extent that solids
removal is necessary,
Settleable Solids; Tnose suspended solids contained in
sewage or waste water that will separate by settling when carrier
liquid is held in a quiescent condition for a specified time
interval.
Settling Tank; bynonymous with "Sedimentation Tank".
Sewage; Water atter it has ceen fouled by various uses. From
the standpoint of source it may oe a combination(of the liquid or
water-carried wastes from residences, business buildings, and
institutions, together with tnose from industrial and agricultural
establishments, and with such groundwater, surface water, and
storm water as may £>e present.
Silage; cellulosic material that is placed in an air-tight con-
tainer and undergoes fermentation.
Slatted (Slotted) Floor; A confinement system that has a floor
with openings that permit the teces and urine to be Worked through
and into a lagoon or ditch below.
Sludge; Tne accumulated settled solids deposited from sewage
or other wastes, raw or treated, in tanks or oasins, and containing
more or less water to form a semi-solid liquid mass.
Sow; A mature femaleehog.
Steer; A castrated male bovine.
Suspended Solids; Solids tnat eitner tloat on the surface ot,
or are in suspension in water, sewage or other liquid wastes,
and which are largely removable by laboratory filtering.
Swine; Figs or hogs.
317
-------
Tilth; State of soil aggregation.
Total Solids; The residue remaining when the water is evaporated
away from a sample of water, sewage, other liquids, or semi-
solid masses of material and the residue is then dried at a
specified temperature (usually 103°C).
Urine; A watery solution voided by animals. Urine contains the
end-products of nitrogen and sulfur metabolism, salts, and pigments.
Volatile Acids; Lcw-molecular-weight organic acids, used as
control parameters in anaerobic digestion. A low figure for
volatile acids (400 - 2000 mg/lit), under normal conditions,
.would indicate that digestion is proceeding satisfactorily.
Volatile Solids; That portion of the total or suspended solids
residue which is driven off as volatile (combustible) gases at
js. specified temperature and time (usually at 600 °C for at least
one hour).
Wastelage; A combination of manure and forage placed in a silo
followed by fermentation.
318
-------
METRIC UNITS
CONVERSION TABLE
MULTIPLY (ENGLISH UNITS)
ENGLISH UNIT ABBREVIATION
acre ac
acre - feet ac ft
British Thermal BTU
Unit
British Thermal BTU/lb
Unit/pound
cubic feet/minute cfm
cubic meters/minute
cubic feet/second cfs
cubic feet cu ft
cubic feet cu ft
cubic inches cu in
degree Fahrenheit °F
feet ft
gallon gal
gallon/minute gpm
horsepower hp
inches in
inches of mercury in Hg
pounds Ib
million gallons/day mgd
mile mi
pound/square inch psig
(gauge)
square feet sq ft
square inches sq in
tons (short) ton
yard yd
by
CONVERSION
0.405
1233.5
0.252
0.555
0.028
1.7
0.028
28.32
16.39
0.555 (°F-32)*
0.3048
3.785
0.0631
0.7457
2.54
0.03342
0.454
3,785
1.609
(0.06805 psig +1)*
0.0929
6.452
0.907
0.9144
TO OBTAIN (METRIC UNITS)
ABBREVIATION METRIC UNIT
ha
cu m
kg cal
kg calAg
cu rn/min
cu m/min
cu m
1
cu cm
°C
m
1
I/sec
kw
on
atm
kg
cu m/day
km
atm
sq m
sq cm
kkg
m
hectares
cubic meters
kilogram-calories
kilogram calories/
kilogram
cubic meters/minute
cubic meters
liters
cubic centimeters
degree Centigrade
meters
liters
liters/second
kilowatts
centimeters
atmospheres
kilograms
cubic meters/day
kilometer
atmospheres
(absolute)
square meters
square centimeters
metric tons
(1000 kilograms)
meters
*Actual conversion, not a multiplier
-------
-------
-------
-------
-------
-------
-------
------- |