PB83-259861
Swine Manure and Lagoon Effluent Applied to Fescue
Philip W. Westerman, et al
North Carolina State University
Raleigh, North Carolina
September 1983
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Technical Information Service
-------
EPA-600/2-83-078
September 1983
SWINE MANURE AND LAGOON EFFLUENT APPLIED TO FESCUE
cy
Philip W. Westerman
Larry D. King
Joseph C. Burns
Michael R. Overcash
School of Agriculture and Life Sciences
North Carolina State University
Raleigh, North Carolina 27650
Grant No. R-804608
Project Officer
R. Douglas Kreis
Source Management Branch
Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory
Ada, Oklahoma 74820
ROBERT S. KERR ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
ADA, OKLAHOMA 74S20
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(I'U csc rcaJ l>isinictions on the rm'ii' NO.
PS8
.
25986 1
5. REPORT DATE
September 1983
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
P. W. Westerman, et al.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAM'; AND ADDRESS
School of Agriculture and Life Sciences
North Carolina State University
Box 5906
Raleigh, NC 27650
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
ABPC
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
R-804608'
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
PO Box 1198
Ada, OK 74820
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final f 1
Id. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/15
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
The utilization potential and the environmental effects of applying swine manure
and swine lagoon effluent to tall fescue were evaluated for four years. Lagoon
effluent was applied to 9 in. X 9 in. plots by weekly sprinkler irrigations during
the growing season while swine manure slurry from an under-slat pit was applied
to a similar plot four times per year. Treatments were chosen to evaluate the
acceptable maximum application rate, which is important when land area for appli-
cation is limiting. The results indicated that swine manure and swine lagoon
effluent can be excellent sources of nutrients for fescue, but water quality con-
siderations, N03-N levels in the forage, stand persistence and long-term soil
effects must be evaluated when determing acceptable maximum application rates.
17.'
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.lOENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS C. COSATI Field/Group
Agricultural Wastes
Animal Husbandry
Waste Disposal
Animal Management
Land Application
43F
68D
13. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release to Public
19. SECURITY CLASS (Tliis Report)
unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
20. SECURITY CtASS (Thispage)
unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
-------
NOTICE
THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRODUCED
FROM THE BEST COPY FURNISHED US BT
THE SPONSORING AGENCY. ALTHOUGH IT
IS RECOGNIZED THAT CERTAIN PORTIONS
ARE ILLEGIBLE, IT IS BEING RELEASED'
IN THE INTEREST OF MAKING AVAILABLE
AS MUCH INFORMATION AS POSSIBLE.
i-
-------
DISCLAIMER
Although the research described in this report has been funded wholly
or in part by the United States Environmental Protection Agency through
Grant No. R-804608 to North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, it has
not been subjected to the Agency's required peer and policy review and there-
fore does not necessarily reflect the views of the Agency, and no official
endorsement should be inferred. Mention of trade names or commercial pro-
ducts does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
11
-------
FOREWORD
EPA is charged by Congress to protect the Nation's land, air and water
systems. Under a mandate of national environmental laws focused on air and
water quality, solid waste management and the control of toxic substances,
pesticides, noise, and radiation, the Agency strives to formulate and imple-
ment actions which lead to a compatible balance between human activities and
the ability of natural systems to support and nurture life. In partial
response to these mandates, the Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Lab-
oratory, Ada, Oklahoma, is charged with the mission to manage research
programs to investigate the nature, transport, fate, and management of
pollutants in ground water and to develop and demonstrate technologies for
treating wastewaters with soils and other natural systems; for controlling
pollution from irrigated crop and animal production agricultural activities;
for controlling pollution from petroleum refining and petrochemical indus-
tries; and for managing pollution resulting from combinations of industrial/
industrial and industrial/municipal wastewaters.
This project was initiated to evaluate the utilization potential and
the environmental effects of applying swine manure and swine lagoon effluent
to tall fescue. Forage yield, quality and stand persistence, soil nutrient
levels, and water quality and quantity of runoff were evaluated. This infor-
mation is useful in determining optimal practices which will lead to the
development of Best Management Practices (EMPs).
Clinton W. Hall, Director
Robert S. Kerr Environmental
Research Laboratory
iii
-------
ABSTRACT
The utilization potential and the environmental effects of applying
swine manure and swine lagcon effluent to tall fescue were evaluated for
four years. Lagoon effluent was applied to 9 m x 9 m plots by weekly
sprinkler irrigations during the growing season while swine manure slurry
from an under-slat pit was applied to a similar plot four times per year.
Application rates were based on nitrogen (N) and were about 600 and 1,200
kg N/ha/yr for" the lagoon-irrigated plots and about 670 kg N/ha/yr for the
manured plot. These treatments resulted in much higher applications of N,
phosphorus (P), potassium (K) and other nutrients than is normally used for
fescue pasture. These treatments were chosen to evaluate the acceptable
maximum application rate, which is important when land area for application
is limiting.
Forage yield, quality and stand persistence, soil nutrient levels, and
water quality and quantity of runoff were evaluated. The treatments re-
sulted in good dry matter yields but some problems were encountered with
the forage shifting away from tall fescue to tropical annuals and perennials,
and with high nitrate nitrogen (N03-N) levels in the forage.
The results indicated that swine manure and swine lagcon effluent can
be excellent sources of nutrients for fescue, but water quality considera-
tions, NC>3-N levels in the forage, stand persistence and long-term soil
effects must be evaluated when determining acceptable maximum application
rates.
This report was submitted in partial fulfillment of Grant No. R-804608
by North Carolina State University under the partial sponsorship of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. This report covers a period from July 5,
1976 to April 30, 1980 and work was completed as of June 30, 1982.
iv
-------
CONTENTS
FOREWORD iii
ABSTRACT iv
FIGURES vii
TABLES ix
ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS xii
ACKNOWLEDGMENT xiii
1. Introduction 1
2. Conclusions 3
3. Recommendations 4
4. Experimental Procedures 6
Site description and experimental design 6
Irrigation procedures 10
Forage experimental procedures 12
Statistical analysis 13
Soil sampling and analysis 15
Rainfall measurements 15
Rainfall runoff experimental procedures 15
Chemical analysis procedures 18
5. Results and Discussion 19
Rainfall i9
Irrigation applications of lagoon effluent 19
Manure applications 25
Crop response 27
Soil core analysis ' ^2
Rainfall runoff volumes 54
Irrigation or irrigation-rainfall mixed runoff 55
Concentrations in runoff 58
Variation of runoff rate and concentration within an event...
Mass transport in rainfall runoff 77
REFERENCES 83
v
-------
APPENDICES 85
A. Lagoon and irrigation data on monthly basis for 1976-1978 85
B. Crop response results for each year 94
C. Tables of soil core results for each sampling 105
D. Rainfall and runoff data 115
vi
-------
FIGURES
Number
1 Diagram of research site for fescue plots ..................... ,
2 Annual dry matter yields ....................................... 31
3 Annual amounts of N removed in forage .......................... 33
4 Annual amounts of K removed in forage .......................... 37
5 Effect of treatments on soil NO -N
6 Effect of treatments on dilute acid extractable soil P ......... 46
7 Effect of treatments on dilute acid extractable soil K ......... 48
8 Effect of treatments on dilute acid extractable soil Ca ........ 49
9 Effect of treatments on dilute acid extractable soil Mg ........ 50
10 Effect of treatments on dilute acid extractable soil Na ........ 52
11 Effect of treatments on soil pH ................................ 53
12 Effect of treatments on mean concentrations of N, TKN and
NO -N in rainfall runoff for entire period .................. 63
13 Effect of treatments on mean concentration of P in rainfall
runoff for entire 'period .................................... 64
14 Effect of treatments on mean concentrations of N, TKN, N03~N
and NH--N in rainfall runoff for fourth year (3/78 - 2/79).. 67
15 Effect of treatments on mean concentrations of P in
rainfall runoff for fourth year (3/78 - 2/79) ............... 68
16 Rainfall and runoff for two selected events on the manure
treatment [[[ 71
17 Rain intensity, runoff rate and nutrient concentrations in
runoff for event on 1-9-77 and 1-10-77 ...................... 72
18 Rain intensity, runoff rate and nutrient concentrations in
-------
FIGURES (continued)
Number Page
19 Variation of concentrations and associated sample volumes
during the runoff event of 1-10-77 75
20 Variation of concentrations and associated sample volumes
during the runoff event of 3 -13-77 76
21 Mass transport of N, TKN, and NO -N in rainfall runoff for
entire period 80
22 Annual runoff and volume-weighted concentration and mass
transport of N and P 81
viii
-------
Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
TABLES
Soil Particle Size Analysis, Cecil Sandy Clay Loam
Experimental Plot Management for Fescue Plots
Dates of Manure and Fertilizer Applications at Fescue Site
Mean Seasonal Forage Height When Harvested
Treatment Description and Set of Meaningful Comparisons
Periods of Various Runoff Samplers
Calibration Results for the Slotted Rotating Reservoir Sampler.
Monthly Rainfall at Fescue Site
Irrigation Periods
Annual Arithmetic Mean Concentrations of Lagoon Liquid and
Irrigation Collection Cup Liquid
Losses of TKN and NH -N
Annual Irrigation Applications of Elements
Mean Annual Irrigation Applications of Elements
Annual Mean Concentration of Effluent ,
Estimated Applications to Manured Plot
Comparing Application Amounts of Nutrients for Treatments
Dry Matter Yields and Quantities of Elements Removed in Forage.
Treatment Comparisons of Yield, IVDMD, N and NO,-N
Average Concentrations of Elements in Forage
Treatment Comparisons of Concentrations of Minerals and
Quantities Removed in the Forage
Page
8
9
11
12
14
16
17
20
21
22
23
24
25
25
26
27
29
30
32
34
IX
-------
TABLES (continued)
Number ' ' Page
21 Visual Estimates of Botanical Composition of Plots in Late
Summer 38
22 Botanical Composition of Plots Determined in Late Fall by
Hand Separation of Forage 40
23 Relative Stand Scores Designating Density of Cover Consider-
ing the Temperature Species 41
24 Effect of Treatments on Soil N and Organic Matter 45
25 Fertility Levels for P, K, Ca and Mg for December 1978 54
26 Rainfall and Runoff for Designated Hydrologic Periods 56
27 Irrigation Runoff Volume and Concentration 57
28 Rainfall-Irrigation Mixed Runoff 59
29 Mass in Runoff from Irrigation and Rainfall-Irrigation Mixed. 60
30 Volume-Weighted Concentration in Rainfall Runoff 61
31 Mean Concentrations in Rainfall Runoff for March 1978 -
February 1979 66
32 Highest Concentrations in Runoff for March 1978 - February
1979 69
33 Effect of Manure Application on Concentration in Runoff 74
34 Mass Transport in Rainfall Runoff 78
35 Mass Transport in Rainfall Runoff for March 1978 - February
1979 82
Appendix
A-l Lagoon Monthly Concentrations 86
A-2 Irrigation Collection Cup Liquid Concentrations 88
A-3 Ratio of Irrigation Cup Liquid Concentration to Lagoon
Liquid Concentration, Monthly Means 90
A-4 Monthly Irrigation Amounts 92
B-l Yearly Dry Matter, N, and N03-N Yields 95
-------
TABLES (continued)
Number " '' ' - ' ' ' ' ' ' : " Page
B-2 Yearly IVDMD, N, and NO -N Concentrations in Forage 96
B-3 Yearly P, K, Ca, Mg, and Cl Concentrations in Forage 97
B-4 Yearly Mn, Cu, Zn, Fe and Na Concentrations in Forage 99
B-5 Yearly Quantities of P, K, Ca, Mg and Cl Removed in the
Forage 101
B-6 Yearly Quantities of Mn, Cu, Zn, Fe and Na Removed in the
Forage 103
C-l Effect of Treatments on Soil NCL-N 106
C-2 Effect of Treatments on Dilute Acid Extractable Soil P 107
C-3 Effect of Treatments on Dilute Acid Extractable Soil K 108
C-4 Effect of Treatments on Dilute Acid Extractable Soil Ca 109
C-5 Effect of Treatments on Dilute Acid Extractable Soil Mg 110
C-6 Effect of Treatments on Dilute Acid Extractable Soil Na Ill
C-7 . Effect of Treatments on Dilute Acid Extractable Soil Cu 112
C-8 Effect of Treatments on Dilute Acid Extractable Soil Zn 113
C-9 Effect of Treatments on Soil pH 114
D-l Monthly Rainfall and Runoff 116
D-2 Rainfall and Runoff 119
D-3 Monthly Runoff, Mean and Highest Concentrations, and Mass
Transport for March 1978 - February 1979 for TKN. 129
D-4 Monthly Means and Highest Concentration for March 1978 -
February 1979 for P 134
D-5 Monthly Means and Highest Concentration for March 1978 -
February 1979 for N03~N 136
D-6 Monthly Means and Highest Concentration for March 1978 -
February 1979 for N 138
xi
-------
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS OR SYMBOLS
Ca
CH3COOH
ci-
COD
Cu
Fe
HC1
HN03
IVDMD
K
K20
Mg
Mn
N
N
Na
NCDA
NH3-N
N02~
N03~
N03-N
OP
P
TKN
TOC
uv
Zn
calcium
acetic acid
chloride
chemical oxygen demand
copper
iron
hydrochloric acid
nitric acid
sulfuric acid
in vitro dry matter disappearance
potassium
potash
magnesium
manganese
normality
nitrogen (total nitrogen, including nitrate nitrogen
unless otherwise indicated)
sodium
North Carolina Department of Agriculture
ammonia nitrogen (includes ammonia nitrogen and ammonium
(NHit"1") nitrogen)
ammonium nitrate
nitrite ion
nitrate ion
nitrate (N03) nitrogen
orthophosphate phosphorus
total phosphorus
phosphorus (V) oxide, often referred to as phosphate
total Kjeldahl nitrogen (organic nitrogen plus ammonia
nitrogen)
total organic carbon
ultra violet spectrum
zinc
xii
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support of this
project by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the North Carolina
Agricultural Research Service. The direction and support of EPA project
officers, Lynn R. Shulyer, S. C. Yin, Don A. Clarke, and R. D. Kreis, are
especially acknowledged.
The research project could not have been accomplished without the
direction and support of Dr. F. J. Hassler, Head of Biological and
Agricultural Engineering Department, Dr. C. B. McCants, Head of Soil Science
Department and Dr. B. E. Caldwell, Head of Crop Science Department, nor
without the assistance of Henry V. Marshall, Superintendent in Charge of
University Research Units, J. Robert Williams, Unit II Research Unit
Superintendent, and W. R. Baker, Jr., Superintendent of Central Crops
Research Station. Dr. F. J. Humenik, Dr. Ronald Sneed and Dr. G. A.
Cummings were largely responsible for starting the project and continued to
make valuable contributions throughout the project.
A special thanks is extended to John Bentley, Ron Horton, June Preston,
Dottie deBruyne, and many other field and laboratory workers who participated
in this research.
Thelma Utley also deserves special thanks for her excellence in typing
of the final report.
xiii
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
Swine production systems using confinement housing have increased in
recent years. These systems normally dispose of the swine manure by (1)
collecting the manure in a pit and using a tank wagon to spread the manure
slurry taken from the pit, or (2) utilizing a lagoon for manure treatment
and storage and pumping effluent from the lagoon to keep it from over-
flowing. Either disposal method has the potential for being an excellent
utilization scheme for providing nutrients for growing crops.
The design of the lagoon and the requirements of the soil-plant
receiver system depend largely on whether the producer's main objective is
(1) manure treatment and disposal or (2) utilization of manure nutrients for
useful crops. If the producer is limited by land, he may desire maximum
lagoon treatment and apply lagoon effluent or manure slurry to the soil-
plant receiver system at maximum rates which could be sustained without
causing toxicity to plants or animals fed the plants, failure of soil
structure, or excessive degradation of ground water and rainfall runoff.
On the other hand, if the producer is not land-limited and he desires to
utilize lagoon effluent for crop irrigation and fertilization or manure for
fertilization and soil amendment, he may design the system to minimize
nutrient losses and apply effluent or manure at rates based on efficient
crop utilization of nutrients. Then he must decide whether to base applica-
tion rate on N, P or another element. Typically, if N is the base element,
P and K are applied in excess of plant utilization. However, if P is the
base element, then additional N must be applied with commercial fertilizer
or a manure-fertilizer blend might be utilized. Thus, depending upon the
producer's objectives and the land and crop restrictions, a wide range of
nutrient loading rates may be found in practice. A major question arises
as to whether the maximum rate is limited by detrimental effects to crop,
or soil, or by water quality of ground water and runoff.
One crop which is often utilized for application of manure and lagoon
effluent is tall fescue (Festuca arundinacea Schreb.) . It can utilize large
amounts of N which is normally considered the limiting constituent in land
application of manure or lagoon effluent and fescue is water tolerant and
responds well to irrigation. Fescue is a cool-season perennial, however,
and the continued application of nutrients and/or irrigation during the
summer may cause problems with maintaining stand. The peak production of
fescue in the Southeast is March through May and September through November.
-------
The objectives of this study were to:
(1) determine dry matter yield, elemental composition, digestibility,
and stand persistence of fescue receiving swine manure or swine
lagoon effluent at high rates.
(2) determine soil effects of high rates of manure or lagoon
effluent applications.
(3) determine effects of the various treatments on quantity and
quality of rainfall runoff.
Tall fescue on a Cecil sandy clay loam was utilized in this study as
the plant-soil receiver system. Treatments included commercial fertilizer,
swine lagoon effluent at two rates during the growing season, and swine
manure slurry applied four times a year. Application rates were based on N,
and the manure and lagoon effluent supplied from 3 to 6 times more N than
the commercial fertilizer treatment which used a typical fertilizer rate for
fescue pasture. Also, P, K and other nutrients were supplied in the manure
or effluent at several times the normal fertilization rates. Results are
presented for four years of monitoring irrigation applications, crop yield
and composition, soil cores, and runoff.
-------
SECTION 2
CONCLUSIONS
Utilizing swine manure slurry and swine lagoon effluent for growing
tall fescue resulted in good dry matter yields and high crude protein and
digestibility, but the dry matter had excessive N03~N levels and vegetation
shifted away from tall fescue to tropical annuals and perennials on the high-
rate irrigation treatment, which indicated that the high annual rates of
application and the continued application of effluent during the summer was
not a good management scheme for tall fescue.
The high-rate irrigation treatment resulted in very high N03~N levels
in the soil and the manure and low-rate irrigation treatments also had
higher N03~N levels than the fertilized plot. The 1200 kg N/ha/yr rate was
too high and the 600 kg N/ha/yr rates were probably still too high to pre-
vent excessive nitrate movement to the groundwater and excessive N03~N
uptake by the fescue. Maximum application rates which would be considered
safe would be somewhat site specific and also depend on the amount of N lost
during application and by denitrification.
No problems were encountered with nutrient.imbalance of cations in the
soil but continued P accumulation could eventually result in reduced iron
(Fe) uptake. Periodic liming may be needed in some soils to correct for
calcium (Ca) and magnesium (Mg) leaching where lagoon effluent is applied.
All treatments, including the fertilizer treatment, had some runoff
events with high nutrient concentrations in runoff. Applications of manure
or fertilizer without incorporation should be avoided if rain is predicted
within a few days. Also, the 1200 kg N/ha/yr irrigation treatment and the
manure treatment had noticably higher total N and P transport than the other
treatments. Keeping application rates near normal crop fertilization rates
would utilize a greater percentage of the nutrients and be more acceptable
environmentally.
-------
SECTION 3
RECOMMENDATIONS
Results of applying either swine manure slurry or swine lagoon
effluent at high rates to tall fescue for four years indicated potential
problems with applying three and six times the normally recommended
fertilization rate based on N. Excessive N03~N levels resulted in the
forage and in the soil when the N application was 600 or 1,200 kg/ha/yr.
Also, some trends indicated potential agronomic problems if high-rate
applications .continued. Based upon these results the following recommenda-
tions are made:
1. Future studies should concentrate on fertilization levels in the
range of 200 to 600 kg/ha/yr of N. Also, application rates of
manure or lagoon effluent based on P or K should also be
considered.
2. The application losses of N by NH3~N volatilization and the soil
reduction of N03~N by denitrification needs further study in order
to better adjust application rates and determine the fate of N.
3. The potential problems of P accumulation needs further investiga-
tion.
4. The effects of high-rate applications of manure or lagoon effluent
on water quality of rainfall runoff and groundwater should be
studied for actual field-size systems where impact on receiving
streams or impoundments could also be evaluated.
5. Other management options should be evaluated for irrigation of
lagoon effluent on fescue such as using a lower application rate
or no applications during the summer to help reduce stand loss
of fescue to tropical annuals and perennials.
6. The potential of mixing fescue having high N03~N levels with other
forage having low N03-N levels for feeding livestock needs to be
evaluated.
7. Studies of this type should be conducted with various crops and
soils, and different management strategies to determine which
systems are best suited for utilizing manure and lagoon effluent at
either normal fertilization rates or maximum disposal rates.
Economics of alternatives should be evaluated. Some studies,
-------
particularly those with high application rates, should be of
five to ten years or longer duration to determine trends for long-
term effects where systems are dedicated to disposal.
-------
SECTION 4
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
The application of plant nutrients by irrigation of swine lagoon
effluent and application of swine manure slurry and the fate of those
nutrients through crop uptake, soil accumulation, and rainfall runoff
transport were evaluated using fescue plots and standard-type procedures
for collection and analysis of forage, soil cores and rainfall runoff.
The study included high-rate applications of lagoon effluent during the
growing season. The study period was four years.
SITE DESCRIPTION AND EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN
The experiment was conducted at the North Carolina State University
Unit 2 Research Farm about 8 km south of Raleigh. The system included
partially-slatted swine finishing buildings which periodically discharged
pit manure slurry to a lagoon from which lagoon liquid was pumped onto the
fescue plots using an automated irrigation sprinkler system. The relative
outlay of the lagoons and plots are shown in Figure 1.
The vegetation on the plot area was a long-time (over 15 years)
established sod of predominantly tall fescue (Festuca arundinacea Schreb.)
used only periodically for grazing by beef cattle. Consequently, it had
received consistent, but low fertilization in the form of swine waste from
an adjacent swine confinement facility over the previous six years.
The plot site, located on a north facing slope, consisted of a Cecil
sandy loam soil with eroded characteristics. The Cecil series is a
member of the clayey, kaolinitic, thermic family of typic Hapludults.
The A-horizon was 0 to 18 cm deep with an underlying red, firm clay 76 to
114 cm deep. The exposure had a slope of 10% and rather typical of the
southeastern Piedmont region. The soil particle analysis of composited
samples from the plot is given in Table 1.
The site was selected the spring of 1974. The cover was predominantly
tall fescue with varying amounts of Kentucky, bluegrass (Poa pratensis L.),
ladino clover (Trifolium repens L.), limited orchardgrass (Dactylis
glomerata L.) and some grassy and broad-leaved weeds. Tropical species
were not evident.
Seven 9.2 m x 9.2 m plots (Figure 1) were staked to give four plots
having a 3-5% slope and three plots 8-10% slope. The reasonably uniform
and adequate cover was not disturbed. Dikes were installed along the plot
-------
Dikes on
Three Sides
Runoff
Collection
Gutter
RAINBIRD
IQ AUTOMATIC
IRRIGATION
CONTROLLER
<£-IB (2.3m x 4.6m Runoff Subplot)
Numbers Indicate
Treatment Number
-Part-circle impact sprinkler
(0.3175 cm. dla.)
ccrpnivinAQV i i\mr\\\
btUJNUAnY LAoUUN
H
-PUMP (2 HP)
^0
1 AprvrtM
- LAbUUN '
\
^-Overflow Pipe
SWINE MANURE
SLURRY INPUT FROM
PARTIALLY SLATTED
SWINE HOUSE
Figure 1. Diagram of research site for fescue plots.
-------
TABLE 1. SOIL PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS. CECIL SANDY CLAY LOAM*
]
0
15
30
45
60
75
90
105
120
135
150
165
180
195
Depth
- 15
- 30
- 45
- 60
- 75
- 90
- 105
- 120
- 135
- 150
- 165
- 180
- 195
- 210
Sand
59
41
29
25
26
32
35
43 '
51
49
53
55
59
53
Silt
7
15
15
15
16
17
20
22
23
22
24
24
23
23
27
Clay
25
45
56
60
57
48
42
33
27
27
23
22
18
20
For a given depth, soil samples from all plots were composited to form a
sample for analysis. The hydrometer method was used for analysis.
edge with a turning plow to isolate each plot. The lower edge of the plot
was disturbed and fitted with gutters to collect runoff. The plots were
not replicated in space.
The treatments applied to each of the seven plots are described in
Table 2 with initiation in August 1974. Treatments on the 3-5% slope were
a lagoon effluent loading rate and pit manure applied as a slurry to give
672 kg of N/ha, each, for the season and a recommended rate of commercial
N (201/kg/ha). The three 8-10% slope plots received treatments of 672 and
1,345 kg of N/ha applied as effluent, and the control or commercial rate as
noted above.
8
-------
TABLE 2. EXPERIMENTAL PLOT MANAGEMENT FOR FESCUE PLOTsr
Ttnt.§
no.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
*
Nitrogen application
Slope,
%
3-5
3-5
3-5
3-5
8-10
8-10
8-10
Annual rate ,
Form applied kg N/ha/yr
lagoon
manure
pit
effluent
from underslat
ammonium nitrate
lagoon
effluent
ammonium nitrate
lagoon
lagoon
effluent
effluent
672
672
201
672
201
672
1345
Timing of
once /week
applications
from
3/1 to
3/10, 4/15, 9/10, and
11/15
11/1
3/10, 4/15, and 9/1
once /week
3/10, 4/15
once /week
once/week
from
, and
from
from
3/1 to
9/1
3/1 to
3/1 to
11/15
11/15
11/15
Fescue was managed to simulate grazing by cutting the fescue at 15-20 cm back to 5 cm.
Plot size was 9.2 m x 9.2 m.
it
Application rates and timing of applications are approximate.
Tmt. no. - Treatment number.
§
-------
The manure .slurry was obtained from the pit of a partially-slatted
swine house and was. applied to simulate a honey wagon application. Amounts
applied were based on total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) and were 168 kg/ha for
each application. Applications were usually in March, April, September and
November. Two applications were made in the fall of 1974. The actual dates
of applications are given in Table 3.
Plots topdressed with commercial fertilizer received 34 to 65 kg/ha/yr
of P and K, respectively. N was applied as ammonium nitrate (NH^NCh) twice
in the spring and once in the fall at 67 kg/ha, totaling 201 kg of N per
year. Specific application dates are shown in Table 3.
IRRIGATION PROCEDURES
For the irrigation treatments, application of the effluent from the
primary lagoon was supposed to be initiated in late February each year and
continue with one application per. week through mid November. However, the
start of irrigation was delayed several weeks in 1975 and 1976 because of
problems with pumping.
The irrigation system was automated and was normally set to irrigate
at night when wind effects would be minimal. To achieve uniform effluent
distribution, the irrigation nozzles were located at the corner of each
plot and were operated as one-quarter turn sprinklers having a radius equal
to about 9.8 m. The wetted area extended outside the 9.2 m x 9.2 m area by
about 0.6 m to assure total plot coverage. The various application rates
were achieved by varying the irrigation time.
Irrigation equipment included a 3.8 cm diameter main header from the
lagoon, a 2 HP centrifugal pump (Stayrite DHHG), laterals to each irrigated
plot, electric control valves to regulate flow to sprinkler nozzles, and a
time controller (Rainbird RC-12 controller). The .sprinklers were operated
two at a time to reduce application rate and irrigation runoff.
Samples for determining nutrient applications were taken from cups
which collected irrigated lagoon effluent near the surface of the fescue
plots. Samples of lagoon effluent were also taken weekly to compare to the
irrigation samples. Volume of applied effluent was determined from the
amount of liquid in the collection cups. In 1975, only two plots selected
at random were used for irrigation analysis. Therefore, the data was com-
bined for treatments 1, 4, and 6 and an average value was calculated.
After 1975, all seven plots had collection cups.
Concentrations of N, P and other selected parameters were determined
for the irrigation liquid collected on plots. Four cups were placed on the
plot, with one in the center of each quadrant. Volume of collected effluent
was determined for each cup and then one composite sample was taken per plot
for chemical analysis. Mean concentrations were calculated for each irriga-
tion event using the values for plots which had collection cups. Missing
data occurred mainly because samples which had rainfall mixed in were not
10
-------
TABLE 3. DATES OF MANURE AND FERTILIZER APPLICATIONS AT FESCUE SITE
Manure
application
date*
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
8 -
10 -
4 -
5 -
9 -
10 -
3 -
4 -
9 -
11 -
3 -
4 -
9 -
11 -
3 -
4 -
9 -
11 -
5
.7
22
6
26
24
3
20
8
9
8
21
7
8
15
20
12
14
P and K N appli-
application cation
date"1" date5
* *
9-19 4 -
5 -
9 -
2-27 2 -
4 -
9 -
2-17 2 -
4 -
9 -
3-15 3 -
4 -
9 -
i
15
13
19
27
21
6
17
19
1
15
20
1
*
Manure application on plot 16 was swine manure from under-slat
pit and rate of application based on TKN was 168 kg TKN/ha for
each application. This rate required from about 0.3 cm (250 &)
to 1.0 cm (835 £) of manure slurry on the 9.2 x 9.2 m plots
depending upon TKN concentration. Amounts of P, K and other
nutrients applied in the manure varied with each application.
Application rates of P and K were 34 and 65 kg/ha, respectively,
on plots 17 and 19.
Application rate of N was 67 kg/ha on plots 17 and 19.
Records for fertilizer applications in 1974 were lost.
11
-------
included in the data. Because of missing data, monthly mean concentra-
tions were calculated using the available weekly or irrigation event
average values. The monthly mean concentrations were multiplied by the
monthly amount of liquid received on each plot to determine monthly appli-
cation rates of nutrients for each plot. For metals and minerals (cations),
sampling for concentration analysis was usually from only one plot instead
of four plots.
Lagoon liquid and irrigated effluent were analyzed for TKN, ammonia
nitrogen (NH3-N), P, Ca, Mg, sodium (Na), chloride (Cl~) , copper (Cu), zinc
(Zn), chemical oxygen demand (COD), organic carbon (TOG), and during some
periods orthophosphate phosphorus (OP). Methods of analyses are given in
another section.
FORAGE EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
Forage was harvested periodically from the plots during the spring
and early summer of 1974 until treatments were initiated. The first
experimental harvest occurred August 14 and thereafter during the study at
a targeted height of 15-20 cm. This height was selected to keep the forage
vegetative and more like under-grazing, but also to reduce harvest number.
Although a grazing height of 5 to 10 cm is desired for a good grazing
management, the 15-20 cm height more closely reflects actual practice. The
mean height that forage was harvested at during the study (Table 4) was
generally greater than that targeted, especially for the higher N rates.
Because of the N and water (effluent) variables, forage for the various
treatments grew at different rates. Consequently, treatments were harvested
independently.
TABLE 4. MEAN SEASONAL FORAGE HEIGHT WHEN
HARVESTED
Land slope
Year
(Treatment designation)
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
(1)
18§
21
18
21
23
3-5%
(2)
11
14
15
19
20
(3)
11
16
17
16
17
(4)
19
21
19
24
21
(5)
15
19
17
20
20
8-10%
(6)
19
21
21
23
25
(7)
23
26
23
28
28
§
Values are the average of the heights for each harvest within years
(ranging from 4 to 9 harvests).
12
-------
Two swaths were harvested the length of each plot. Harvests were
generally made with a 0.53 m wide rotary mower set to cut to a 5.1 on ...
stubble height. The forage was bagged directly from the mower, and the
green weight determined. On occasions when the forage exceeded a height
easily handled by the rotary mower, a 0.46 m strip was harvested using a
sickle mower. In this case the forage was raked and placed in a bag for
weighing.
Forage from both swaths per plot were combined and subsampled for dry
matter determination and laboratory analyses. Subsamples were dried in a
forced-air oven at 75 C, ground to 1 mm through a Wiley mill and stored in
plastic bags until analyzed.
Relative botanical composition estimates, as percent of vegetative
cover, were obtained usually in the winter or spring and again in late
summer. Botanical composition as percent of dry matter was obtained by hand
separation only in the fall of 1977. Scores that reflected shifts in com-
position associated with tropical species were of most interest and the only
ones reported.
Relative stand scores to reflect changes in stand density (weakening)
were taken periodically to assess change in vegetation cover relative to
bare areas which were not reflected by botanical composition data. Scores
were based on a scale of 1 to 10 with 1 considered a weak, open stand and
10 a dense cover.
Stand maintenance was restricted to control of insects and periodic
overseeding of plots to repair insect damage. Paraquat was used periodic-
ally only to control forage growth between plots. Plots were sprayed with
2.2 kg/ha of Sevin (80% wettable powder) in 9.4 £/ha of water in September
1974 and 1977 and 4.5 kg/ha in October 1978, to control white grubs
(Cotinis nitida). Severity of infestations were noted and all plots over-
seeded at 22.4 kg/ha in September 1974 and again at 8 kg/ha (16 kg/ha for
treatment 7) in February and at 22.4 kg/ha in September 1977. This effort
permitted continuation of the portion of the study examining surface runoff
under cover associated with simulated light grazing.
Forage quality was estimated using the in vitro bioassay (Burns and
Cope, 1974). Analyses were for N, P, K, Na, Ca, Mg, Cu, Zn, Fe, Cl~, N03~N,
and manganese (Mn).
Statistical Analyses
The forage data were analyzed using year (time) as replications.
Because yield measurements in 1974 reflect only the later and less pro-
ductive portion of the season, they were omitted from the analyses. This
left yield, quality and mineral data from the four years, 1975 through 1978
to be analyzed.
A set of meaningful comparisons were developed (Table 5) permitting
comparison between plot slope and treatments within slope. Both forage
13
-------
TABLE 5. TREATMENT DESCRIPTION AND SET OF MEANINGFUL COMPARISONS
Item
Description
A) Treatments (T)
1) Lagoon effluent (672
kg N/ha)
2) Manure (672 kg N/ha)
3) Ammonium nitrate (201
kg N/ha)
4) Lagoon effluent (672
kg N/ha).
5) Ammonium nitrate (201
kg N/ha).
6) Lagoon effluent (672
kg N/ha)
7) Lagoon effluent (1345
kg N/ha)
B. Meaningful comparisons
Comparison 1 (T vs T Tn
and T.) 3 l 2
4
Comparison 2 (T , T vs T
-L Q t
Comparison 3 (T, , T , T
VST5, T,) 1 3 *
Comparison 4 (T. vs T )
j o
Comparison 5 (T. vs T )
o /
Comparison 6 (T vs T?)
Lagoon effluent applied weekly from
March 1 through Nov. 15, 3-5% slope
Manure obtained from under slat pit
in swine house, applied March 10,
April 15, Sept. 10 and Nov. 1. 3-5%
slope.
67 kg N/ha applied as a topdress
March 10, April 15 and Sept. 1. 3-5%
slope.
Same as treatment 1
67 kg N/ha applied as a topdress March 10,
April 15 and Sept. 1, 8-10% slope.
Lagoon effluent applied weekly from
March 1 through Nov. 15, 8-10% slope
Lagoon effluent applied weekly from
March 1 through Nov. 15, 8-10% slope.
(6 degrees of freedom)
Control vs others (3-5% slope)
Lagoon effluent vs manure (3-5% slope)
3-5% slope vs 8-10% slope
Control vs effluent (8-10% slope)
672 kg N/ha effluent vs 1345 kg N/ha
(8-10% slope)
Control vs 1345 kg N/ha from effluent
(8-10% slope)
14
-------
composition and yields (kg/ha) of dry matter and constituents were subjected
to statistical analyses but not the botanical or stand score data.
SOIL SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS
Soil samples were taken in 15-cm increments to a depth of 120 cm during
December 1975, February 1976, February 1977, and March 1978, and to a depth
of 210 cm in December 1978. Four cores per plot were taken within a 2-m
radius from the center of the plot. Core positions were recorded at each
sampling date to prevent sampling the same position at a later date. Each
time soil samples were collected from the plots, a control area receiving no
swine waste and only maintenance commercial fertilizer was also sampled.
The upper 45 cm of the soil profile was sampled with a stainless steel
auger. This was necessary because of the large amount of gravel in the
upper part of the profile. For sampling below 45 cm, galvanized sampling
tubes were driven into the soil with an electric hammer and then removed with
a special jack. Holes were refilled with a sand-benotonite mixture to ex-
clude water from the holes.
Soil cores were analyzed for extractable P, K, Ca,. Mg, Na, Cu, Zn, Mn
and N03-N and for pH. In addition, N and organic matter were determined
for the December 1978 samples.
RAINFALL MEASUREMENTS
Rainfall was measured at the research site from July 1975 through
February 1979 with a tipping bucket gage with event recorder. A Taylor
cylinder gage was also used starting January 1976. In addition, daily
rainfall was recorded at a nearby site (about 1 km) with a cylinder gage.
The cylinder gage at the research site was used as the main data source after
it was installed. The tipping bucket data was mainly utilized to: (1)
determine specific periods of rainfall when questions arose concerning rain-
fall runoff or irrigation-rainfall mixed runoff, (2) compare rainfall
intensity to runoff rate and concentrations in runoff for selected events,
and (3) as the main data source for July 1975 through December 1975. The
data from the nearby site was used for filling in missing data at the site.
RAINFALL RUNOFF EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
Rainfall runoff was collected from the total plot area for all treat-
ments except treatment 1 which had two runoff subplots 2.3 m x 4.6 m. An
aluminum gutter was placed at the downslope side of the plots to collect the
runoff. The interface between soil and gutter was stabilized by laying a
plastic sheet that extended from the gutter back onto the plot about 10 cm.
Soil was replaced to about 5 to 8 cm depth over the plastic that extended
onto the plot, and then sprayed with soil/rock binder (Rock Binder, EC 5844,
3M Company).
For treatment 1, each subplot had a barrel buried in the ground to store
the runoff that flowed into the gutter. However, on several events the
barrels overflowed because the barrels only held about 2 cm of runoff.
15
-------
For treatments 2 through 7, several runoff measurement/sampling devices
were utilized over the 44-month period of runoff collection. The periods
with different types of sampling are shown in Table 6.
TABLE
6. PERIODS OF VARIOUS RUNOFF
SAMPLERS
Time period
7-11-75 to 3-25-76
3-26-76 to 9-23-76
9-24-76 to 2-28-78
3-1-78 to 2-28-79
Type of sampler
Sump pump and 79-hole nozzle
Sump pump and 79-hole nozzle
Rotating reservoir with slot
Tipping bucket
Possible number of
samples per plot
34
1
34
1
The first sampling scheme utilized (7-11-75 to 3-25-76) was to split
the flow from the gutter using a tee connection and route one-half to a
sump box and allow one-half to drain down the hill. The sump box had a sump
pump with float switch. When the float switch was activated due to runoff
accumulation in the sump, the runoff was pumped from the sump to a 79-hole
garden hose sprinkler nozzle. A small brass tube was welded over one hole
to collect approximately 1/79 of the flow through the nozzle. Thus the
approximate fraction of r\moff collected for estimating runoff volume and for
chemical analysis was 1/2 x 1/79 or 1/158 (0.633%). The runoff collected
from the nozzle was routed to a box which contained a rotating distribution
arm which rotated (1 revolution per four hours) in a circle over 33 wide-
mouth glass jars (0.95 £) and stopped over a funnel which was connected to
a 208-2 barrel. The barrel collected the composite sample for runoff
occurring after the first four hours. This sampling scheme allowed an appro-
ximation of runoff rate during the first four hours after runoff began by
measuring volume of sample in each glass jar. Also, variation in concentra-
tion during the event could be evaluated by analyzing separate samples taken
over time. The most prevalent problem encountered with this sampling scheme
was clogging of the nozzle holes with small trash particles. Even with
screens between the gutter and the sump box, the holes in the nozzle were
too small to prevent clogging problems.
The sampling scheme for the periods 3-26-76 to 9-23-76 was simplified
in that the runoff was pumped from the sump directly to the buried 208-2,
barrel. This meant that one-half of total flow was collected in the barrel.
This was utilized until another type of sampler could be installed.
A slotted, rotating reservoir type sampler was utilized 9-24-76 to
2-28-78. Runoff was routed from the collection gutter to a cylindrical
stainless steel reservoir or bucket which was about 13 cm deep and had a
diameter of 36 cm. The reservoir had one slot in the wall that started
flush with the bottom of the reservoir and was 10.2 cm high. The slot was
0.64 cm wide except for the bottom 2.5 cm where the slot tapered from 0.64
cm to 0.32 cm at the bottom to allow more accuracy at low flow. Whenever
runoff occurred, it flowed into the reservoir, out the slot, and drained
16
-------
into a metal box which had a float switch and an outflow hole. When enough run-
off had occurred to activate the float switch, a 1/15 HP, 30 RPM gear-motor was
automatically started'which rotated the cylindrical reservoir. An L-shaped
slot collector with slot width of 0.64 cm collected a portion of the flow
from the rotating reservoir during each pass of the reservoir slot. The
portion of flow collected in the receiver slot was routed by gravity flow to
the box containing the rotating distribution arm and jars which were used
with the first sampling scheme previously described. The last station
(composite sample for after first 4 hr) was connected to a 7.6 SL container
instead of a barrell because the box with jars was now below ground level
in an open hole. Thus, this sampler could potentially obtain 33 samples
within the first four hours after runoff began and a composite sample for the
remainder of the runoff event. A metal cover prevented direct rainfall input
to the rotating reservoir and the hole which housed the sampler was drained
with plastic drain tube.
Each of the six slotted, rotating reservoir samplers were calibrated
using a flow-meter to measure amount of water passing into the reservoir and
then measuring the amount of sample collected to determine the proportion of
flow which was collected. A summary of the calibration is given in Table 7.
TABLE 7. CALIBRATION RESULTS FOR.THE SLOTTED ROTATING RESERVOIR SAMPLER
Sampler number
corresponding Mean flow split, Standard deviation,
to tmt. no. % %
2
3
4
5
6
7
0.738
0.718
0.775
0.806
0.795
0.627
0.024
0.023
0.038
0.033
0.048
0.024
*
Ten tests were conducted for each sampler with flow rates varying from
about 2 2,/min to 20 Jl/min.
The slotted, rotating reservoir sampler was moderately reliable, but
there were enough problems with malfunctions (normally the electrical
components and switches) that the decision was made to install a simpler
sampler that would measure flow rate and take a composite sample proportional
to flow. Thus, tipping bucket samplers were built and installed in February
1978.
The tipping bucket sampler was utilized 3-1-78 to 3-1-79. The bucket
which tipped was a V-shaped pan of galvanized sheet metal with a divider
wall in the center. The bend angle inside the "V" was 155°. The pan was on
17
-------
an angle-iron frame and pivoted about a support rod located beneath the pan.
The stop-rest for each side of the V-shaped pan was such that water coming
in at the center plane about which the pan pivoted would go into one side of
the pan until it reached a certain volume and tipped, whereby the other side
of the pan would then receive the water. Each half of the pan had capacity
of about 2 £ before it would tip. A mechanical counter with arm was install-
ed on one side to indicate the number of tips that side received, and thus
allowed calculation of total tips for both sides. Also, on one side a 2.5-
cm slot collector was installed in the pan upon which the tipping bucket set
to collect a sample for chemical analysis. The V-shaped tipping bucket was
46 cm wide. Thus, the amount of sample collected was approximately 5.4%
(2.5/46 x 100) of every other tip. The sample was routed by gravity flow to
a 19 I bucket for collection. This sampler was very reliable and proved to
be a good sampler for small plots to obtain flow volume and a flow-propor-
tional composite sample for chemical analysis. If flow rate is desired, an
event recorder can easily be added to obtain tipping rate of the bucket.
CHEMICAL ANALYSIS PROCEDURES
Plant samples were ashed at 500 C overnight, the ash taken up in con-
centrated hydrochloric acid (HC1), and the resulting solution diluted to
50 m£ (final HC1 normality of 0.48 N). This solution was used for determina-
tion of P (colorimetrically), Na and K (flame photometry), and Ca, Mg, Na,
Cu, Zn, and Mn (atomic absorption spectroscopy). Samples were extracted
with 0.1 N_ nitric acid (HN03) plus 10% acetic acid (CH3COOH) and analyzed for
Cl~ using a chloride titrator. Samples were extracted with water and
analyzed for N03-N using a bacteriod suspension from soybean nodules to
reduce nitrate (NO^) to nitrite (NO^) and NOJ concentrations were determined
colorimetrically. N was determined by the Kjeldahl procedure modified to
include N03-N (Jackson, 1965).
Water and lagoon effluent sample analyses were basically those of
Standard Methods (APHA, 1971) with modifications for automated procedures
for TKN, NHs-N, N03-N, Cl~, P, and .OP using the Technicon Auto Analyzer II
(Technicon; 1973, 1974). The TKN analysis did not include N03-N. Analyses
for TOC and COD were with a combination-infrared method and the dichromate
reflux method, respectively. Analyses for K, Ca, Mg, Na, Cu, Zn and Mn were
performed with the same methods as those used for plant samples after the
water samples were evaporated to dryness.
Soil samples were air dried and extracted with water for N03-N (UV
scan) and Cl~ (chloride titrator) and with 0.05 N HC1 + 0.025 N sulfuric
acid (H2SOi+) for P (colorimetrically), K and Na (flame photometry), and Ca,
Mg, Cu, Zn, and Mn (atomic absorption spectroscopy). N was determined by
the Kjeldahl procedure modified to include nitrate (Jackson, 1965), organic
matter by the Walkley-Black method (Jackson, 1965), and pH on a 1:1 soil:
water ratio.
18
-------
SECTION 5
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
RAINFALL
Monthly and annual rainfall amounts, including the four-year monthly
means are listed in Table 8, along with the normal values for Raleigh,
N.C. The four-year monthly means were usually close to the normal value,
except for January and March which were above normal and February, June, and
August which were below normal.
Tall fescue growth 'occurs mainly in the spring through mid-June, and in
autumn. Rainfall during the April through June period was low in 1975 and
1977, and this probably had an effect on yields in those two years. Also,
long, dry periods in summer and fall can affect stands. Even though June,
July and August are normally months of highest rainfall, they are also
months of highest temperature and highest evapotranspiration. These months
along with September and October are typified by long dry periods (4 to 8
weeks). Also, the summer months frequently have intensive rainfall periods
in which appreciable runoff occurs. During this study, rainfall in June,
July and August averaged below normal in all years except for July 1975 and
June 1976. However, for the irrigated plots, effluent application averaged
about 0.5 and 1.0 cm per week for the low-rate and high-rate plots,
respectively, during the period spring through fall, and this should be
considered when evaluating effects of moisture conditions. Although the
weekly irrigations provided a regular moisture input, these rates possibly
could have been more detrimental than beneficial in the summer months when
fescue is normally in a dormant stage. Also, an increase in weeds and
tropical grasses could result from effluent applications during the summer
dormant season.
IRRIGATION APPLICATIONS OF LAGOON EFFLUENT
The planned irrigation period was March 1 through November 15, but
irrigation began late in 1975 and 1976 (Table 9). There were some problems
with sprinkler nozzles clogging with solids, particularly during the spring.
Concentrations of nutrients in the lagoon liquid varied during the
irrigation season and from year to year. Monthly variation is shown in
Appendix Tables A-l and A-2. Annual arithmetic mean concentrations of
lagoon liquid and irrigation collection cup liquid are shown in Table 10 for
all years except 1975, when the sampling scheme was different. Elements
which typically showed a 10 to 20% reduction in annual mean concentration of
irrigation collection cup samples compared to the lagoon samples were TKN,
19
-------
NH3~N, P, OP, and COD. However, the concentration differences between
lagoon samples and irrigation collection.cup samples varied as indicated by
monthly ratios given in Appendix Table A-3. Variation was likely caused by
TABLE 8 . MONTHLY RAINFALL AT FESCUE SITE
Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Total
Normal'*'
8.5
9.6
9.5
8.6
10.2
10.8
14.2
13.1
9.8
7.5
6.8
8.2
116.8
1975
16.8
9.9
17.8
4.2
6.9
6.4
31.6
2.4
24.2
4.5
9.4
12.6
146 ..7
1976
._n .5 -i n ^ a i i
9.7
3.4
7.1
0.8
13.7
12.6
3.5
6.2
9.5
14.5
5.5
11.5
98.0
1977
18.6
3.8
15.7
5.8
7.9
1.4
3.6
10.3
15.2
13.5
7.7
7.8
.111.3
1978
26.0
2.9
10.3
18.6
9.7
9.2
11.2
5.7
3.8
5.6
11.6
\ 8'°
122.6
1975-1978
Mean
17.8
5.0
12.7
7.4
9.6
7.4
12.5
6.2
13.2
9.5
8.6
10.0
119.5
Rainfall data for period July 1975 through December 1978 were taken at
research site, and data from a nearby site (about 1 km away) were used
for other months and any days of missing data at the site.
Normal values are the monthly means for Raleigh, N.C. for the years
1900-1970. Source: NCSU (1971).
changes in sprinkler evaporation during the season, inaccuracy of sample
analysis, and the fact that the lagoon samples were perhaps not always
representative of the lagoon liquid which was irrigated. For conservative
elements, the concentration ratio should be 1.0 or greater because of
20
-------
sprinkler evaporation and this was often the case for the metals.
TABLE 9. IRRIGATION PERIODS
Year Irrigation period
1975 4-7 to 11-14
1976 5-6 to 11-12
1977 . 3-3 to 11-11
1978 3-15 to 11-10
Reductions in lagoon liquid TKN and NH3-N concentrations with irriga-
tion were calculated for 1977 and 1978 using only the weeks which had both a
lagoon sample and irrigation collection cup liquid samples without rainfall
mixed in (Table 11). Concentration reductions varied from 5 to 25% for
monthly values, but averaged about 15% both years for TKN and about 18% both
years, for NH3-N. Reductions were normally 20 to 25% during the summer
months. These results were very similar to four years of data for a similar
system at another location where Coastal bermudagrass was irrigated.
Lagoon concentrations and irrigation collection cup concentrations of
nutrients varied during the season and irrigation volume was therefore
varied to attempt to keep the weekly applications of nitrogen fairly
uniform, but also apply the desired total amount for the season. Monthly
values of irrigation volumes are given in Appendix Table A-4.
Amount of nutrients applied were calculated on a monthly basis using
one monthly average concentration for all plots and the actual collection
cup volumes for each plot, except in 1975 when not all plots had cups. The
annual application rates are given for each irrigation plot in Table 12. The
TKN loading rates desired were approached all years except 1976 when the
highest and one lowest rate (treatments 7 and 1, respectively) failed to
approach the 1,345 and 672 kg of N/ha. The associated minerals varied with
effluent concentrations. The amounts of Cu and Zn irrigated were low because
they settle in the lagoon sludge (Overcash et al., 1978). The mean annual
application amounts for the four years are shown in Table 13.
The effective mean concentrations of elements in the irrigated lagoon
liquid are shown in Table 14. The concentration of N and all minerals
analyzed were generally higher in both 1976 and 1977 than either 1975 or
1978.
For grazed tall fescue, normal fertilizer recommendations for North
Carolina are about 220 kg N/ha in split applications, usually in February
and early September, and a ratio of 4-1-2 for N-P20s - K20 (about 9-1-4 for
N-P-K) (Dobson et al., 1977). The N-P-K ratio applied with lagoon effluent
averaged about 5-1-11. Thus, in ratio to N, the amounts of P and K applied
21
-------
TABLE 10. ANNUAL ARITHMETIC MEAN CONCENTRATIONS OF LAGOON LIQUID
AND IRRIGATION COLLECTION CUP LIQUID*
Year N P K Ca Mg Na Cp"
Lagoon liquid mean concentrations, mg/£
1976 530 77 1,060 115 36 490 450
1977 470 91 630 65 19 310 420
1978 330 81 370 74 28 210 310
Irrigation collection cup liquid mean concentrations, mg/£
1976 410 54 - 108 35 - 518
1977, 390 79 740 80 28 373 437
1978^ 280 68 380 61 23 241 304
§
Concentration ratio of collection cup liquid to lagoon sample
1976 0.77 0.70 - 0.94 0.97 - 1.15
1977, 0.83 0.87 1.17 1.23 1.47 1.20 1.04
1978* 0.85 0.84 1.02 0.82 0.82 1.15 0.98
Cu Zn COD TOG OP NH3-N
Lagoon liquid mean concentrations, mg/2.
1976 0.17 0.72 2,200 900 53 420
1977 0.08 0.55 1,800 450 82 390
1978 0.12 0.93 1,600 500 66 260
Irrigation collection cup liquid mean concentrations, mg/Ji
1976 0.28 1.3 1,900 900
1977, 0.28 0.80 1,600 450 73 320
1978 0.09 0.50 1,400 400 52 220
§
Concentration ratio of collection cup liquid to lagoon sample
1976
1977,
1978*
1.65
3.50
0.75
1.80
1.45
0.54
0.86
0.89
0.88
1.00
1.00
0.80
0.89
0.79
0.82
0.85
*
Normally, weekly values were averaged to obtain a monthly mean; then the
monthly means were averaged to obtain the annual mean concentration.
During 1978, irrigation cups had funnel inserts to reduce evaporation and
ammonia volatilization. Based on data from a similar situation, the effect
of funnels would be less than 10%.
§
There is no adjustment for evaporation from the irrigation sprinkler
application or from the collection cups.
22
-------
TABLE 11. LOSSES OF TKN AND NH3-M
Lagoon concentration, Reduction in concentration
mg/£ NHs-N in collection cups, 7J~
Month n* TKl NH3-N TKN " TKN NH3-N
1977
March 4 590 470 .80 15 11
April 3 440 400 .91 2 5
May 2 520 490 .94 15 12
June 4 440 400 .91 20 20
July 4 520 470 .90 14 26
Aug. 2 550 370 .67 18 22
Sept. 4 440 300 .68 16 17
Oct. 2 420 330 .78 17 24
Mean 490 400 .82 15 17
1978
March 3 470 380 .81 13 5
April 4 470 450 .96 9 13
May 3 380 350 .92 11 14
June 3 310 280 .90 16 21
July 2 310 240 .77 26 25
Aug. 4 270 180 .67 15 17
Sept. 4 280 160 .57 14 25
Oct. 3 250 170 .68 8 24
Mean 340 280 .78 14 18
* Only used data from weeks which had both lagoon and collection cup
samples without rainfall mixed in. Number of weeks with both samples
is n.
f- Losses based on concentration; evaporation losses not included.
Irrigation was normally at night. Collection cups had funnel inserts
in 1978 to reduce evaporation and volatilization. In 1977, one or
two plots normally had cups with and without funnels and very little
effect was found.
were about 2 times and 4 times more than the normally-recommended ratio.
Also, because N was applied about 3 times and 6 times the normally-recommend-
ed pasture rate, the amounts of P and K were about 6 times and 24 times the
normal fertilizer rate. Applications of several other elements were also
much greater than normal.
23
-------
TABLE 12. ANNUAL IRRIGATION APPLICATIONS OF ELEMENTS
Tmt.
Year no .
1975 1
4
6
7
19766 1
4
6
7
1977 l
4
6
7
10
** 1978 i
4
6
7
Effluent
applied,
cm
20.1
20.1
20.1
50.0
10.2
13.2
12.9
22.6
13.7
15.8
17.2
31.9
24.8
25.4
23.2
46.5
Amount of element
N
549
549
549
1,351
439
563
546
942
549
628
695
1,266
699
715
622
1,287
P
107
107
107
265
56
72
71
121
111
127
140
254
172
178
163
326
K
987
987
987
2,523
1,082
1,410
1,365
2,447
957
1,109
1,233
2,273
921
930
826
1,719
Ca
140
140
140
337
116
148
143
251
112
130
146
260
149
153
140
277
Mg
86
86
86
208
41
54
48
94
32
37
41
74
58
60
57
110
*
applied, kg/ha
Na
418
418
418
1,022
490
636
631
1,080
503
579
628
1,155
592
614
566
1,121
Cl~
-
-
-
461
594
595
993
620
718
785
1,470
753
771
698
1,411
Cu
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.66
0.26
0.34
0.34
0.59
0.40
0.42
0.49
0.83
0.20
0.21
0.18
0.38
Zn
0.77
0.77
0.77
1.75
1.21
1.61
1.56
2.91
1.15
1.31
1.49
2.64
1.25
1.26
1.12
2.29
*
Calculated by multiplying monthly mean concentration in collection cups by monthly amount of liquid
received on each plot (as measured by 4 collection cups per plot). Monthly mean concentrations were
calculated using one mean concentration for each irrigation event that had data and no rainfall
mixed in, using normally 1 composite sample per plot from all four plots for N and P analyses but
from only 1 plot for metals and minerals analyses.
1975 - Only 2 plots selected at random were used for irrigation check for each event. Therefore,
the data was combined for plots 14, 18, and 20 and an average value calculated.
Lagoon sample concentrations instead of cup sample concentrations were used to calculate K and
Na amounts.
-------
TABLE 13. MEAN ANNUAL IRRIGATION APPLICATIONS OF ELEMENTS
Tint.
no.
1
4
6
7
Effluent
applied,
cm
17.2
18.6
18.4
37.8
N
559
614
603
1,212
P
112
121
120
242
Mean annual amount
K
987
1,109
1,103
2,241
Ca
129
143
142
281
Mg
55
59
58
122
of element applied, kg/ha
Na
501
562
561
1,095
Cl~
611
694
693
1,291
Cu
0.29
0.32
0.33
0.62
Zn
1.10
1.24
1.24
2.40
*
TABLE 14. ANNUAL MEAN CONCENTRATION OF EFFLUENT
Irrigated effluent concentration, mg/£
Year
1975
1976°
1977
1978
N
272
424
400
277
P
53
54
80
70
K
494
1,0685
707
366
Ca
69
112
83
60
Mg
43
40
23
24
Na
207
4826
365
242
Cl Cu
0.14
450 0.26
456 0.28
303 0.08
Zn
0.37
1.23
0.84
0.50
*
Effective mean calculated by dividing total mass applied by total volume
applied.
1976 K and Na values are from lagoon samples.
MANURE APPLICATIONS
Swine manure slurry from a collection pit in a partially-slatted
finishing house was applied four times each year to treatment 2. Application
rate was based on the TKN of the manure slurry and varied from about 0.3 cm
(250 £) to 1.0 cm (835 SL) on the 9.2 m x 9.2 m plots in order to apply 168
kg TKN/ha each application. The ratio of other nutrients or elements to TKN
also varied with each application and data was not obtained for several
nutrients for all applications. Therefore, data for this same facility
taken biweekly over about a 15-month period (Humenik and Overcash, 1976;
Overcash and Humenik, 1976) was used to estimate amounts of other elements
applied (Table 15).
25
-------
TABLE 15. ESTIMATED APPLICATIONS TO MANURED PLOT
Parameter
A
TKN
*
COD
*
TOC
*
P
OP*
NH.-N
**
Cl
K+
Ca+
Mg+
Na+
Mn
Cu+
Zn+
Ratio
to
N
1.0
14.4
3.70
0.29
0.21
0.52
0.28
0.41
0.44
0.10
0.15
0.0038
0.00064
0.0064
Amount applied
per application,
k2/ha
168
2,420
620
49
35
87
47
69
74
17
25
0.6
0.11
1.1
Amount applied
per year,
k2/ha
672
9,680
2,480
196
140
348
188
276
296
67
101
2.4
0.44
4.3
§
Ratios were on a percent of total solids basis.
k
Ratios are for samples taken at the same swine facility for
underslat pit effluent emptied once/two weeks and mixed in
mixing tank. From Humenik and Overcash (1976, p. 45).
Ratios of these elements to P were taken from Overcash and
Humenik (1976, p. 55) for the same swine facility for underslat
pit effluent. These were used in conjunction with the P:TKN
ratio of 0.29 from above data to calculate ratios to TKN.
26
-------
The N-P-K ratio of the applied manure was about 3.4-1-1.4. Compared
to the normally-recommended fertilizer ratio of about 9-1-4, the manure was
high in P (about 2.5 times) and all right for K in relation to N, whereas
lagoon effluent was high in both P and K in relation to N. However, the
NH3-N level is high for both lagoon liquid (about 80% of TKN) and swine
manure from the pit (about 50% of TKN), and if NI^-N loss occurs during and
after applications, these ratios will change. For surface applications,
ammonia loss could be significant. Ammonia loss would thus increase the
excess of P and K in relation to N.
Comparing the lagoon-irrigated treatment with the manure treatment
receiving the same amount of N approximately, the irrigated treatment
received much more (about 4 times) K, Na and Cl~ while the manure treatment
received more P, Ca, and Zn on an annual basis (Table 16). Other differences
between the treatments were the amount of water received (about 10 to 25 cm
more for the low-rate irrigated treatments) and the frequency of application
(about 30 weekly irrigations compared to four manure applications per year).
TABLE 1.6. COMPARING APPLICATION AMOUNTS OF NUTRIENTS FOR TREATMENTS
Annual application, kg/ha
Treatment
Fertilizer
Manure
N
201
672
P
34
196
K
65
276
Ca
-
296
Mg
-
67
Na
-
101
ci-
-
188
Cu
-
0.44
Zn
-
4.3
Low effluent5 592 118 1,066 138 57 541 666 0.31 1.2
High effluent7" 1,212 242 2,241 281 122 1,095 1,291 0.62 2.4
q
Mean of 3 treatments (tints. 1, 4 and 6) for 4-year period.
Mean for 4 years.
CROP RESPONSE
This portion of the overall study examined the influence of several
lagoon effluent loading rates and simulated honey wagon spreading of manure
pit contents on the dry matter yield, constituents' concentrations,
potential quality of the forage and stand persistence compared to plots with
conventional commercial fertilizer applications. The objectives were: 1) to
determine dry matter yield and stand persistence of temperate species re-
ceiving applications of effluent throughout the summer; 2) to determine N,
N03~N, and mineral concentrations that could accumulate in the forage and
the quantities that were removed per unit area; and 3) to obtain estimates
of the quality of the harvested forage through in vitro dry matter dis-
appearance (IVDMD).
27
-------
Dry Matter Yield
Mean dry matter yields (Table 17) from the control (treatment 3) plot
on the 3-5% slope produced less forage than the effluent or manure treat-
ments for the same slope (comparison 1, Table 5,B and Table 18, B; 6,938
kg/ha vs 9,817). Also N applied as effluent produced greater yields com-
pared with manure (comparison 2, Table 5,B and Table 18, B). Yields obtained
from the 3-5% slope were similar to those on the 8-10% slope (comparison 3,
Table 5,B and Table 18, B). Among treatments of the 8-10% slope, effluent
application increased yields over the control (comparison 4, Table 5,B and
18, B), but applying 1,345 kg of N/ha did not increase yields over the 672
rate (comparison 5, Table 5,B and 18, B). Clearly N applications as effluent
was advantageous in stimulating dry matter production. However, little
response occurred above the 672 kg of N/ha loading rate.
Examination of the year-to-year variation in dry matter production
(Figure 2 and Appendix Table B-6) shows yields to increase from 1975 through
1976 for all treatments, then decline in 1977 and increase again in 1978.
Such shifts are associated with rainfall patterns during the spring growth
periods; however, the relative changes are greater for treatment 7 and will
be discussed more under the section presenting botanical composition and
stand score data.
Nutritive Evaluation
The IVDMD concentrations in the harvested forage (Table 19) were quite
satisfactory to provide energy intake for good yearling daily gains.
Further, N concentrations far exceeded normal requirements of growing live-
stock. N03-N concentrations when converted to $0"^ as percent of dry matter
were quite high relative to levels normally considered safe for ruminants.
NC>3 concentrations for treatments receiving either effluent (treatments 1,
4,6, 7) or manure (treatment 2) ranged from 0.65 to 1.2% with 0.3% of the
dry matter as NOJ considered as being potentially toxic [Hojjati et. al .
(1972); Murphy and Smith (1967)]. Levels of NOs in treatments 3 and 5
would generally be safe.
Examining the treatment comparisons for concentrations in the forage
(Table 5, A and 18, A) show that IVDMD was not altered by the type of
nutrient source applied, rate of application or plot slope. N was
increased only in forage treated with the highest effluent rate (1345 kg
N/ha) . N03-N concentrations were significantly altered by either effluent
loading rate or manure application. Further, the highest effluent rate
increased NO-N concentrations 74% over the lower effluent rate.
The quantity of estimated digestible nutrients produced per hectare
ranged from 4,643 to 8,339 kg (Table 17). However, of particular interest
is the quantities of N and NC^-N that could be removed in the forage dry
matter. N removal ranged from 240 to 432 kg/ha and N03~N from 5 to 33 kg/ha.
Examining the various treatment comparisons showed the large influence
of dry matter yields on constituent removal because IVDMD and N patterns
were identical to dry matter yields. NOs-N removal (kg/ha) had a somewhat
28
-------
TABLE 17. DRY MATTER YIELDS AND QUANTITIES OF ELEMENTS REMOVED IN FORAGE
Land slope
3-5%
8-10%
Item
Lagoon Ammonium Lagoon Ammonium Lagoon Lagoon
effluent Manure nitrate effluent nitrate effluent effluent
(672 kg (672 kg (201 kg (672 kg (201 kg (672 kg 1345 kg
N/ha N/ha) . N/ha) N/ha)_ N/haJ_ N/ha) N/ha)
(Tmt. no.)
Dry matter
Estimated
digestible
dry
matter
N
NO -N
P
K
Ca
Mg
Mn
Na
Cl"
Fe
Cu
Zn
(1)
10,880f 7
7,229 5
366
16
41
391
37
34
0.4
12
160
9
0.09
0.4
(2)
,583
,224
278
14
30
255
31
25
0.6
5
88
7
0.08
0.6
(3)
6,938
4,643
240
5
23
204
29
24
0.2
3
80
4
0.06
0.3
(4)
1 kg/ha
10,987
7,626
389
18
43
410
36
35
0.5
13
170
5
0.08
0.4
(5)
8,792 11
5,908 7
285
7
31
239
35
30
1.0
5
85
6
0.07
0.4
(6)
,674
,859
391
17
47
446
37
36
0
15
168
6
0
0
(7)
12,495
8,339
432
33
52
516
45
41
.6 0.8
20
165
8
.08 0.09
.5 0.6
Tmt. no. - Treatment number.
Each value is the mean of four years (replications) summed for all
harvests within each year.
29
-------
TABLE 18. TREATMENT COMPARISONS OF YIELD. IVDMD, N AND NO-^-N
Quality constituents
Dry matter IVDMD N N03-N
Comparison yield (%) (%) (ppm)
A. Concentrations in the forage:
A*
Cl 66.8 vs 68.0 3.4 vs 3.5 575 vs 1,644
C2 67.7 vs 68.5 3.4 vs 3.7 1,549 vs 1,833
C3 67.4 vs 67.3 3.4 vs 3.3 1,224 vs 1,158
C4 67.5 vs 67.0 3.2 vs 3.4 758 vs 1,558
C5 67.0 vs 67.0 3.4 vs 3.5 1,558 vs 2,714*
* **
C6 67.5 vs 67.0 3.2 vs 3.5 758 vs 2,714
B. Quantities produced or removed in the dry matter (kg/ha)
A* ** *A Aft
Cl 6,938 vs 9,817 4,643 vs 6,693 240 vs 344 5 vs 16
Aft AA Aft
C2 10,934 vs 7,583 7,428 vs 5,224 378 vs 278 17 vs 14
C3 9,602 vs 10,233 6,499 vs 6,884 332 vs 338 13 vs 12
Aft Aft ftft A
C4 8,792 vs 11,674 5,908 vs 7,859 285 vs 391 7 vs 17
Aft
C5 11,674 vs 12,495 7,859 vs 8,339 391 vs 432 17 vs 33
A A V* TV J" A A *
C6 8,792 vs 12,495 ' 5,908 vs 8,339 ' 285 vs 432 ' 7 vs 33
*, ** = P _< 0.05 and P <_ 0.01, respectively.
different pattern as no difference was noted between effluent and manure
treatment (comparison 2, Table 5,B and 18,B), but higher removal resulted
from the 1,345 kg of N/ha treatment vs 672. Year-to-year changes for
these constituents are reported in Appendix Tables C-l and C-2, and for N
in Figure 3.
Mineral Concentrations and Quantities Removed in the Forage
Treatment concentrations for the minerals analyzed are shown in Table
19. Comparisons of interest (Table 20) within the 3-5% slope treatment
showed P, K, Cl~, Na, Cu and Zn concentrations to be increased by either
effluent or manure loading. Ca concentrations were reduced while Mg, Mn
and Fe were not altered. Forage receiving lagoon effluent compared with
manure had higher concentrations of only Cl~ and Na, and lower concentra-
tions of Ca, Mn, Cu and Zn. Levels of P, K, Mg and Fe were not altered.
30
-------
20,000 r-
16,000
o>
Q
_J
U
> 12,000
cr
LLJ
I-
8,000
Q:
Q
4,000
H
D-MANURE
L- LOW EFFLUENT
H-HIGH EFFLUENT
N-CHEMICAL FERTILIZER
I
1975
1976 1977
YEAR
©78
Figure 2. Annual dry matter yields.
31
-------
TABLE 19. AVERAGE CONCENTRATIONS OF ELEMENTS IN FORAGE'
Land slope
3-5%
Item
(Tmt. no)
IVDMD (%)
N(%)
NO -N (ppm)
P (%)
K (%)
Ca (%)
Mg (%)
Mn (ppm)
Na (ppm)
cr (%)
Fe (ppra)
Cu (ppm)
Zn (ppm)
Lagoon
effluent
(672 kg
N/ha)
(1)
66. 2f
3.4
1,474 1
0.38
3.61
0.34
0.31
38
1,168
1.47
795
9
39
Manure
(672 kg
N/ha)
(2)
68.5
3.7
,833
0.40
3.33
0.43
0.33
76
700
1.14
904
11
69
Ammonium
nitrate
(201 kg
N/ha)
(3)
66.8
3.4
575 1
0.32
2.88
0.43
0.35
35
428 1
1.14
682
8
41
Lagoon
effluent
(672 kg
N/ha)
(4)
69.2
3.5
,624
0.39
3.72
0.34
0.32
45
,163
1.55
476
8
40
Ammonium
nitrate
(201 kg
N/ha)
(5)
67.5
3.2
758 1
0.36
2.72
0.39
0.35
115
630 1
0.97
631
8
46
8-10%
Lagoon
effluent
(672 kg
N/ha)
(6)
67.0
3.4
,558 2
0.41
3.82
0.32
0.31
57
,269 1
1.44
501
7
43
Lagoon
effluent
(1345 kg
N/ha)
(7)
67.0
3.5
,714
0.42
4.18
0.36
0.33
63
,686
1.36
583
7
51
Tmt. no. - Treatment number
Each value is the mean of four years (replications) weighted within each
year for dry matter produced at each harvest.
32
-------
600
500
400
o»
< 300
(T
O
u.
200
100
H
MANURE
LOW EFFLUENT
HIGH EFFLUENT
CHEMICAL FERTILIZER
1
1975
1976 1977
YEAR
1978
Figure 3. Annual amounts of N removed in forage.
33
-------
TABLE 20. TREATMENT COMPARISONS OF CONCENTRATIONS OF MINERALS AND QUANTITIES REMOVED IN THE FORAGE
Minerals
Comparison P
A. Concentrations
C I
C 2
C 3
C 4
C 5
C 6
0.32 vs
0.39 vs
0.36 vs
0.36 vs
0.41 vs
0.36 vs
K
Ca
Mg
Cl"
in forage (%)
0.39**
0.40
0.39
0.41*
0.42
0.42**
B. Quantities removed in
C 1
C 2
C 3
C 4
C 5
C 6
23 vs
42 vs
36 vs
31 vs
47 vs
31 vs
38**
30**
39
47**
52
52**
2.88 vs
3.67 vs
3.40 vs
2.72 vs
3.82 vs
2.72 vs
the dry
204 vs
401 vs
355 vs
239 vs
446 vs
239 vs
3.55**
3.33
3.27
3.82**
4.18
4 . 18**
ma t te r
352**
255**
343
446**
516
516**
0.43
0.34
0.37
0.39
0.32
0.39
(kg /ha)
29
37
34
35
37
35
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
0.37**
0.43**
0.36
0.32**
0.36
0.36
35
31
36
37
45*
45*
0.35 vs
0.32 vs
0.33 vs
0.35 vs
0.31 vs
0.35 vs
24 vs
35 vs
31 vs
30 vs
36 vs
30 vs
0.32
0.33
0.33
0.31*
0.33
0.33
31*
25**
33
36
41
41**
1.14 vs
1.51 vs
1.39 vs
0.97 vs
1.44 vs
0.97 vs
80 vs
165 vs
137 vs
85 vs
168 vs
85 vs
1.39**
1.14**
1.21**
1.44**
1.36
1.36**
139**
88**
127
168**
165
165**
(continued)
*,** = P <_ 0.05 and P <_ 0.01, respectively.
-------
TABLE 20 (continued)
Lo
Ui
Minerals
Comparison
Mn
Na
Fe
Cu
Zn
A. Concentration in forage (ppm)
C
C
C
C
C
C
1
2
3
4
5
6
B. Quantities
C
C
C
C
C
C
1
2
3
4
5
6
35 vs 53
42 vs 76**
39 vs 86**
115 vs 57**
57 vs 63
115 vs 63**
removed in
0.2 vs 0.5*
0.5 vs 0.6
0.4 vs 0.8**
1.0 vs 0.6**
0.6 vs 0.8
1.0 vs 0.8
428
1,166
920
630
1,269
630
the dry
3
13
9
5
15
5
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
ma
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
1 ,010**
704**
950
1,269**
1,686**
1,686**
tter (kg/ha)
10**
5**
10
15**
20**
20**
682 vs
636 vs
651 vs
63.1 vs
501 vs
631 vs
4 vs
7 vs
6 vs
6 vs
6 vs
6 vs
725
904
566
501
583
583
7
7
6
6
8
8
8
9
8
8
7
8
.06
.09
.08
.07
.08
.07
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs.
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
9*
11**
8
7
7
7
.08**
.08
.08
.08
.09
.09*
41 vs
40 vs
40 vs
46 vs
43 vs
46 vs
0.3 vs
0.4 vs
0.4 vs
0.4 vs
0.5 vs
0.4 vs
49*
69**
45
43
51
51
0.5**
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.6**
ftf** = P <_ 0.05 and P <_ 0.01, respectively.
-------
The slope of plot influenced only Cl and Mn with forage from the lower
slope having high Cl~ and lower Mn levels. The pattern for mineral concen-
trations in forage from the control in the 8-10% slope plots compared with
forage receiving effluent were similar to that of the 3-5% slope, except for
higher Mg and Mn and no difference in Cu. Only the Na concentrations were
increased in forage from the high effluent rate compared with the lower.
The pattern for the control vs the high effluent loading rate (comparison 6,
Table 5,B) was similar to comparison 1 (Table 20,A).
Treatment comparisons for the quantities of the various minerals removed
in the dry matter show P, K, Mg, Cl~ and Na to have similar patterns as dry
matter yield (Tables 18,B and 20,B). Ca removed in the forage was greater
only for the high effluent loading rate. The effluent treatments did not
significantly increase Mg removed in forage harvested on the 8-10% slope.
Only Mn was influenced by slope with higher quantities removed in forage
from the steeper slope, but quantities removed were not influenced by the
high effluent rate.
Removal of Na was greater from the higher loading rate over the lower
while Fe removal was not altered by any treatment. Both Cu and Zn had lower
removal (kg/ha) in the control than when forage received either effluent or
manure. Year-to-year differences in concentrations and quantities removed
in the forage are shown in Appendix Tables B-3, B-4, B-5 and B-6, and for K
in Figure 4.
Stand Persistence and Shifts in Botanical Composition
Tall fescue growth occurs mainly in the spring through mid-June with a
midsummer dormant period associated with high temperature and variable
periods of water stress (drought). Regrowth resumes in the autumn with the
onset of cooler days and September rains. Continuous application of
nitrogen as occurred for treatments 1, 4, 6 and 7 during the summer might
adversely effect persistence of tall fescue or other temperature grasses.
At the beginning of this study (late summer 1974) the cover on all
plots was similar in general composition (Table 21). The temperate grasses
accounted for 78 to 90% of the vegetation. Ladino clover accounted for 8
to 15% of the vegetation and some grassy and broadleaf weeds were evident
ranging from 0 to 10%.
A year later (1975) clover had been nearly eliminated in all plots with
only an estimated 5% remaining in treatments 1 and 4. Some decline (21%
units) of the temperate grasses had occurred in treatment 7. By late summer,
1977 the temperate grasses in treatment 7 made up only 45% of the vegetation.
Some reduction in the temperate grasses' contribution to the total vegeta-
tion was also evident in treatments 5 and 6.
The reduction in the temperate grasses was associated with increases in
two tropical grasses, i.e., bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon Pers. L.) and
crabgrass (Digitaria spp.) ranging in a combined total from 25 to 35% of the
vegetation. Also the broadleaf weeds percentage in treatment 7 doubled. A
36
-------
700
600
500
o>
JC
«
LU
o
u_
300
200
100
H
D-MANURE
L- LOW EFFLUENT
H-HIGH EFFLUENT
N-CHEMICAL FERTILIZER
1975
1976 1977
YEAR
1978
Figure 4. Annual amounts of K removed in forage.
37
-------
TABLE 21. VISUAL ESTIMATES OF BOTANICAL COMPOSITION OF PLOTS IN LATE SUMMER
CO
co
Land slope
3-5% '
Item
(Treatment number)
1974:
Ladino clover
Temperate grasses
Weedy grasses
Weeds (bd. leaf)
1975;
Ladino clover
Temperate grasses
Tall fescue
Bluegrass
Tropical grasses
Weeds (bd. leaf)
Lagoon
effluent
(672 kg
N/ha)
(1)
9
90
0
1
5
85
85
0
0
10
Manure
(672 kg
N/ha)
(2)
12
87
0
1
1
90
60
30
6
3
Ammoni um
ni trate
(201 kg
N/ha)
(3)
10
88
2
0
0
91
51
40
6
3
Lagoon
effluent
(672 kg
N/ha)
(4)
7
la
15
83
1
1
5
88
58
30
3
4
Ammon i um
nitrate
(201 kg
N/ha)
(5)
10
85
1
4
0
92
80
12
3
5
8-10%
Lagoon
effluent
(672 kg
N/ha)
(6)
8
85
6
1
0
80
55
25
8
12
Lagoon
effluent
(1345 kg
N/ha)
(7)
8
78
4
10
3
57
52
5
30
10
(continued)
-------
TABLE 21 (continued)
Land slope
3-5%
Item
(Treatment number)
1977:
Ladino clover
Temperate grasses
Tall fescue
Bluegrass
Tropical grasses
Bermudagrass
Crabgrass
Weeds (bd. leaf)
1978:
Ladino clover
Temperate grasses
Tall fescue
Bluegrass
Tropical grasses
Bermudagrass
Crabgrass
Weedy grasses
Weeds (bd. leaf)
Lagoon
effluent
(672 kg
N/ha)
(1)
0
85
55
30
15
0
15
0
2
40
40
0
58
0
58
0
0
Manure
(672 kg
N/ha)
(2)
0
82
78
4
15
10
5
3
0
40
40
0
35
10
25
23
2
Ammonium
nitrate
(201 kg
N/ha)
(3)
0
92
32
60
0
5
0
3
2
80
80
0
13
3
10
0
5
Lagoon
effluent
(672 kg
N/ha)
(4)
7
0
86
76
10
10
0
10
4
2
30
30
0
28
0
28
40
0
Ammonium
nitrate
(201 kg
N/ha)
(5)
0
71
51
20
25
10
15
4
0
20
20
0
62
0
62
15
3
8-10%
Lagoon
effluent
(672 kg
N/ha)
(6)
0
65
50
15
30
15
15
5
5
0
0
0
50
5
45
45
0
Lagoon
effluent
(1345 kg
N/ha)
(7)
0
45
45
0
35
20
15
20
5
0
0
0
95
45
50
0
0
Bd. leaf = broadleaf
-------
hand separation was made in October 1977 to better document these shifts
(Table 22). The October date was selected to obtain an estimate of both the
temperate and tropical grass contributions to the total vegetation cover.
TABLE 22. BOTANICAL COMPOSITION OF PLOTS DETERMINED IN LATE FALL BY HAND
SEPARATION OF FORAGE
Land slope ,
3-5% 8-10%
Lagoon Ammonium Lagoon Ammonium Lagoon Lagoon
effluent Manure nitrate effluent nitrate effluent effluent
(672 kg (672 kg (201 kg (672 kg (201 kg (672 kg (1345 kg
Item N/ha) N/ha) N/ha) N/ha) N/ha) N/ha) N/ha)
-J,
(Tmt. no.)
Ladino
clover
Temperate
grasses
Tall
fescue
Blue-
grass
Orchard-
grass
Tropical
grasses
Bermuda-
grass
Crabgrass
Weeds (bd.
leaf)
U)
0.0
100.0
85.4
14.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
(2)
0.0
96.7
67.0
15.4
14.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.3
(3)
0.0
81.8
27.2
54.6
0.0
18.2
18.2
0.0
0.0
(4)
0.0
100.0
89.1
10.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
(5)
0.0
99.0
62.6
36.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
(6)
0.0
84.3
74.7
9.6
0.0
15.7
15.7
0.0
t
(7)
0.0
38.6
38.6
t
0.0
53.2
26.6
26.6
8.2
Tmt. no. - Treatment number.
Bd. leaf = broadleaf; t = trace
Temperate grasses, as percent of the total dry matter, had not been
appreciably reduced in treatments 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 (Table 22). However,
the temperate grasses comprised only 38.6% of the total vegetation in
treatment 7 with essentially no bluegrass remaining and appreciable reduc-
tions in the tall fescue contribution. Both bermudagrass and crabgrass had
increased in treatment 7 totaling 53.2% of the total dry matter. Bermuda-
grass was also present in treatment 3 totaling 18.2% of the vegetation.
40
-------
Estimates by late summer, 1978, showed the presence of crabgrass in all
treatments (Table 21) and bermudagrass in treatments 2, 3, 6 and 7. On this
date, tropical grasses were estimated to account for nearly all the cover
(95%) on treatments 7 and 13 to 62% of the vegetation on the other six treat-
ments. Also weedy grasses increased up to 40 and 45% of the vegetation on
treatments 4 and 6, respectively.
The changes noted above in the botanical composition cannot be attribut-
ed totally to the treatment imposed because initially an old tall fescue sod
had been selected for the study. It is unlikely that such contaminants as
bermudagrass and crabgrass were uniformly spread over the experimental site.
Consequently, their presence in one plot and not the other might be expected.
However, appreciable increases in these contaminants does indicate a general
weakening of the temperate grass stand and the inability of the temperate
species to persist and retain the tropical species only in contaminants.
Stand density scores were recorded periodically during the study as an
index to original stand survival. Although botanical composition provides
insight into changes in the vegetation present, it does not indicate the
vigor or density of that vegetation. Stand scores (1 designated a weak open
stand and 10 a dense cover) clearly show treatments 1, 4, 6 and 7, those
receiving effluent, to have appreciably deteriorated by 1978 (Table 23).
These treatments had large bare areas with the tropical species taking over
treatments 6 and 7. The shift was occurring in spite of the overseeding of
tall fescue in both 1974 and 1977. The shift in botanical composition may
be partially reflected in the large decrease in dry matter yield from 1976
to 1977 (Appendix Table B-l). This reduction was especially large for treat-
ment 7. Forage stands on the other four treatments (2, 3, 4 and 5) were
either changed little or the density increased.
TABLE 23. RELATIVE STAND SCORES DESIGNATING DENSITY OF COVER
CONSIDERING THE TEMPERATE SPECIES
Land slope
3-5%
Item
(Tmt.
1975
1977
1978
Lagoon
effluent
(672 kg
N/ha)
no.)
(1)
9*
8
2
Manure
(672 kg
N/ha)
(2)
4
4
5
Ammonium
nitrate
(201 kg
N/ha)
(3)
6
7
10
Lagoon
effluent
(672 kg
N/ha)
(4)
10
8
4
Ammonium
nitrate
(201 kg
N/ha)
(5)
8
8
9
8-10%
Lagoon
effluent
(672 kg
N/ha)
(6)
9
9
2
Lagoon
effluent
(1345 kg
N/ha)
(7)
8
3
1
Tmt. no. - Treatment number
it
Stand scores are 1 = weak, open stand and 10 = dense cover.
41
-------
It should be noted that white grub infestations occurred in all sod in
the fall of 1974,.1977 and 1978. However, grub populations were always
consistently high in treatment 7. This high population appeared related to
this specific treatment. These data indicate that an effluent waste system
that requires weekly applications during the summer should not use temperate
grasses as a cover. Stands will likely thin and deteriorate with eventual
invasion of crabgrass, bermudagrass and weeds on sites similar to the one in
this study.
Summary of Crop Response
Examining the results from this section of the study allows the follow-
ing conclusions. The treatments used resulted in respectable dry matter
yields which would remove sizable quantities of N and other minerals from
the immediate environment. The estimabed digestibility (IVDMD) of the dry
matter produced was generally similar among treatments and quite good.
Further the crude protein (N% x 6.25) concentrations for all treatments was
quite high (ranged from 20 to 23%) and would exceed most animal requirements.
The major mineral (P, K, Ca and Mg) concentrations, although somewhat higher
in the lagoon effluent and manure treatment than normally found in forage
tissue, should create no problem. Of the other minerals, only Na seems
unusually high, but should not be a major factor in animal health.
The only fraction that appears to be in excess and a possible health
hazard is the NC^-N levels of treatments receiving either lagoon effluent
or manure. Only those topdressed with NHI+N03 appear totally safe. Because
of the high quality (high IVDMD and N concentrations) of the dry matter pro-
duced, a possible use of this forage would be a blend with another feed
generally low in N. This would dilute the excessively high NOs in the forage.
from the effluent or manure treatments and increase the overall N and possib-
ly the digestibility of the material it was blended with.
The potential of using cool season plants in a southern environment as
a reservoir for continually dumping nutrients during the summer is quite
limited. Although dry matter yields stayed high, there was a striking shift
away from tall fescue to tropical annuals and perennials in plots receiving
effluent or manure. Effluent caused greater shifts than did manure. In
some cases tall fescue completely disappeared. Further, the higher rates of
N cause major insect infestations causing appreciable bare ground.
In conclusion, it appears that while the yield and quality of the forage
produced is quite satisfactory, some dilution would be required before feed-
ing to animals. Further, at the rates of effluent or manure evaluated, tall
fescue should not be the plant used because stands would be very short lived.
The scheme of application is more conducive to tropical grasses, perhaps
grown in sequence with annual grasses.
SOIL CORE ANALYSIS
Applications of nutrients at several times the normal fertilization
rates resulted in accumulation of nutrients in the soil. For the highest
42
-------
application rate (treatment 7), about 1,345 kg/ha of N was applied each
year but only 432 kg N/ha. was recovered in forage on the average. Thus,
about 900 kg N/ha, minus losses at application, was not removed in the
forage each year and could possibly accumulate in the soil, be transported
by surface runoff or leached to groundwater, or be denitrified. Chemical
reactions, microbial transformations, soil absorption and relative mobility
for soil-water movement are widely different for various elements. Thus,
some elements such as P tend to accumulate and some elements such as N tend
to be leached from the root zone.
The objectives of analyzing soil cores were: (1) to determine accumula-
tion of nutrients in the soil for the various treatments, and (2) detect any
physical or chemical changes in the soil that may adversely affect long-term
productivity. Since all treatments were not replicated, it was not possible
to statistically analyze the data. Consequently, only large differences
among treatments will be considered real and other differences will not be
discussed.
Soil NCh-N
In December 1975, the high effluent irrigation rate resulted in
increased N03~N concentrations in the profile (Figure 5). Much of this
NOo-N was not leached by winter rains and was still present in the profile
in February 1976. The high rate continued to cause high soil NC>3-N concen-
trations throughout the experimental period. By 1977, manure applications
began to result in increased N03~N levels. The low irrigation rate usually
resulted in somewhat higher soil N03-N compared to the control and fertilizer
treatments. The control and chemical fertilizer treatments were essentially
identical throughout the experiment. >
Soil N and Organic Matter
N concentrations were similar among treatments in the 0-30 cm soil
layer (Table 24). At lower depths the high effluent rate appeared to cause
higher N concentrations and this was probably due to the N03~N component of
the N.
None of the treatments increased the organic matter content of the 0-30
cm soil layer. The data suggest that some treatments slightly increased
organic matter at lower depths. However, since most waste treatments were not
very different from the chemical fertilizer treatment, it appears that the
effect of treatments was to stimulate plant growth and thus provide a greater
root mass which, upon sloughing, was incorporated into the soil organic
matter.
Soil P
There was little effect on soil P concentrations in February 1976 (Figure
6). As time progressed, P concentrations in plots receiving the two effluent
irrigation rates increased. There was a less dramatic increase in soil P due
to manure and inorganic fertilizer. By December 1978, soil P concentrations
43
-------
SOIL NOj-N, ppm
30 40 50
60
70
C"-CONTROL
D~MANURE
L~LOW EFFLUENT
H~HIGH EFFLUENT
N~CHEMICAL FERTILIZER
50
60
70
Figure 5. Effect of treatments on soil NO -N.
44
-------
TABLE 24. EFFECT OF TREATMENTS ON SOIL M AND ORGANIC MATTER
U1
N
Organic Matter
Treatments
Depth
cm
0-30
30-60
60-90
90-120
120-180
180-210
210-240
Low '
770
311
178
102
60
46
42
High5
752
410
203
118
60
74
54
Manure
vg/g
684
307
116
108
88
80
76
NPK*
698
268
147
90
52
38
33
Control
704
223
89
47
32
38
44
Low
1.54
.52
.23
.13
.07
.03
.04
High
1.61
.66
.24
.10
.09
.06
.03
Treatments
Manure
1.27
.42
.17
.12
.08
.08
.02
NPK
1.58
.53
.21
.10
.06
.03
.03
Control.
1.68
.39
.12
.05
.04
.03
.05
§
Low-low-rate effluent treatments (treatments 1, 4, and 6).
High-high-rate effluent treatments (treatment 7).
NPK - Fertilized treatments (treatments 3 and 5).
-------
SOIL P, ppm
20 30
40
C ~ CONTROL
0 ~ MANURE
L ~ LOW EFFLUENT
H ~ HIGH EFFLUENT
N~ CHEMICAL FERTILIZER
10
20 30
SOIL P, ppm
40 70 80 90 100
Figure 6. Effect of treatments on dilute acid extractable soil P,
46
-------
in the 0-15 cm layer were in the following fertility levels according to the
North Carolina Department of Agriculture (NCDA) fertility classification
system:
Treatment Fertility level
Control and chemical
fertilizer low
Manure medium
Low effluent rate high
High effluent rate very high
In the 15-30 cm layer it appears that the high effluent rate caused an
increase in soil P, thus indicating some downward movement.
Soil K
The two effluent irrigation rates caused large increases in soil K con-
centrations at all sampling dates (Figure 7). Manure additions resulted in
higher soil K than did chemical fertilizer but concentrations with manure
were not much different from concentrations in the control plots. K con-
centrations were lower with chemical fertilizer than with the control
treatment. This was to be expected because the fertilizer treatment
supplied 65 kg K/ha/yr x^hile average crop removal was 190 kg K/ha/yr. The
control plot was not harvested so K simply was recycled on this plot.
There was some downward movement of K, but there was little movement
below 100 cm. Fertility levels in the 0-15 cm layer in December 1978 were:
Treatment Fertility level
Chemical fertilizer medium
Control high
All waste treatments very high '
Soil Ca
There was little consistent effect of treatments on soil Ca concentra-
tions (Figure 8). Fertility levels in the 0-15 cm layer in December 1978
were: manure - "very high"; all other treatments - "high".
Soil Mg
Generally, soil Mg was higher in the fertilizer and manure treatments
than in the effluent treatments (Figure 9). This resulted from more
leaching of Mg in the effluent treatments. In December 1978, it was noted
that some of the Mg leached out of the upper profile at the high effluent
47
-------
SOIL K , ppm
0 20 40 60 80 ICO 120 MO 160 ISO 200
I i 1I 1H 1 1 (-
300 400 500
C CONTROL
0 ~ MANURE
L LOW EFFLUENT
H HIGH EFFLUENT
N~ CHEMICAL FERTILIZER
-I 1 I
H 1
Figure 7. Effect of treatments on dilute acid extractable soil K.
48
-------
!00
200
300
SOIL Ca, ppm
4OO 500 600
TOO
300
900
^H-f Q .
C ~ CONTROL
D MANURE
L~ LOW EFFLUENT
H ~ HK3H EFFLUENT
N ** CHEMICAL FERTILIZER
2)0
Figure 8. Effect of treatments on dilute acid extractable soil Ca.
49
-------
SOIL Mg, ppm
0 ZQ 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 ISO 200 220 240 260 280 300
i
o
Q.
LU
O
O
V)
C ~ CONTROL
0 ~ MANURE
I. LOW EFFLUENT
H ~ HIGH EFFLUENT
N~ CHEMICAL FERTILIZER
Figure 9. Effect of treatments on dilute acid extractable soil Mg,
50
-------
rate accumulated in the lower part of the profile. The fertility levels in
the 0-15 cm layer in December 1978 were all "very high".
Soil Na
Soil Na concentrations were generally increased by the applied treat-
ments in the following order:control = chemical fertilizer < manure < low
effluent rate < high effluent rate (Figure 10). Maximum accumulations
occurred in the 30-90 cm soil zone. In December 1978 at the high effluent
application rate, Na concentrations in the zone averaged 136 ppm or 0.6
meg/100 g. This is an estimated exchangeable Na percentage of 16% (assuming
a CEC of 10) and is about the percentage at which soil dispersion has been
noted in soils in the arid areas of the U.S. However, the low pH in this
soil zone and the predominance of kaolinitic clay preclude the reduction of
hydraulic conductivity by soil dispersion (Hill, 1980).
Soil pH
Manure applications tended to reduce soil pH as compared to pH valves
resulting from the other treatments, particularly in the 15-45 cm zone
(Figure 11). In March and December 1978, both irrigation rates increased pH
in the 0-30 cm zone. At the December 1978 sampling date, the manure and
irrigation treatments resulted in soil pH values in the 0-15 cm zone that
were within the range recommended for fescue (5.8 - 6.5).
Soil Cu, Zn, and Mn
There was no consistent effect of treatments on soil Cu, Zn or Mn so the
data is not presented.
Overall Soil Fertility
All the waste treatments resulted in soil NC^-N concentrations that were
equal to or greater than those resulting from chemical fertilizer additions.
Consequently, adequate N was supplied for crop production. The high rate of
irrigation and the long-term application of manure pose a groundwater pollu-
tion hazard due to excess N03~N accumulation in the profile. It appears that
the low irrigation rate could also present a groundwater pollution hazard.
A summary of the fertility levels for P, K, Ca and Mg are summarized in
Table 25. Manure applications and the low irrigation rate supplied adequate
P whereas chemical fertilizer did not supply enough and the high irrigation
rate supplied an excessive amount. Continued application of excessive P
could result in reduced Fe uptake. However, due to the large amount of Fe in
this soil the Fe deficiency would take a long time to develop.
The high application rates of K, Na and N (mostly as NH3~N) and the
relatively low application rates of Ca and Mg (Table 12) with irrigated
effluent suggest that a nutrient imbalance may develop. The ratio of cations
applied by irrigation expressed as the ratio of equivalent weights applied
with all data normalized to Ca were:
51
-------
20
SOIL No, ppm
60 30 100
120
140
160
180
E
u
Q.
UJ
a
C ~CONTROL
0 ~ MANURE
L ~ LOW EFFLUENT
H ~ HIGH EFFLUENT
N ~ CHEMICAL FERTILIZER
Figure 10. Effect of treatments on dilute acid extractable soil Na.
52
-------
SOIL pH
C CONTROL
0 ~ MANURE
U ~ LOW EFFLUENT
H ~ HIGH EFFLUENT .
N ~ CHEMICAL FERTILIZER
SOIL pH
Figure 11. Effect of treatments on soil pH.
53
-------
TABLE 25. FERTILITY LEVELS FOR P, K, CA AND MG FOR DECEMBER 1978
Nutrient
P
K
Ca
Mg
'Fertility level
Low Medium
*
C,N D
N
in- the 0-15 cm laver of
High
L
C
C,N,L,H
soil
Very high
H
D,L,H
D
C,N,D,L,H
ft
Treatments: C - control, N - chemical fertilizer, D - manure, L - low
effluent, and H - high effluent.
++ -H- + + 4-
Ca Mg Na K
1 0.7 3.4 4.1 6.2
These ratios suggest that Ca and Mg would be replaced by the other cations
and leached downward. However, there was little consistent effect of mono-
valent cations on leaching of Ca and Mg (Figures 8 and 9), probably because
of the high levels of Ca and Mg initially in the soil and the rather high
soil buffering capacity due to the clay content (Table 1).
The ratio of cations supplied by manure were:
Ca"1"1" Ms"*"4" Na+ K+ NHu"*"
1 0.4 0.3 0.5 1.7
It is evident that lagooning the manure results in settling or precipita-
tion of Ca and Mg such that ratios of Ca + Mg/monovalent cations in the
lagoon effluent are low. When manure is applied directly, the Ca and Mg are
retained in the manure and a nutrient imbalance would be less likely to
occur from manure applications than from effluent applications.
Over the long term, effluent irrigation of lagoon effluent should be
supplemented with applications of dolomitic limestone based on a systematic
soil testing program.
RAINFALL RUNOFF VOLUMES
Rainfall runoff quantity and quality were evaluated from July 1975
through February 1979 using the various runoff measurement and sampling
schemes previously described. Runoff rate and samples with time within a
runoff event were obtained on treatments 2-6 during the periods 7/11/75 -
3/25/76 and 9/24/76 - 2/28/78. During the rest of the data period, only one
composite sample was collected.
54
-------
Rainfall runoff volumes were variable from one year to the next. As
previously presented in Table 8, annual rainfall was above normal in 1975., .
below normal in 1976, and about normal in 1977 and 1978. However, if the
annual period for rainfall and runoff analysis is designated as March
through February, variation between years is less. Also, this period
corresponds closely with some periods of different types of samplers.
Therefore, the period March to March was used for data analysis except for
the first year which includes only July to March.
Rainfall and runoff are presented for the various plots and the four
time periods in Table 26. On treatments 1A and IB, which had a collection
barrel throughout the experiment, the barrels overflowed several times.
Overflow of collection containers during one short period and equipment
malfunctions also occurred on the other six treatments which had various
sampling schemes for the different time periods. Also, when rainfall
occurred during irrigation, this runoff was not included in rainfall runoff
and is reported in the next section. Thus, the rainfall runoff values in
Table 26 are not always the total runoff that occurred but generally are
greater than 90% of total runoff which occurred, except for treatments 1A
and IB which had overflow several times and also possibly barrel leaks
during some periods. Because of the difference in plot size for runoff
collection for treatments LA and IB compared to the other treatments, and
because of excessive missing data or questionable data, treatments 1A and IB
are generally not included in the results.
Rainfall runoff was greatest during the last year (Table 26), but even
then the runoff was low compared to expected runoff for this soil, slope
and crop cover. Runoff expressed as percent of rainfall was less than 10
percent for the whole period and was abcve 10 percent for only one period
(3/78 - 2/79) for three plots. The high-rate irrigation treatment (treat-
ment 7) had the highest runoff overall. However, there are no other
evident trends due to slope or irrigation. For the fertilized treatments,
treatment 3 (3-5% slope) usually had greater runoff than treatment 5 (8-10%
slope), whereas the opposite was true for the low-rate irrigation treatments
with different slopes (treatments 4 and 6). Overall, runoff amount was low
for all treatments.
Most of the runoff occurred from a few months with high rainfall or a
few large rainfall events. Monthly rainfall and runoff are shown in Appendix
Table D-l, while data by event is given in Appendix Table D-2. Months with
high rainfall and runoff were July 1975 and April 1978. Other months with
relatively high runoff were January 1976, January, March and May in 1978,
and January and February in 1979. Runoff was variable between plots for the
same month, and differences in annual sums were often due to differences
during one or two months during the period.
IRRIGATION OR IRRIGATION-RAINFALL MIXED RUNOFF
Irrigation runoff without any rainfall mixed in occurred only from treat-
ment 7, the high-rate irrigation treatment (Table 27). Runoff amount some-
times seemed high and was probably due to clogged sprinkler nozzles on the
55
-------
TABLE 26. RAINFALL AND RUNOFF FOR DESIGNATED HYDROLOGIC PERIODS
*
Period
7/75 - 2/76
3/76 - 2/77
3/77 - 2/78
3/78 - 2/79
Total
7/75 - 2/76
3/76 - 2/77
3/77 - 2/78
3/78 - 2/79
Mean
7/75 - 2/79
Tmt. 1A
Low irg.
> 4.28*
> 7.39
>16.34
>24.27
52.28
> 4.7
> 6.9
>13.9
>20.8
11.6
>12.1
Tmt. IB
Low irg.
>7.66
>8.52
>18.13
>10.95
45.26
> 8.4
> 7.9
>15.4
> 9.4
10.3
>10.4
Tmt. 2
Manure
5.56
2.25
2.67
13.85
24.33
Kunori
6.1
2.5
2.3
11.9
5.7
5.6
Tmt. 3
Pert.
TJ- J nf -! 1
5.77
* 0.81*
* >3.94
* 15.48
26.00
as percent
6.3
0.8
>3.3
13.3
5.9
>6.0
Tint . 4
Low irg.
runoff, cm-
1.62
0.46*
>2.20
8.96*
13.24
of rainfal
1.8
0.4
>1.9
7.7
3.0
>3.0
Tmt. 5
Fert.
3.04
0.70
>0.54
6.23
10.51
Q0.4
5.4
2.4
>2.4
Tmt. 6
Low irg .
4.69
0.43
>3.16
11.18*
19.46
5.1
0.4
>2.7
9.6
4.4
>4.5
Tmt. 7
High irg.
10.57
1.02
>3.96
17.99*
33.54
11.5
1.0
>3.4
15.4
7.8
>7.7
Annual period is March through February except first year when data acquisition began July 11, 1975.
Rainfall for the four periods were: 91.7 cm, 107.3 cm, 117.8 cm, and 116.4 cm, respectively.
The greater than symbol (>) indicates runoff collector overflowed at least once during the period.
These values may include estimated runoff amounts for some events, or they may exclude events when
the runoff collection system malfunctioned or events when rainfall runoff was mixed with irrigation.
See the runoff listed by event in Appendix Table D-2 for further details.
-------
TABLE 27. IRRIGATION RUNOFF VOLUME AND CONCENTRATION
Ol
Date
751010
17
24
31
1107
1114
780428*
0908
Tmt. //
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
Runoff,
cur
1.11
0.20
0.57
0.42
0.78
0.16
>0.21
0.01
Concentration, mg/£
COD
§
1200
1200
1300
1550
1400
500
1500
TOC
290
260
-
470
-
320
80
510
TKN
150
220
190
460
220
220
170
220
N03-N
1
18
4
5
0
0
11
3
P
18
4
13
4
13
6
26
58
Cl~
240
290
280
320
320
290
170
290
§
Treatment 7 (high rate Irrigation) was the only irrigated plot which had
significant irrigation runoff. All irrigated plots had some rainfall-
irrigation mixed runoff which is tabulated separately.
Some runoff volumes seem high and probably resulted from clogged sprinkler
nozzles on the end of the plot where the runoff collection gutter was located.
A dash (-) indicates missing value.
I
Rainfall runoff occurred 780427 and the wet conditions likely caused this
irrigation event to have lower concentrations. The sampler malfunctioned and
runoff amount was estimated from the sample volume.
-------
end of the plot where the runoff collection gutter was located. Concentra-
tions of nutrients in irrigation runoff were lower than the irrigated
effluent concentrations but were still very high. Most irrigation events
occurred within two days after a rainfall event or during a rainy period.
If irrigation had been delayed when soil moisture was high, then runoff
from irrigation could have been greatly reduced. However, the weekly
irrigation application was normally not adjusted because of rainfall.
Irrigation-rainfall mixed runoff occurred a few times. Of the treat-
ments 2-7, only treatment 7 had any significant runoff events (Table 28).
Again, clogging of irrigation nozzles near the runoff collection gutter
could have occurred for some of these events. The nutrient concentrations
x^ere variable but were generally high compared to rainfall runoff. If the
irrigation schedule had been adjusted when rain was predicted, the number of
irrigation events with rainfall also occurring may have been reduced. How-
ever, the number of irrigation events with runoff was still relatively low
without adjusting the schedule for rain prediction.
The mass transport of nutrients in the irrigation runoff or irrigation
rainfall mixed runoff is shown in Table 29. In 1975, the amount of N in
irrigation runoff from treatment 7 was about 5% of the amount applied. Other
than this, the nutrient transport was very small compared to what was applied.
Overall, few runoff events resulted directly from irrigation, or
irrigation which occurred during a rainfall event. However, runoff of this
type had very high nutrient concentrations and should be avoided by adjust-
ing the irrigation schedule based on soil moisture and weather forecasts.
CONCENTRATIONS IN RUNOFF
Concentrations were highly variable depending upon factors such as rain-
fall and runoff amounts, time of year, and whether nutrients had been
recently applied. The volume-weighted concentrations were calculated by
determining total mass of nutrients transported and dividing by total runoff
volume for the time period of concern including only those events which had
both runoff volume data and concentration data. However there was very
little missing data, and almost all of it occurred during July-September
1975.
Mean Concentrations Over Entire Period
Mean concentrations of selected nutrients are presented as volume-
weighted means for each runoff period in Table 30. For several parameters,
the treatment with the highest concentration each year was the high-rate
irrigation treatment (treatment 7). However, this was not always the case.
If another treatment had a higher mean concentration, it was usually a
fertilizer treatment or the manure treatment, which was typically the result
of a significant runoff event after a fertilizer or manure application. For
example, in 1977 treatment 5 (fertilizer) and treatment 2 (manure) had the
highest mean concentrations. For treatment 5, a fertilizer application was
58
-------
TABLE 28. RAINFALL --IRRIGATION MIXED RUNOFF
en
vO
Date
750926
760604
04
780412
780505
05
05
780609
09
09
09
780901
Tmt. //
7
IB
4
7
1A
IB
7
1A
4
6
7
7
Runoff,
cm
0.93
0.22
0.02
0.08
0.21
0.28
0.32
0.03
0.01
0.01
0.32
0.02
Rainfall
cm
0.96
1.09
0.25
0.43
4.57
1.02
, Concentration,
COD
330
650
30
1200
500
-
630
250
110
70
340
1400
TOG
*
140
14
330
130
-
350
70
40
20
100
430
TKN
46
65
10
64
121
-
173
18
18
6.3
61
216
NH3-N
-
_
-
12
120
-
166
9
15
1.7
51
93
mg/fc
N03-N
14
8.2
1.0
0
0
-
3.0
25
2.0
5.3
6.4
-
P
19
8.2
1.4
58
24
-
34
6.6
6.6
1.3
16
47
OP
-
50
22
-
29
6.1
6.6
0.8
15
28
ci-
'.
90
14
690
140
-
185
80
35
10
90
240
A dash (-) indicates missing data.
-------
TABLE 29. MASS IN RUNOFF FROM IRRIGATION AND RAINFALL - IRRIGATION MIXED
Date
750926
1010
1017
1024
1031
1107
1114
760604
04
780412
0428
0505
05
05
0609
09
09
09
0901
0908
Tmt. //
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
IB
4
7
7
1A
IB
7
1A
4
6
7
7
7
Runoff,
cm
0.93
1.11
0.20
0.57
0.42
0.78
0.16
0.22
0.02
0.08,
f
0.21
0.28
0.32
0.03
0.01
0.01
0.32
0.02
0.01
Runoff
type
R + I
I
I
I
I
I
I
R + I
R + I
R + I
I
R + I
R + I
R + I
R + I
R + I
R + I
R + I
R + I
I
Mass in runoff, kg/ha
TOC
_*
32.2
5.2
-
19.7
-
5.1
3.1
0.0
2.6
1.7
2.7
-
11.2
0.2
0.0
0.0
3.2
0.9
0.5
TKN
4.3
16.6
4.4
10.8
19.3
17.2
3.5
1.4
0.0
0.5
3.6
2.5
-
5.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.0
0.4
0.2
N03-N
1.3
0.1
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.0
-
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.2
-
0.0
N
5.6
16.7
4.8
11.0
19.5
17.2
3.5
1.6
0.0
0.5
3.8
2.5
-
5.6
0.1
0.0
0.0
2.2
-
0.2
P
1.8
2.0
0.1
0.7
0.2
1.0
0.1
0.2
0.0
0.5
0.5
0.5
-
1.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
0.1
0.1
C.I.-
-
26.6
5.8
16.0
13.4
25.0
4.6
2.0
0.0
5.5
3.6
2.9
-
5.9
0.2
0.0
0.0
2.9
0.5
0.3
§
R + I indicates rainfall-irrigation mixed runoff; I indicates irrigation runoff.
Dash (-) indicates missing data.
Sampler on treatment 7 malfunctioned after 0.21 cm runoff.
-------
TABLE 30. VOLUME-WEIGHTED CONCENTRATION IN RAINFALL RUNOFF
Volume-weighted
Tmt . Trat .
type
Fert.
Fert.
Low irg.
Low irg.
High irg.
Manure
Fert.
Fert.
Low irg.
Low irg.
High irg.
Manure
Fert.
Fert.
Low irg.
Low irg.
High irg.
Manure
Fert.
Fert.
Low irg.
Low irg.
High irg.
Manure
Fert.
Fert.
Low irg.
Low irg.
High irg.
Manure
no.
3
5
4
6
7
2
3
5
4
6
7
2
3
5
4
6
7
2
3
5
4
6
7
2
3
5
4
6
7
2
1975
5.9
12.3
7.7
3.9
6.2
5.9
3,1
3.0
6.1
8.2
18.1
4.7
9.2
16.4
13.8
,12.1
24.4
11.7
6.3
13.9
16.1
8.8
46.9
10.4
0.8
2.2
1.5
1.1
13.9
1.6
concentration, 'mg/2,'
»
Runoff vear2
1976
3.0
6.4
5.3
6.0
23.4
4.3
1.2
4.2
3.4
3.2
10.6
10.6
3.9
10.5
8.7
9.2
32.3
14.5
5.4
14.8
13.1
22.9
12.5
7.7
0.7
1.2
1.1
1.6
6.2
4.5
1977
TTTM « ._ --___-
2.9
19.7
3.1
5.6
8.2
19.6
1.5
15.2
7.2
4.2
16.6
7.9
_
N_ __ _______.,
4.4
34.9
10.3
9.8
24.8
27.5
__ n ~ ___ _____ _
4.6
23.4
14.0
12.7
29.0
21.0
p
1.0
4.3
2.9
1.9
4.6
10.2
1978
3.1
3.0
3.9
3.8
5.7
7.0
2.7
1.3
2.2
2.6
7.4
6.1
5.7
4.4
6.1
6.4
13.2
13.1
4.2
3.0
8.0
8.8
9.9
6.2
0.6
0.6
1.3
1.8
6.2
6.0
Entire
period
3.7
'6.7
4.3
4.2
6.7
7.8
2.5
2.7
3.6
4.2
12.0
6.6
6.2
9.5
7.8
8.3
18.7
14.9
4.6
7.3
10.0
9.8
18.2
8.6
0.7
1-.3
1.6
1.6
7.1
6.0.
(continued)
61
-------
TABLE 30. (continued)
Volume-weighted concentration, mg/£*
Tmt . Tmt .
type
Fert.
Fert.
Low irg.
Low irg.
High irg.
Manure
Fert.
Fert.
Low irg.
Low irg.
High irg.
Manure
no.
3
5
4
6
7
2
3
5
4
6
7
2
1975
29
36
42
27
51
31
63
104
108
92
130
91
Runoff vear3
1976
___T(
17
22
26
60
54
33
41
61
81
175
202
70
1977
ir__ ,.
18
49
16
32
36
69
70
183
89
107
123
217
1978
21
19
22
26
31
26
52
46
56
60
71
63
Entire
period
22
24
23
28
37
33
56
67
69
73
89
87
Missing data occurred for both rainfall runoff volume and concentration.
Most of the concentration missing data was for Cl~ and P in July, 1975.
Runoff missing data can be observed from Appendix Table D-2.
§
Runoff year was March through February except for 1975 when data began
July 1975.
~t
If either TKN or NO -N was missing, then N was considered missing.
made on September 6 and the runoff event of September 8 had TKN and N03-N
concentrations of 54.1 mg/Jl and 61.1 mg/Jl, respectively, for a runoff volume
of 0.08 cm. The effect of a manure application was evident in 1977 when 1.38
cm of runoff from treatment 2 had TKN, P, and Cl~ concentrations of 32, 17,
and 33 rag/&, respectively, for the March 13 event which was 5 days after a
manure application. Thus, where fertilizer or manure are surface applied and
readily available for runoff, high concentrations can result if rainfall run-
off occurs within a few days after application.
The volume-weighted mean concentrations for the entire period show the
high-rate irrigation treatment (treatment 7) and the manure treatment (treat-
ment 2) to have the highest N and P concentrations. This is evident in
Figures 12 and 13. The high N03~N concentration for the high-rate irrigation
treatment is also evident. There are no obvious differences in concentrations
between the fertilized plots and the irrigated treatments applying 600 kg N/
ha except the irrigated treatments have slightly higher NOs-N, Cl~ and P
concentrations.
62
-------
13
16
14
| 12
Z
o
£ 10
< IU
cc
t~
z
UJ
<-> a
z 8
o
o
0
UJ
X
o
UJ
5
U, 4
2
Ii
o
>
2
r»
f\
MEAN CONCENTRATIONS / \
FOR PERIOD' JULY 1975 - FEB 1979 / \
/ \
/ \
/ ^
j
! K
1 \
\
/ / \N03-N
/ j \
A ' ! \
/ V , ; \
/ ^V / * *
' ^ A * \
/ *» \-ji- « * ' " / \ J3
/ i **
' ^ \
. / A //' '
/ s / /
/ N /
/ \ / /
/TKN \ //
/ """^J.--if
^.x«
A_ ''*'
N03-N
i t I I I t
TMT3 TMT5 TMT4 TMT6 TMT7 TMT2
202MS/HA 202KG/HA 600KG/HA 600WVHA I200KG/HA 600KG/HA
(PERT.) (FERT.) (IRG.) (IRG.) (IRQ.) (MANURE)
TREATMENT AND ANNUAL NITROGEN APPLICATION
Figure 12. Effect of treatments on mean concentrations of N, TKN and
NO -N in rainfall runoff for entire period.
63
-------
-J
^
O
I4
z
UJ
u
o 3
0
Q
UJ
K
x 2
o ^
UJ
1'
Figure 13.
MEAN CONCENTRATION FOR PERIOD*
JULY 1975 - FEBRUARY 1979
I
I
TMT3 TMT5 TMT4 TMT6 TMT7 TMT2
34KG/HA 34KG/HA 120KG/HA I20KG/HA 240KG/HA 200KG/HA
(PERT.) (PERT.) (1RG.) (IRG.) (IRG.) (MANURE)
Effect of treatments on mean concentration of P
runoff for entire period.
in rainfall
64
-------
Mean Concentrations for March 1978 - February 1979
The annual period with the most runoff was March 1978 - February 1979
when the tipping bucket sampler was used. For this period of data, the
arithmetic means and standard deviations of the runoff event concentrations
were calculated (Table 31). The arithmetic means are normally higher than
the volume-weighted means for all of the nutrients or organic indicators
measured, which indicates that events with larger runoff volume tended to
have lower concentrations. The standard deviation is often about equal to
the mean, and this indicates a large variation in concentration for
different events. The monthly summaries of runoff, mean and highest concen-
trations for TKN, P, N03-N and N are presented in Appendix Tables D-3 through
D-6 and indicate the variations from month to itionth.
, The relative treatment effects on volume-weighted concentrations for
this 1-yr period were similar to the differences averaged over the four
periods. The fertilizer treatments and low-rate irrigation treatments had
similar volume-weighted N concentrations while the high-rate irrigation and
manure treatments had much higher concentrations of N03-N and TKN (Figure 14).
The N03-N and TKN values for this period were lower than the mean values for
the 44-month period. For P and OP, the concentrations increased as the
amount of P applied increased (Figure 15). Most of the P was in the OP form,
and the P values for this period were very similar to the mean values for 44-
month period. Overall, the nutrient concentrations in runoff were much higher
for the manure and high-rate irrigation treatments compared to the fertilizer
and low-rate irrigation treatments. The environmental effect of these highest
concentrations would depend upon the amount of flow and nutrients that
reached a receiver stream or reservoir and the flow and nutrient levels of
the receiver stream or reservoir. The runoff volumes from these plots were
low; thus, the mass transport (presented later) may be low even though con-
centrations are high.
Another consideration for determining environmental impact of the
runoff is the maximum concentration. Maximum concentrations and associated
runoff volumes for events during the period March 1978 through February 1979
are shown for several nutrients in Table 32. Usually the highest concentra-
tion is associated with very low runoff volume. However, there are some
exceptions. For the manure treatment (treatment 2) the highest concentrations
of TKN, NH3-N, P and OP occurred with high volumes of runoff.- For NH3-N, the
highest concentration occurred with 3.27 cm of runoff on 4-26-78 which was
six days after a manure application. A similar situation resulted for treat-
ment 3 (fertilizer) when the highest concentration of N03~N occurred for a
runoff volume of 4.0 cm on 4-26-78 which was 6 days after a fertilizer appli-
cation. The highest P and OP concentrations on treatment 2 occurred on
12-5-78, and a manure application had occurred on 11-14-78. The other events
with high runoff volume and concentration occurred with the high-rate
irrigation treatment, particularly on 11-8-78 which was during the last week
of irrigation. Overall, the largest concern for a single runoff event would
probably be when a large rainfall event occurred soon after a manure or
fertilizer application or if rainfall occurred during irrigation.
65
-------
TABLE 31. MEAN CONCENTRATIONS IN RAINFALL RUNOFF FOR MARCH 1978 - FEB. 1979
Tmt.
type
Fert.
Fert.
Low irg.
Low irg.
High irg.
Manure
Fert.
Fert.
Low irg.
Low irg.
High irg.
Manure
Fert.
Fert.
Low irg.
Low irg.
High irg.
Manure
Tmt.
no.
3
5
4
6
7
2
3
5
4
6
7
2
3
5
4
6
7
2
M *
vw
3.
3.
3.
3.
5.
7.
5.
4.
6.
6.
13.
13.
52
46
56
60
71
63
1
0
9
8
7
0
7
4
1
4
2
1
TKN
V
3.5
4.4
6.0
7.4
7.3
5.2
N
5.1
7.0
11.0
11.9
15.7
10.1
COD
62
61
91
86
91
59
NH3-N
a*
2.3
3.6
4.4
7.7
3.6
5.0
3.0
5.4
7.7
10.9
9.2
7.0
60
50
65
86
41
28
M
vw
0.70-
0.71
0.41
0.65
0.72
1.59
0.64
0.64
1.28
1.75
6.20
6.03
20.9
18.7
21.9
25.7
30.9
26.4
MA
0.88
1.52
1.35
2.68
1.43
0.96
P
0.58
1.04
2.62
2.85
6.38
3.45
TOG
21
25
32
37
35
23
a
0.72
1.64
1.92
4.43
1.51
0.98
0.47
1.15
3.52
3.26
4.12
3.50
11
21
21
34
12
11
N03-N
M
vw
2.7
1.3
2.2.
2.6
7.4
6.1
0.49
0.56
1.25
1.63
6.35
5.46
4.2
3.0
8.0
8.8
9.9
6.2
M
A
1.6
2.6
4.9
4.5
8.5
4.8
OP
0.24
0.72
2.48
2.54
6.15
3.02
Cl~
5.0
6.2
21.9
14.9
13.4
5.9
a
1.4
2.4
4.1
4.0
6.8
4.1
0.31
0.86
3.05
2.93
3.90
3.26
5.8
8.3
27.4
14.0
10.4
4.8
*
M = volume-weighted mean concentration; M = arithmetic mean concentration
for all events, and a = standard deviation for event concentrations.
66
-------
14
13
o
2 ||
110
< Q
ne «>
UJ
O
Z
O
o
o
8
6
UJ
i 3
_J
5 2
MEAN CONCENTRATION FOR PERIOD'- f
MARCH 1978 - FEBRUARY 1979 /
N
x
TKN
gf /
o
TMT3 TMT5 TMT4 TMT6 TMT7 TMT2
202 KG/HA 202KG/HA 600KQ/HA 600KG/HA I200KG/HA 600KG/HA
(PERT.) (PERT.) (IRQ.) (IRQ.) (IRQ.) (MANURE)
TREATMENT AND NITROGEN ANNUAL APPLICATION
Figure 14. Effect of treatments on mean concentrations of N, TKN, N03-N
and NH3-N in rainfall runoff for fourth year (3/78 - 2/79).
67
-------
7 ^
_j
V.
O
MEAN CONCENTRATION FOR
PERIOD* MARCH '78 FEB. '79
O
»-
£ 4
UJ
o
z
o
0 3
Q
U
H
X
O
u] 2
5
UJ
I '
A ---
/
/
1
TMT3 TMT5 TMT4 TMT6 TMT7 TMT2
34KG/HA 34KG/HA 120 KG/HA 120 KG/HA 240KG/HA 200KG/HA
(PERT.) (PERT.) (IRG-) (IRG.) (1RG.) (MANURE)
TREATMENT AND PHOSPHORUS ANNUAL APPLICATION
Figure 15. Effect of treatments on mean concentration of P in
rainfall runoff for fourth year (3/78 - 2/79).
68
-------
TABLE 32. HIGHEST CONCENTRATIONS IN RUNOFF FOR MARCH 1978 - FEB. 1979
Tmt . Tint .
type no.
Pert.
Pert.
Low Irg.
Low irg.
High irg.
Manure
S Pert.
Pert.
Low irg.
Low irg.
High irg.
Manure
3
5
4
6
7
2
3
5
4
6
7
2
TKN
Cone. ,
rag/it Date
11.7
18.4
22.0
36.0
17.9
26.4
2.7
5.3
16.8
15.4
18.8
14.5
4-12
7-11
7-15
10-1
5-15
2-24
P
4-27
9-1
7-15
10-1
11-8
12-5
Vol.,
cm
0.01
0.03
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.78
0.10
0.04
0.01
0.02
0.69
0.96
Cone. ,
mg/8.
3.9
7.9
7.5
13.8
5.2
4.2
1.6
4.2
13.5
12.5
18.4
10.5
NH3-N
Date
4-12
9-11
7-15
10-1
10-1
4-26
OP
2-23
9-1
7-15
10-1
11-8
12-5
Vol.,
cm
0.01
0.06
0.01
0.02
0.05
3.27
0.51
0.04
0.01
0.02
0.69
0.96
Cone. ,
mg/Jl
8.4
11.9
16.4
16.9
32.3
15.7
26.0
33.0
126.0
70.0
47.0
19.0
NO^-N
Date
4-26
9-11
3-6
10-1
11-8
3-13
Cl~
5-15
9-1
7-15
10-1
3-27
4-27
Vol.,
cm
4.00
0.06
0.01
0.02
0.69
0.02
0.01
0.04
0.01
0.02
0.11
0.06
-------
VARIATION OF RUNOFF RATE AND CONCENTRATION WITHIN AN EVENT
Two events with relatively high runoff volume and concentrations were
chosen to illustrate the variation in runoff rate and concentration within
an event. The manure treatment (treatment 2) and two runoff events in 1977
were chosen.
The rainfall and runoff for the two events are shown in Figure 16. One
event occurred on 1/9/77 and 1/10/77 and had low to moderate intensity over
a 17-hr period, whereas the other event (3/13/77) had moderate intensity
over a 7.5-hr period. The runoff rate was determined only the first 4 hours
after runoff began because the rotating distribution arm of the sampler com-
pleted the rotation over 33 jars in 4 hours and the remaining runoff sample
xvent into a composite sample to help determine total runoff.
Rainfall intensity, runoff rate and concentrations of P, TKN, N03-N and
N for various time intervals during the 1/9/77 event are shown in Figure 17.
The runoff rate shows some direct correlation to rain intensity with a
slight time lag in runoff response to changes in rain intensity. When a run-
off collection jar had less than 100 ml, it was composited with following
jars until at least 150 ml total volume was obtained. Thus, the concentra-
tion data reflects some composite samples. The concentration values show
some variation, but there is not much decrease in concentration when the com-
posite sample concentration representing 0.82 cm of runoff is compared to
the concentration at the end of the first four hours or even compared to the
average concentration for the 0.29 cm runoff which occurred during the first
4 hours. There does not appear to be a large initial flush of nutrients
from the plots, but the slow to moderate rainfall intensity and runoff rate
tend to cause the concentration in runoff to remain within a fairly narrow
range. The nutrient level on the plot was probably moderately high because
manure was applied 11/9/76 and only 1.04 cm of runoff had occurred from then
until the 1/9/77 event. This could indicate that much more runoff would have
to occur before concentrations would substantially decrease. The next runoff
event was 3/7/77 and had 1.02 cm of runoff with average concentrations of
6.6 mg/Jl for TKN, 7.7 mg/X, for N03-N, 15.77 mg/X, for N and 1.28 mg/£ for P,
which are similar to the average concentrations for the 1/9/77 event, with
only P being reduced. This indicates that the nutrient level on the plot
had remained high.
Manure was applied to treatment 2 on 3/8/77 and a rainfall event of 4.39
cm occurred on 3/13/77 which resulted in 1.3S cm of runoff. Since it had
also rained 1.55 cm on 3/5/77 and 3.30 cm on 3/7/77, this event had high
potential for runoff and transport of the applied manure.
Plots of rain intensity, runoff rate and concentration in Figure 18
demonstrate some correlation between these three parameters. Rain intensity
was variable and the runoff rate was also variable while showing a slight
time lag in responding to changes in rain intensity. The concentrations of
the four nutrients shown in Figure 18 all increased during the first 13 to
30 min. of the runoff event and then showed variation with some response to
runoff rate and particularly rain intensity. After an intense period of
rain the concentrations seemed to increase except for NOs~N in one case.
70
-------
4.0
3.3
£ 2-5
o
1 2-0
< 1.3
_i
S i.o
z
« 0.3
0
4.5
.4.0
2
u 3.5
a
< 2.0
< 1.3
Z
I '-0
0.3
RAINFALL AND RUNOFF
TMT. 2 (MANURE)
DATE < JAN 9 '77 - JAN 10 '77
AVERAGE RAIN
INTENSITY* 0.22 a
1600 1800 2000 2200 240O 0200 04OO 06OO 0800
I 357 9 II 13 15 17
TIME AND NUMBER HOURS SINCE RAIN BEGAN
RAINFALL AND RUNOFF
TMT. 2 (MANURE)
DATE' MAR 13.1977
AVERAGE RAIN
INTENSITY = 0.58cm/hr
-------
0.03
O 0.02
UJ*
cr
tt 0.01
o
cr
= 0.5
>
t 0.4
tn
z
UJ
t 0.3
0.2
2 O.I
TMT. 2 (MANURE).
DATE' 1-9-77
RAIN INTENSITY
RUNOFF RATE
ACCUMULATE
RUNOFF
i
0.3
0.2
2
o
0.1
2100
2200
TIME
2300
2400
16 r-
§14
2, a
<
cr
UJ
o
2 A
O 8
O
UJ
I 6
(/> 4
u.
u.
N03N_
TKN
.__],..
_L
I
2100
2200
TIME
2300
2400
O
Z
3
cr
Figure 17.
Rain intensity, runoff rate and nutrient concentrations in
runoff for event on 1-9-77 and 1-10-77.
72
-------
TRT. 2 (MANURE)
DATE' 3-13-77
= 0.02
50
45
40
2 35
O
2
u 25
2
O
O
u,20
a.
* 15
t 10
3 .
osoo
0600
TIME
0700
oeoo
I
1
0500
0600
TIME
0700
0800
Figure 18. Rain intensity, runoff rate and nutrient concentration in
runoff for event on 3-13-77.
73
-------
Trends of concentration variation and corresponding amount of runoff
for each concentration value are shown in Figure 19 and 20 .for the.two
events. These graphs do not indicate which samples were composited. Both
events show variation in concentration during the event, and a trend of
increasing concentration and then decreasing concentration is particularly
evident with TKN and P for the 3/13/77 event. This seems to indicate that
transport of nutrients increased during the initial phases of runoff, and
then perhaps after the most readily available or easily detachable
material was removed, the concentrations decreased to somewhat steady-
state. The trend of increasing and then decreasing concentration was not
prevalent in most other events, and is likely a characteristic of this
particular circumstance which was a variable-rate runoff event soon after
a manure application. For most events, the concentrations were variable
within relatively small ranges for a particular event and plot, but the
variation from one event to another or between plots could be relatively
large, as occurred in the examples given for treatment 2.
The average concentrations for the runoff event just after manure
application and for the two most previous events are shown in Table 33.
The effect of the manure application is obvious. This illustrates the need
to consider weather forecasts before surface application of manure.
TABLE
33.
EFFECT OF MANURE
APPLICATION ON
CONCENTRATIONS IN RUNOFF
Date
1/9/77
3/7/77
3/13/77
Rainfall/
cm
3
3
4
.76
.30
.39
Runoff,
cm
1.
1.
1.
11
02
38
Mean concentration, mg/£r
TKN
4
6
32
.4
.6
.4
NO^-N
8
7
7
.6
.7
.8
N
13.0
14.3
40.2
P
3.7
1.3
16.6
Cl~
7.2
5.8
38.0
A
Manure applications were on 11/9/76 and 3/8/77.
A rainfall of 1.55 cm occurred on 3/5/77.
Mean concentration is total mass transport divided by total runoff
volume.
In summary, variations in concentrations occurred within runoff events
in response to changes in rain intensity and runoff rate and perhaps the
amount of nutrients or organic materials available for runoff. However,
the variations for a particular event and plot were usually small. The mass
transport for a particular event is thus probably dominated by the runoff
amount rather than by variations in concentration. If the runoff was
sampled for concentrations during the peaks of the runoff rates, the mean of
these concentrations and total runoff amount would likely allow a good esti-
mate of mass transport without analyzing a large number of samples for con-
centration.
74
-------
0.03
2
u
Z 0.02
3
O
2
U.
O 0.01
Z
o
en
uj 10
o
Z
o
u a
LU
cn
u.
I 2
cc
TRT. 2 (MANURE)
RUNOFF
I - 10-77
0.323
RAINFALL TOTAL 3.76cm
RUNOFF TOTAL I.Mem
TRT. 2 (MANURE)
CONCENTRATIONS
IN RUNOFF- 1-10-77
_L
J_
2 4 6 8 10 12
RUNOFF SAMPLE NUMBER
14
Figure 19. Variation of concentrations and associated sample
volumes during the runoff event of 1-10-77.
75
-------
o 0.08
z 0.06
o
< 0.04
u.
u.
5 0.02
50 p-
TRT. 2 (MANURE)
RUNOFF
3-13-77
RAINFALL TOTAL - 4.39cm
RUNOFF TOTAL - 1.38
TRT. 2 (MANURE)
CONCENTRATIONS
N IN RUNOFF' 3-13-77
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
24 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
RUNOFF SAMPLE NUMBER
Figure 20. Variation of concentrations and associated sample volumes
during the runoff event of 3-13-77.
76
-------
MASS TRANSPORT IN RAINFALL RUNOFF
The rainfall runoff from the fescue plots was lower than expected, and
thus, even though some nutrient concentrations in runoff were high, the
mass transport of nutrients and organics was generally less than 1 to 2
percent of the amount of nutrient applied. The mass transport over the
entire period is discussed, and transport during the last year (3/78 -
2/79) is discussed in more detail.
Mass Transport Over the Entire Period
Mass transport of selected runoff constituents for each runoff year and
the sums for the entire period are shown in Table 34. The high-rate
irrigation plot had the highest transport of every constituent each year
except for 1976 and 1977 when the manure plot had higher transport of P and
TOC and also Cl~ in 1976. The high-rate irrigation treatment (treatment 7)
and the manure treatment (treatment 2) had the highest overall transport
of constituents. Total transport for the treatments can be seen in Figure
21 for TKN, N03-N and N. The fertilizer treatments and the low-rate irriga-
tion treatments had similar amounts of mass transport of N, TKN, and N03~N.
The manure and high-rate irrigation treatments clearly had more total N
transport in runoff, but the amounts in runoff were only 1.3% of the N
applied to these treatments. Thus, runoff transport accounts for only a
small amount of the nutrients applied. The environmental impact of these
amounts of nutrient transport would depend on the particular site and the
characteristics of the stream or reservior receiving the runoff.
The variation in annual mass transport for a particular treatment was
mainly due to variation in runoff amounts. For example, the mass transport
of N and P from treatment 7 varied with the same trend as runoff volume, but
the volume-weighted concentration normally had the opposite trend (Figure
22), which meant that when runoff volume increased, concentration normally
decreased. However, with relatively small amounts of runoff for annual
periods, the effect of one highly-polluted runoff event could have a large
effect on these trends. Thus, the manure and fertilizer treatments which
had high potential for nutrient runoff just after applications of manure or
fertilizer were more likely to vary from these trends.
Mass Transport for the Period March 1978 - February 1979
The mass transport of nutrients, including NH3~N and OP, for the last
period (March 1978 - February 1979) is shown in Table 35. This fourth
period had the largest amounts of runoff and mass transport for almost all
plots and nutrients. The highest transport of N was for the high-rate
irrigation plot (treatment 7) and was 23.7 kg/ha which was about 1.8% of
applied amount. The highest transport for a fertilizer treatment was from
treatment 3 and was 8.8 kg/ha which was about 4.4% of applied amount. Of
this 8.8 kg/ha, 5.1 kg/ha was in April when a large runoff event (4.1 cm)
occurred six days after a fertilizer application. Thus, the possible effect
of one event on the annual amount of runoff and mass is again demonstrated
for treatments which received periodic, relatively large applications of
nutrients in a form which was available for runoff transport.
77
-------
TABLE 34. MASS TRANSPORT IN RAINFALL RUNOFF
Tmt.
type
Fert.
Fert.
Low irg .
Low irg.
High irg.
Manure
Fert.
Fert.
Low irg.
Low irg.
High irg.
Manure
Fert.
Fert.
Low irg.
Low irg.
High irg.
Manure
Fert.
Fert.
Low irg.
Low irg.
High irg.
Manure
Tmt.
no.
3
5
4
6
7
2
3
5
4
6
7
2
3
5
4
6
7
2
3
5
4
6
7
2
1975
3.4
3.5
1.2
1.7
6.6
3.3
1.7
0.7
1.0
3.5
19.2
1.2
5.1
4.2
2.2
5.2
25.8
4.5
0.26
0.53
0.22
0.40
5.53
0.32
Mass
Runoff
1976
0.2
0.4
0.2
0.3
2.3
1.0
0.1
0.3
0.2
0.1
1.0
2.3
0.3
0.7
0.4
0.4
3.3
3.3
0.05
0.08
0.05
0.07
0.61
0.97
in rainfall runoff , kg/ha*
year
1977
rPV\T
1.1
1.1
0.7
1.7
3.2
5.1
0.6
0.8
1.6
1.3
6.6
2.1
N_____
1.7
1.9
2.3
3.0
9.8
7.2
P_
0.38
0.24
0.65
0.58
1.83
2.69
1978
4.7
1.9
3.5
4.2
10.3
9.6
4.1
0.8
2.0
2.9
13.3
8.5
8.8
2.7
5.5
7.1
23.6
18.1
0.99
0.40
1.15
1.96
11.16
8.34
Entire
period
9.5
6.9
5.7
7.9
22.5
19.0
6.5
2.7
4.7
7.9
40.1
14.0
16.0
9.6
10.4
15.8
62.6
33.0
1.69
1.25
2.07
3.01
19.13
12.31
TOG
Fert.
Fert.
Low irg.
Low irg.
High irg.
Manure
3
5
4
6
7
2
14.3
7.9
6.1
11.8
34.8
7.3
1.4
1.5
1.0
2.0
4.5
7.0
7.3
2.5
3.6
8.8
13.1
18.2
32.2
11.6
19.6
28.7
55.6 .
36.5
55.2
23.6
30.3
51.3
108.0
69.1
(continued)
78
-------
TABLE 34 (continued)
Tmt.
type
Fert.
Fert.
Low irg.
Low irg-.
High irg.
Manure
Tmt.
no.
3
5
4
6
7
2
1975
2.0
2.6
2.2
3.3
18.2
1.6
Mass in
Runoff
1976
0.4
1.0
0.6
1.0
1.2
2.3
rainfall runoff, kg/ha*
year''
1977
(
1.2
1.3
3.1
4.0
11.5
5.5
1978
i"
6.4
1.9
7.1
9.8
17.9
8.6
Entire
period
10.0
6.8
13.1
18.0
48.8
17.4
Missing data occurred for both rainfall volume and concentration. Most
concentration missing data was for Cl and P in July 1975. For details
of runoff-volume missing data, see Table D-l.
Runoff year is for March through February except for first year when
data began in July 1975.
The monthly variation of mass transport for the various plots is shown
for TKN in Table D-3. This table demonstrates the monthly variability and
how the annual sum can be significantly affected by one month which has one
or more large rainfall-runoff events.
79
-------
70
o 60
u_
u.
o
2.
3
CC
50
2 40
z
<
IT
5 30
tr
o
Q.
cr
t-
tn
20
10
MASS TRANSPORT TOTALS
- FOR PERIOD' JULY 1975- FES 1979 '
/\
/A
/ / \ *
/
/./ ,.
A,
N
TKN
'/
I
I
I
I
TMT3 TMT5 TMT4 TMT6 TMT7 TMT2
202KG/HA 202KQ/HA 600KG/HA 600KG/HA I200KG/HA 600KG/HA
(FERT.) (PERT.) (IRQ.) (1RG.) (IRG.) (MANURE)
TREATMENT AND ANNUAL NITROGEN APPLICATION
Figure 21. Mass transport of N, TKN, and NO_-N in rainfall runoff for
entire period.
80
-------
cc.
g 40
Z
cc
30
z
o
uj 20
o
o
o
o
fc
10
HIGH - RATE .I.RR.IGATION TREATMENT
TOTAL NITROGEN
RUNOFF, c
VOLUME WEIGHTED
CONCENTRATION,
MG, L
MASS TRANSPORT,
KG/HA
1975
13.9
1976
1977
1978
tr
o
en 10
O
Z
B
6
UJ
O
O
a
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
A
/ MASS TRANSPORT, KG/HA-
VOLUME WEIGHTED
CONCENTRATION, MG/L,
1975
1976
RUNOFF
1977
YEAR
1978
Figure 22.
Annual runoff and volume-weighted concentration and
mass transport of N and P.
81
-------
TABLE 35. MASS TRANSPORT IN RAINFALL RUNOFF FOR MARCH 1978 - FEB. 1979
oo
Trot . Trot .
type no .
Pert.
Pert.
Low irg.
Low irg.
High irg.
Manure
3
5
4
6
7
2
No. of
runoff
events
45
28
19
23
26
30
Runoff
volume,
cm
15.5
6.2
9.0
11.2
18.0
13.8
Mass transport in runoff, kg/ha
TKN
4.7
1.9
3.5
4.2
10.3
9.6
N113-N
0.9
0.3
0.3
0.6
1.2
1.8
N03-N
4.1
0.8
2.0
2.9
13.3
8.5
N
8.8
2.7
5.5
7.1
23.7
18.1
P
1.0
0.4
1.1
2.0
11.1
8.3
OP
0.7
0.2
0.9
1.5
10.2
6.3
TOC
32
12
20
29
56
36
Cl
6.4
1.9
7.1
9.7
17.8
8.6
-------
REFERENCES
APHA. 1971. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater.
Thirteenth Edition. American Public Health Association. Washington,
D.C. 847 pp.
Burns, J. C. and W. A. Cope. 1974. Nutritive value of crownvetch forage
as influenced by structural constituents and phenolic and tannin
compounds. Agron. J. 66:195-200.
Dobson, S. H., E. L. Kimbrough, J. V. Baird, W. W. Woodhouse and D. S.
Chamblee. 1977. Tall fescue. AG-52. The North Carolina Agricultural
Extension Service. N.C. State University, Raleigh, N.C.
Hojjati, S. M,, T. H. Taylor and W. C. Templeton, Jr. 1972. Nitrate
accumulation in rye, tall fescue and bermudagrass as affected by
nitrogen fertilization. Agron. J. 64:624-627.
Hill, R. L. 1980. The effect of sodium and calcium solutions on the
hydraulic conductivity of two North Carolina subsoils. M.S. Thesis,
North Carolina State University, Raleigh, N.C.
Humenik, F. J. and M. R. Overcash. 1976. Design criteria for swine waste
treatment systems. EPA-600/2-76-223. Robert S. Kerr Environmental
Research Laboratory, U.S. E.P.A., Ada, Oklahoma.
Jackson, M. L. 1965. Soil Chemical Analysis. Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey. 498 pp.
Murphy, L. S. and G. E. Smith. 1967. Nitrate accumulations in forage
crops. Agron. J. 59:171-174.
NCSU. 1971. Weather and Climate. Bulletin 396, Agricultural Experiment
Station, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, N.C.
Overcash, M. R. and F. J. Humenik. 1976. State-of-the-art: Swine waste
production and pretreatment processes. EPA-600/2-76-290. Robert
S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory, U.S. E.P.A., Ada, Oklahoma.
Overcash, M. R. , J. W. Gilliam, F. J. Humenik and P. W. Westerman. 1978.
Lagoon pretreatment: heavy metal and cation removals. J. Water
Pollution Control Federation 50(8) :2029-2036.
83
-------
Technicon. 1973a. Industrial Method for NO^-N Extract Analysis #100-70 W.
Technicon Industrial Systems.. Tarrytown,. N.Y.
Technicon. 1973b. Industrial Method for Cl" Extract Analysis #99-70 W.
Technicon Industrial Systems. Tarrytown, N.Y.
Technicon. 1974a. Industrial Method for Total and Orthophosphate Extract
Analysis #327-74 W. Technicon Industrial Systems. Tarrytown, N.Y.
Technicon. 1974b. Industrial Method for NH^-N and TKN Extract Analysis
#325-74 W. Technicon Industrial Systems. Tarrytown, N.Y.
84
-------
APPENDIX A
LAGOON AND IRRIGATION DATA
ON MONTHLY BASIS FOR 1976-1978
85
-------
TABLE A-L LAGOON MONTHLY CONCENTRATIONS'
Concentration
Year
1976
1977
1978
Month
May
June
July
August
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Mean
March,
Aprilj
May
June
July
August
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Mean
March
April
May
June ,
July
Augus t
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Mean
M
630
500
510
490
500
520
530
530
590
440
520
440
530
520
440
420
350
470
470
470
390
310
290
260
290
250
250
330
P
100
80
110
66
70
61
54
77
119
78
71
70
81
90
90
136
80
91
105
76
64
64
84
103
89
68
76
81
K
1,180
1,160
810
1,190
1,050
1,070
940
1,060
560
540
540
570
800
910
670
610
490
630
290
430
390
440
520
360
350
300
270
370
of element, mg/J.
Ca
85
85
125
155
125
135
105
115
66
69
69
66
60
58
53
67
76
65
86
82
60
59
147
59
58
63
56
74
Mg
27
35
46
53
36
35
20
36
19
20
20
14
14
14
20
22
25
19
23
18
11
16
61
34
30
35
23
28
Na
420
430
500
550
490
560
470
490 .
330
290
290
330
320
320
300
290
300
310
170
220
180
200
200
230
210
270
240
210
Cl~
390
370
400
550
490
480
460
450
340
320
390
360
500
590
450
430
400
420
300
310
280
310
320
300
310
290
360
310
(Continued)
86
-------
TABLE A-l (continued)
Concentration of element, mg/£
Year
1976
Month
May
June
July
Augus t
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Cu
0.07
0.10
0.15
0.26
0.15
0.25
0,19
Zn
0.7
0.8
0.7
0.8
0.5
0.8
0.6
COD
2,200
2,400
2,000
2,800
2,100
2,000
2,100
TOC
600
600
1,000
1,200
850
800
1,350
OP
_
-
51
61
51
52
49
NH^-N
__
-
430
410
410
410
450
Mean
0.17
0.7
2,200
900
53
420
1977 March§
April
May
June
July
August
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Mean
1978 March
April
May
June ,
July
August
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Mean
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.08
0.10
0.06
0.04
0.06
0.07
0.08
0.13
0.07
0.08
0.06
0.38
0.08
0.09
0.09
0.06
0.12
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.7
0.5
0.5
1.4
0.4
0.8
0.3
3.9
0.4
0.3
0.5
0.4
0.9
2,100
1,900
1,800
9UO
1,700
2,300
1,700
2,400
1,400
1,800
2,100
1,400
800
1,200
1,700
1,800
1,600
1,700
1,700
1,600
400
250
650
350
550
650
450
400
3UO
450
300
250
300
350
550
550
700
600
750
500
98
74
87
61
74
74
76
123
73
82
69
58
78
67
77
58
58
63
66
470
400
490
410
460
360
300
330
300
390
380
450
350
270
220
180
160
170
170
260
* Monthly means calculated using values from weekly samples.
§ The combined monthly mean for April and May of 1977 are from 4 values
for April and 1 for May for all except N, P and Cl.
+ July, 1978 lagoon samples included more solids which was likely due to
pumping from lagoon and stirring up sludge from bottom.
87
-------
TABLE A-2. IRRIGATION COLLECTION CUP LIQUID CONCENTRATIONS
Concentration
Year
1976
1977
1978
Month
May
June
July
August
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Mean
March
April
May
June
July
Augus t
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Mean
March
April
May
June
July
Augus t
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Mean
N
490
330
340
280
440
490
490
410
500
420
470
350
450
400
370
330
260
390
410
430
340
260
200
230
250
220
200
280
P
66
44
53
59
53
52
51
54
110
87
100
62
85
87
70
62
52
79
71
77
55
48
62
84
78
87
49
68
K
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
-
-
550
1080
810
710
700
600
740
360
480
390
480
540
280
290
300
260
380
of element, ms,/H
Ca
155
100
70
110
110
100
110
108
150
85
105
95
100
50
55
80
-
80
70
70
55
50
60
60
60
60
65
61
MS
66
56
8
32
46
26
11
35
69
10
42
18
31
15
24
16
-
28
19
13
12
15
25
32
32
30
31
23
Na
-
-
-
-
-
-
490
330
360
310
430
350
320
400
-
373
200
230
190
200
210
300
280
250
310
241
Cl
390
330
450
560
-
510
480
518
320
370
400
430
530
650
460
420
350
437
300
300
280
330
310
300
310
280
330
304
(Continued)
88
-------
TABLE A-2 (continued)
Concentration
Year
1976
Month
May
June
July
August
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Cu
0.28
0.27
0.20
0.50
0.20
0.18
0.3U
Zn
1.0
1.9
0.4
2.8
1.0
0.8
1.2
COD
2,100
1,600
1,600
1,900
2,200
1,700
2,200
of element, rag/£
TOG OP
500
550
1,000
850
950
1,000
1,600
NH;?-N
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
1977
Mean
March
April
May
June
July
Augus t
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Mean
0.28
0.60
0.85
0.33
0.26
0.18
0.07
0.07
0.12
0.28
1.3
1.3
1.3
0.8
1.0
1.2
0.4
0.5
0.7
0.8
1,900 900
2,300
1,900
1,300
,000
,700
,000
,600
,600
,300
1,600
500
250
400
400
600
600
450
400
400
450
102
77
107
58
75
82
58
54
47
73
420
380
450
320
350
250
250
260
240
320
1978 March
April
May
June
July
August
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Mean
0.11
0.13
0.08
0.09
0.07
0.06
0.07
0.07
0.09
0.09
0.6
0.9
U.6
0.7
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.5
1,700
1,200
900
1,200
1,200
1,800
1,300
1,400
1,700
1,400
250
250
250
350
400
500
600
600
600
400
-
65
53
53
53
62
35
49
47
52
360
390
300
220
160
150
120
130
160
220
Monthly mean calculated using one mean value for each irrigation
event that had data and no rainfall mixed in. Each event mean was
calculated from 4 plots, 4 cups per plot.
89
-------
TABLE A-3. RATIO OF IRRIGATION CUP LIQUID CONCENTRATION TO LAGOON
LIQUID CONCENTRATION, MONTHLY MEANS*
Ratio of concentrations in cup
Year
1976
1977
1978
Month
May
June
July
Augus t
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Mean
Std. Dev.
March
April
May
June
July
August
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Mean
Std. Dev.
March
April
May
June
July
August
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Mean
Std. Dev.
Annual Mean
Std. Dev.
N
.78
.66
.67
.57
.88
.94
.92
.77
.14
.85
.95
.90
.80
.85
.77
.84
.79
.74
.83
.06
.87
.91
.87
.84
.69
.88
.86
.88
.80
.84
.06
.81
.04
P
.66
.55
.48
.89
.76
.85
.94
.73
.18
0.92
1.12
1.41
0.89
1.05
0.97
0.78
0.46
0.65
0.92
0.27
0.68
1.01
0.86
0.75
0.74
U.82
0.88
1.28
0.64
0.85
0.20
0.83
0.10
K.
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
-
_
-
-
0.96
1.35
0.89
1.06
1.15
1.22
1.11
0.27
1.24
1.12
1.00
1.09
1.04
0.78
0.83
1.00
0.97
1.01
0.30
1.06
0.07
Ca
1.82
1.18
0.56
0.71
0.88
0.74
1.05
0.99
0.73
2.27
1.23
1.52
1.44
1.67
0.86
1.04
1.19
-
1.41
0.8
0.31
0.85
0.92
0.85
0.41
1.02
1.03"
0.95
1.16
0.89
0.42
1.10+
0.27
to that
Mg
2.44
1.60
0.17
0.60
1.28
0.74
0.55
1.05
1.34
3.63
0.50
2.1
1.29
2.21
0.75
1.09
0.72
-
1.54
1.97
0.82
0.72
1.09
0.94
0.41
0.94
1.07
0.86
1.35
0.91
0.52
1.17
0.33
in lagoon
Na
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
-
1.48
1.14
1.24
0.94
1.34
1.17
1.10
1.33
-
1.22
0.31
1.18
1.05
1.06
1.00
1.05
1.30
1.33
0.93
1.29
1.13
0.29
1.18
0.06
Cl~
1.00
0.89
1.13
1.02
-
1.06
1.04
1.02
0.13
0.94
1.16
1.03
1.19
1.06
1.10
1.02
1.02
0.88
1.04
0.20
1.00
0.97
1.00
1.06
0.97
1.00
1.00
0.97
0.92
0.99
0.08
1.02
0.03
(Continued)
90
-------
TABLE A-3 (continued)
Year
1976
1977
1978
Month
May
June
July
Augus t
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Mean
Std. Dev.
March
April
May
June
July
August
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Mean
Std. Dev.
March
April
May
June
July
August
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Mean
Std. Dev.
Annual Mean
Std. Dev,
Ratio
Cu
0.25
0.37
0.75
0.52
0.75
1.39
0.63
0.65
0.64
0.15
0.11
0.27
0.31
0.56
0.86
0.57
0.86
0.58
0.47
0.56
1.18
0.54
1.00
0.67
5.43
1.33
1.29
1.29
0.67
1.49
3.02
0.87
0.54
of concentrations
Zn
1.4
2.4
0.6
3.5
2.0
1.0
2.0
1.8
1.0
2.2
2.2
1.3
1.7
2.4
1.0
1.2
1.0
-
1.6
0.6
0.4
2.2
0.8
2.3
0.1
0.8
1.0
0.8
1.2
1.1
0.7
1.5
0.4
COD
0.95
0.67
0.80
0.68
1.05
0.85
1.05
0.86
0.16
1.10
1.00
0.72
1.11
1.00
0.87
0.94
0.67
0.93
0.93
0.15
0.81
0.86
1.12
1.00
0.71
1.00
0.81
0.82
1.00
0.90
0.13
0.90
0.04
in CUD to that in lagoon
TOG
0.83
0.92
1.00
0.71
1.12
1.25
1.19
1.00
0.20
1.25
1.00
0.62
1.14
1.09
0.92
1.00
1.00
1.33
1.04
0.20
0.83
1.00
0.83
1.00
0.73
0.91
0.86
1.00
0.80
0.88
0.10
0.97
0.08
OP
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
-
1.04
1.04
1.23
0.95
1.01
1.11
0.76
0.44
0.64
0.91
0.25
_
0.94
0.91
0.68
U.79
0.80
0.60
0.84
0.75
0.79
0.11
0.85
0.08
NH3-N
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
-
.89
.95
.92
.78
.76
.69
.83
.79
.80
.82
.08
.95
.87
.86
.81
.73
.83
.75
.76
.94
.83
.08
.82
.01
* Ratios calculated from concentration values in Tables A-l and A-2.
91
-------
TABLE A-4. MONTHLY IRRIGATION AMOUNTS
Year
1975§
1976
1977
Month
April
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Total
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Total
March
April
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Total
*
n
3
5
4
4
5
4
6
2
33
4
4
5
4
4
5
2
28
5
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
2
35
Tmt. 1
1.56
2.60
2.08
2.08
2.60
2.36
4.96
1.82
20.06
2.56
1.23
1.38
0.63
1.43
1.74
1.23
10.20
1.81
1.44
0.98
0.49
1.73
2.12
2.18
2.33
0.64
13.72
Irrigation
Tmt. 4
1.56
2.60
2.08
2.08
2.60
2.36
4.96
1.82
20.06
2.92
2.15
1.62
0.79
1.83
2.53
1.39
13.23
1.75
1.20
1.35
0.88
2.42
2.26
2.38
2.60
0.97
15.81
amo un t , cm
Tmt. 6
1.56
2.60
2.08
2.08
2.60
2.36
4.96
1.82
20.06
2.61
1.45
1.91
1.25
1.60
2.59
1.51
12.92
1.82
1.50
1.70
1.67
3.13
2.32
2.23
2.00
0.87
17.24
Tmt. 7
2.52
4.20
3.36
3.36
4.20
5.08
19.32
7.96
50.00
4.53
5.54
2.14
1.70
2.44
3.86
2.44
22.65
3.10
2.23
2.70
3.25
5.07
5.23
4.87
3.07
2.3b
31.88
(continued)
92
-------
TABLE A-4 (continued)
Year
Month
n
Tmt. 1
Irrigation amount, cm
Tmt. 4
Tmt. 6
Tmt. 7
1978
March
April
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Total
3
4
4
5
4
4
5
5
2
36
2.62
2.52
,58
,22
,24
,31
81
63
,85
24.78
2.27
2.81
2.75
2.87
1.99
3.58
.60
74
,77
3.
3.
1.
25.38
1.
1.
2.
2.
1.
3,
1.
5.
2.
64
87
29
55
60
03
77
86
54
23.15
,80
.31
.96
.06
.47
.08
6.53
6.78
2.47
46.46
3.
4.
4,
6
4,
7.
* n is number of irrigation events.
§ In 1975, usually only 2 plots chosen at random had collection cups.
Thus, the amounts on treatments 1, 4, and 6 were estimated from mean
volumes from 1 or 2 of these plots per irrigation event normally and
assuming equal distribution on all 3 plots. The amount on treatment
7 was estimated from only the events which had collection cups on this
plot and multiplying average volume by number of irrigations within a
period. For 1976, 1977 and 1978 each plot had collection cups (4 per
plot).
93
-------
APPENDIX B
CROP RESPONSE RESULTS
FOR EACH YEAR
94
-------
T.AS.r.E 3-1. YIARLY DRY MATTER. N AND KO.-S YIELDS
j
Land slose
Item
(Treatnent number)
Dry matter yield:
1974
1975
1976
1977
197S
Mean
4-yr'" Mean
Total nitrogen:
1974
1975
1976
1977
197S
Mean
i-vr Mean
Nitrate nitrogen:
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
Mean
4-yr Mean
Lagoon
effluent
(672 kg
S/ha)
(i)
3,995
10.095
13,411
9.171
10.342
9,503
10,880
121
301
452
335
379
317
366
1.81
13.09
16.38
17.22
16.23
12.95
15.73
3-5
"
Ammonium
Manure nitrate
(672 kg (201 kg
S/ha) N/ha)
(2)
1,606
4,903
9.732
6,650
9,044
6,387
7,583
51
164
354
279
317
233
27S
0.17
2.32
8.33
22.07
24.25
11.43
14.24
(3)
1,874
5,802
9,690
4.932
7,328
5,925
6,938
34
131
373
179
226
203
240
0.06
1.33
13.35
2.50
1.35
3.72
4.63
Lagoon
effluent
(672 kg
K/ha) .
(4)
3,700
9,750
12,629
10.068
11,504
9,531
10,987
123
318
463
382
394
336
3S9
0.96
12.76
23.04
20.82
14.39
14.50
17.87
.tar.oriium
nitrate.
(201 k?
M/ha)
(5)
3,167
9.090
11,447
6.531
8.102
7,667
8,792
SS
262
411
237
227
245
285
0.58
4.57
13.63
6.94
2.24
5.59
6.85
3-103
Lagoon
effluent
(672 kg
N/ha)
(6)
4,222
10,546
14,351
9.294
12.507
10,184
11.674
124
305
490
357
415
333
391
1.41
13.10
19.58
23.20
14.15
14.29
17.50
Lagoon
effluent
(1345 kg
N/ha)
(7)
5,105
13,792
16,456
7,958
11,772
11,017
12,495
167
425
577
314
416
330
432
8.49
23.08
42.73
22.42
40.09
28.36
33.33
Mean
3. 381
9,140
12,530
7,300
10,157
3,602
9,907
104
279
446
29S
339
293
341
1.93
10.76
19.58
16.45
16.17
12.98
15.73
* 4 yrs = 1975, 1976, 1977 and 1978 (1974 started in August).
95
-------
TABLE 3-2.
YEARLY IVDMD, M AND NO -N CONCENTRATIONS IN FORAGE
Land slope
3-5%
Item
(Treatment number)
Lagoon
effluent
(672 kg
N/ha)
(1)
Ammonium
Manure nitrate
(672 kg (.201 kg
N/ha) N/ha)
(2)
(30
Dry matter disappearance:
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
Mean
4-yr* Mean
Total nitrogen:
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
Mean
4-yr Mean
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
Mean
4-yr Mean
61.
60.
68.
66.
70.
65.
66.
3.
2.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
454
1,297
1,222
1,879
1,497
1,270
1,474
3
0
5
3
0
2
2
03
99
36
65
49
31
37
62.
64.
68.
70.
70.
67.
68.
3.
3.
3.
4.
3.
3.
3.
104
473
856
3,321
2,682
1,487
1,833
0
5
9
7
0
2
5
19
33
64
20
50
51
67
1
59.5
61.6
67.7
69.6
68.3
65.3
66.8
2.88
3.13
3.85
3.63
3.09
3.31
3.43
32
230
,377
507
185
466
575
Lagoon
effluent
(672 kg
N/ha
(4)
66.4
64.0
71.7
69.5
71.4
68.6
69.2
3.33
3.27
3.66
3.80
3.43
3.50
3.54
ppm
260
1,309
1,825
2,068
1,294
1,351
1,624
Ammonium
nitrate
(201 kg
N/ha)
(5)
59.4
61.6
67.5
70.4
70.4
65.9
67.5
2.31
2.89
3.59
3.64
2.31
3.15
3.23
185
503
1,190
1,062
277
643
758
8-10%
Lagoon
effluent
(672 kg
N/ha)
(6)
59.9
60.8
69.3
67.8
70.2
65.6
67.0
2.95
2.89
3.41
3.85
3.31
3.28
3.37
334
1,242
1,364
2,496
1,131
1,313
1,558
Lagoon
effluent
(1345 kg
N/ha) Mean
(7)
61.
59.
70.
70.
67.
65.
67.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
1,665
2,037
2,596
2,817
3,406
2,504
2,714
1
3
7
5
5
8
0
26
08
51
94
53
47
52
1
1
2
1
1
1
61.4
61.7
69.2
69.3
69.7
66.3
67.5
3.07
3.08
3.57
3.32
3.31
3.37
3.45
433
,013
,490
,.021
,496
.291
,505
yrs » 1975, 1976, 1977 and 1978 (1974 started in August).
96
-------
TABLE B-3. YEARLY P, K, CA, MG, ANC CL COHCSyiKATIOMS IN FOK^GE
Land slope
3-5%
Item
(Treatment number)
Phosphorus:
4-yr*
Potassium:
4-yr
Calcium:
4-yr
Magnesium:
4-yr
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
Mean
Mean
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
Mean
Mean
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
Mean
Mean
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
Mean
Mean
Lagoon
effluent
C672 kg
N/ha)
(1)
0.42t
0.35
0.36
0.39
0.41
0.39
0.38
3.12
3.31
3.34
3.87
3.92
3.51
3.61
0.38
0.43
0.31
0.33
0.29
0.35
0.34
0.31
0.32
0.30
0.29
0.33
0.31
0.31
Ammonium
Manure nitrate
(672 kg (.201 kg
N/ha). N/.hal
C2)
0.45
0.37
0.39
0.48
0.36
0.41
0.40
2.53
2.80
3.10
3.70
3.72
3.17
3.33
0.62
0.49
0.34
0.46
0.42
0.46
0.43
0.34
0.30
0.29
0.33
0.41
0.33
0.33
(3)
0.40
0.29
0.32
0.32
0.35
0.34
0.32
2.24
2.71
3.40
2.79
2.63
2.75
2.88
0.56
0.49
0.43
0.43
0.37
0.45
0.43
0.36
0.34
0.36
0.36
0.33
0.35
0.35
Lagoon
effluent
(.672 kg
N/ha)
(4)
, «
0.46
0.38
0.38
0.39
0.41
0.40
0.39
3.31
3.32
3.63
3.96
3.98
3.64
3.72
0.39
0.40
0.31
0.33
0.30
0.35
0.34
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.34
0.31
0.32
Ammonium
nitrate
(201 kg
N/ha ).
(5)
0.41
0.31
0.36
0.35
0.40
0.37
0.36
2.61
2.50
2.87
2.92
2.59
2.70
2.72
0.40
0.43
0.39
0.37
0.38
0.39
0.39
0.32
0.33
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.34
0.35
8-10%
Lagoon
effluent
(762 kg
N/ha)
(6)
0.43
0.38
0.41
0.40
0.43
0.41
0.41
3.04
3.27
3.83
3.94
4.27
3.67
3.32
0.37
0.36
0.30
0.32
0.30
0.33
0.32
0.31
0.30
0.31
0.31
0.32
0.31
0.31
Lagoon
effluent
(1345 kg
N/ha)
(7)
0.42
0.37
0.42
0.43
0.47
0.42
0.42
3.77
3.43
4.16
4.31
4.81
4.09
4.18
0.37
0.36
0.33
0.33
0.41
0.36
0.36
0.31
0.30
0.32
0.29
0.39
0.32
0.33
Mean
0.43
0.35
0.38
0.39
0.41
0.39
0.38
2.95
3.05
3.47
3.64
3.70
3.36
3.47
0.44
0.42
0.34
0.37
0.35
0.38
0.37
0.32
0.31
0.32
0.32
0.35
0.32
0.33
(Continued)
97
-------
TABLE 3-3 (continued)
Land slope
3-5%
Item
(Treatment
Chloride:
4-yr
number)
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
Mean
Mean
Lagoon
effluent
(672 kg
N/ha
(1)
1.61
1.20
1.55
1.66
1.46
1.49
1.47
Manure
(672 kg
N/ha)
(2)
0.96
1.03
1.28
1.04
1.21
1.10
1.14
Ammonium
nitrate
(201 kg
N/ha)
(3)
0.91
0.89
1.19
1.16
1.30
1.09
1.14
Lagoon
effluent
(672 kg
N/ha
(4)
1.40
1.38
1.53
1.73
1.54
1.51
1.55
Ammonium
nitrate
(201 kg
N/ha)
(5)
1.03
0.74
1.06
1.01
1.07
1.23
0.97
8-10%
Lagoon
effluent
(762 kg
N/ha)
(6)
1.32
1.31
1.48
1.53
1.45
1.42
1.44
Lagoon
effluent
(1345 kg
N/ha)
(7)
1.72
1.08
1.31
1.57
1.47
1.43
1.36
Mean
1.28
1.09
1.34
1.39
-1. 36
1.29
1.30
* 4-yrs - 1975, 1976, 1977 and 197S (1974 started.in August).
Values are averages weighted for individual dry matter yields at each harvest.
98
-------
TABLE B-4. YEARLY MM, CU, ZS. FE AND NA COKCESTStATIOSS IN FORAGE
Land slope
3-5*
Item
(Treatment
Manganese :
4-yr*
Copper:
4-yr
Zinc:
4-yr
Iron:
4-yr
number)
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
Mean
Mean
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
Mean
Mean
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
Mean
Mean
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
Mean
Mean
Lagoon
effluent
(672 kg
N/ha)
(1)
43f
44
33
42
31
39
38
8
9
8
10
9
9
9
35
38
36
42
45
39
40
1,163
1,028
866
950
337
869
795
Manure
(672 kg
N/ha)
(2)
55
49
52
95
106
71
76
11
9
9
13
11
11
11
56
49
57
98
87
69
73
1,360
932
638
1,185
860
995
904
Ammonium
nitrate
(.201 kg
N/ha)
(3)
45
31
34
36
37
37
35
9
8
9
9
7
8
8
43
40
39
49
36
41
41
1,413
466
575
1,377
309
328
682
Lagoon
effluent
(.672 kg
N/ha)
W
45
55
43
41
41
45
45
3
3
7
8
7
8
8
39
38
37
43
45
40
41
755
655
420
539
288
531
476
Ammonium
nitrate
(201 kg
N/ha)
(5)
70
81
116
111
151
106
115
10
8
7
3
7
3
8
43
41
42
47
56
46
47
1,816
870
678
580
396
338
631
8-10%
Lagoon
effluent
(672 kg
N/ha)
(6)
68
62
47
56
50
57
54
9
7.
7
7
7
7
7
43
41
40
44
46
43
43
1,168
676
417
549
360
634
501
Lagoon
effluent
(1345 kg
N/ha)
(7)
56
50
73
75
62
63
65
9
6
3
7
7
7
7
52
41
51
52
61
51
51
1,812
859
744
429
300
829
583
Mean
54
53
57
65
68.
59
61
9
8
8
9
9
~9
9
47
41
43
53
5A
48
48
1,355
784
620
801
407
793
653
(continued)
99
-------
TA3LE 3-4 (contimied )
Land slope
3-5Z
Item
(Treatment
Sodium:
4-yr
number)
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
Mean
Mean
Lagoon
effluent
(672 kg
N/ha)
(1)
686
733
1,070
1.549
1.2JL9
1,072
1,168
Ammonium
Manure
(672 kg
N/ha)
(2)
624
335
482
1,215
768
685
700
nitrate
(201 kg
N/ha)
(3)
100
147
410
593
561
362
428
Lagoon
Ammonium
effluent nitrate
(672 kg
N/ha)
(4)
?1
705
738
1,143
1.628
1.141
1,071
1,163
(201 kg
N/ha)
(5)
PDJ
117
264
523
1,000
734
527
630
8-10Z
Lagoon
effluent
(672 kg
S/ha)
(6)
643
862
1,183
1,715
1.315
1,144
1,269
Lagoon
effluent
(1345 kg
N/ha)
(7)
1,111
1,131
1,716
2.054
1.841
1,571
1,686
Mean
569
601
933
1,408
it08!
919
1,006
* 4 yrs - 1975, 1976, 1977 and 1978 (1974 (1974 started in August)
7 Values are averages weighted for individual dry matter yields at each harvest.
100
-------
TABLE B-5. YEARLY QUANTITIES OF P', K, CA, MG, AND CL REMOVED IN THE FORAGE
Land slope
3-5Z
Iceo
(Treatment number)
4-yr*
Potassium:
4-yr
Calcium:
i-yr
Magnesium:
4-yr
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
Mean
Mean
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
Mean
Mean
1974
1975
1976
1977
1973
Mean
Mean
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
Mean
Mean
Lagoon
effluent
C672 kg
N/ha)
(1)
16.3
35.7
48.3
36.1
44.3
36.2
41.1
124.6
333.9
447.6
354.9
425.8
337.3
390.5
15.2
42.9
41.7
30.6
31.8
32.5
36.7
12.3
32.0
40.6
26.3
35.3
29.5
33.6
Manure
(672 kg
N/ha)
(2)
7.2
18.1
38.4
31.7
32.6
. 25.7
30.2
40.7
137.5
301.8
246.0
336.2
212.3
255.4
10.0
24.1
32.7
30.4
37.5
26.9
31.1
5.5
14.8
28.3
22.1
36.6
21.4
25.4
Ammonium
nitrate
(201 kg
N/ha)
(3)
7.5
17.1
31.4
15.8
25.9
19.5
22.5
42.0
157.5
329.2
137.7
192.4
171.8
204.2
10.5
28.1
41.2
21.1
27.2
25.7
29.3
6.7
19.9
34.8
17.6
24.3
20.7
24.2
Lagoon
effluent
(672 k«
N/ha)
Ammonium
nitrate
(201 kg
N/ha)
(4) (5)
17.0 13.0
36.7
47.6
39.8
47.3
37.6
42.8
122.5
323.5
458.8
398.9
458.2
352.4
409.8
14.3
39.1
38.9
33.7
34.6
32,2
36.5
11.4
30.0
38.7
31.4
38.8
30.0
34.7
28.5
40.7
23.0
32.5
27.6
31.1
82.7
227.1
327.9
190.6
210.1
207.6
238.9
12.7
38.7
44.7
24.5
31.0
30.2
34.7
10.1
30.4
40.7
22.9
28.2
26.4
30.5
8-10Z
Lagoon
effluent
(672 kg
N/ha)
(6)
17.9
40.2
58.1
36.7
53.8
41.3
47.2
128.3
344.2
549.1
366.5
523.4
384.4
445.8
15.5
38.3
42.5
29.7
37.3
32.6
37.0
13.2
31.9
44.1
28.8
39.4
31.5
36.1
Lagoon
effluent
(1345 kg
N/ha) Mean
(7)
21.4
50.6
68.7
34.2
54.9
45.9
52.1
192.5
473.2
684.1
342.8
565.8
451.7
516.5
19.0
49.7
55.1
26.1
43.3
39.7
44.3
16.0
41,3
53.1
22.7
45.8
35.8
. 40.8
14.4
32.4
47.6
31.0
41.6
33.4
38.1
104.8
285.3
442.6
291.0
388.3
302.5
352.0
13.9
37.3
42.3
28.0
35.4
31.4
35.7
10.7
28.6
40.0
24.5
35.5
27.9
32.2
(Continued)
101
-------
TABLE 3-5 (continued)
Land slooe
3-5%
Item
(Treatment number)
Chloride:
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
Mean
4-yr Mean
Lagoon
effluent
(672 kg
N/ha)
(I)
64.2
120.7
208.3
151.9
158.7
140.7
159.9
Ammonium
Manure nitrate
(672 kg (201 kg
N/ha) N/ha
(2)
15.5
50.3
124.9
69.0
109.4
73.8
38.4
(3)
16.9
51.8
115.3
57.3
95.6
67.3
30.0
Lagoon
effluent
(672 kg
N/ha)
Ammonium
nitrate
(201 kg
N/ha)
(4) (5)
51.8 32.8
134.5 67.0
193.1 121.1
173.9 66.0
177.5 86.6
146.1
169.8
74.7
85,2
8-10%
Lagoon
effluent'
(672 kg
N/ha)
(6)
55.7
137.9
212.1
142.4
180.7
145.8
168.3
Lagoon
effluent
(1345 kg
N/ha) Mean
(7)
87.6
149.1
215.1
124.7
172.9
149.9
165.5
46.4
101.6
170.0
112.2
14Q.2
114.1
131.0
* 4 yrs - 1975, 1976, 1977 and 1978 (1974 started in August)
102
-------
TABLE B-6. YEARLY QUANTITIES OF MN. CU. ZN, FE AND HA. REMOVED IN THE FORAGE
Land slope
3-5%
Item
(Treatment
Maganese:
number)
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
Mean
4-yr* Mean
Copper:
4-yr
Zinc:
4-yr
Iron
4-yr
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
Mean
Mean
1974
1975
1976
1977
19TS
Mean
Mean
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
Mean
Mean
Lagoon
effluent
(672 kg
S/ha)
(1)
0.17
0.45
0.44
0.38
0.34
0.36
0.40
0.03
0.09
0.10
0.09
0.09
0.08
0.09
0.14
0.38
0.49
0.39
0.49
0.37
O.i4
4.65
10.38
11.62
8.71
3.65
7.80
8.58
Ammonium
Manure nitrate
(672 kg (201 kg
N/ha) N/ha)
(2)
0.09
0.25
0.50
0.63
0.96
0.48
0.58
0.02
0.04
0.09
0.09
0.10
0.07
0.08
0.09
0.23
0.56
0.65
0.78
0.46
0.56
2.18
4.57
6.21
7.88
7.78
5.73
6.61
(3)
O'.OS
0.18
0.34
0.18
0.27
0.21
0.23
0.01
0.04
0.08
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.23
0.37
0.23
0.27
0.23
0.28
2.64
2.70
5.57
6.79
2.26
4.00
4.32
Lagoon Ammonium
effluent nitrate
(672 kg (201 kg
N/ha) N/ha)
(4)
0.17
0.54
0.55
0.41
0.47
0.42
0.49
0.03
0.08
0.09
0.08
0.09
0.07
0.08
0.14
0.37
0.47
0.42
0.53
0.39
0.45
2.79
6.39
5.30
5.42
3.30
4.64
5.10
(5)
0.22
0.74
1.33
0.73
1.22
0.84
1.01
0.03
0.07
0.09
0.04
0.06
0.06
0.07
0.13
0.37
0.48
0.30
0.46
0.35
0.40
5.75
7.91
7.76
3.79
3.20
5.68
5.67
8-103
Lagoon
effluent
(672 kg
N/ha)
(6)
0.28
0.66
0.67
0.53
0.63
0.55
0.62
0.03
0.08
0.10
0.07
0.09
0.08
0.08
0.18
0.44
0.57
0.41
0.57
0.44
0.49
4.93
7.13
5.97
5.10
4.50
5.52
5.67
Lagoon
effluent
(1345 kg
N/ha)
(7)
0.28
0.69
1.20
0.59
0.73
0.69
0.81
0.04
0.09
0.12
0.06
0.09
0.08
0.09'
0.27
0.57
0.34
0.41
0.72
0.56
0.64
9.24
11.84
12.24
3.42
3.53
8.06
7.75
Mean
0.19
0.50
0.72
0.49
O.S6
0.51
0.59
0.03
0.07
0.10
0.07
0.08
0.07
0.08
0.14
0.37
0.54
0.40
0.55
0.40
0.46
4.60
7.27
7.31
5.87
4.03
5.92
6.24
(Continued)
103
-------
TABLE B-6 (continued)
Land slope
3-5%
Lagoon
effluent
(672 kg
Item N/ha)
(Treatment number)
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
Mean
4-yr Mean
(1)
2.74
7.39
14.35
15.13
13.21
10.57
12.52
Manure
(672 kg
S/ha)
(2)
1.00
1.65
4.63
8.08
6.95
4.47
5.33
Ammonium
nitrate
(201 kg
N/ha)
(3)
0.19
0.85
3.98
2.92
4.11
2.41
2.97
Lagoon
effluent
(672 kg
N/ha)
Ammonium
nitrate
(201 kg
N/ha
(4) (5)
2.61 0.37
7.19 2.40
14.44 5.97
16.39 6.53
13.12 5.95
10.75
12.79
4.25
5.21
8-10% '
Lagoon
effluent
(672 kg
N/ha)
(6)
2.71
9.09
16.99
15.95
16.45
12.24
14.61
Lagoon
effluent
(1345 kg
N/ha) Mean
(7)
5.67
15.59
28.25
16.35
21.68
17.50
20.46
2.18
6.31
12.66
11.62
11.64
8.88
10.56
* 4 yrs = 1975, 1976, 1977 and 1978 (1974 started in August).
104
-------
APPENDIX C
TABLES OF
SOIL CORE RESULTS
FOR EACH SAMPLING
105
-------
TABLE C-1. EFFECT OF TREATMENTS ON SOIL f!0,-H
Effluent
Rate Fertilizer
Date
Dec. '75
Feb. '76
Feb. '77
Mar. '78
Dec. '78
Depth
cm
0-15
15-30
30-45
45-60
60-75
75-90
90-105
105-120
0-15
15-30
30-45
45-60
60-75
75-90
90-105
105-120
0-15
15-30
30-45
45-60
60-75
75-90
90-105
105-120
0-15
15-30
30-45
45-60
60-75
75-90
90-105
105-120
0-15
15-30
30-45
45-60
60-75
75-90
90-105
105-120
120-135
135-150
150-165
165-180
180-195
195-210
Manure
6
8
6
3
1
2
2
2
4
3
4
3
3
3
3
3
35
20
22
5
3
3
3
3
29
40
35
22
1
6
5
5
35
51
41
27
11
3
9
9
8
7
6
7
7
6
Low
9
11
11
6
3
2
2
1
7
6
7
6
4
3
3
3
7
3
3
4
4
3
3
3
9
7
9
23
17
11
6
3
12
14
17
15
13
12
9
6
4
3
4
3
3
3
High
20
38
44
17
6
8
4
2
12
18
34
26
8
6
4
13
21
27
35
27
13
4
1
10
12
40
65
73
56
34
27
17
36
60
54
45
32
25
17
10
9
7
7
6
6
N
4
3
2
1
1
1
1
1
4
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
5
2
4
6
4
2
2
2
4
3
2
3
3
5
5
12
4
3
2
2
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
1
3
Control
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
6
4
3
2
2
2
2
2
6
4
2
1
1
1
1
2
3
7
2
2
1
1
2
2
9
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
106
-------
TABLE C-2. EFFECT OF TREATMENTS ON DILUTE ACID EXTRACTABLE SOIL P
Date
Dec. '75
Feb. '76
Feb. '77
Mar. '78
Dec. '78
Depth
cm
0-15
15-30
30-45
45-60.
0-15
15-30
30-45
45-60
0-15
15-30
30-45
45-60
0-15
15-30
30-45
45-60
0-15
15-30
30-45
45-60
Manure
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
1
0
0
0
14
3
1
1
13
2
1
1
Effl
Ra
Low
5
4
3
1
7
4
3
1
15
2
1
0
30
2
1
1
35
3
1
1
uent
te
High
pp
6
8
6
1
7
8
8
1
34
2
1
0
98
11
1
1
74
10
1
1
Ferti 1 i zer
N
6
3
, 2
1
1
3
3
1
4
1
0
0
13
4
1
0
10
1
1
1
Control
5
1
8
2
3
8
3
1
5
5
0
0
3
7
1
1
5
2
0
0
107
-------
TABLE C 3. EFFECT OF TREATMENTS ON DILUTE ACID EXTRACTABLE SOIL K
Effluent
Rate Fertilizer
Date
Dec. '75
Feb. '76
Feb. '77
Mar. '78
Dec. '78
Depth
cm
0-15
15-30
30-45
45-60
60-75
75-90
90-105
105-120
0-15
15-30
30-45
45-60
60-75
75-90
90-105
105-120
0-15
15-30
30-45
45-60
60-75
75-90
90-105
105-120
0-15
15-30
30-45
45-60
60-75
75-90
90-105
105-120
0-15
15-30
30-45
45-60
60-75
75-90
90-105
105-120
120-135
135-150
150-165
165-180
180-195
195-210
Manure
80
76
76
72
53
41
35
28
88
59
69
52
42
33
27
26
88
52
72
52
40
32
28
24
130
68
80
108
64
30
22
20
109
34
40
44
44
40
34
32
28
28
23
23
23
28
Low
205
147
108
34
32
29
27
24
163
100
84
31
27
25
26
22
274
120
72
37
29
25
23
21
393
287
104
52
63
"22
21
18
356
306
164
66
43
34
26
23
23
19
20
21
19
18
High
ppm
317
264
187
35
41
32
28
25
288
240
166
35
33
29
24
-
308
288
160
52
32
28
24
28
462
534
412
260
112
48
28
24
468
536
432 '
152
75
57
37
28
23
20
23
23
23
25
N
66
52
54
38
47
44
38
40
40
40
44
39
44
40
38
37
30
24
28
30
42
38
34
32
57
35
50
31
26
28
30
34
43
27
24
24
31
28
31
30
30
29
27
26
27
25
Control
63
61
46
26
22
22
25
28
61
46
44
21
20
19
23
22
84
76
68
40
32
32
28
82
68
98
40
28
24
30
30
89
80
50
34
25
25
' 28
25
23
23
23
23
25
25
108
-------
TABLE C-4. EFFECT OF TREATMENTS ON DILUTE ACID EXTRACTABLE SOIL CA
Effluent
Rate Fertilizer
Date
Dec. '75
Feb. '76
Feb. '77
Mar. '78
Dec. '78
Depth
cm
0-15
15-30
30-45
45-60
60-75
75-90
90-105
105-120
0-15
15-30
30-45
45-60
60-75
75-90
90-105
105-120
0-15
15-30
30-45
45-60
60-75
75-90
90-105
105-120
0-15
15-30
30-45
45-60
60-75
75-90
90-105
105-120
0-15
15-30
30-45
45-60
60-75
75-90
90-105
105-120
120-135
135-150
150-165
165-180
180-195
195-210
Manure
926
535
306
103
44
21
23
14
586
442
364
38
38
34
20
52
536
328
328
68
24
16
16
8
736
472
268
94
52
36
28
20
788
472
320
140
72
64
48
48
40
48
32
44
28
32
Low
550
556
519
233
85
41
35
37
558
576
583
148
52
30
23
13
608
468
468
300
116
48
32
32
554
489
506
351
152
62
37
23
581
478
480
324
173
86
65
32
25
24
20
15
20
20
High
398
373
433
220
85
71
54
30
540
476
560
184
44
24
10
468
428
368
312
144
40
3
8
668
698
462
410
586
344
174
66
540
428
444
376
176
64
96
52
32
20
24
24
4
8
N
722
531
492
232
41
36
56
83
733
561
548
163
106
44
32
18
644
492
412
212
108
50
36
40
685
499
400
120
217
125
63
37
560
470
382
266
154
80
58
44
30
24
24
36
24
28
Control
504
548
476
353
147
51
36
25
526
430
414
254
118
44
18
16
496
280
420
380
280
152
112
4C
464
294
376
292
198
86
30
26
536
416
420
176
56
12
4
12
4
12
24
24
12
16
109
-------
TABLE C-5. EFFECT OF TREATT-1ENTS ON DILUTE ACID EXTRACTA8LE SOIL MG
Effluent
Rate Fertilizer
Date
Dec. '75
Feb. '76
Feb. '77
Mar. 78
Dec. '78
Depth
cm
0-15
15-30
30-45
45-60
60-75
75-90
90-105
105-120
0-15
15-30
30-45
45-60
60-75
75-90
90-105
105-120
0-15
15-30
30-45
45-60
60-75
75-90
90-105
105-120
0-15
15-30
30-45
45-60
60-75
75-90
90-105
105-120
0-15
15-30
30-45
45-60
60-75
75-90
90-105
105-120
120-135
135-150
150-165
165-130
180-195
195-210
Manure
418
275
212
98
68
45
33
28
254
252
220
90
70
52
42
38
244
216
192
80
40
32
28
24
254
248
228
116
60
40
32
28
244
212
180
124
6 P.
52
44
44
36
36
32
28
32
Low
162
200
200
145
81
43
38
28
15:
198
209
114
69
42
38
23
172
176
188
152
84
44
32
28
122
164
184
171
93
51
28
16
134
149
165
144
103
61
47
29
23
21
19
20
20
26
High
ppm
98
126
155
109
64
60
41
27
138
150
186
102
50
32
18
104
144
128
124
80
32
12
12
128
118
146
226
146
36
54
44
120
104
136
148
84
56
52
44
52
72
30
84
88
88
N
229
209
207
150
52
54
71
68
238
201
220
111
99
50
41
37
200
200
212
150
92
52
36
30
191
177
168
90
104
75
50
32
136
158
158
138
90
58
48
53
28
24
22
26
36
46
Control
148
168
190
170
101
46
38
27
124
158
174
142
88
44
28
26
96
64
168
176
164
108
84
40
no
74
142
142
108
56
18
12
108
124
160
96
' 48
24
12
8
8
&
12
12
16
20
110
-------
TASLE C-5. EFFECT OF TREATMENTS ON DILUTE ACID EXTRACTABLE SOIL NA
Effluent
Rate
Date
Dec. '75
Feb. '76
Feb. '77
Mar. '78
Dec. '78
Depth
cm
0-15
15-30
30-45
45-60
60-75
75-90
90-105
105-120
0-15
15-30
30-45
45-60
60-75
75-90
90-105
105-120
0-15
15-30
30-45
45-60
60-75
75-90
90-105
105-120
0-15
15-30
30-45
45-60
60-75
75-90
90-105
105-120
0-15
15-30
30-45
45-60
60-75
75-90
90-105
105-120
120-135
135-150
150-165
165-180
130-195
195-210
Manure
27
24
30
26
24
23
20
16
36
36
37
35
33
29
26
24
32
36
36
32
24
20
16
12
38
47
51
52
55
53
42
42
46
41
36
32
43
36
34
32
32
30
28
28
28
30
Low
48
54
51
35
32
28
25
19
44
53
56
47
39
35
32
27
49
57
63
57
44
33
28
24
33
46
58
63
63
50
40
28
43
72
91
98
101
82
64
47
36
39
34
29
27
27
High
54
66
76
57
47
38
24
15
46
64
78
74
54
42
32
~
32
64
68
92
80
48
24
12
34
49
62
112
87
76
65
51
38
77
130
139
135
135
in
62
41
41
34
34
32
34
Fertilizer
N
11
12
14
15
24
18
19
19
17
18
21
31
29
28
24
22
12
12
14
18
26
24
20
18
24
23
23
34
40
39
37
36
10
26
11
14
32
31
31
29
26
22
22
22
21
21
Control
8
n
20
17
18
14
16
16
14
15
20
28
24
21
20
20
8
4
8
12
16
16
16
12
25
18
21
28
38
36
32
35
6
8
16
20
38
32
30
28
26
24
20
24
22
24
111
-------
TABLE C-7. EFFECT OF TREATMENTS ON DILUTE ACID EXTRACTABLE SOIL CU
Effluent
Rate Fertilizer
Date
Dec. '75
Feb. '76
Feb. '77
Mar. '78
Dec. '78
Depth
cm
0-15
15-30
30-45
45-60
60-75
75-90
90-105
105-120
0-15
15-30
30-45
45-60
60-75
75-90
90-105
105-120
0-15
15-30
30-45
45-60
60-75
75-90
90-105
105-120
0-15
15-30
30-45
45-60
60-75
75-90
90-105
105-120
0-15
15-30
30-45
45-60
60-75
75-90
90-105
105-120
Manure
0.76
0.64
0.44
0.52
0.68
0.34
0.88
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.64
0.76
0.88
0.96
1.20
1.32
1.0
0.48
0.56
0.56
0.48
0.64
0.92
0.92
0.64
0.60
0.52
0.56
0.60
0.72
0.76
0.96
0.8
0.6
0.56
0.6
0.6
0.76
0.84
0.96
Low
0.42
0.45
0.36
0.35
0.49
0.53
0.53
0.61
0.53
0.56
0.52
0.59
0.65
0.71
0.74
0.73
0.45
0.53
0.53
0.45
0.42
0.47
0.57
0.63
0.36
0.48
0.41
0.38
0.40
0.44
0.45
0.52
0.36
0.42
0.42
0.47
0.40
0.47
0.53
0.52
High
0.28 "
0.48
0.44
0.36
0.44
0.44
0.36
0.44
0.40
0.60
0.56
0.48
0.56
0.52
0.44
0.40
0.52
0.64
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.32
0.40
0.32
0.44
0.48
0.56
0.48
0.36
0.36
0.48
0.36
0.56
0.64
0.56
0.48
0.56
0.80
0.92
N
0.32
0.36
0.40
0.40
0.62
0.48
0.48
0.40
0.52
0.60
0.56
0.62
0.66
0.68
0.70
0.72
0.48
0.46
0.54
0.46
0.50
0.58
0.52
0.52
0.32
0.40
0.40
0.48
0.58
0.62
0.54
0.52
0.36
0.44
0.44
0.48
0.52
0.46
0.56
0.64
Control
0.20
0.28
0.36
0.44
0.40
0.48
0.48
0.72
0.28
0.44
0.48
0.44
0.44
0.36
0.40
0.48
0.32
0.40
0.60
0.28
0.36
0.36
0.44
0.43
0.23
0.36
0.48
0.28
0.32
0.28
0.24
0.24
0.28
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.52
0.48
112
-------
TAP-IE C-8. EFFECT OF TREATMENTS ON DILUTE ACID EXTRACTA2LE SOIL ZN
Effluent
Rate Fertilizer
Date
Dec. 75
Feb. '76
Feb. '77
Mar. '78
Dec. '78
Depth
cm
0-15
15-30
30-45
0-15
15-30
30-45
0-15
15-30
30-45
0-15
15-30
30-45
0-15
15-30
30-45
Manure
12
5
3
3
1
2
8
2
10
10
2
1
6
2
2
Low
5
2
3
4
3
4
5
2
5
6
2
1
7
2
1
High
ppin
6
3
5
10
4
6
14
2
10
8
3
1
6
3
1
N
8
3
6
6
5
3
6
4
2
9
1
1
6 .
1
1
Control
11
4
3
8
3
3
11
3
6
10
2
4
11
2
1
113
-------
TABLE c-9. 'EFFECT OF TREATMENTS ON son DH
Effluent
Rate Fertilizer
Date Depth
on
Dec. '75 0-15
15-30
30-45
45-60
60-75
75-90
90-105
105-120
Feb. '76 0-15
15-30
30-45
45-60
60-75
75-90
90-105
105-120
Feb. '77 0-15
15-30
30-45
45-60
60-75
75-90
90-105
105-120
Mar. '78 0-15
15-30
30-45
45-60
60-75
75-90
90-105
105-120
Dec. '78 0-15
15-30
30-45
45-60
60-75
75-90 '
90-105
105-120
120-135
135-150
150-165
165-180
180-195
195-210
Manure
6.2
5.4
4.8
4.8
4.9
4.9
4.9
4.S
5.8
5.3
5.1
5.0
5.1
5.1
5.0
5.0
5.0
4.9
4.9
4.9
4.9
4.8
4.8
4.9
5.6
5.1
4.7
4.7
4.5
4.8
4.8
4.8
5.8
5.0
4.4
4.2
4.2
4.3
4.2
4.2
4.2
4.2
4.2
4.2
4.3
4.4
Low
6.3
5.9
5.6
4.8
4.9
4.9
4.9
4.9
6.4
6.1
5.6
4.8
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.7
5.6
5.4
5.0
4.9
4.8
4.3
4.9
6.6
6.1
5.3
4.7
4.6
4.7
4.8
4.8
6.4
6.0
5.2
4.6
4.4
4.4
4.5
4.4
4.3
4.4
4.4
4.4
4.4
4.4
High
6.2
6.0
5.8
4.8
4.9
4.8
4.9
4.9
6.4
6.3
5.9
4.7
4.9
4.9
5.0
--
6.2
6.1
5.8
5.0
4.3
4.9
4.8
4.8
6.5
6.7
5.6
4.8
4.5
4.2
4.6
4.6
6.3
5.2
5.5
4.5
4.3
4.4
4.6
4.5
4.5
4.6
4.6
4.6
4.6
4.6
N
6.3
6.2
5.5
4.9
4.8
4.9
4.9
4.9
6.3
6.0
5.4
4.9
4.8
4.8
4.8
4.8
5.3
5.5
5.3
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
4.9
5.6
6.2
5.4
4.6
4.8
4.3
4.7
4.7
5.5
5.4
4.8
4.5
4.4
4.3
4.3
4.3
4.2
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.4
4.5
Control
6.3
6.5
6.2
5.1
4.9
4.8
4.9
4.9
6.3
6.0
5.5
5.0
5.0
4.9
4.8
4.8
5.9
5.9
5.8
5.5
5.1
5.0
4.9
4.8
5.0
5.9
5.7
5.1
5.0
4.S
4.7
4.9
5.4
5.3
4.9
4.4
4.3
4.3
4.4
4.4
4.5
4.3
4.4
4.4
4.4
4.2
114
-------
APPENDIX D
RAINFALL AND RUNOFF DATA
115
-------
TABLE D-l. MONTHLY RAINFALL AND RUNOFF
Year
1975
1976
1977
Month
July
Aug.
Sep.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
@
Total
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sep.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Total
Rainfall,*
cm
31.6
2.4
24.2
4.5
9.4
12.6
9.7
3.4
97.8
7.1
0.8
13.7
12.6
3.5
6.2
9.5
14.5
5.5
11.5
18.6
3.8
107.3
Tmt. 1A
Low irg.
-
-
-
-
-
1.34
1.38
1.56
-
0
0
0.06
0
0
0
0
>2.00
0
>2.42
>2.91
0
>7.39
Tmt. IB
Low irg.
-
-
-
-
-
0.95
>5.15
1.56
-
0
0
0.09
0
0
0
0
>2.00
0
>2.01
>4.42
0
>8.52
Tmt. 2
Manure
3.62
0
0.34
0.04
0
0.76
0.80
0
5.56
0.09
0
0.26
0.25
0.02
0
o*
M
0
0.52
1.11
0
2.25^
Rainfall
Tmt. 3
Fert.
2.28
0
0.36
0.08
0.33
0.43
2.29
0
5.77
0.02
0
0.51
0.07
0
0.02
0
M
0.02
0.05
0.12
0
0.81*
runoff, cm
Tmt. 4
Low irg.
0.07
0
0.14
0
0
0.01
1.40
0
1.62
0
0
0.19
0.12
0
0
0
M
0
0.14
0.01
0
0.46^
Tmt. 5
Fert.
0.58
0
0.56
0.13
0.36
0.40
1.01
0
3.04
0.16
0
0.20
0.30
0.03
0.01
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.70
Tmt. 6
Low irg.
0.89
0
0.06
0.02
2.81
0.19
0.72
0
4.69
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.19
0.24
0
0.43
Tmt . 7
High irg,
6.58
0
0.03
0.66
2.02
0.02
1.26 .
0
1.0.57
0
0
0.22
0.06
0.02
0
0
0
0
0.40
0.32
0
1.02
(continued)
-------
TABLE D-l(continued)
- - " - - - ' ' " ~ ' ~ - - . . . -.. _ r _ - __ . _ '
Year
1977
1978
1979
Month
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sep.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Total
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sep.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Total
Rainfall,'
cm
15.7
5.8
7.9
1.4
3.6
10.3
15.2
13.5
7.7
7.8
26.0
2.9
117.8
10.3
18.6
9.7
9.2
11.2
5.7
3.8
5.6
11.6
8.0
12.6
10.0
116.3
t<
Tmt. 1A
Low irg.
>2.34
0
0
0
0
0
M
>2.00
>2.00
0
>10.0
0
>16.34
>3.01
>2.01
>4.01
IRG
0.21
0
0
0
0.50
>2.46
>4.07
>8.00
>24.27
Rainfall runoff, cm
Tint. IB
Low irg.
7470?)
0
0
0
0
0
M
>2.00
>2.00
0.13
>10.0
0
>18.13
>4.82
>2.10
>4.03
0
T
0
0
T
M
M
M
M
>.10.95
Tmt. 2
Manure
2.42
0.22
0
0
0
M
M
0.03
M
0
M
0
2.67*
2.38
3.42
1.32
0.02
0.21
0.02
0.02
0.05
0.32
0.99
1.89
3.21
»V
Tmt. 3
Fert.
0.81
0.18
0
0
0.01
0
M
0.03
>1.35
0.06
>1.50
0
>3.94
1.98
4.23
1.43
0.13
0.34
0.06
0.02
0.03
0.22
0.90
1.88
4.26
15.48
Tmt. 4
Low irg.
0.05
0
0
0
0
0
M
0.08
0.57
0
>1.50
0
>2.20
1.46
3.96
0.82
IRG
0.04
T
T
T
0.01
0.36
1.18
1.13
8.96*
Tmt. 5
Fert.
0.06
0
0.02
0
0
0
0.08
0.01
0.04
0
>0.33
0
>0.54
.
1.88
1.92
0.21
0.02
0.12
T
0 . 11
0.15
0.05
0.02
0.64
1.11
6.23*
Tmt. 6
Low irg.
0.78
0
0
0
0
0.03
0.02
0.08
0.04
0
>2.21
0
>3.16
1-
1.87
3.4.1.
1.07
IRG
0.02
T
T
0.02
0.04
0.72
1.17
2.86
11.18*
Tmt . 7
HiRh irg.
0.40
0.26
0
0
0
0.01
>1.52
0
0
0
1.77
0
>3.96
.
1.96
3.39"
1.33
IRG
0.19
0.02
TUG
0.05.
1.77
1.47
2.54
5.27
17.99*
(continued)
-------
TABLE D-l (continued)
Rainfall Is total rain for all events, including those without runoff.
§
Volumes with ">" (greater than) indicate that the sample collection container overflowed.
This was possible with Tmt. 1A and Tmt. IB throughout the entire period, and was possible
for the other treatments Nov. 1977 - Feb. 1978.
@
Totals are for the water year March to March except for the first year (1975) when data began
in July for all treatments except 1A and IB which did not have runoff data until December.
*
M indicates that runoff occurred but sampler malfunctioned, resulting in no accurate measure
of runoff volume.
Volume sums which may have been larger due to irrigation-rainfall mixed runoff, estimations
of runoff volumes, or malfunctions in equipment.
Volumes which include events where runoff volume was estimated from volume of sample collected
or from the runoff volumes for the other plots.
oo
-------
TABLE D-2. RAINFALL AND RUNOFF
Date
750711
13
14
15
16
18
Total
750807
Total
750901
13
22
23
24
25
26
Total
751009
17
18
Total
751110
13
24
Total
ft
Rainfall, Tmt. 1A
cm Low irg.
1.19
6.12
11.63
0.86
4.34
1.40
25.54
1.65
1.65
2.29
2.16
4.14
2.59
2.34
5.46
2.44
21.42
2.03
1.17
1.32
4.52
0.79
5.66
2.46
8.91
Tmt. IB Tmt. 2
Low irg . Manure
0.44
0.46
0.08
2.60
0.04
3.62
0
0.01
0.01
0.04
0.26
0.02
0.34
0.02
0.02
0.04
0
Rainfall
Tmt. 3
Pert.
0.39
1.51
0.19
0.19
2.28
0
0.02
0.01
0.18
0.15
0.36
0.04
0.04
0.08
0.28
0.05
0.33
runoff, cm
Tmt. 4 Tmt. 5
Low irg. Fert .
0.07 0.22
0.17
0.15
0.04
0.07 0.58
0 0
0.03
0.06
0.06 0.36
0.08 0.11
0.14 0.56
0.01
0.12
0 0.13
0.09
0.12
0.15
0 0.36
Tmt. 6
Low irg.
0.14
0.33
0.33
0.09
0.89
0
0.01
0.05
0.06
0.02
0.02
2.80
0.01
2.81
Tint. 7
High irg.
0.77
3.08
0.14
2.59
6.58
0
0.03
IRG
0.03
0.07
0.17
0.42
0.66
2.02
2.02
(continued)
-------
TABLE D-2 (continued)
* Rainfall runoff, cm
Date
751201
08
18
26
30
31
Total
760101
07
08
26
27
28
Total
760202
Total
760309
13
16
30
Total
760401
Total
Rainfall,
cm
1.04
2.29
1.98
3.63
1.45
1.14
11.53
1.22
1.24
1.55
1.02
2.82
1.14
8.99
2.90
2.90
1.35
0.91
2.24
1.22
5.72
0
Tmt 1A
Low irg.
0.14
1.20
1.34
0.58
0.18
0.11
0.51
1.38
1.56
1.56
0
0
Tmt. IB Tmt. 2
Low irg. Manure
0.02
0.74
0.89
0.06
0.95 0.76
1.20 0.10
>1.20
>1.20
1.55 0.70
>5.15 0.80
1.56
1.56 0
0.09
T
0 0.09
T
0 0
Tmt. 3
Pert.
0.02
0.06
0.35
0.43
0.41
0.56
1.32
2.29
0
0.02
0.02
0
Tmt. 4 Tmt. 5
Low irg. Pert.
0.01 0.02
0.11
0.12
0.15
0.01 0.40
0.50
0.02
0.05
0.04
0.05 0.28
1.35 0.12
1.40 1.01
0 0
0.03
0.02
0.11
0 0.16
0 0
Tmt. 6
Low irg.
0.02
0.03
0 . 14
0.19
0.44
0.04
0.03
0.21
0.72
0
0
0
Tint. 7
High irg.
0.02
0.02
0.43
0.08
0
0.75
1.26
0
0
0
(continued)
-------
TABLE D-2 (continued)
Date
760501
08
16
30
Total
760603
04
05
17
20
21
28
Total
760701
31
Total
760803
08
22
Total
760903
11
15
27
Total
ft
Rainfall, Tmt. 1A Tmt. IB
cm Low irg. Low irg.
2.39
0.56
A. 60 0.06 0.09
3.86
11.41 0.06 0.09
2.59
1.09 IRG
0.36
4.42
0.79
1.90
1.42
12.57 0 0
1.47
0.74
2.21 0 0
2.31
1.27
1.68
5.26 0 0
1.09
2.11
4.09
1.83
9.12 0 0
Rainfall runoff,- cm
Tmt. 2
Manure
0.14
0.12
0.26
0.04
0.06
0.02
0.10
0.03
0.25
0.02
0.02
0
0
Tmt. 3
Pert.
0.02
0.30
0.19
0.51
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.07
0
0.02
0.02
0
Tmt, 4
Low irg.
0.06
0.13
0.19
0.04
IRG
0.01
0.07
0.12
0
0
0
Tmt. 5 Tmt. 6 Tmt. 7
Pert. Low irg. High irg.
0.10 0.06
0 . 10 0 . 16
0.20 0 0.22
0.10
0.04
0.16 0.01
0.05
0.30 0 0.06
0.03 0.02
0.03 0 0.02
0.01
0.01 0 0
00 0
(continued)
-------
TABLE D-2 (continued)
Ni
I-J
Date
761009
17
20
31
Total
761115
16
29
Total
761207
08
12
16
27
Total
770107
10
14
15
Total
7702
Total
Rainfall,
cm
3.12
1.14
8.05
1.19
13.50
1.50
0.56
1.78
3.84
2.11
2.11
3.56
1.17
1.09
10.04
1.14
3.76
0.84
0.56
6.30
0
Trot. 1A
Low Irg.
>2.00
>2.00
T
0
0.42
>2.00
>2.42
>2.0
0.07
0.84
>2.91
0
Rainfall runoff, cm
Tmt. IB Tmt. 2 Tmt. 3 Tmt. 4 Tmt. 5 Tmt. 6 Tmt. 7
Low irg. Manure Pert. Low irg. Pert. Low irg. High irg.
>2.00 M M M
>2.00 - - - 0 0 0
T
0.02
0 0 0.02 0000
M 0.08 0.02
M 0.28 0.01 0.19
>2.00 0.16 0.13 0.19 0.21
0.03
0.01
>2.01 0.52 0.05 0.14 0 0.19 0.40
>2.0 1.11 0.10 0.01 0 0.24 0.19
0.42
>2.0 0.02 0.13
>4.42 1.11 0.12 0.01 0 0.24 0.32
0 000000
(continued)
-------
TABLE D-2 (continued)
NJ
CO
"
Date
770305
07
13
20
22
30
Total
770405
Total
770520
25
26
Total
7706
Total
770722
Total
770802
16
18
Total
Rainfall,
cm
1.55
3.30
4.39
1.37
2.13
2.92
15.66
2.08
2.08
1.37
2.62
2.31
6.30
0
1.88
1.88
1.09
1.22
6.65
8.96
Rainfall runoff, cm
Trot. 1A Tmt. IB Tint. 2 Tmt. 3 Tint. 4 Tmt. 5 Tmt. 6 Tmt. 7
Low irg. Low Irg. Manure Pert. Low irg. Pert. Low irg. High irg.
M M
>2.0 >2.0 1.02 0.16 0.02 0.14 0.20
0.34 >2.0 1.38 0.62 0.03 0.06 0.64 0.18
0.02 0.02 0.02
T 0.01
>2.34 >4.00 2.42 0.81 0.05 0.06 0.78 0.40
0.22 0.18 0.26
0 0 0.22 0.18 000 0.26
0.02
T
0 0 0 T 0 0.02 0 0
0 000000 0
T 0.01
0 0 T 0.010 0 0 0
M 0.03 0.01
0 0 M 0 0 0 0.03 0.01
(continued)
-------
TABLE D-2 (continued)
N)
"
Date
770908
17
Total
771010
13
14
26
Total
771104
07
25
Total
771215
21
31
Total
780107
09
14
18
20
26
Total
*
Rainfall,
cm
13.72
1.32
15.04
1.02
2.72
2.21
5.99
11.94
1.40
4.37
1.32
7.09
2.13
1.80
1.02
4.95
1.68
2.77
4.39
2.03
4.27
3.05
18.19
Rainfall runoff, cm
Tmt . 1A
Low irg.
M
M
>2.0
>2.0
>2.0
>2.0
T
T
>2.0
>2.0
>2.0
>2.0
>2.0
>10.0
Tmt. IB
Low irg.
M
M
>2.0
>2.0
>2.0
>2.0
0.13
T
0.13
0.01
>2.0
>2.0
>2.0
>2.0
>2.0
>10.1
Tmt. 2
Manure
M
M
0.03
0.03
M
M
0
M
M
M
M
_
Tmt. 3
Pert.
M
M
0.03
0.03
0.02
>1.33
>1.35
0.05
0.01
O.C6
M
M
0.17
>1.33
M
>1.50
Tmt. 4 Tmt. 5
Low irg. Pert.
M 0.08
M 0.08
0.08 0.01
0.08 0.01
0.57 0.04
0.57 0.04
T
T 0
M
M M
0.27 0.16
>1.23
M 0.17
>1.50 >0.33
Tmt. 6
Low irg.
0.02
0.02
0.08
0.08
0.04
0.04
0
0.07
0.94
1.08
M
>2.09
Tmt. 7
High irg.
>1.52
>1.52
0
T
T
0
0.60
0.91
0.26
1.77
(continued)
-------
TABLE D-2 (continued)
NJ
Ln
Diite
780224
Total
780301
06
09
10
.13
27
Total
78041.2
13
18
19
20
26
27
Total
780501
04
05
08
09
15
16
Total
*
Rainfall,
cm
0.81
0.81
0.71C
1.47§
0.56
4.01
0.23
3.07
10.05
0.25
0.76
0.71
3.35
0.36
12.17
0.74
18.34
0.23
2.08
0.43
4.27
0.46
1.40
0.74
9.61
Rainfall runoff, cm
Tmt. 1A
Low irg.
0
0.90
>2.00
0.05
0.06
>3.01
0.01
>2.00
M
>2.01
0.01
IRG
>2.00
>2.00
>4.01
Tmt . IB
Low Irg.
0
0.71
>2.00
>2.00
0.06
0.05
>4.82
0.10
>2.00
M
>2.10
0.03
IRG
>2.00
>2.00
>4.03
Tmt. 2
Manure
0
M
M
T
2.35
0.02
0.01
2.38
T
T
0.09
T -.-
3.27
0.06
-1-
3.42
0.01
1.29
0.02
T
T
.1 . 32
Tmt. 3
Pert.
0
0.19
T
1.71
0.03
0.05
1.98
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.08
T
4.01
0.10
4.23
T
0.01
1.37
0.04
0.01
1.43
Tint. 4
Low irg.
0
0.01
T
1.44
T
0.01
1.46
T
T
T
0.02
T
3.93
0.01
3.96
T
T
0.82
T
0.82
Tmt. 5
Fert.
0
M
M
T
1.83
T
0.05
+
1.88
T
T
T
0.04
T
1.87
0.01
1.92
T
0.01
0.20
T
T
T
0.21
Tmt. 6
Low irg.
0
M
M
1.83*
0.02
0.02
4-
1.87
T
0.07
T
3.29
0.05
3.41
1.05
0.02
1.07
Tint. 7
High Irg
0
M
M
1.83*
0.02
0 . 11
+
1.96
IRG
0.01
0.11
-i-
3.27
T
+
3.39
0.01
IRG
1.29
0.02
0.01
1.33
(continued)
-------
TABLE D-2 (continued)
Date
780605
06
07
08
09
27
Total
780711
15
16
25
26
28
$
Rainfall, Tint. 1A
cm Low irg.
0.94
0.48
1.07
0.53
4.57 IRG
1.19
8.78 IRG
2.74
0.66
5.44 0.21
1.60
0.36
0.30
Trot. IB Tmt. 2
Low irg. Manure
T
T
T
0.02
T
0 0.02
0.02
T
T 0.18
0.01
T
Rainfall
Tmt. 3
Pert.
T
T
T
T
0.11
0.02
0.13
0.02
0.01
0.30
0.01
T
T
runoff, cm
Tmt. 4
Low irg.
T
T
IRG
T
IRG
0.01
0.01
0.02
T
T
T
Tmt . 5
Pert.
T
T
T
T
0.02
T
0.02
0.03
T
0.05
0.04
T
T
Tmt. 6
Low irg.
IRG
T
IRG
T
0.01
0.01
Tmt. 7
High irg.
T
T
IRG
IRG
0.19
T
Total
780801
02
03
06
07
08
10
30
Total
11.10
0.51
0.25
1.30
0.36
1.70
0.43
0.66
0.18
5.39
0.21
0
0.21
T
T
T
T
0.02
T
T
T
0.02
0.34
0.01
T
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
T
0.06
>0.04
T
T
T
T
T
0.12
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
0.02
T
T
T
T
T
0.19
0.02
0.02
(continued)
-------
TABLE D-2(continued)
to
-J
Date
780901
05
11
23
Total
781001
05
28
Total
781106
08
10
11
17
18
24
28
30
Total
781204
05
06
10
18
21
27
Total
ft
Rainfall, Tmt. 1A
cm Low irg.
1.02
0.71
1.73
0.33
3.79 0
4.44
0.71
0.48
5.63 0
0.51
3.86 T
0.25
0.51
0.33
0.89
2.18 T
2.87 0.50
11.50 0.50
0.15
4.14 >2.00
0.18 0.46
0.71
1.02 T
0.46
1.40
8.06 >2.46
Rainfall runoff, cm
Tmt. IB Tmt. 2
Low irg . Manure
0.01
T
0.01
T
0 0.02
0.04
0.01
T T
T 0.05
T
0.05
T
T
T
0.01
0.26
0.32
0.96
0.03
T
T
T
0.99
Tmt. 3
Fert.
0.01
T
0.01
T
0.02
0.03
T
T
0.03
T
0.03
T
T
T
T
0.01
0.18
0.22
0.01
0.77
0.11
T
0.01
T
0.90
Tmt. 4
Low irg.
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
0.01
0.01
T
0.36
T
T
T
T
0.36
Tmt. 5
Fert.
0.04
0.01
0.06
T
0.11
0.14
0.01
T
0.15
T
0.02
T
T
T
T
T
0.01
0.02
0.05
T
0.02
T
T
T
T
0.02
Tmt. 6
Low ir g .
T
T
T
0.02
T
0.02
0.01
T
T
0.01
0.02
0.04
T +
0.70
0.02
T
T
0.72+
Tmt. 7
High irg.
IRG
T
IRG
0.05
T
0.05
0.69
IRG
T
1.08
>1.77+
1.41
0.05
T
1.47
(continued)
-------
TABLE D-2(continued)
Date
790102
03
08
14
22
25
28
Rainfall,
cm
1.73
0.13
1.47
2.82
5.23
1.04
0.20
Rainfall runoff, cm
Tmt. 1A
Low irg.
0.03
>2.00
>2.00
0.04
Tmt. IB Tmt. 2
Low irg. Manure
T
T
T
0.19
1.69
0.01
T
Tmt. 3
Pert.
0.01
T
0.01
0.38
1.45
0.04
T
Tmt. 4
Low irg.
T
T
0.01
0.02
1.15
T
Tmt. 5
Pert.
0.01
T
0.01
0.01
0.61
T
T
Tmt. 6
Low lrg.
T
T
0.05
1.11
0.01
Tint. 7
High irg
0.01
T
. 0.02
0.90
1.57
0.05
Total
12.62
>4.07
1.89
1.88
1.18
0.64
1.17
2.54
NJ
CO
790201
14
22
23
24
26
Total
0.28g
1.62S
1.90S
1.37
1.85
3.02
10.04
>2.00
>2.00
>2.00
>2.00
>8.00
0.62
0.35
0.78
1.46
3.21
T
0.01
1.13
0.51
1.00
1.61
4.26
T
0.16
0.13
0.23
0.61
1.13
T
T
0.06
0.07
0.30
0.68
1.11
0.50
0.35
0.75
1.26
2.86
1.78
0.77+
1.05,
1.67
5.27 +
*
Rainfall events less than 1 cm. are not included unless runoff occurred.
M - Malfunction in apparatus or sampler disconnected, and no volume estimated.
IRG - Runoff occurring within 12 hours of irrigation and thought to include irrigation liquid
runoff mixed with rainfall runoff.
T - Trace of runoff; less than 0.005 cm.
§
Snow event or freezing rain. Precipitation may have occurred 1 to 5 days before, and the amounts
are measured with rain gage. Date is for day runoff was recorded and sample taken.
Runoff measurement apparatus malfunctioned and runoff volume was estimated from the volume of
sample collected or from the runoff volumes of other plots.
-------
TABLE D-3. MONTHLY RUNOFF, MEAN AND HIGHEST CONCENTRATIONS, AND MASS TRANSPORT FOR MARCH 1978 -
FEB. 1979 FOR TKN
Highest concentration event
Tmt. Month
Fert. Mar.
(#3) Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar. -Feb.
Fert. Mar.
(//5) Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar . -Feb .
Cone. ,
mg/fc
3.0
11.7
6.9
3.2
6.4
3.1
8.6
1.9
3.4
11.3
2 7
3!9§
*
11.7
5.9
5.5
6.0
3.3
10.8
-
18.4
5.2
3.0
2.6
2.6K
6
3.7S
18.4
Volume ,
cm
0.03
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.03
0.18
0.01
1.44
0.01
0.01
0.05
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.03
0
0.04
0.14
0.02
0.02
0.61
0.06
0.03
/
T
n
4
6
4
2
4
5
2
1
3
4
5
5
45
2
3
2
1
3
0
3
2
3
1
4
4
28
Mean cone. , mg/fe
Arith.
2.6
5.2
4.5
2.7
3.4
2.2
6.0
1.9
2.7
5.0
1.8
3.1
*
3.5
4.1
4.2
4.4
3.3
6.2
-
11.4
3.8
2.7
2.6
1.8
3.0
4.4
Vol.-wt.
2.4
4.3
2.6
2.2
2.3
2.1
5.7
1.9
3.2
2.7
2.6
2.7
3.1
2.5
3.0
3.0
3.3
5.7
-
12.3
5.1
2.8
2.6
2.6
2.7
3.0
Runoff,
cm
1.98
4.23
1.43
0.13
0.34
0.06
0.02
0.03
0.22
0.90
1.88
4.26
15.48
1.88+
1.92
0.21
0.02
0.12
0
0.11
0.15
0.05
0.02
0.64
1.11
6.23
Mass ,
Kg/ha
0.48
1.81
0.38
0.03
0.08
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.07
0.24
0.49
1.13
4.74
0.47
0.58
0.06
0.01
0.07
0
0.13
0.08
0.01
0
0.16
0.30
1.88
(continued)
-------
TABLE D-3(continued)
OJ
O
Highest concentration event
Tmt.
Low
irg.
(//4)
Low
irg.
(#6)
Month
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar. -Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct. -
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar. -Feb.
Cone. ,
mg/«-
10.2
6.0
3.3
-
22.0
-
-
-
6.3
4.1
8.9
6
4.5a
22.0
5.9
2.9
3.4
-
12.7
-
-
36.0
7.7
6.0
21.9
7.23
36.0
Volume,
cm
0.01
0.02
0.82
0
0.01
0
0
0
0.01
0.36
0.01
0.12
0.01
0.02
0.07
1.05
0
0.01
0
0
0.02
0.01
0.70
0.05
0.50
0.02
n
3
3
1
0
3
0
0
0
1
1
3
4
19
3
3
2
0
2
0
0
1
3
2
3
4
23
Mean cone., mg/JZ.
Arith.
6.3
4.8-
3.3
-
11.7
-
-
-
6.3
4.1
6.2
3.5
6.0
4.0
2.9
3.2
-
9.0
-
-
36.0
5.6
5.6
13.2
5.2
7.4
Vol.-wt.
2.6
4.4
3.3
-
10.6
-
-
-
6.3
4.1
4.7
3.4
3.9
2.6
2.9
3.4
-
9.4
-
-
36.0
5.4
6.0
4.7
4.6
3.8
Runoff,
cm
1.46
3.96
0.82
0
0.04
0
0
0
0.01
0.36
1.18
1.13
8.96
1.87"*"
3.41
1.07
0
0.02
0
0
0.02
0.04
0.72
1.17
2.86
11.18
Mass ,
Kg/ha
0.38
1.74
0.27
0
0.03
0
0
0
0.01
0.15
0.56
0.38
3.51
0.49
0.98
0.36
0
0.01
0
0
0.06
0.02
0.43
0.54
1.30
4.20
(continued)
-------
TABLE D-3 (continued)
Highest concentration event
Tmt.
Manure
(#2)
High
irg.
(#7)
Month
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar. -Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar. -Feb.
Cone. ,
rog/H
4.8
11.9
7.8
2.6
2.4
1.6
10.1
3.0
5.0
9.0
4.8
26.4
26.4
14.3
7.8
17.9
-
4.4
3.2
-
11.4
8.8
9.8
11. 9§
6.23
17.9
Volume,
cm
0.01
3.27
0.02
0.02
0.18
0.02
0.01
0.04
0.26
0.03
0.01
0.78
0.78
0.11
3.27
0.01
0
0.19
0.02
0
0.05
0.69
0.06
0.01
0.77
0.01
y
n
3
3
3
1
3
1
2
2
3
2
3
4
30
3
3
4
0
1
1
0
1
2
2
5
4
26
Mean cone., mg/£
Arith.
4.0
9.2
5.8
2.6
1.8
1.6
7.0
2.7
2.9
7.4
3.1
9.7
5.2
8.5
6.4
10.4
-
4.4
3.2
-
11.4
7.7
7.6
6.5
5.0
7.3
Vol.-wt.
2.8
11.7
7.5
2.6
2.2
1.6
6.6
2.9
4.5
6.0
1.5
9.0
7.0
5.3
7.8
5.6
-
4.4
3.2
-
11.4
7.5
5.6
4.2
4.8
5.7
Runoff,
cm
2.38
3.42
1.32
0.02
0.21
0.02
0.02
0.05
0.32
0.99
1.89
3.21
13.85
1.96*
3.39
1.33
0
0.19
0.02
0
0.05+
1.77
1.47
2.54+
5.27
17.99
Mass ,
Kg /ha
0.67
4.00
0.99
0.01
0.05
0
0.01
0.01
0.14
0.59
0.28
2.89
9.65
1.05
2.63
0.74
0
0.09
0
0
0.06
1.33
0.82
1.07
2.55
10.34
(continued)
-------
TABLE D-3(continued)
NJ
Highest concentration event ,
Tmt.
Low
irg.
(1A)
Low
irg.
(//IB)
Month
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar . -Feb .
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar. -Feb.
Cone. ,
mg/Jl
5.1
30.6
9.3
-
3.1
-
-
-
7.7
6.2
7.9§
7.03 .
30.6
7.2
6.7
68.0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
68.0
Volume ,
cm
0.05
0.01 '
0.01
0
0.21
0
0
0
0.50
0.46
0.04
>2.00
0.01
0.05
0.10
0.03
0
0
0
0
0
M
M
M
M
0.03
T
n
3
2
3
0
1
0
0
0
1
2
4
4
20
5
2
3
0
0
0
0
0
-
-
-
-
10
Mean cone., mg/S,
Arith.
4.0
18.9
7.7
-
3.1
-
-
-
7.7
5.8
5.2
5.6
6.9
4.4
6.3
25.9
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
11.2
Vol.-wt.
3.2
7.3
6.8
-
3.1
-
-
-
7.7
5.7
5.0
5.6
5.6
3.9
6.0
5.3
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
4.8
Runoff ,
cm
>3.01
>2.01
>4.01
0
0.21
0
0
0
0.50
>2.46
>4.07
>8.00
>24.27
>4.82
>2.10
>4.03
0
0
0
0
0
-
-
-
-
>10.95
Mass,
Kg/ha
>0.97
>1.45
>2.73
0
0.06
0
0
0
0.38
>1.39
>2.04
>4.46
13.49
>1.86
>1.26
>2.13
0
0
0
0
0
-
-
-
>5.25
n = Number of runoff events.
-------
TABLE D-3 (continued)
*
Arithmetic mean concentration for period Mar.-Feb. is the average for all events, not the
average of monthly means.
j
Volume-weighted concentration for period Mar.-Feb. is calculated from the total mass
divided by total volume.
Runoff volume estimated from sample volume or from runoff volumes of other plots.
§
Runoff from melting snow or rain within two days after snow melted.
-------
TABLE D-4. MONTHLY MEANS AND HIGHEST CONCENTRATION FOR MARCH 1978 - FEB. 1979 FOR P
OJ
Tint. 3 (fertilizer)
Highest cone, event
Month
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Cone. ,
mg/£
0.5
2.7
1.4
0.4
0.8
0.4
1.0
0.3
0.6
1.6
0.6.
1.6§
2.2
1.9
1.5
-
16.8
-
-
-
4.0
2.2
2.2
1.6
Volume ,
cm
0.03
0.10
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.03
0.18
0.01
1.44
0.51
Tmt. 4 (low
0.01
0.02
0.82
-
0.01
-
-
-
0.01
0.36
0.01,
Q
0.16
*
n
Mean concentration Highest
Arith. Vol.-wt,
.«, / n
my/ *,
4
6
4
2
4
5
2
1
3
4
5
5
45
0.4
0.9
0.9
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.6
0.3
0.5
0.8
0.3
0.7
0.4
1.0
0.6
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.6
0.3
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.5
Cone . ,
mg/«.
4.0
1.3
0.7
0.6
2.2
-
5.3
1.6
0.8
0.6
0.5,
0.5§
irrigation)
3
3
1
0
3
0
0
0
1
1
3
4
19
1.3
1.3
1.5
-
7.6
-
-
-
4.0
2.2
1.9
1.4
0.8
1.1
1.5
-
6.8
-
-
-
4.0
2.2
1.8
1.3
1.2
1.2
1.7
-
1.5
-
-
15.4
9.1
2.8
4-2K
b
2.5*
Tmt. 5 (fertilizer)
cone . event n
Volume ,
cm
0.05
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.03
-
0.04
0.14
0.01
0.02
0.61
0.06
Tmt. 6
0.02
3.29
1.05
-
0.01
-
-
0.02
0.01
0.70
0.01
0.75
2
3
2
1
3
0
3
2
3
1
4
4
28
Mean concentration
Arith. Vol.-wt.
mrr / 0
mg / a - - -
2.2
1.0
0.7
0.6
1.4
-
2.7
1.0
0.7
0.6
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.8
0.6
0.6
1.3
-
3.0
1.6
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.3
(low irrigation)
3
3
2
0
2
0
0
1
3
2
3
4
23
1.1
0.9
1.4
-
1.4
-
-
15.4
4.9
2.7
3.1
2.2
1.2
1.2
1.7
-
1.4
-
-
15.4
4.7
2.6
2.8
2.1
(continued)
-------
TABLE D-4(continued)
OJ
Ul
Tmt. 2 (manure)
Highest cone, event
Month
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Cone . ,
mg/fc
2.2
8.4
7.6
0.6
0.8
0.3
1.2
0.6
4.5
14.5
6.3.
5.49
Volume ,
cm
0.02
3.27
1.29
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.04
0.26
0.96
1.69
0.35
n
3
3
3
1
3
1
2
2
3
2
3
4
30
Mean
Arith
1.6
5.5
5.1
0.6
0.7
0.3
0.9
0.5
1.8
11.1
5.1
4.4
concentration
Vol.
mg/x,- -
2.
8.
7.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
3.
14.
6.
4.
-wt.
2
2
5
6
7
3
9
6
8
2
3
0
Tmt. 7 (high irrigation)
Highest cone, event
Cone . ,
7.8
6.1
6.0
-
2.2
1.9
-
10.7
18.8
12.9
8.2
5.23
Volume,
cm
0.11
3.27
0.02
-
0.19
0.02
-
0.05
0.69
0.06
0.01
0.77
n
3
3
4
0
1
1
0
1
2
2
5
4
26
Mean concentration
Arith.
4.2
4.0
4.9
-
2.2
1.9
-
10.7
16.2
11.4
6.6
4.5
Vol.-wt.
mg/ x,
2.6
5.1
5.7
-
2.2
1.9
-
10.7
15.6
10.0
5.9
4.3
§
n = number of runoff events.
Runoff from melting snow or rain within two days after snow melted.
-------
TABLE D-5. MONTHLY MEANS AND HIGHEST CONCENTRATION FOR MARCH 1978 - FEB. 1979 FOR N03-N
Tmt. 3 (fertilizer)
Month
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Highest
Cone . ,
mg/Jt
2.0
8.4
4.3
2.2
3.0
1.9
2.7
1.5
1.9
3.7
2.0
2.4§
16.4
4.9
1.5
-
10.5
-
-
-
10.1
5.7
8.3
2.3§
cone, event
Volume ,
cm
0.05
4.00
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.03
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
Tmt. 4 (low
0.01
0.02
0.82
-
0.01
_ tl
-
-
0.01
0.36
0.01
0.16
*
n
4
6
4
2
4
5
2
1
3
4
5
5
45
Mean concentration
Arith.
0.9
3.4
1.4
1.9
1.9
1.1
2.2
1.5
1.4
2.2
1.0
0.8
Vol
tnr> / 0
-mg/x,
0
8
0
1
1
0
2
1
1
1
0
0
.-wt.
.4
.1
.6
.7
.1
.9
.1
.5
.6
.3
.7
.4
Highest
Cone. ,
mg/«,
2.8
1.8
1.3
1.3
5.6
-
11.9
2.9
2.7
1.9
1.9
2.4§
irrigation)
3
3
1
0
3
0
0
0
1
1
3
4
19
6.9
3.1
1.5
-
7.0
-
-
-
10.1
5.7
6.2
1.7
1
2
1
-
6
-
-
-
10
5
3
1
.0
.2
.5
.1
.1
.7
.8
.5
3.3
1.3
2.4
-
4.9
-
-
16.9
13.6
9.7
7.3
3.5§
Tmt. 5 (fertilizer)
cone, event
Volume ,
cm
0.05
0.04
0.01
0.02
0.03
-
0.06
0.14
0.02
0.02
0.61
0.06
Tmt. 6 (low
0.02
0.05
0.02
-
0.01
-
-
0.02
0.01
0.70
0.05
0.50
n
2
3
2
1
3
0
3
2
3
1
4
4
28
Mean concentration
Arith .
1.6
1.7
0.9
1.3
3.8
-
7.7
2.3
2.3
1.9
1.5
1.6
Vol.-wt.
met 1 0
mg/ x,
0.4
1.6
0.5
1.3
3.6
-
9.1
2.8
2.4
1.9
1.8
1.1
irrigation)
3
3
2
0
2
0
0
1
3
2
3
4
23
2.4
1.2
2.0
-
4.9
-
-
16.9
7.7
7.1
5.0
2.7
2.6
1.0
1.5
-
4.9
-
-
16.9
7.5
9.6
4.5
2.3
(continued)
-------
TABLE p-5 (continued)
Tmt;
Highest cone, event
Month
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Cone . ,
mg/fc
15.7
5.1
8.9
1.7
2.4
1.3
2.9
2.7
12.3
12.8
11.3
6.0
Volume ,
cm
0.02
3.27
1.29
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.04
0.26
0.03
0.19
0.62
2 (manure)
n
3
3
3
1
3
1
2
2
3
2
3
4
30
Mean concentration
Arith.
7.9
3.6
4.1
1.7
1.6
1.3
2.3
2.6
5.3
12.4
7.1
4.8
Vol.-wt.
i"S/ JC
6.2
5.0
8.8
1.7
1.6
1.3
2.2
2.6
10.3
11.9
6.6
4.1
Tmt. 7 (high irrigation)
Highest cone, event
Cone. ,
mg/fc
23.4
14.5
10.9
-
8.8
7.0
-
9.6
32.3
6.5
11.4§
2.8
Volume ,
cm
0.11
3.27
0.01
-
0.19
0.02
-
0.05
0.69
0.06
0.01
1.78
n
3
3
4
0
1
1
0
1
2
2
5
4
26
Mean
Arith
10.7
8.9
8.9
-
8.8
7.0
-
9.6
21.9
6.1
7.3
2.1
concentration
Vol.-wt.
mg/x.
5.1
14.3
5.2
-
8.8
7.0
-
9.6
20.0
5.8
4.7
2.0
n = number of runoff events.
§
Snowmelt runoff-.
-------
TABLE D-d MONTHLY MEANS AND HIGHEST CONCENTRATION FOR MARCH 1978 r- FEB. 1979 FOR N
u>
oo
Tmt. 3
(fertilizer)
Highest cone, event ^
Month
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Cone.
mg/fc
4.7
14.9
8.8
5.5
9.4
4.9
11.2
3.3
5.1
13.0
3.9
6.3
26.6
10.9
4.8
-
32.5
-
-
-
16.4
9.8
17.2
6.3
, Volume, n
cm
0.05
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.03
0.18
0.01
0.38
0.01
Tmt. 4 (low
0.01
0.02
0.82
-
0.01
-
-
-
0.01
0.36
0.01
0.12
4
6
4
2
4
5
2
1
3
4
5
5
45
Mean concentration
Arith. Vol.-wt.
illt
3.5
8.5
5.9
4.6
5.3
3.4
8.2
3.3
4.1
7.2
2.9
3.8
;/ *
2.8
12.4
3.3
3.9
3.4
3,0
7.8
3.3
4.8
4.0
3.3
3.1
Tmt
Highest cone.
Cone. ,
mg/£
8.7
7.3
7.3
4.6
16.4
- .
23.6
8.1
5.7
4.5
4.5
6.1
irrigation)
3
3
1
0
3
0
0
0
1
1
3
4
19
13.2
7.9
4.8
-
18.7
-
-
-
16.4
9.8
12.5
5.2
3.6
6.6
4.8
-
16 . 7
-
-
-
16.4
9.8
8.5
4.8
9.2
4.2
5.3
-
17.6
-
-
52.9
19.2
15.7
29.2
10.7
. 5 (fertilizer)
event
n
Volume,
cm
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Tmt.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.05
.01
.01
.02
.03
-
.04
.14
.02
.02
.61
.06
6 (low
.02
.07
.02
-
.01
-
-
.02
.01
.70
.05
.50
2
3
2
1
3
0
3
2
3
1
4
4
28
Mean concentration
Arith. Vol.-wt.
_ me~ 1 n
- -mp
5.7
6.0
5.3
4.6
10.1
-
19.2
6.0
4.9
4.5
3.3
4.7
v *
2.8
4.6
3.5
4.6
9.4
-
21.4
7.9
5.1
4.5
4.4
3.8
irrigation)
3
3
2
0
2
0
0
1
3
2
3
4
23
6.4
4.0
5.1
-
14.0
-
-
52.9
13.2
12.7
18.2
7.9
5.3
3.8
4.9
-
14.3
-
-
52.9
13.0
15.6
9.2
6.8
(continued)
-------
TABLfe D-6 (continued)
Tmt. 2 (manure)
Highest cone, event
Month
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Cone. ,
rng/fc
20.2
16.9
16.5
4.2
3.9
3.0
13.0
5.7
17.4
21.8
14.4
31.1
Volume ,
cm
0.02
3.27
1.29
0.02
0.18
0.02
0.01
0.04
0.26
0.03
0.19
0.78
n
3
3
3
1
3
1
2
2
3
2
3
4
30
Mean concentration
Arith.
11.9
12.7
10.0
4.2
3.4
3.0
9.3
5.3
8.1
19.8
10.2
14.4
Vol.-wt.
mg/x.- -
9.0
16.6
16.3
4.2
3.8
3.0
8.8
5.6
14.8
17.9
8.1
13.2
Tmt. 7 (high
Highest cone, event
Cone . ,
mg/«,
37.7
22.3
28.8
-
13.2
10.1
-
21.0
41.0
16.3
23.3
8.6
Volume,
cm
0.11
3.27
0.01
-
0.19
0.02
-
0.05
0.69
0.06
0.01
0.77
n
3
3
4
0
1
1
0
1
2
2
5
4
26
irrigation)
Mean concentration
Arith.
19.2
15.3
19.3
-
13.2
10.1
-
21.0
29.6
13.8
13.8
7.1
Vol.-wt
-rag/ x,
10.4
22.1
10.7
-
13.2
10.1
-
21.0
27.1
11.4
8.9
6.9
n =» number of runoff events
------- |