CATTLE FEEDLOTS
AND THE
ENVIRONMENT
CONTROL GUIDE INES
.-.- -;-- , " '
0=^fe>-
.:.;-;--:,-. .---. - - -.--v-x^-.vj.^
-.*-
I
5
O
LU
O
REGION X
1200 SIXTH AVENUE
SEATTLE WASHINGTON 98101
-------
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION X
^ 1200SIXTH AVENUE
| SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101
T
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
Pollution from cattle feedlots is a serious problem in
certain areas of Oregon, Washington, and Idaho. However,
feedlots can be built and operated in a manner which will
eliminate the majority of the pollution problems.
These guidelines have been prepared to assist in bringing
cattle feedlot operations into harmony with the environment.
The. guidelines are a general statement of location, design,
and operation recommendations for individual feedlot operators.
We in the Environmental Protection Agency appreciate the
cooperation we have received from agencies of the Department
of Agriculture3 state and local governments, from the various
Cattle Feeders Associations, and from individuals in preparing
these guidelines. _
^~
James L. Agee
Regional Administrator
-------
CATTLE FEEDLOTS AND THE ENVIRONMENT
APRIL 1972
-------
CONTENTS
Page
CATTLE FEEDLOTS AND THE ENVIRONMENT 1
CATTLE FEEDLOT SITE SELECTION 23
CATTLE FEEDLOT DESIGN 25
FEEDLOT WASTE MANAGEMENT 41
APPENDIX 48
LIST OF FIGURES 63
-------
CATTLE FEEDLOTS AND THE ENVIRONMENT
Cattle feedlots are unsavory installations -- necessary but
nonetheless unsavory. More important, feedlots create problems of
air pollution, water pollution, esthetic impacts, noise problems,
and rodents and insects.
Strong, unpleasant odors are the hallmark of feedlots. Dust
and noise are the source of continuing complaints. Rats and flies
are attracted to feedlot operations. Feedlot runoff also results
in offenses to public health and fish life.
The bulk of cattle feedlot wastes is urine and manure.
Manure is classed as a solid waste, but it is actually about
fifty percent moisture. Certain constituents of these wastes are
subject to leaching and percolation into the soil and substrata
and may move downward and laterally into the ground water. Rain
and melting snow runoff carry feedlot waste products into drains,
creeks, and eventually into the larger streams and rivers.
Large cattle feedlots are relatively recent, rapidly growing
enterprises and critical sources of water pollution in the Pacific
Northwest StatesIdaho, Oregon, and Washington. The trend is
clearly toward even larger cattle feedlots.
An April 1969 survey recorded 1,391 cattle feedlots in the
Northwest. Of this total, 154 were of capacities exceeding 1,000
head. Some have capacities in excess of 50,000.
-------
A feedlot of 1,000 head is a concentrated source of potential
environmental pollution. About ten acres will accommodate a
feedlot of several thousand head. One head in a feedlot will
produce 34 cubic feet of manure in one year. This is about 1.25
cubic yards per head, 1,250 cubic yards for 1,000 head, or 12,500
cubic yards for 10,000 head.
More meaningful, however, is a comparison of feedlot wastes
with domestic sewage. A convenient measure for comparison is
BOD--Biochemical Oxygen _Demand. Organic wastes from people and
cattle utilize oxygen in the process of decomposition. BOD is the
measure of the oxygen required. In terms of wastes measured by
BOD, one head in a feedlot is equivalent to six people in town.
Consider what this means: A cattle feedlot of 1,000 head is equal
to a town of 6,000 population in terms of the certain wastes pro-
duced, all on a ten acre plot of ground. Some feedlot waste
characteristics have population equivalents as high as eighteen.
Cattle feedlots result in heavy concentrations of animal
wastes that must be recognized as a serious source of water
pollution and for which pollution abatement measures must be
undertaken.
The Development of Cattle Feedlots
Cattle feedlots are a logical development as western
agriculture has seen progressive evolution from family-sized,
-------
diversified farms toward large irrigated farms producing cash
crops, livestock feed crops, and secondarily, food process wastes.
In past years, the small diversified farmer relied on animal
wastes as the source of nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium and other
trace minerals to be returned to the soil to maintain its
productivity. He rotated crops and pasture on his farm. Animal
wastes, rich in nitrogen and other plant nutrients, were returned
to his land from pastured cattle or collected from his barns and
corrals to be spread and plowed into his fields.
The advent of commercial chemical fertilizers has changed
the picture. Chemical fertilizers are plentiful, relatively
inexpensive, and easy to apply. More efficient, heavier (sometimes
excessive) applications of nitrogen fertilizers have not only
increased yields, but also permitted more extensive planting of
cash crops, such as potatoes and peas and, to some extent, sugar
beets.
By-products from processing of these cash crops provide
cattle feeds which would otherwise become wastes from the
agricultural processing industries. Hence, cattle feedlots
utilize by-product feeds to supplement hay, straw, and silage
(fermented green fodder).
Cattle feedlots are the most economical and efficient way
to produce red meat to supply American dietary demands. It is
logical, then, that the trend is toward even larger but fewer feedlots,
-------
Locations of Pacific Northwest Feedlots
In the Pacific Northwest, cattle feedlots are concentrated
in or near the irrigated farmlands in the arid or semiarid
portions of Idaho, Oregon, and Washingtoneast of the Cascade
Mountains. These irrigated farmlands and the fringing dry-farmed
lands provide ruffage (hay, straw, silage) and feed grains in
large quantity and the nutritious by-product feeds from processing
of sugar beets, potatoes, and peas. The general locations of
feedlots are as follows:
IDAHO: In the counties along the Snake River from Idaho
Falls to Weiser.
OREGON: In Malheur, Jefferson, and Umatilla Counties in
eastern Oregon, and in the Klamath Basin (Klamath County)
in southern Oregon.
WASHINGTON: In the intensively irrigated middle and lower
Yakima River Valley (Yakima County) and in the counties in
and nearby to the Columbia Basin Irrigation ProjectDouglas,
Grant, Franklin, Adams, Walla Walla, and Whitman Counties.
In addition to wastewater runoff, there are other sources of
water pollution from feedlots. Silage stored in large pits and
feed scattered and lost on the ground is subject to leaching and
washing to contribute organic constituents which demand oxygen
for decomposition (the BOD requirement). Quantities of pesticides
are used in dip pits and in spraying for insect control. The
-------
residue of these persistent synthetic organic pesticides can be
carried from feedlots to pollute the surface waters. Dead animals
are common in large feedlot operations, and if not hauled off
promptly and disposed of properly, the carcasses become a source
of disease which can be spread, even to nearby waters.
The principal source of water pollution is the huge accumula-
tions of manure in the feedlots34 cubic feet per animal per year.
Water polluting wastes are leached and washed away as the manure
decomposes. Scraping and mounding the manure to limit its areal
coverage and to permit compaction does not prevent this leaching.
Much of the water pollution from feedlots occurs in periods of
rain and snow melt. Particularly significant is the runoff during
the spring thaw. Although manure mounds are thawed, the pens are
frozen hard immediately below the surface, so that runoff from
snow melt and spring rain sluices the polluting wastes from the
feedlot.
Water Pollutants from Feedlots
Runoff from feedlots contributes excessive quantities of
nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium to nearby rivers, lakes,
and reservoir impoundments. These are nutrients contributing
significantly to massive algal blooms (eutrophication). Nitrogen
is mainly in the form of ammonia which is readily dissolved in
water. Studies show that even airborne urinary ammonia is taken
-------
up by waters downwind of feedlots. Phosphorus, on the other hand,
quickly combines with soil particles and is washed to drainageways
through the erosion of disturbed surface soil in the feedlot.
High bacterial concentrations are always measured in feedlot
runoff. Not only are the total coliform counts high (as much as
130,000,000 per 100 milliliter) but also pathogenic bacteria
counts are high, particularly fecal streptococcus and others.
Cattle feedlots are considered to be the principal source of high
bacteria counts in the Snake River.
Bacterial contamination from feedlots is a public health
hazard. The threat of waterborne disease organisms of animal
origin is highlighted by the trend toward increasing numbers of
animals in confinement along with the increase in outdoor, water-
based recreation. The intestinal parasites can be transmitted to
the water via animal feces and contracted by both humans and
other animal life served by affected water bodies. Leptospirosis,
salmonellosis and other forms of colitis, as well as other
diseases affecting cattle and man may be transmitted from infected
cattle by contaminated water. One investigator attributes 61
human cases of leptospirosis in the State of Washington to swimming
in water contaminated by infected cattle. It should be noted that
surface waterborne diseases (e.g. red water, black leg, and hoof
rot) have caused cattle losses in some areas of Idaho and Oregon.
Such diseases undoubtedly also endanger big game subject to
exposure far downstream from feedlot concentrations.
-------
High organic waste loads in combination with ammonia,
phosphates, and potassium in feedlot runoff can adversely affect
the biota of receiving streams by reducing the oxygen content and
by the enhancement of conditions for noxious algae. As the
organics decompose, the BOD requirement can reduce the dissolved
oxygen to seriously low levels. Ammonia in the feedlot runoff is
also known to be toxic to fish as well as cause of depletion of
the dissolved oxygen in receiving streams, and may have contributed
to fish kills in the Snake River.
Pesticides and other chemicals used in feeding operations,
cattle dipping, and to control insect and odor problems constitute
a constant threat to all biological life. These toxic, long-lived
synthetic chemical pesticides are readily taken up and concentrated
in the living organisms of the food chain in the streams receiving
runoff from feedlots. Difficult as they are to control, pesticides
must not be allowed to enter water courses. The necessary first
step is proper application to eliminate excessive use of these
chemicals, and the second is runoff control.
The Elements of Control of Feedlot Wastes
The first step in control of feedlot wastes is a change in
viewpoint. Feedlot wastes must be considered not as wastes, but
as natural resources capable of being recycled for beneficial
use.
-------
The ultimate goal in control of feedlot pollution is "A TOTAL
SYSTEM APPROACH WHICH MEANS TOTAL RETENTION AND UTILIZATION OF
ALL FEEDSTUFFS, MANURE, AND WATER AT THE LOT OR ON THE ADJACENT
FARMLAND."
In simple terms, the answer to control of feedlot wastes is
the return of wastes to the soil to replenish the supply of plant
nutrients and to restore or improve the organic content of the soila
in the production of feed recycled to the cattle in the feedlots.
The total system approach is the only practicable, economical
method of preventing water pollution from cattle feedlot wastes.
It is ecologically and economically sound, because it involves
recycling of all organic wastes from cattle feed to beef to
fertilizer for feed crops and back to beef. Under this approach
wastes are recycled to beef through feed crops, and, in the
process, potential water pollutants from cattle feedlots are
prevented from reaching our streams and rivers.
A total system approach includes three major components:
Proper site selection
Proper feedlot design
Proper feedlot management
The three succeeding chapters are devoted to a discussion of each
of these basic components. They contain guidelines providing
general information to aid in the location, design and operation
of cattle feedlots to minimize the threat of water pollution.
-------
Poorly located and inadequately designed and operated feedlot on the Snake River in western Idaho.
This operation should be relocated.
-------
A well located and designed feedlot operation in
^astern Idaho. Natural runoff is diverted around
the operation by irrigation dikes, however, feed
pen runoff does enter the irrigation system during
spring breakup. A feed pen runoff collection and
lagoon system should be provided for land disposal
of the collected wastes.
-------
Mill Creek washing "shud" from a small unfenced lot in
eastern Washington. Unfenced lots without a qreen belt
are poor operations and should be discontinued.
-------
Partially fenced feedlot with no green belt or dikes provided for
protection during high water. A pen runoff collection and
treatment system should also be provided to protect water quality
in the Payette River and irrigation canal.
-------
I
Undiverted natural runoff and uncollected cattle feedlot
drainage in western Idaho.
&--S
I
Fenced and uncoilected pen drainings which drain to a small
waste way and to the Yakima River.
-------
"*'» *
- -
?&
Unfenced and undiked feed pens on bank of Snake River above
Asotin, Washington. For proper operations a green belt,
fence, and dike should be provided and/or installed above
the high water elevation of the river.
-',
Uncontrolled feedlot and natural runoff through a feedlot
in eastern Washington.
-------
.H^ttfa^^MMto-
.jsaMf~*Mw
1 *
'
, -.
V,. , -a
' #., '
o
'£^7{*ate*Mr
.
i^ta
"" *** ^*2^" ^^*t
- -^*t-. .
**»*'
Watering troughs discharge which drains to Wild Horse Creek
in eastern Washington.
Unfenced lot and covered feed bunker on Grande Ronde River,
Pen scrapings are shoveled onto the river bank and washed
away by rising flood waters.
-------
Unconfined, unfenced feeding operation on bank of Grande
Ronde River.
Feedlot and natural uncontrolled runoff through feedlot
in eastern Washington.
-------
Dead cow on west bank of Snake River below the mouth of
the Grande Ronde River.
Feedlot with no runoff control on bank of Snake River at
Burley, Idaho.
-------
Improperly located and designed feedlot in western Idaho.
To be properly operated at the present site facilities
should be provided for a wider green belt with a runoff
and lagoon system of waste treatment.
Good location away from stream near Weiser, Idaho.
-------
Unfenced bull pen on bank of Snake River near Menan, Idaho.
Partially unfenced feedlot on bank of Yakima River.
-------
New cattle feedlot properly located, designed, constructed,
and operated.
Undiverted natural runoff and feedlot drainage being
collected by a major railroad fill near the Columbia River
in south central Washington. A proper feed pen runoff
collection and lagoon system should be provided.
-------
Uncleaned feed pens being inundated by rising flood waters
of the Snake River in southwestern Idaho.
Unconfined, unfenced cattle feeding operations on Grande
Ronde River above Washington State Highway 129 bridge.
Fences and a greenbelt should be provided for the protection
of water quality and the fishing public.
-------
4f
Cattle feedlot lagoon effluent ditch used to transport
effluent onto green pasture on sandy soil in southwestern
Idaho.
An example of an improperly located feedlot in southeastern
Washington. Natural runoff and feedlot drainage from this
operation as well as "shud" erosion caused by rising flood-
ina river water cause water quality degradation and create
a public health hazard to water oriented sports.
-------
CATTLE FEEDLOT SITE SELECTION
The site selected for the location of a cattle feedlot is
the most important factor in minimizing the threat of water
pollution. With proper site selection, construction and operating
costs may often be reduced by the elimination of the need for
certain pollution control facilities and practices.
The aim in feedlot site selection is to locate in areas
where a total system approach can be developed. Such a system
should include the complete containment of wastes for recycling
to cropland and ultimately back to feed animals.
Guidelines for Site Selection
1. All cattle feedlots should be located outside of the
10-year flood plain of all river systems. If the 10-year flood
plain of stream is unknown, all feedlots should be located at
least 100 yards outside of the apparent flood plain or high water
marks of the stream.
2. If a cattle feedlot is to be located near a lake or
reservoir, it should be situated downwind and at least 100 yards
outside of the lake's apparent high water line or the reservoir's
25-year flood pool elevation.
3. Cattle feedlots should be located at least 100 yards
away from any intermittent dry storm drainage gulley or irrigation
drainage ditches.
23
-------
4. Cattle feedlots should be located at least 50 yards away
from any irrigation supply canal.
5. Ideally, unpaved uncovered feedlots should be constructed
on a site having at least a 30-foot soil mantle between the maximum
groundwater table elevation and the feedlot surface. In cases
where such a depth of soil is not available, the State Department
of Geology or an extension agent should be contacted to determine
if the site is suitable.
6. All uncovered or partially covered feedlots should be
located in arid or semiarid areas to allow for efficient
recycling of wastes.
7. For odor control cattle feedlots should not be constructed
adjacent to any community. If a feedlot is to be constructed in
the vicinity of a community, it should be located at least one
mile downwind.
8. Feedlot sites for uncovered feeding operations should be
uniformly sloped at approximately 2-8 percent to provide adequate
surface drainage.
9. Feedlot sites should be so situated as to minimize or
eliminate any storm water from running onto or through the feedlot
operation from adjacent land.
24
-------
CATTLE FEEDLOT DESIGN
The design of a cattle feedlot must include systems for the
retention of all wastes on the premises until their ultimate
disposal. This includes the retention of manure, liquid waste
and runoff from the feedlot area.
General Design Guidelines
1. The first logical step in a pollution control program
around a feedlot is to prevent the waters not falling on the lot
from flowing across the lot. Water falling outside the lot area
should be diverted around a feedlot and kept separate from feedlot
drainage. This measure will minimize the size of collection and
treatment facilities as well as decrease the cost of waste water
handling and treatment.
2. All feedlots should have holding ponds for retaining
liquid wastes and runoff on the premises. Two or more ponds in
series are desirable. The first pond serves as a settling basin
and the remainder serve as liquid storage lagoons. In areas
underlain with permeable sand and gravel or porous lava, holding
ponds should be adequately sealed to prevent leakage and ground-
water pollution. In general, seepage through the pond bottoms
and sides must not exceed one-fourth inch of pond surface level
per day.
3. All feedpens should be sloped down and away from the
feeding area to provide for the movement and collection of runoff.
25
-------
4. Drain ditches should be located along the back of each
feedpen to carry liquid wastes and runoff to the holding ponds.
The ditches should be designed to carry the solids in suspension.
5. Adequate portable pumping equipment should be available
for de-watering the holding ponds so that emergency detention
capacity can be provided. Pumping capacity should be sufficient
to drain the ponds in a five-day period.
6. Silage storage areas should be constructed with sufficient
drains so that all liquid wastes will drain into the holding ponds.
The runoff liquids from silage pits are saturated with cellulose
compounds and are extremely difficult to break down. These compounds
in the liquids make a heavy demand on the available oxygen supply
in watercourses and must therefore be totally confined to the farm
operation.
In addition to these general considerations, the feedlot
operator must be aware that his waste management system may
require additional protective facilities not covered herein. The
design of these facilities may require the services of consulting
specialists such as consulting engineers, local Extension
Representatives, Soil Conservation Service (SCS), the State
Department of Health or other appropriate agencies.
The SCS and the State Extension Service provide engineering
assistance to those operators who need help in designing their
waste management systems.
26
-------
Federal cost-sharing programs relating to pollution abatement
are also available to the feedlot operators. The Rural Environmental
Assistance Program (REAP) administered by the Department of
Agriculture has the authority to provide Federal cost-sharing of
pollution abatement costs for such facilities as lagoons, diversions
and other waste or runoff management practices.
Local agricultural extension agents will provide valuable
assistance to the operator regarding the application rates of
cattle waste on agricultural land.
Feedlot Layout and Design Guidelines
The second major component of a total system approach is
the layout and design of the feedlot operation. There are two
basic feedlot layouts, covered and uncovered, and each has its
particular pollution control methods.
In developing the following feedlot layout guidelines, an
attempt has been made to provide a layout which not only would
meet the previously mentioned water pollution control measures
but at the same time provide cattle feeding and loafing areas
conducive to maximum weight gains.
Uncovered Feedlots
In an uncovered feedlot operation, all surface runoff from
the entire operation must be retained upon the site of the feedlot
27
-------
operation. In addition, any surface runoff from the land surrounding
the operation must not enter on or pass through the feedlot
operation.
Uncovered, unpaved (excluding feed bunk aprons) feedpens
should have a slope of approximately 2-8 percent sloping away
from the feed bunks. This degree of slope should provide adequate
surface drainage of the pens. A surface drainage collection ditch
should be located adjacent and parallel to the cattle alley. The
slope of these collection ditches should be about one percent and
the collection ditches should extend the length of the cattle alley,
if practical, and discharge into a retention lagoon.
Cattle alleys with feedpens located on each side should be
provided with separate drainage ditches for each series of pens
to minimize the number of runoff crossings.
Uncovered, paved feedpens should be similar in all respects
to the uncovered unpaved feedlots with the exception of the degree
of slope of the feedpen surface. The slope for the paved lot
should be approximately 0.5-1 percent.
Feedpens can be designed with slotted floors to automate,
to some degree, the removal of manure. It should be noted that
some feedlot operators have experienced excessive animal mortalities
with slotted floor designs. Before designing such a layout the
operator should consult with the local Extension Agent.
28
-------
..lyiemises o£ jfeedlot.
V
_,.
ol
4J
H
a
H
U
«l
o
3
!
2
0
!
f Feeding Pens
!
.
i
5 Slop. ,
' £
ev A'
L /^
^~
ed
Tev
r
:
Feeding Pens *
3
!
5
1 slope
41
Pu
....,......£
4
V.
'
b
!
u
g
p
1
4
a
,
f!
i
_
v
<
(
^
«
i
* I
t '
^Slope
;
tie ' * »
ev
Secondary
Retention
Lagoon
Primary
Retention
Lagoon
PLAN
I
Drainage Collection Ditch
j Feed Bunks
;, Fence
Lagoon Overflow Section
Drainage Collection Ditch
Feed Bunks
Fence
FIGURE NO. 1
TYPICAL FEEDING PEN LAYOUT
UNCOVERED, PAVED AND UNPAVED
FEEDLOT OPERATION
-------
Feeding Pens
- » * '» *-
Slope ^.
Slope _
«r~,
Feeding Pens
Slope
Slop
i
f
(Feed |
-lAlley }.. .._
J L_
Cattle
...
Primary Retention Lagoon
Secondary
Retention
Lagoon
Lagoon overflow Section
Overflow Channel
extended to
natural drainage
channel.
Slotted Floors
Fence
.i 1
Feed
vt
a
Alley
V
CJ
Feed
Bunks
Cattle
Fence |
Alley
| Fence
FIGURE HO. 2
TYPICAL FEEDING PEN LAYOUT: SLOTTED FLOOR S01IDS WASTE
MANAGEMENT SYSTEM, UNCOVERED, PAVED AKD UNPAVED.
PERAT ION
-------
1
r
i;
5
^
^'
^i
^i
y
\
^
^
3
i
-
~"
>
«
i
«
3
Earth dike around Jt<
feedlot premises. re<
* * ~"-^ » * <* * * ' l*-fil ti
:
s
[
*--» « «- > 1» -»--« « -» >=3
i
Feeding Fens i
^
£
3} 1
,1 Slope » |
.»..., ^ . « (-
ish 1
Jragi
iuir<
fure
!
:
1 >
< «
< ^^
1 <
o
«
V
tanks for
i of water
id to flush
<£3tcft9idnO" aircsf - * ~* * * ~*
1-, Slotted floor with manure*
[1 catchment area under j" '
U slots f
9
rt^4 f . -J(- -^__«__- M * ft »-- > 1
*-]
Cf 1
y feeding Pens
g
:H
1 Slope SI
J3i . -»^-, »--» » H « »- » J
X
o
iH
<
«
U
U
u
»P'
^
1
f___, Jl
4
^
H -- -*--:
1 1 '
.' i i
3V. !L' 'Li
1 % IS"1^*^8
Primary Retention
Lagoon
Pump discharge
line to Irrigated
field
Lagoon Overflow
Section
PLAN VIEW
Secondary Retention
Lagoon ,
Earth dike to
prevent surface
runoff from entering
feedot premises
Feed
Bunk
Feed
Alley
Fence
cr
Overflow channel
extended to natural
...drainage .channel.. ..
Overflow channel
extended to
natural drainage
Cattle channel
Alley
Fence Fence
LL_=-._
Manure catchment area,
slope floor of area
toward retention lagoon
at approx. 4%
FIGURE NO. 3
TYPICAL FEEDING PEN LAYOUT
LIOUID WASTE >U::AGEMECT SYSTEM (FLUSH TYPE)
SLOTTED FLOOR, UNCOVERED, PAVED AMD UNPAVED
FEEDLOT OPERATIOM
-------
Earth dike
around fe
premises
N
i
*
ce
iedlot
;
01
M
i-l
4J
4J
5
i
^
r
Feeding
Pens
f*
Scopes,
V
i
~j
j
|
b ii
\\
5
I
2s
I
K
,
^
01
H
<-
0)
0)
b
LM
f.ti
^E
S
Fp
f"*^
\ 'U
z^
rrr
^5
I
1 1
{ j
r^
\1
Feeding
Pens
Slopes
A J-
*
ENT SYSTH (OXIDATION DITCH TYPE)
SLOTTED FLOOR, UNCOVERED, PAVED AND UNPAVED
FEEDLOT OPERATION
-------
Uncovered feedpens with partially slotted floors which are
designed to gather and dispose of the manure in the solid state,
should have the unslotted portion of the pens sloped toward the
slotted portion at a slope of 3-5 percent for unpaved lots and
0.5-1 percent for the paved lots. The major axis of the slotted
floor area should run parallel to the feed alley. The manure and
storm runoff catchment area under the slotted floor should be
sloped at approximately 0.5-1 percent (assuming catchment area is
paved) and should be sloped in a direction parallel to the feed
alley. In essence, these catchment areas become the surface
drainage collection ditches during storm periods. Therefore, each
series of catchment areas should discharge into a retention lagoon.
To facilitate removal of the manure which accumulates under
the slotted floors, an on-site removable and retractable mechanical
scraping device should be designed to scrape the manure out from
under the slotted floors and into an open area from which the
manure can be disposed.
Uncovered feedpens with partially slotted floors which are
designed to gather and dispose of the manure in the liquid state
may be of two basic types, the flush or oxidation ditch systems.
In the flush type system that basic design would be similar
to slotted floor designed to handle the manure in a solid state
with the exception that the slope of the paved catchment area in
the direction of its length should be about four percent and the
33
-------
length of the catchment area would be restricted due to flushing
water requirements. A retention lagoon would be required to hold
the flushing water, plus storm runoff. This system has the dis-
advantage of year-round disposal of the liquid waste which in many
instances would be impossible without causing a surface water
pollution problem.
The oxidation ditch type system consists of a closed racetrack-
shaped manure catchment area located under the slotted floor. This
racetrack-shaped catchment area is initially filled with water and
manure to some predetermined depth (approximately two feet). The
mixture of the water and manure is then continuously circulated
and aerated by a rotating paddle wheel.
The feedpens should be sloped toward the slotted floor in
the same manner as the slotted floor operations having a dry
manure handling system. An overflow drain line should be pro-
vided to prevent submergence of the paddle wheel as a result of
storm runoff. The drain lines should discharge into a retention
lagoon.
Covered Feedlots
Covered, paved or unpaved feedpens not including slotted
floors must meet all the water pollution control requirements
stated earlier.
In a covered or partially covered feedlot, the operator may
decide to retain all the surface runoff as spelled out for the
34
-------
Earth dike
around feedlot
premises
_,«
t" !
^1
i '
3:
d,
|
^
^
*
V
%-
V'
0
^
0
4J
4J
U
% Surf a
X * X
Feeding
Pens
!
t
~ * » X,
I
Ventilat
Halls
Sloee
e dra
>» <
«
-i
o
0
0
i
nage col
X >i Jl
Feeding
Pens
X X tf
Sloge_
H
.
0
f-4
0
i ^^
^
4J
U
i j
- -T-yf J-_3 C ^
"^^ f Underground storm r " " T
on ditch
,**.*
t
-------
around premises ~:
of feedlot -J
Cl
2
^
^
^
~
^
^
c;
^»
5
^
c
iz
^
-~-~- K
c
C
c
c
t
C-
c.
-- - -
t
\
v
;
;(
J>
r*
\<
*z
X
f
-- '-
-.1
» » -..
e
ntilatid
Walls'
^j
X - ;".<
- e
_- (
,t
Slope^6
L~i
cT
';.
i i
'
x
rH
^
0
0
CM
V
. Slotti
- catchi
» - X X -
-
Feedin)
-; Pens
;;
i
I
i-i x *-
,
'
,
Slope
,~
'-r
I
* 1 | . *
+ t
/" A
-tJ Retention V
fr H
Fnt
^
0
r-l
i-H
^
S
u
-----
oor wit
area uru
A
*-* w
Slopej*
-J--^--r=-_T
\ Lagoon /Overflow sec
Lagoon ,
, manure
er slats
f
^
ion
^
Overflow channel extended to
natural drainage channel
Earth dike to prevent
urface runoff froo
entering feedlot-
premises
Drainage pipe for
conveying roof
drainage away from
feedlot operation
Manure catchment
area, slope floor
of area towards
retention lagoon
at 0.5-17.
Alley
FIGURE NO. 6
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
TYPICAL FEEDING PEN LAYOUT
SLOTTED FLOOR, COVERED, PAVED AND UNPAVED
FEEDLOT OPERATION
-------
premises
line to
field
IT
j
j> \ |"H
^1 ^
shchar'geK
irrigated
§
Feed
Pens
Slope
a
"
c
T
<
(
t
j
>. t
0)
-" e
< T
t
01 t
a
In
1
Feed
Pens
Slope
ii 1 y rx>
k 11! Culverts jj
^ ;
^_
1 t ^C
rimary Retention '
Lagoon ,
*
> *
Cattle Alley
Feed
Pens
Slop
1.
7/
J
|
c
P
>
X
i
r-< 1
« :
«l 7
0) 1
t
?
j
lm T
jiiiiinniiiiliiiiiiniiiUniuiiiuiiiuiumibiiikn,ii:nikDiBi
"""!"! f
Hi III
< HJ LK'
^ i T
Primary
Retention Lagooi
^ , f
t
1
t
T
*
\
? !
i\
Lagoon overflow
section
c
Secondary Retention
Lagoon
Lagoon overflow
section
T
Overflow channel extended
natural drainage channel
to
Roof gutters
Earth dike to prevent
surface runoff from
entering feedlot
premises
Drainage pipe for
conveying roof
drainage away
from feedlot
operation
Manure catchment
area, slope floor
of area towards
retention lagoon
at aoorox. 4%
FIGURE NO. 7
TYPICAL FEEDING PEN LAYOUT
LIQUID WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (FLUSH TYPE)
SLOTTED FLOOR, COVERED; PAVED AND UNPAVED
FEEDLOT OPERATION
-------
Oxidation ditch covered
* with slotted floor
Earth dike
around feedlot^
premises
1" - 501
laced Wells
Lagoon overflow secCion
Overflow channel extend
to natural drainage
channel
Earth dike to prevent
urface runoff from
entering feedlot
Fence
Drainage pipe for
conveying roof
drainage away from
feedlot operation
Oxidation ditch covered
with slotted floor
FIGURE NO. 8
TYPICAL FEEDING PEN LAYOUT
LIQUID WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (OXIDATION DITCH TYPE)
SLOTTED FLOOR, COVERED, PAVED AND UNPAVED
FEEDLOT OPERATION
-------
uncovered feedlots. However, to minimize the size of the retention
lagoon he should select to gutter all roofed areas. The water thus
collected should be conveyed through underground piping to an area
outside and downslope of the feedlot operation. The gutters and
underground piping must be designed to carry the average 10 year,
24 hour rainfall or design storm (see appendix). All uncovered
portions of the operations must conform to the same conditions
as set forth for uncovered feedlot operations. As with the
uncovered feedlot operations, any surface runoff from land
surrounding the operation must not enter on or pass through the
feedlot operation.
Concentrations of cattle are normally considerably higher in
covered operations which requires systematic removal of manure if
optimum weight gains are to be obtained. Therefore, an area must
be provided to stockpile this removed manure. The manure stockpile
area probably would be uncovered. Any surface drainage from the
stockpile area as well as the other uncovered areas including any
surface drainage from the covered feedpens must be retained in a
retention lagoon.
Covered feedpens with partially slotted floors, designed to
handle the manure in a solid state, should be laid out similar to
their counterpart in the uncovered slotted floor operations. The
primary difference will be in the slope of the lot toward the
slotted floor and the size of the retention lagoon. The slope of
39
-------
the lot may be reduced to that required so that the cattle will
walk the manure into the catchment area located under the slotted
floor (0.5-1 percent for paved and 1-2 percent for unpaved). In
addition, the retention lagoon will be appreciably smaller as a
result of the roof gutters bypassing the storm runoff from the
feedlot surface.
Covered feedpens with partially slotted floors which are
designed to handle the manure in a liquid state should be laid
out similar to their counterpart in the uncovered slotted floor
operations. The primary differences between the flush type and
the oxidation ditch type systems is the degree of slope of the
feedlot surface towards the slotted floor area and the capacity
of the retention lagoons.
Each feedlot operation is a unique situation. The design
and layout should be tailored to the site and to the particular
feeding operations anticipated. Whether covered, uncovered, or
a combination, the design objective is to retain wastes on the
operation.
40
-------
FEEDLOT WASTE MANAGEMENT
Manure and other sources of waste associated with cattle
feeding operation must be managed so as to prevent surface or
groundwater pollution problem. Current economic conditions of
the cattle feeding industry and the existing waste treatment
technology yields little hope for the feed lot operator to treat
his operation waste sources to such an extent that they would be
of adequate quality for discharging into a surface or subsurface
water body.
Haste Management Guidelines
1. Manure mounds should be formed in the dry season.
During the wet season, the mounds can be scraped clean of wet
manure to provide a dry area for the cattle to rest. The wet
scrapings should be removed from the mound area for ultimate land
disposal.
2. When it is necessary to remove manure from the feedpen
area and immediate land disposal is impossible, it should be
stockpiled. Drainage from manure stockpile areas should be routed
to the holding ponds.
3. The liquid waste contents of holding ponds should be
discharged to the disposal area as frequently as possible so as to
provide storage capacity in the ponds.
4. Overflow from water troughs should be discharged outside
the feedlot area through a pipe system.
41
-------
5. Manure from feedlots other than partially slotted floor
onerations should be removed as required to insure a maximum gain
in the fed cattle. Odor, dust, and fly propagation must at the
same time be controlled. In slotted floor operation the manure is
removed from the feedlot surface continuously as a result of the
cattle moving around inside the feeding pen.
6. A current acceptable waste management practice for
uncovered unpaved feedlots is to form manure mounds during the dry
season to heights of 8 to 12 feet. During the wet season the sur-
faces of the mounds are scraped clean of wet manure to provide a
dry area for the cattle to rest and sleep. The wet scrapings are
pulled into the low areas of the feeding pen. During the subsequent
dry season the mounds are reformed, at which time any excess manure
is removed from the pen.
7. The manure catchment area under slotted floors designed
for dry handling of the manure should be cleaned on a routine basis,
and the manure should be either stockpiled on the feedlot premise
for later disposal or, if the conditions are appropriate, the
manure should be hauled directly to its ultimate disposal area.
8. Feeding operations having slotted floors with flush type
liquid waste handling systems require retention lagoons designed
and constructed to contain a month's supply of the flush water plus
the design storm runoff from the remainder of the uncovered portions
of the feedlot (separate lagoon may be used). The lagoon contents
42
-------
must be discharged as early as possible to provide capacity for
possible future storm runoff.
9. Slotted floor feeding operations with oxidation ditch
manure handling systems require little management with the excep-
tion of routine maintenance on the paddle wheel drive train.
During normal operations, at least one foot of water should cover
all settle solids to insure odor and fly control. Annually, during
the fall of the year, the oxidation ditch should be cleaned of its
contents for ultimate disposal. Overflow lines from the oxidation
ditch to the retention lagoons should be inspected periodically to
insure that they are not plugged.
10. If it is required to remove manure from the feeding area
when conditions are adverse for its ultimate disposal, the manure
should be stockpiled on the feedlot premise. Any runoff from this
stockpile must be retained upon the feedlot surface. If a feedlot
operation is located in a high groundwater area, a paved area
should be provided for stockpiling the excess manure. In most
cattle feeding areas a stockpile area sufficient to hold a six-
month production of manure should be adequate.
11. Dead animals, rodents, etc. and waste pesticides should
be retained upon the feedlot premise until they can be disposed
of in such a manner as will not cause a water pollution problem.
12. To assist in controlling the dust problem which occurs
at unpaved feedlots during extended dry periods, the operator
43
-------
should increase the concentration of cattle to the maximum extent
possible without detrimentally affecting cattle weight gains. If
this does not curtail the problem, spraying of the feedlot surface
with water may be required.
13. Reproduction of flies should, to the extent possible, be
controlled by attempting to keep the manure well dried during fly
propagation periods. If inadequate ventilation, climate condition
or water spraying for dust control limits the drying of the manure
during fly propagation periods, the manure should be sprayed with a
suitable pesticide. Retention lagoons should also be sprayed for
fly control during propagation periods.
14. Odor control is at times a serious problem with cattle
feedlot operations. The odor generates from the anaerobic decom-
position of manure which usually occurs on the inside of moist
manure piles. When these piles are disturbed, the odors from
anaerobic decomposition are extremely severe. The solution of the
problem is not an easy one due to other restrictions for preventing
water pollution. Masking the odor with a chemical may be possible.
However, the odor could be minimized by attempting to keep the
manure pack dry and only disturb the manure piles when wind condi-
tions will transfer the odor away from nearby populated areas.
Waste Disposal Guidelines
Land disposal is currently the only industry-wide acceptable
method for the disposal of cattle feedlot wastes. An exception is
44
-------
dead animals which should be disposed of at rendering or animal
by-products plants. The recommended method for disposing of manure
and associated wastes is spreading upon and incorporating these
into agricultural land.
The following guides are divided into two groups. The first
being guides for the disposal of dry manure and other waste solids,
and the second being guides for disposal of liquid waste.
Disposal of Dry Manure and Other Solid Waste by Spreading on
Agricultural Land
1. Dry manure should be spread on annual crop lands either
immediately prior to planting or immediately following harvest. In
either case, the manure should be incorporated into the soil mantle
by cultivation soon after spreading.
2. Since manure cannot be incorporated into the soil mantle
when the manure is spread on irrigated pasture or alfalfa lands,
special provisions should be made to retain and reuse all of the
irrigation tail water which drains off the irrigated fields during
irrigation of the field with the liquid waste and that which drains
the next few days after irrigation.
3. Land requirements for dry manure disposal should be
determined on the basis of soil conditions, crops, and local climatic
conditions. These factors should be determined in consultation
with the extension agent.
45
-------
Disposal of Liquid Waste
1. Liquid manure retained in lagoons or oxidation ditches
should be disposed of by spreading the waste upon agricultural land.
If the liquid is sprayed or allowed to flow by gravity onto the land
it' should be applied at a quantity equivalent to the depleted soil
moisture. Under no condition should the waste be applied upon a
frozen or saturated field unless facilities such as dikes or berms
are provided to prevent runoff from the field.
2. Soecial provisions must be provided to retain and reuse
any tail water drainage which results from the field being irrigated
during and subsequent to irrigation with the waste liquid.
3. Disposal of waste pesticides must be done in accordance
with state regulations; therefore, dip pit wastes or any other
pesticides used in conjunction with feedlot operation must be
given special consideration.
General Land Disposal Considerations
The nutrient and soil requirements for specific crops grown
in various areas of the state can be obtained from the Department
of Agriculture. In general, high volume crops such as hay, green-
pasture crops and grasses or corn will remove large amount of
nutrients from the soil; therefore, higher application rates can
be used on each acre where these crops are raised. Alfalfa, a deep-
rooted crop, may prevent much of the nitrate leached below the root
46
-------
zones of previous rotations of shallow-rooted crops from reaching
the water table.
In order to adequately protect the groundwater quality in the
land disposal areas, approximately 250 pounds of nitrogen per acre
per year (equivalent to the annual waste from five beef cattle) can
be applied to forage or pasture. The application rate of liquid
waste from the retention ponds is equivalent to waste produced by
six beef cattle provided that tight soil conditions exist. This
rate would be excessive when applied to sandy soils.
Greater application rates can be applied to the land if, in
the opinion of the State Department of Health or other appropriate
agency, the surface and groundwaters in the vicinity of the disposal
area are not adversely affected by these higher rates. In areas
where no surface or groundwater pollution is possible, the equiva-
lent waste produced by 50 beef cattle can be applied to each acre
of disposal land. However, in some cases this rate may be excessive
due to the high potential for salt build up in the soil.
In areas with annual rainfall greater than 30 inches, manure
applied to the land should be incorporated into the soil mantle as
soon as possible to eliminate runoff from the disposal area. In
this area more land will have to be made available for liquid waste
disposal since the land will be saturated longer during the year.
Holding dikes or berms should be constructed to prevent runoff.
47
-------
APPENDIX
Four equations are included in this appendix to aid in the
calculation of (1) short term retention of runoff from feedlots,
(2) minimal surface areas for evaporation ponds, (3) volume of
evaporation ponds, and (4) depth determination of evaporation ponds.
Figures F-l, F-2, and F-3 are "area identification" for applicable
drainage basins in the States of Idaho, Oregon, and Washington
respectively. Table 1-T, General Monthly Precipitation and Pan
Evaporation, provides information needed for the above equations.
Table 2-T presents soil characteristics in cattle feeding areas.
Column 1, "Basin Number" from both tables should be coordinated
with the appropriate Figure F-l, F-2, or F-3.
Short Term Facilities
The magnitude of runoff is a function of the amount of
precipitation falling on the lot and that fraction which is not
retained on the feedlot as ponded or absorbed water. The capacity
of short term collection facilities should be based upon the
runoff resulting from a 10-year, 24-hour rainfall intensity
(design storm). Average 10-year, 24-hour rainfall intensity curves
are shown on Figure 1-T.
The total volume required for short term retention of runoff
from the feedlot area can be determined by the equation:
V = 0.083 (feet/inch) x A (acres) x I (inches) x C EQ.l
where:
48
-------
V = Total volume of runoff in acre-feet.
A = Total drainage area of feedlot and pond in acres.
I = Design rainfall intensity in inches (From Figure 1-T).
C = Runoff coefficient. Use 0.93 for most cases. This
value is based upon the assumption that 7 percent of the short
term runoff is retained either on the surface pack or in puddles
on the drainage area.
The total volume of runoff must include all drainage into the
feedlot area from adjacent land unless it is diverted around the
feedlot. The total volume of runoff may be reduced for covered or
partly-covered feedlot operation provided that roof drains and
underground piping are designed to carry the design storm runoff_.
Separation Facilities
A settling pond should precede the retention pond and should
be designed to retain the settleable solids contained in the feedlot
runoff. The settling pond design features should include:
1. Volume should be 20 percent of total volume "V"
calculated.
2. A depth not to exceed five feet to facilitate easy
cleaning unless special non-clog pumps are used.
3. A freefall entry of wastes to prevent blockage.
4. Concrete apron inlets can be used on earthen ponds to
support manure handling equipment.
49
-------
5. Adequate fencing or other safeguards to prevent
accidental entry by animals and humans alike.
The retention pond should have a capacity equal to 80 percent
of the total volume and should provide capacity to contain runoff
mainly during exceptionally wet years. The depth of the pond will
depend upon land availability and the depth of groundwater since
cleaning frequency is not an important factor. A designed spillway
should be provided for the retention pond to prevent dike failure
during extreme runoff conditions. Dewatering should be completed
as soon as possible following high runoff periods (dependent on
soil moisture levels in the disposal area). The pond levee freeboard
must conform to State requirements.
Evaporation System
Evaporation ponds may be more economical in areas of low
rainfall and high evaporation if the land is available. The loss
of liquid contents from the pond would eliminate the need for
costly pumping and sprinkling equipment.
Table 1-T shows average monthly annual precipitation and pan
evaporation values for each drainage basin in the area (Figure 2-T).
Actual evaporation values may be 60-80 percent (or less) of the pan
evaporation values. Evaporation ponds may be applicable in drainage
basin areas 3, 4, and 5 in Idaho; 3, 4, 5, and 6 in Oregon; and 4,
5, 6, 7, and 8 in Washington.
50
-------
The evaporation pond will operate most efficiently when total
annual inflow resulting from runoff is less than the total loss
due to evaporation. It is therefore important to design the pond
with an adequate surface area to allow a large volume of water to
be evaporated during the summer months. The following equation
should provide a minimum surface area for evaporation ponds:
S = (1.67 x A (acre) x P (inches) x C) * E EQ.2
where:
S = Minimum pond surface area in acres.
A = Area of runoff (including pond area) in acres.
P = Total annual precipitation in inches (Table 1-T).
C = 0.6; Runoff coefficient assuming 40 percent of annual
precipitation is retained or absorbed on the feedlot.
E = Total annual pan evaporation in inches (Table 1-T).
The constant 1.67 is the evaporation correction value to convert
Class A pan evaporation to lake evaporation.
The actual volume of the pond should be based upon the amount
of rainfall occurring during the months of November through May
of the following year because precipitation is greater than
evaporation during this period.
Evaporation pond volume can be determined by the equation:
V = .083 (feet/inches) x A (acres) x P (Nov. - May) x C EQ.3
where:
51
-------
V = Total evaporation pond volume in acre-feet.
A = Drainage acre in acres including pond area.
P = (Nov. - May) = Total precipitation^ in inches between
November 1 and May 1 of the following year.
C = 0.6; Runoff coefficient. Assuming 40 percent of the
rainfall during this period will be absorbed on the feedlot.
The pond depth can be determined by:
D (feet) = V (acre/feet) * S (acres) EQ.4
where:
D = Pond depth in feet.
V = Pond volume in acre-feet.
S = Pond surface area in acres.
The evaporation pond should be preceded by a settling pond.
The settling pond should have the same design features as described
under the "Short Term Facilities." The surface area requirement
should be determined by the evaporation rate of the basin. The
total volume requirement can be determined by both the sizes of
the settling and evaporation basins.
An overflow spillway should be provided for the evaporation
pond to prevent dike failure during extreme runoff conditions.
The evaporation pond levee freeboard should be one to two feet.
52
-------
F-l
BASIN NUMBERS - IDAHO
-------
F-2
BASIN NUMBERS - OREGON
-------
F-3
BASIN NUMBERS - WASHINGTON
-------
Table 1-T
GENERAL MONTHLY PRECIPITATION AND EVAPORATION IN IDAHO
Area
Month
January
February
March
Apri 1
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
2 3 4 5 **
Precip. Evap. Precip. Evap. Precip. Evap. Precip. Evap. Precip. Evap.
Inches Inches Inches Inches Inches Inches Inches Inches Inches Inches
3.2 - 5.1
2.2 - 4.4
1.8 - 3.7
1.1 - 2.0
1.4 - 2:2
1.6 - 2.7
0.7 - 1.1
0.7 - 1.2
1.3 - 2.1
2.4 - 3.6
3.1 - 4.7
3.5 - 5.6
35 - 40
Total
0.5 - 4.8
0.3 - 4.4
0.4 - 4.4
0.5 - 3.5
1.1 - 3.3
1.2 - 3.3
0,4 - 1.1
0.4 - 0.8
0.6 - 2.0
0.5 - 3.4
0.3 - 4.7
0.5 - 5.7
40 - 50
Total
1.0 - 3.6
0.9 - 3.2
1.1 - 2.8
0.8 - 1.9
1.0 - 2.4
0.7 - 2.1
0.1 - 0.6
0.2 - 0.6
0.3 - 1.2
0.7 - 2.3
0.9 - 3.2
0.9 - 3.6
40 - 55
Total
0.7 - 2.1
0.6 - 1.9
0.6 - 1.4
0.5 - 1.1
0.9 - 1.6
0.6 - 1.9
0.3 - 1.0
0.3 - 0.9
0.6 - 1.4
0.4 - 1.6
0.4 - 1.6
0.6 - 2.2
40 - 55
Total
1.4
1.3
1.3
1.6
1.3
1.2
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.3
1.3
1.4
36 - 72
Total
TOTAL
23 - 38
35 - 40
6.9 - 41
40 - 50
8.8 - 27
40 - 55
7.6 - 17
40 - 55 12 - 15 36 - 72
** Monthly data for Area 5 are for 'ialad only
-------
Table 1-T
GENERAL MONTHLY PRECIPITATION AND EVAPORATION IN OREGON
Area
Precip. Evap. Precip. Evap. Precip. Evap. Precip. Evap. Precip. Evap. Precip. Evap.
Month Inches Inches Inches Inches Inches Inches Inches Inches Inches Inches Inches Inches
January
February
March
Apri 1
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
2.78-10.29
2.15- 8.35
1.78- 7.63
1.06- 3.87
1.47- 2.77
1.02- 1.69
.21- .43
.18- .52
.60- 1.73
1.84- 5.49
2.53- 8.56
3.00-10.49
20-43.5
Total
6.30-12.71
4.79-10.25
4.12- 8.74
2.04- 4.04
1.80- 2.74
1.24- 2.12
.31- .44
.38- .62
1.25- 1.75
3.52- 5.69
5.35-10.78
6.57-13.83
30-40
Total
1.13- 2.91
.83- 2.11
.77- 1.72
.60- 1.52
1.06- 1.89
.96- 1.99
;21- .61
.17- .60
.42- .93
.78- 1.73
1.12- 2.39
1.09- 2.73
40-55
Total
.89- 1.99
1.03- 2.01
1.32- 2.13
1.34- 1.91
1.82- 1.90
1.81- 1.96
.46-' .53
.53- .55
.76- .94
1.22- 1.69
1.25- 2.29
1.22- 2.45
40-50
Total
.80- 1.75
.76- 1.31
.59- 1.91
.51- .97
.64- 1.88
.59- 1.56
.21- .37
.22- .33
.42- .64
.69- 1.11
.73- 1.12
.63- 1.54
55-60
Total
.92- 7.29
.88- 5.55
.65- 4.55
.57- 3.12
.88- 2.83
.80- 2.19
.17- .65
.15- .89
.43- 1.61
.66- 2.96
.68- 5.93
.91- 6.86
40-55
Total
Total
18.62-61.82 20-43.5 37.67-73.71 30-40
9.14-21.13 40-55 13.66-20.35 40-50
6.79-14.49 55-60
7.70-44.43 40-55
-------
Table 1-T
GENERAL MONTHLY PRECIPITATION AND EVAPORATION IN WASHINGTON
Area
Month
Precip. Evap. Precip. Evap. Precip. Evap. Precip. Evap. Precip. Evap. Precip. Evap. Precip. Evap. Precip. Evap.
Inches Inches Inches Inches Inches Inches Inches Inches Inches Inches Inches Inches Inches Inches Inches Inches
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
11 -17
8 -14
8 -13
5 - 8
3 - 5
3-4
1 - 3
1,5- 2
3 - 5
8 -12
10 -15
12 -19
20-25
Total
6-7
5-7
5 - 6
3-5
2-3
2-3
.5- 1
1 - 2
2 - 2.5
4 - 6
6 - 7
8-9
2-3
2-3
2-3
2-3
2-3
5-7
5-7
5-7
5-7
2-3
2-3
2-3
3.5- 6
2.5- 4
2.5- 4
1.5-2.5
1 - 2
1.5- 2
.5- 1
.5- 1
1.5-2
2.5- 3.5
3.5- 5.5
4.0- 6.5
3.0
4 -5
6.5
4 -5
3.5
1 - 1.3
.6- .9
.5- .8
.5
.5
.8
.2
.2
.4
.7
.7-1.2
.8-1.4
2-5
2-5
2-5
6-9
6-9
6-9
6-9
2-5
2-5
3.0
2.0
1.7
.8
.8
.9
.2
.2
.6
1.6
2.5
3.0
4-5
6-7
7-9
9-11
8-10
4-6
2-3
1 - 2
1 - 1.5
.5- 1
.5- 1
.5- 1
.5- 1
.2- .5
.2- .5
.5- .8
.5- 1
1 - 2
1 - 2.5
2-5
2-5
2-5
7-12
7-12
7-12
7-12
2-5
2-5
1 - 2.5
1 - 2
1 - 2
1 - 1.5
1.5
1.7
.5
.5
1
1 - 2
1.2- 2.5
1.5- 3.0
25-30
Total
2.5- 3.5
2.0- 2.5
1.5- 2.5
1 - 2
1 - 2.5
1.5- 3
.5- 1.5
.5- 1.5
1 - 1.5
1.5- 3
2 - 3.5
2.5- 4
45-55
Total
Total
73 -117 20-25 44.5-58.5 36-52 25 - 40 21-23 6.9-8.9 34-61 17.3
40-51 7.4-15.8 38-73 12.9-20.7 25-30 17- 32.5 45-55
-------
Table 2-T
SOIL CHARACTERISTICS IN CATTLE FEEDING AREAS IN IDAHO
Basin
Present Major
Land Use
General Soil
Texture
General Soil
Permeability
Inches/Hour
General Soil
Drainage
Soil Water
Holding Capacity
Inches in Profile
1
2
3
4
5
Cereals, clover
and grass seed,
pasture, hay,
and alfalfa
Cereals, hay,
potatoes, peas,
clover, pasture
Cereals, potatoes,
mint, hops,
vegetables, hay
Cereals, hay,
potatoes,
beans
Pasture,
cereals
Sandy and
silty loams
Sandy and
silty loams
Silty to clayey
Silty and
sandy
Silty to
clayey loams
0.2 to over 10
.5 to 8
0.05 to 5
0.05 to 2.5
0.05 to 2.5
Poor to
excessive
Good to
excellent
Bad to good
Bad to good
Bad to good
Less than 6 to
over 10
6 to 10
6 to over 10
6 to over 10
6 to over 10
-------
Table 2-T
SOIL CHARACTERISTICS IN CATTLE FEEDING AREAS IN OREGON
Present Major
Basin Land Use
General Soil
Texture
General Soil
Permeability
Inches/Hour
General Soil
Drainage
Soil Water
Holding Capacity
Inches in Profile
1
2
3
4
5
6
Croo land, hay,
pasture
Forage crops,
cereals, and grass
seed
Cereals, hay,
crop land and
pasture
Crop land, hay
and range land
Crop land,
pasture
Crop land,
pasture
Silty loam
Silty and
sandy loam
Clay to Silt
loam
Sandy silt to
silty clay
loam
Silty to
sandy loam
silty loam to
gravel
.2 to .8
.8 to 2.5
.2 to 2.5
.05 to 2.5
.8 to 10
.05 to 2.5
Poor to good
Good
Poor to good
Bad to good
Poor to
excellent
Bad to good
6 to 10
6 to 10
6 to 10
4 to 8
6 to 10
4 to 10
-------
Table 2-T
SOIL CHARACTERISTICS IN CATTLE FEEDING AREAS IN WASHINGTON
Basin
Present Major
Land Use
General Soil
Texture
General Soil
Permeability
Inches/Hour
General Soil
Drainage
Soil Water
Holding Capacity
Inches in Profile
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Pasture, silage
cereals
Hay, pasture
silage
Hay, cereals,
pasture, truck crops
Apples, alfalfa,
sugar beets, mint,
potatoes, beans,
corn, seed crops,
cereals, hops
Hay pasture
silage
Alfalfa, fruit,
potatoes, sugar
beets, vegetable,
grass seed, cereals,
dryland farming
Cereals, hay,
oasture, fruit,
truck crops
Cereals, hay,
pasture, alfalfa
grass seed
Clay to silt
loam
Sjlty to
gravelly loam
Silty to
sandy loam
Clay to silt
loam
Clay to silt
loam
Sandy loam
Silty loam
Silty to
gravelly loam
.8 to 2.5
inches/hour
2.5 to 5.0
1.5 to 3.0
.8 to 2.5
.8 to 2.5
.8 to greater
than 10
.8 to 2.5
.8 to greater
than 10
Good
Good to
excessive
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good to
excessive
Greater than 10
6 to 10
6 to 10
6 to greater than
10
6 to greater than
10
Less than 6 to 10
6 to 10
6 to 10
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
1 Typical Feeding Pen Layout - Uncovered,
Paved and Unpaved Feedlot Operation ..... 29
2 Typical Feeding Pen Layout - Slotted
Floor Solids Waste Management System,
Uncovered, Paved and Unpaved Feedlot
Operation .................. 30
3 Typical Feeding Pen Layout - Liquid Waste
Management System (Flush Type) Slotted
Floor, Uncovered, Paved and Unpaved
Feedlot Operation .............. 31
4 Typical Feeding Pen Layout - Liquid Waste
Management System (Oxidation Ditch Type)
Slotted Floor, Uncovered, Paved and Unpaved
Feedlot Operation .............. 32
5 Typical Feeding Pen Layout - Solid Waste
Management System, Covered, Paved and
Unpaved Feedlot Operation .......... 35
6 Solid Waste Management System, Typical
Feeding Pen Layout - Slotted Floor, Covered,
Paved and Unpaved Feedlot Operation ..... 36
7 Typical Feeding Pen Layout - Liquid Waste
Management System (Flush Type) Slotted
Floor, Covered, Paved and Unpaved Feedlot
Operation .................. 3?
Typical Feeding Pen Layout - Liquid Waste
Management System (Oxidation Ditch Type)
Slotted Floor, Covered, Paved and Unpaved
Feedlot Operation .............. 38
-------
WASTE FROM ONE BIG FARM'S FEEDLOT EQUALS A CITY'S SEWAGE.
RUNOFF INTO STREAMS IS SERIOUS, AND VAPORIZED AMMONIA CAN
OVERDOSE LAKES A MILE AWAY WITH NITROGEN.
WASTE OF: . . .-.... .-. .
cow '/
$ip-w
i HOG s-:-^^:::;':-:':;:"!^':''.;xl'-Tx 2 PEOPLE
«5^^1^
-X-/.:v^^x':-Xx-::ff-:::;-v-:₯ '.'./. 1 PERSON
:7 CHICKENS '>>'/'.'>:'''-V-V^.'-Ov'/'-iV-V'' /..'''.'.
------- |