EPA-600/2-76-290
December 1976
Environmental Protection Technology Series
STATE-OF-THE-ART: Swine Waste
Production and Pretreatment
Processes
Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Ada, Oklahoma 74820
-------
RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES
Research reports of the Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, have been grouped into nine series. These nine broad cate-
gories were established to facilitate further development and application of en-
vironmental technology. Elimination of traditional grouping was consciously
planned to foster technology transfer and a maximum interface4n related fields.
The nine series are:
1. Environmental Health Effects Research
2. Environmental Protection Technology
3. Ecological Research
4. Environmental Monitoring
5. Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
6, Scientific and Technical Assessment Reports (STAR)
7. Interagency Energy-Environment Research and Development
8. "Special" Reports
9. Miscellaneous Reports
This report has been assigned to the ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION TECH-
NOLOGY series. This series describes research performed to develop and dem-
onstrate instrumentation, equipment, and methodology to repair or prevent en-
vironmental degradation from point and non-point sources of pollution. This work
provides the new or improved technology required for the control and treatment
of pollution sources to meet environmental quality standards.
This document is available to the public through the National Technical Informa-
tion Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
-------
EPA-600/2-76-290
December 1976
STATE-OF-THE-ART: SWINE WASTE PRODUCTION
AND PRETREATMENT PROCESSES
By V
Michael R. Overcash
Frank J. Humenik
Biological and Agricultural Engineering Department
North Carolina State University
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Grant No. R-804002
Project Officer
Lynn R. Shuyler
Agricultural Wastes Section
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 74820
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research
Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and approved for publication.
Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect t'he views and
policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, nor does mention of trade
names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
ii
-------
ABSTRACT
A review of waste generation and pretreatment processes was compiled,
expanded, and interpreted for the swine production industry. The study
goal was to unify and refine various experimental and demonstration
data into the format of unit processes within an overall waste management
system. Typical swine units based upon waste management techniques
were detailed as concrete slab facilities, slotted floor-pit units, and
swine drylot or pasture operations. The waste yield from all concrete
slab or pit units was similar enough to be considered non-differentiated;
and thus, were used to define the generated or swine production unit
load. This approach was used instead of actual or theoretical raw waste
defecation data because the defecated waste load has not been documented
for producer facilities. Drylot and pasture unit waste load was
estimated at only 0.7 percent-10 percent of the concrete slab or
slotted floor-pit production unit waste load.
Pretreatment processes for the production unit waste load were evaluated
in relation to land as the terminal receiver and for waste conversion
mechanisms affecting utilization processes. The pretreatment effects on
waste constituents were examined for all forms of nitrogen, cations
or salts, organics, microbial or pathogen content, and nuisance factors.
Specific processes investigated which focus primarily on nitrogen reduction
were anaerobic lagoons, mechanical surface aeration of lagoons, naturally
facultative lagoons, rainfall-runoff retention ponds, oxidation ditch,
and overland flow. Those processes documented for utilization were high
rate digestion for methane production, solids separation, pyrolysis,
refeeding, and composting. Sufficient data or approximations were
available to rank these pretreatments with respect to nitrogen removal
or conservation and partially to rank according to salt removal or
reduction.
The state-of-the-art report confirmed the large number of definitive
studies on various pretreatment processes and the characterization of
swine waste while certain information gaps were emphasized to direct
future work. The need to augment the current technical base with
economic analyses of field systems was the principal recommendation.
While the report focused on swine wastes, many of the pretreatment
process mechanisms and performance characteristics would be applicable
to other livestock wastes, emphasizing the inherent similarities of
animal wastes.
iii
-------
CONTENTS
Abstract iii
List of Figures viii
List of Tables x
Acknowledgments xiv
Section
I Conclusions 1
II Recommendations 3
III Swine Waste Management 4
A. Swine Production Industry 6
1. Receiver Categories 6
2. Waste Constituent Categories 9
3. Pretreatment Categories 10
B. State-of-the-Art Objectives 11
IV Swine Production Units 12
A. Housing Categories 12
1. Slotted Floor Buildings 12
2. Solid Concrete Slab Floor Units 14
3. Open Dirt or Pasture Lot Production 17
4. Housing Trends 21
B. Magnitude and Distribution of Swine
Population 22
1. 1969 Census 22
2. 1975 Inventory 22
3. 1975 Pig Crop 26
4. Farrowing Intentions 26
5. Production Unit Distribution 26
a. Swine Specialists Survey 26
b. National Poll 29
c. State-Wide Survey, North Carolina 29
d. National Evaluation 32
6. Trivia ' 34
-------
V Properties of Swine Waste and Production Unit
Waste Load 36
A. Concrete Slab and Slotted Floor-Pit
Swine Waste Loads 38
1. Type and Size of Animal 38
2. Waste Volume and Mass-Concrete Slab
Units 38
3. Waste Volume and Mass-Slotted Floor-
Pit Facilities 44
4. Solids Content (Total, Volatile,
Suspended and Volatile Suspended:
Concrete Slab Unit 47
5. Solids Content (Total, Volatile
Suspended and Volatile Suspended:
Slotted Floor-Pit Facilities 47
6. Nitrogen 49
7. Cations and Anions Expressed as Elements 53
8. Organic-Related Parameters 57
9. Bacteria Content 59
10. Miscellaneous Parameters 59
11. Factors Affecting Waste Production 62
a. Feeding Procedure 62
b, Climatological Effects 62
B. Swine Waste Load from Drylot and Pasture
Production Units 63
VI Pretreatment Processes 76
A. Overview 76
B. Pretreatment Processes Oriented Toward
Altering the LLC of Swine Waste 79
1. Lagoons-Anaerobic 79
a. Waste Constituent Reduction Mechanisms 79
b. Design and Climatological Factors 82
c. Anaerobic Lagoon Effluent 92
2. Lagoon-Mechanically Aerated 98
3. Lagoon-Naturally Facultative 103
4. Rainfall Runoff Retention Ponds 105
5. Oxidation Ditch 111
6. Overland Flow (OLF) 118
C. Pretreatment Processes Oriented Toward
Partial Reuse 122
1. High Rate Anaerobic Digestion-Methane
Production 122
2. Solids Separation 124
3. Pyrolysis 12y
4. Refeeding Processes 133
vi
-------
D. Pretreatment Processes Oriented Toward Nearly
Complete Recycling or Reuse of Swine Wastes 136
1. Composting 136
E. Waste Pretreatment Unit Processes-Selection
and Comparison 138
1. Nitrogen-Based Comparison 138
2. Cation or Salt-Based Comparison 141
VII Swine Waste and Pretreatment Research Needs 143
VIII References 144
IX Publications Associated with Project Results 168
X Appendix 169
vii
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Number Page
1 Environmental flow sheet for production process 5
2 Design stages to select the least cost balance 7
between level of pretreatment for limiting
constituent(s) and magnitude of terminal receiver
3 Total environmental schematic of swine production 8
system
4 Schematic of swine production facility with totally 13
slatted floor, manure storage pit, and ventilation
system
5 Schematic of swine production facility with 15
partially slatted floor and manure storage pit
6 Schematic of totally roofed concrete slab swine 16
production unit
7 Schematic of partially roofed, concrete slab 18
swine production unit, "concrete feedlot"
8 Schematic of swine drylot system 19
9 Swine inventory of animals on-farm, December 1 24
i
10 Flow chart for data presentation of waste load 37
from swine production unit categories
11 Pretreatment alternatives for swine wastes 77
12 Pathways for removal or stabilization of swine 80
waste in an anaerobic lagoon
13 Steady-state supernatant COD concentrations for 84
pilot-scale swine lagoons receiving various loading
rates (Humenik 1976)
14 Steady-state supernatant TOG concentration for 85
pilot-scale swine lagoons receiving various
loading rates (Humenik 1976)
viii
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
15 Steady- state supernatant TKN concentration for 86
pilot-scale swine lagoons receiving various
loading rates (Humenik 1976)
16 Increase in swine lagoon concentration anticipated 88
for periods of freezing conditions
17 Impact of regional level of moisture deficit for 90
various lagoon designs of m* of surface area/45-kg
hog assuming a constant depth of 2 m
18 Lines of moisture deficit (in centimeters) for the 91
United States (Chow 1964)
19 Effluent concentration of TKN reported for swine 94
lagoons loaded at various rates
20 Effluent concentrations of COD and BODs reported 96
for swine lagoons loaded at various rates
21 Schematic of mechanically aerated swine lagoon 100
22 Annual rainfall pattern for major swine 109
production regions of the United States
23 Schematic of OLF pretreatment process 119
24 Pyrolysis process streams and potential end uses 129
for terminal wastes (Corvino 1975)
IX
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Number Page
1 Total Number of Hogs and Pigs Sold in 1969, 23
Source: 1969 United States Census of
Agriculture
2 Census by State for On-Farm Hog Populations, 25
December 1, 1974 and 1975
3 Value of Swine Inventory On-Farm, by States, 27
December 1, 1974 and 1975
4 Proportion of Swine Grown According to 28
Production Unit as Estimated by Knowledgeable
University Specialists in Each State
5 Results of National Pork Producers Council 30
Poll of Member Farmers, 1971
6 Results of National Pork Producers Council Poll 31
of Member Farmers, 1974
7 Swine Industry for North Carolina, 1974 33
8 Impact of EPA Criteria on Swine Industry in 35
Major Livestock Producing States (USDA 1976)
9 Production Units Represented in Three Categories 39
of Facilities Delineated in State-of-the-Art Report
10 Manure Production of Growing and Finishing Pigs 40
(Irgen 1965)
11 Approximate Daily Manure Production (Median 41
Values for Undiluted Manure Without Bedding)
(Midwest Plan Service 1969)
12 Raw Waste Load Generated for Different Type of 42
Swine (Day 1969)
13 ASAE Fact Sheet 1972, AW-D-1, Fresh Manure (Feces 43
and Urine) Production and Characteristics per 450
kg Live Weight
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
14 Density of Animal Waste Slurries (Overcash 45
1972, 1973)
15 Swine Waste Generation-Volume and Mass 46
16 Swine Waste Generation-Total (TS) and Volatile 48
Solids (VS)
17 Swine Waste Generation-Total Suspended Solids 50
(TSS) and Volatile Suspended Solids (VSS)
18 Swine Waste Generation and Dry Matter Gomposi- 51
tion-Nitrogen
19 Swine Waste Dry Matter Composition-Cations and 55
Anions-Expressed as Elements
20 Swine Waste Generation and Liquid Concentration- 56
Cations and Anions Expressed as Elements
21 Swine Waste Generation and Dry Matter Composition- 58
Organics
22 Swine Waste Generation, Liquid Composition, and 60
Presence of Bacteria
23 Swine Waste Generation and Dry Matter Composition- 61
Miscellaneous Parameters
24 Seasonal Effect on Raw Swine Waste Parameters 64
25 Summary of Swine Waste Generation from Concrete 65
Slab and Slotted Floor-Pit Production Units
26 Translation of Studied Beef Feedlot Stocking 68
Densities (Clark 1975) into Equivalent Swine
Drylot Stocking Densities
27 Average or Typical Rainfall Runoff Liquid Concen- 70
tration of Total Nitrogen-Beef Feedlots of Various
Stocking Densities (Clark 1975)
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
28 Estimated Maximum, Minimum and Average Rainfall- 72
Runoff Transport of Swine Waste from Drylot Produc-
tion Unit
29 Concentrations of Rainfall Runoff from Land 73
Receiving Animal Manure and From Pasture or
Control Areas
30 Estimated Maximum, Minimum and Average Rainfall- 75
Runoff Transport of Swine Waste from Pasture
Production Unit
31 Effluent Concentration of Various Cations and Anions 95
from Anaerobic Swine Lagoon, Expressed as Elements
32 Approximate Pretreatment Performance of Anaerobic 97
Swine Lagoon Based on Production Raw Waste Input,
Table 25
33 Effluent Concentrations of Bacteria from Anaerobic 99
Swine Lagoon
34 Surface Aeration Characteristics for Lagoons for 102
Odor Control
35 Approximate Pretreatment Performance for Surface 104
Aerated Swine Lagoon (1.8 kg COD/week/m3),
Based on Production Unit Raw Waste, Table 25
36 Effluent Concentration and Design Specifications 106
for Swine Lagoons Loaded as Naturally Facultative
Units
37 Approximate Pretreatment Performance of Swine 107
Lagoons Loaded as Naturally Facultative Units,
Based on Swine Waste Load in Table 25
38 Annual and Monthly Period Rainfall, Runoff, and 110
Nitrogen Transport Estimated for Swine Production
Regions of the United States, Drylots
39 Approximate Pretreatment Performance of Rainfall 112
Runoff Ponds for Swine Dry Lots, Based on Input
Data Table 28
Xll
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
40 Oxidation Ditch Requirements for Swine Waste 114
41 Oxidation Ditch Treatment of Swine Wastes 116
42 Approximate Pretreatment Performance of 117
Oxidation Ditches for Swine Wastes with Input
Defined in Table 25
43 Approximate Pretreatment Performance of Overland 121
Flow Systems Receiving Swine Wastes from Concrete
Slab or Slotted Floor-Pit Units, Table 25, and
From Drylot Production Units, Table 28
44 Approximate Pretreatment Performance of Methane 123
Digesters Receiving Swine Wastes, Table 25
45 Separation Performance of Various Devices 126
Receiving Raw Swine Waste
46 Approximate Pretreatment Effect of Solid Separa- 128
tion Devices Receiving Swine Wastes, as Detailed
in Table 25
47 Separation of Waste Constituents from Animal Wastes 131
by Pyrolysis Process
48 Approximate Pretreatment Performance for Pyrolysis 132
of Swine Wastes,. Based on Waste Generation in
Table 25
49 Amino Acid Content of Swine Feces and Swine 134
Oxidation Ditch Mixed Liquor as Related to
Refeeding Potential
50 Losses of Selected Constituents of Animal Waste 137
During Composting Operations
51 Approximate Pretreatment Performance of Composting 139
Raw Swine Waste, Based on Table 25
52 Comparison of Pretreatment Processes for Swine 140
Wastes Based on Removal Efficiency for Nitrogen
53 Comparison of Pretreatment Processes for Swine 142
Waste Based on Removal Efficiency for Salts
xiii
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The continuous and enthusiastic support of the North Carolina Agricul-
tural Experiment Station and Extension Service was fundamental for the
expansion of the research objectives and goals of this project. The
direction, encouragement, and perseverance of Mr. Lynn Shuyler,
project officer, and associated EPA staff have been extremely helpful
in the completion of this Environmental Protection Agency grant,
number R-804002-01-3.
The professional contributions of Dr. J. C. Barker, Mr. L. B. Driggers,
and Dr. P. W. Westerman, Biological and Agricultural Engineering
Department have been invaluable to the content of this report.
Dr. F. J. Hassler, department head, has sustained and encouraged the
effort of the report and remains a principal mentor.
Jan Jackson has provided the continuity and typing in preparation of
the final report.
xiv
-------
SECTION I
CONCLUSIONS
I. SWINE PRODUCTION CATEGORIES AND TRENDS
1. The percentage of swine produced in the three general types
of units was 30 percent concrete slab, 20 percent slotted
floor, and 50 percent drylot or pasture. The production
trends were toward slotted floor and drylot units depending
on the availability of investment capital or labor and land.
2. In general, swine production units where manure is exposed to
rainfall are not sufficiently documented to allow reasonable
estimation of costs to comply with environmental statutes.
II. SWINE PRODUCTION, UNIT WASTE GENERATION
1. Within the available literature data for field units no
substantial difference was found between the amount of waste
constituents leaving concrete slab or slotted floor-pit
units.
2. The largest waste generation variations were in volume due
to the many different levels of water use. Higher water
usage represents greater waste handling and transport costs.
3. Waste loads from drylots or pasture units was not documented
in any studies despite the large number (50 percent of all
hogs produced) of these facilities. Estimates of the waste
load were deduced from climatic and beef feedlot data to be
between 2.5 percent and 10 percent and between 0.7 percent
and 2.5 percent of the raw waste from concrete slab or pit
units for drylots and pasture units, respectively.
-------
III. PRETREATMENT PROCESSES
1. Pretreatment strategy and processes are evolving into 1)
those units for improved removal or reduction of nitrogen
or 2) those units designed to obtain utilization benefits
from swine waste.
2. For maximum nitrogen removal, lightly loaded lagoons and runoff
retention ponds yield less than 10 percent of the production
unit nitrogen load.
3. For nitrogen conservation, high rate methane generators
and composting allow use of the organic fraction and still
retain over 70 percent of the production unit nitrogen load.
Heavily loaded or small surface lagoons offer waste handling
flexibility and also conserve over 70 percent of the input
nitrogen.
4. Salt content, although rarely reported in the literature, was
removed most efficiently by systems involving soil contact
such as overland flow, barriered landscape renovation system,
or swine drylot production units. Most pretreatment processes
had little effect on the salt or cation content of swine waste.
-------
SECTION II
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. More data are needed on salt content of swine waste and the
pretreatment effect of various unit processes on salt content.
2. Management and geoclimatic effects on waste load from swine drylot
or pasture facilities should be evaluated to allow better design
and economic compliance with environmental regulations.
3. The economic evaluation of existing field scale or producer units
must be accelerated to approach the available technical information
on swine waste and pretreatment processes.
4. The procurement of economic data for pretreatment process and total
system performance will allow better overall design or recommenda-
tion of waste management facilities for individual producer
situations.
-------
SECTION III
INTRODUCTION
SWINE WASTE MANAGEMENT
The swine production operations are a subclass of the animal production
industry and share a number of common attributes with both animal
units and manufacturing industries. The principal commonality
among industries is in the environmental flow chart which exists for
all production operations that convert natural resources into products.
This flow chart, Figure 1, represents the fact that less than 100 percent
of process input is converted to usable product; therefore, effluents
result, which may be treated or partially utilized, prior to reaching a
terminal receiver.
The exact combination of production unit, pretreatment process and
terminal receiver should result in the minimum total system cost per
unit of production within the constraints of regulations and producer
objectives. Thus, the engineer or agricultural specialist must have
available the performance of system components and the methodology
for combining the elements into a total system. This design methodo-
logy for overall waste management follows a general stepwise pattern
characteristic of most industries. The individual swine pretreatment
processes are becoming well documented in research and extension
literature.
The waste management system design begins with consideration of the
various alternative terminal receivers, jji.j*. the plant-soil system,
receiving streams, etc. The first step is to establish allowable
receiver rate, mass of waste per unit of receiver per unit time which
is environmentally acceptable for the specific area. This rate is
determined for constituents or families of compounds present in the
waste, je.£. nitrogen, salts, organics, etc. The quotient of the waste
generation per unit of production and the receiver acceptance rate
yields the receiver size needed per unit of production. A given
receiver size represents a cost, £.&. land purchase, distribution
system, pumping costs, etc. The selection of the most cost effec-
tive total waste management system involves the iterative consideration
-------
RAW
MATERIALS
AND RESOURCES
PRODUCTION
OR MANUFACTURING
UNIT
PRODUCT(S)
EFFLUENTS
PRETREATMENT
PROCESSES
BYPRODUCTS
TERMINAL
RECEIVER
SYSTEM
Figure 1. Environmental flow sheet for production process.
-------
of the ultimate receiver and the available pretreatments. If only the
waste generation and terminal receiver are involved, the resulting
system is a zeroth order pretreatmerit with only waste handling effects,
Figure 2. Next, a pretreatment process is selected to reduce the size
and cost of the terminal receiver, Figure 2. The pretreatment process
removes, converts to usable or nonpolluting form, or separates the
limiting constituent(s) for a cost expressed per unit of material
treated. If the process selected is beneficial, the new combination,
Figure 2, will have a lower total system cost.
The methodology of balancing waste generation and pretreatment against
the terminal receiver is iterated by adding more pretreatment processes
or exchanging one process for another, Figure 2. At a certain level of
pretreatment, the cost savings associated with reducing the terminal
receiver size are not greater than the increased pretreatment costs.
The total system cost, is thus minimized. Approached in this sequential
pattern and based on utilizing the maximum capabilities of the terminal
receiver, a wide variety of terminal receivers and pretreatment,process
can be compared on a uniform basis.
SWINE PRODUCTION INDUSTRY
Receiver Categories
In a similar fashion to Figure 2, the production of feeder pigs,
breeding stock, or slaughter hogs can be represented as having a
waste generation that is amendable to several pretreatment processes
and requiring a terminal receiver, Figure 3. Consideration of possible
terminal receivers indicates that there are three possibilities:
1) water-based systems, 2) engineered recycle or byproduct recovery
systems, and 3) land-based systems.
Results for research and demonstration scale stream discharge systems
(Hermanson 1967, McKinney 1967, Laak 1974) using a variety of primarily
aerobic pathways for pretreatment have documented that costs of such
processes are prohibitive and expected results questionable. It
should be noted, however, that overseas, primarily in centrally
planned nations, aerobic treatment with stream discharge is widely
practiced. Therefore, under some conditions of size, existing land,
and other constraints, pretreatment and waterbased discharge may be
feasible. For the regulatory objectives and producer flexibility
characteristic of the United States, aerobic pretreatment to allow
stream discharge is not acceptable; hence, further discussion is
omitted here.
-------
DESIGN OF PRETREATMENT PROCESS-TERMINAL RECEIVER
ITERATION
PRODUCTION
TERMINAL
RECEIVER
A. ZEROTH ORDER PRETREATMENT
PRODUCTION
PRETREATMENT
PROCESS (ES)
TERMINAL
RECEIVER
B. FIRST PRETREATMENT LEVEL
PRODUCTION
PRETREATMENT
PROCESS(ES)
TERMINAL
RECEIVER
C. SECOND LEVEL PRETREATMENT
PRODUCTION
PRETREATMENT
PROCESS(ES)
TERMINAL
RECEIVER
TOTAL SYSTEM
COST A
COST B
(IF COST B < COST A)
COST C
(IF COST C
-------
VOLATILE
EFFLUENT
oo
FFFD »
r ui_u ^
UATPP >
SWINE PRODUCTION
FACILITY
i
i
HOGS
PRETREATMENT
PROCESS(ES)
RECOVERABLE
WASTE
BYPRODUCTS
TERMINAL
RECEIVER
Figure 3. Total environmental schematic of swine production system.
-------
Engineered recycle or byproduct recovery systems are categorized
separately if the end result is.a very high percentage of the waste
input. The resulting recycling process effluent is small so that
disposal of this fraction is not a critical factor. In this category
of terminal receiver are such processes as pyrolysis and composting.
The third receiver system is land-based and entails a variety of appli-
cation methods and plant-soil combinations which must be factored into
the pretreatment process design. Another significant consideration in
relation to land application are production objectives which simply
stated are: 1) to derive the largest economical recovery of the
agronomic nutrients in swine waste or 2) to minimize the size, operation,
and maintenance requirements of the land application activity. Both
objectives are present by choice or constraints in the swine industry
and since these are opposite goals no single process design or selection
can be ubiquitous. Pretreatment is thus determined by the producer
objectives with respect to the terminal receiver and emphasis will be
given to process performance for both nutrient conservation and high
level waste reduction.
Waste Constituent Categories
The discussion of pretreatment process performance with respect to
the plant-soil receiver must center on individual waste constituents.
As a brief introduction, the parameters included in this study are,
in relative priority, as follows: 1) nitrogen (all forms), 2) salts
and specific cations, 3) organics, 4) microorganisms and pathogens,
and 5) nuisance factors and distinguishing constituents. The emphasis
on nitrogen reflects the fact that for the majority of situations
nitrogen is the land limiting constituent (LLC). That is, in compari-
son to other constituents, nitrogen application rates require the most
land area. In addition, nitrogen is a valuable nutrient in swine waste
for plant growth. As these facts have become better understood,
literature emphasis has shifted to reflect the concern for nitrogen
as the controlling constituent.
Salt and cation content of swine waste is the largest exception to
the emphasis on nitrogen especially in certain water deficit regions
and for pretreatment processes which greatly reduce nitrogen levels.
Salt and cation effluent content then become the land limiting
constituents. Within the literature there is generally less infor-
mation on this aspect of swine waste, but since these elements are
generally conservative a. priori calculations can be used to advantage.
-------
Concern for organic constituents is useful in understanding treatment
mechanisms and has secondary impact on pretreatment processes as the
substantial oxygen demand. However, in terms of the land receiver,
organic matter is beneficial but does not impose a substantial economic
restriction on land area. The carbonaceous level in swine waste is
high; hence, most pretreatment processes are operated in the anaerobic
or facultative modes.
l
The microorganism and pathogenic microorganism aspects of swine waste
have received relatively less research attention. The reasons are
principally that the levels are so high that microbial pretreatment
processes are not organism restricted and because disease for swine
and other species has not been a significant or recognizable factor
in reasonably managed systems. Certain pretreatment processes such
as methane formation and refeeding have accelerated interest in
microbial information and added emphasis to delineating disease poten-
tial.
Nuisance characteristics of swine waste such as odor and hair are
difficult to quantify and often difficult to control. Relatively
little research on the practical problems of controlling these
factors has occurred.
Pretreatment Categories
Degradation of swine waste begins shortly after defecation as the
manure is exposed to the atmosphere. Since there is a lag time
before wastes are removed from the animal production facility,
Figure 3, each production unit must be considered in regard to inherent
waste degradation potential. That is, a production unit, such as a
concrete floor or a slotted floor-pit system in which waste resides
for an extended period, can result in constituent loss, thereby
lessening any further pretreatment process costs. Conversely, if the
producer objective is conservation, such production units can repre-
sent uncontrolled loss of utilizable materials. Other production
units such as frequent gutter flushing result in rapid removal of raw
waste and have little pretreatment effect. Therefore, the impact of
production unit will be included in this waste management study as
a part of the total system.
Construction and use of a separate process in addition to the actual
production unit, is broadly classed as pretreatment prior to terminal
receiver, Figure 3. Many possibilities regarding physical location
of these pretreatment processes within, partially within, adjacent to,
or distant from the actual production units exist, so such pretreatment
processes are considered as separate units in series. The emphasis
10
-------
will be placed on losses, conversions, and separations which occur
through representative pretreatment units thereby increasing the
transferability of individual reported research results.
STATE-OF-THE-ART OBJECTIVES
A state-of-the-art report serves as a documentation benchmark and a
mechanism for solving the continually extant problem of defining the
differences between current knowledge and future goals. The overall
approach is to recycle or reuse the wastes generated by the swine
production industry, to advance the progress of environmental
protection, and to maintain a strong food production industry. The
industry state-of-the-art report for swine production and waste
treatment displays pertinent literature data, evaluates current infor-
mation, and documents analyses to put the whole industry in a congruent
format. In listing references in the text or on tables, only the first
author and the date are listed. This allows bibliographic organization
alphabetically and presents the archival perspective. Specific
objectives of this report are as follows:
1) To detail the defecated waste load and discernable
effects of swine production units. Emphasis is on
parameters important to the terminal receivers and
major regional and seasonal effects as are documented
or extrapolatable from the present state of knowledge.
2) To describe qualitatively and quantitatively the
performance of unit processes used in the pretreatment
of swine waste prior to land application. The recycling
byproduct recovery processes for swine wastes will also
be included.
3) On a representative basis, the relative economic and
environmental impact of the various production and
pretreatment units will be addressed.
The impact on and design of the terminal plant-soil system for the
full strength waste and pretreatment effluents are not reviewed in
excrutiating detail by this report because: 1) recent comprehensive
reviews on land application of swine waste, animal waste, municipal
waste, and land-based system technology exist (Wilson 1968; Environ-
mental Protection Agency 1973, 1973a; McJunkin 1973; Ramsey 1974;
Powers 1975), 2) the mechanisms and performance of the plant-soil
systems are dependent on waste constituents, and 3) the land-based
system is much more site-specific than production and pretreatment
units thus making localized guidelines directive of land use (Maine
1972, Powers 1974).
11
-------
SECTION IV
SWINE PRODUCTION UNITS
HOUSING CATEGORIES
There is a wide spectrum of swine housing facilities which, if considered
in every detail, probably translates into a different unit for every
producer. However, with respect to waste management and the effects
on the defecated waste load, certain commonalities emerge for easy
categorization of swine housing. Three facilities groupings, 1)
buildings with slotted floors, 2) units with concrete slab floors,
and 3) open dirt or pasture lots, include virtually all producer
situations. The first grouping has the most direct method of waste
collection, storage, and removal to subsequent pretreatment; hence,
there is the less opportunity for waste loss. Concrete floor units
generally are cleaned daily and are often more exposed to the
climatological elements; hence, are intermediate in terms of waste
degradation. The largest effect on waste load is associated with
drylot or pasture units; hence, the third grouping.
Slotted Floor Buildings
Buildings with slotted floors consist of two types, those with only a
portion of the floor space slotted and those with the entire floor
slotted. A good discussion of floor design and building recommenda-
tions can be found in a number of documents (Midwest Plan Service 1972,
1975; North Carolina Agricultural Extension Service 1974). Beneath
the slotted floor is a storage pit, Figure 4. Hand labor for pen
cleaning is greatly reduced with totally slotted floors, thus contri-
buting to greater utilization of total slats in completely confined
units. An oxidation ditch or lagoon is directly below the slotted
floor in less than 5 percent of such units.
12
-------
«.. ....-..-.. . ..-- j--.---..---vv..-.--.--v'_«.
"ft -JF
TOTAL SLAT UNDER ROOF
Figure 4. Schematic of swine production facility with totally slatted
floor, manure storage pit, and ventilation system.
-------
Minimal scraping or water cleaning is needed with totally slotted
floors. Underfloor or pit ventilation systems have been recently
developed to reduce odor and improve environmental conditions
(Driggers 1974, Ross 1975). Stocking density in finishing operations
with total slats is approximately 0.65-0.75 m2/hog. For slatted
farrowing units with crates, the area per sow and litter is about
3.6 m . Since the pit extends under the entire pen area, the waste
storage capacity is from 0.44 to 0.88 nr per 45-kg hog as the pit
depth is usually between 0.62 and 1.2 m. For minimal excess water,
there are approximately 120 to 240 days and 180 to 360 days of
storage for finishing and farrowing units, respectively.
With partial slats, manual scraping or hose flushing is employed to
move any waste not defecated over the slotted area, thereby incurring
greater labor requirements than totally slatted buildings. In terms
of swine production, the partially slatted units were designed for
"farrow-to-finish" operation. Pen space recommendations are on the
basis of 0.75 m^/per hog with about one third of the pen slotted,
Figure 5. The storage pit is only under the slatted area and ranges
from 0.62 to 1.2 m in depth. Storage volumes are thus 0.16 to 0.31
nP per hog or approximately 45 to 85 days of storage if little excess
water is used.
Solid Concrete Slab Floor Units
Two general types of units exist in this category, 1) units in which
100 percent of the floor area is under roof and 2) concrete pad or
paved lots in which 50-70 percent is under roof. Swine waste in
these structures is removed usually every 1 to 3 days. Under winter
conditions, less frequent waste removal is sometimes practiced.
2
In group 1, the original buildings allowed 1.1 to 1.4 m of floor
space per market animal, Figure 6. Newer units allowed 0.9 m per
market animal with the entire area under roof. The majority of
production units with solid concrete floors are only partially roofed.
Wood shavings, straw, or sawdust bedding is used extensively in
farrowing houses because of its insulating and absorptive characteris-
tics. The bedding is an added waste load which is scraped and disposed
in solid form in cold regions and handled as a slurry in warm areas.
A sloping gutter along one side of the concrete floor serves as the
collecting device for the waste as it is scraped or washed from the
floor. In common practice, the waste from the gutter might be turned
loose to run as it may or enter a temporary storage tank, or a lagoon.
14
-------
H"
Ui
PARTIAL SLAT UNDER ROOF
Figure 5. Schematic of swine production facility with partially slatted
floor and manure storage pit.
-------
f-'-.'-:.-.-.'.;-
TOTAL ROOF , CONCRETE SLAB WITH GUTTER
(CLAYTON UNIT)
Figure 6. Schematic of totally roofed concrete slab swine
production unit.
-------
Waste handling by pen scraping and occasional water wash reduces the
total waste volume by minimizing water usage. High pressure, low
volume hose systems allow more rapid and efficient cleaning and thus
large reductions in washwater quantities. Drinking cup spillage,
fogging water, and urine continuously flow into the collection gutter.
Tree leaves collecting on roofs and emptying into gutters have a
profound impact on subsequent waste pretreatment units and should be
avoided to improve long term waste management (Baker 1975). Rainfall
and roof runoff or drainage that enters the waste collection and convey-
ance system contribute to wastewater volumes that must be handled.
Because of the number and sources of extra water input, some of them
uncontrollable, the waste volume from such a solid concrete unit is
expressed as a range of commonly encountered data for waste removal
every 1-2 days.
The development of automated wash systems for concrete floor-gutter
units using recycled lagoon effluent has allowed more frequent and
convenient washing along with a tremendous reduction of fresh water
usage. Health and operational hazards have not yet been found to
cause any concern or limitation. Iowa State researchers (Willrich
1966, Smith 1971, Koelliker 1972) report that the quality of renovated
flush water is far less important than the quantity. The frequent
removal of fresh excreta minimized odor, and the running water attracts
the hogs to play and defecate in the shallow gutter. Gutter flush
and daily low pressure hose washing produce to 10 to 100 times the
hydraulic waste load (Midwest Plan Service 1975).
The second grouping of solid concrete floor units is basically a
paved feedlot with a portion of the area covered for animal protec-
tion, Figure 7. On a per market animal basis there are typically 0.75
m^ of shelter and 0.75 m2 of unsheltered lot. Most of the waste is
scraped from the pad and hauled for land application. Cleaning
frequency during warm periods is 1 to 2 times/wk to minimize odor.
During cool periods, cleaning is approximately monthly due to scrap
and land access difficulties. \
Open Dirt or Pasture Lot Production
Open dirt lots are still the most common type of swine facility with
approximately 50 percent of the total number of hogs finished in open
lots or pastures. The producer who feeds out hogs on dirt is sub-
stituting labor and land for capital investment. Where labor is
plentiful, relative to capital, a producer may be able to feed out
two or three times as many hogs in an open lot system as he could
afford in confined housing. Open dirt or pasture production units have
the lowest density of hogs but are considered confinement operations
since animals are fed within fenced areas, Figure 8.
17
-------
'-*'w V..-
11
oo
U
U
PARTIAL ROOF , CONCRETE SLAB WITH GUTTER
Figure 7. Schematic of partially roofed, concrete slab swine production
unit, "concrete feedlot".
-------
SHELTER
FENCELINE FEEDERS
0V WATERER
DETAIL OF FEEDLOT
Figure 8. Schematic of swine drylot system.
19
-------
Wastes can be utilized naturally by the soil-vegetation if animal
densities are low enough to maintain pasture conditions. Recommended
animal densities are 60 market hogs per hectare (Midwest Plan Service
1972) and 50 to 75 animals per hectare (Dobson 1975) on permanent
pasture such as Bermuda Grass or Fescue and Ladino clover. Beyond
this density, bare areas will begin to appear. For pastures to survive,
animals must be removed during the dormant or non-growing season or
lots rested by a rotation scheme. Pastured situations do not represent
feedlot conditions because vegetative cover is maintained and wastes
are applied at recommended nitrogen rates (65 hogs/hectare), thus should
not be subject to effluent limitations. However, the proportion of
animals finished on pasture is small compared to those finished on
dirt lots.
Lots with 100 or more hogs per hectare will not support vegetative cover.
The most widely practiced stocking density ranges from 125 to 500
animals per hectare, but densities up to 1,200 per hectare are employed
in some cases. It is estimated that less than 10 percent of hogs
produced on open dirt are in lots stocked below 125 animals per
hectare and less than 15 percent in lots stocked above 500 per hectare.
Actual lot location as well as stocking densities are determined by
such factors as annual rainfall, soil type, drainage, topography,
temperature, vegetation and shade cover, and proximity to surface
waters.
Soil types generally determine how heavily a lot can be stocked and
how much runoff will occur. Higher stocking densities can be main-
tained on sandy soils which are well-drained and have high infiltration
capacities. Manure buildup and compaction are minimal since the
animal activity tends to keep the waste well mixed with the sandy
surface. Drylots are rotated after two groups of animals or one
year's production to control disease and parasites and to allow
rejuvenation of the soil surface. These lots are then seeded to grasses
or allowed to remain fallow for at least two years before being put
back into production. However, many producers continue to develop
new land to take advantage of existing wooded areas for shade cover.
Trees are rapidly killed, however, in densely populated swine lots due
to soil compaction and stripping of the bark by the hogs. These
practices necessitate the need for development of new lots and the
construction of sun shades in existing lots. Some producers use a
row of fogging or spray nozzles for cooling the animals during extended
periods of high temperatures.
20
-------
Lower stocking densities are usually necessary on heavier clay soils
or highly organic soils. In low-rainfall areas, surface compaction
occurs resulting in a manure pack characteristic of high density beef
feedlots. Infiltration is drastically decreased, causing more rainfall
runoff. When these lots are taken out of rotation, any manure buildup
will usually be disked into the soil or scraped up and spread on crop
land. In addition, the lot may be deep plowed with subsoilers to break
up the surface compacted layer and increase infiltration. In high-
rainfall areas, animal activity in dirt lots tend to cause the heavy
soils to become very muddy. This condition decreases feed utilization
efficiency and increases the potential for odor generation, mosquito
production and diseases. Animal mortality rates are higher compared to
confined housing. When these lots are taken out of rotation, the soil
surfaces may be chemically treated for disease and parasite control.
Hogs raised on dirt lots are usually fed by self-feeding finishing
troughs. These feeders are located just inside the fenceline at the
highest elevation within the lot to obtain maximum drainage away
from the feeders. An approximate 3-m concrete or wooden pad usually
surrounds the feeders to prevent the area from becoming a hog wallow;
however, since hogs tend to congregate here, muddy and compacted soil
conditions usually prevail. It is in this vicinity that most of the
waste is defecated.
Many swine drylots are located on topography sloping toward a drainage-
way or stream but are separated from the stream by a wooded or
vegetated buffer strip. In addition, large swine production units
characteristic in the southeastern Coastal Plains usually drain toward
a low-lying swampy area through which an ill-defined stream traverses.
These conditions constitute a living, biological filter and tend to
improve the quality of drylot runoff before it reaches a stream.
Housing Trends
Labor availability and the rising costs of feed.and materials have
moved the swine industry steadily toward more efficient systems. That
is, labor efficiency, high feed conversion, and low mortality are
requisite criteria for successful operations. In terms of housing
units, the need to reduce labor costs, especially for waste cleaning,
has reduced the desirability of the concrete pad and solid concrete
floor units. Dirt lots and total confinement are more attractive
alternatives.
Confinement houses offer reduced mortality, higher conception rates,
and enhanced feed conversion (Christenson 1972, Driggers 1973a,
Driggers 1973) and have been cost effective in a number of instances
(Stanislaw 1975, Driggers 1976). The high investment costs of
21
-------
confinement houses has assured the continued use of the low labor
alternative - dirt lots which are more appropriate for finishing
operations. Pasture operations require large land areas and signifi-
cant labor but are very attractive in terms of minimal waste management.
However, in terms of existing swine production units, there are slow
but steady changes over the last five years toward total confinement.
MAGNITUDE AND DISTRIBUTION OF SWINE POPULATION
1969 Census
United States census of agriculture data for 1969 reproduced in Table 1
show total number of farms and hogs sold in 1969 for all farms and for
farms with income over $2,500 under the four subcategories: 1) total,
2) farms marketing 200-499, 3) farms marketing 500-999, and 4) farms
marketing 1,000 and over. The 23 states listed in this table account
for 95 percent of the total hogs marketed in the United States. During
1969, approximately 68 million or 80 percent were produced by the
top ten states and another 20 percent were produced by the other 13 states
included.
From the 23 states listed in the 1969 census, farms selling over 1,000
hogs and pigs accounted for 13 percent of the market. Farms selling
between 500-999 hogs and pigs accounted for 20 percent of the total
market. Farms selling 200-499 hogs and pigs accounted for 36 percent
of the total market. Therefore, producers selling less than 200
animals accounted for 31 percent of the total market in these 23 states,
or approximately 26 million hogs and pigs.
1975 Inventory
Data supplied by the Crop Reporting Service (USDA 1975) estimated the
inventory of hogs and pigs on December 1, 1975, as 49.6 million head, /
10 percent less than a year earlier and 19 percent below December 1,
1973. This is the lowest total hog population for at least the last
12 years as shown on the barograph in Figure 9. The hog and pig
inventory numbers for breeding, market and total as of December 1,
1975, for the 14 quarterly states listed in Table 2 show a total of
41.9 million; down 11 percent from a year earlier, and down 21 percent
from two years ago. These 14 quarterly states, which include 10 corn
belt states plus the southeastern states of North Carolina, Georgia,
Kentucky and Texas, account for 84 percent of the United States hogs and
pigs inventory.
22
-------
Table 1. TOTAL NUMBER OF HOGS AND FIGS SOLD IN 1969.
Source: 1969 U.S. Census of Agriculture
All Farms
State
1. Iowa
2. IlUnoiB
3. Indiana
4. Missouri
5. Minnesota
6. Nebraska
7. Ohio
8. Wisconsin
9. Kansas
10. S. Dakota
11. N. C.
12. Georgia
13. Kentucky
14, Tennessee
15. Alabama
16. Texas
17. Michigan
18. Miss.
19. S. C.
20. Virginia
21. Pern.
22. Oklahoma
23. N. Dakota
TOTALS
Farms
Number
88,196
51,090
36,699
49,701
39,058
31,157
29,358
25,542
21,071
19,366
26,248
21,486
25,387
27,959
16,938
19,083
10,636
10,033
10,106
12,247
12, U2
8,217
7,518
Hogs & Pigs
Number
20,826,437
10,971,882
7,207,719
7,219,227
5,488,114
4,788,158
4,103,601
3,018,324
2,934,653
2,704,669
2,301,048
2,287,925
2,074,441
1,870,686
1,292,982
1,650,095
1,109,623
536,222
534,342
845,756
842,620
527,289
499.822
85,635,635
Farm Income Over S250Q.OO
To ,1
Number
84,937
46,548
32,063
41,828
36,700
29,740
24,789
23,495
19,100
18,832
19,521
16,034
19,333
17,517
10,256
13,456
8,064
4,904
5,762
8,859
9,086
6,216
7,188
Bogs & Pig.
Number
20,725,145
10,824,545
7,070,260
7,009,350
5,421,645
4,746,914
3,990,337
2,958,831
2,877,948
2,689,273
2,146,895
2,156,747
1,952,043
1,623,421
1,155,101
1,539,057
1,057,568
459,835
463,956
781,741
, 775,211
484,649
491.504
83,401,972
rams Marke Inn 200 to 491
Farms
Number
29,913
12,129
7,891
8,639
6,918
6,423
4,582
3,642
3,308
3,533
1,562
2,167
1,822
1,517
1,012
1,300
1,021
318
376
666
931
424
462
Hogs S Pig,
Number
9,095,109
3,728,256
2,380,210
2,554,722
2,001,984
1,869,637
1,372,935
1,006,820
973,057
1,006,566
450,552
624,903
532,671
430,128
291,283
380,592
303,744
90,311
106,355
193,809
(20040an'd15over)
120,877
131.589
30,047,269
Farms Marketing 500 to 999
Farms
Number
7,960
4,178
2,573
1,936
1,370
1,124
1,174
672
718
498
413
474
391
251
207
349
288
89
96
159
Not
83
67
Hogs & Pigs
Number
5,160,541
2,771,838
1,701,268
1,273,699
898,920
728,949
782,282
439,380
471,445
315,658
276,353
308,517
259,530
164,217
138,785
234,490
189,810
58,236
60,460
104,201
available
54,947
42.572
16,436,098
Farms Msrketlng 1000 & over
Farms
Number
1,453
1,299
804
491
269
244
333
116
225
116
270
214
156
76
98
192
104
60
45
52
Hogs 4 Figs
Number
2,061,551
1,930,404
1,297,969
798,575
397,765
381,478
494,476
186,382
411,225
180,705
625,955
362,966
235,444
129,079
199,944
367,837
176,879
123,892
70,232
117,108
Not available
31
21
53,955
27.651
10,631,472
23
-------
ALL SWINE ON U. S. FARMS AT DEC.
68
66
64
62
60
^ 58
56
54
52
50
O
d
'64 '65 '66 '67 '68 '69 '70 '71 '72 '73 '74 '75
Figure 9. Swine inventory of animals on-farm, December 1.
24
-------
"8S' "**ENT<"'1' NUMBERS. BPREDtMB. MARKET AMD TOTAL. DECEMBER 1. 1974-75
STATE
OA
ILL
I MO
IOWA
KANS
KV
MTNN
MO
NEBR
N C
OHIO
S OAK
TEX
VIS
TOTAL
14 ST5.
ALA
ALAS
ARIZ
ARK
CALIF
COLO
CONN
OEL
FLA
HAH
IDAHO
LA
MAINE
HO
MASS
MICH
MISS
MONT
NEV
N H
N J
N HEX
N V
N DAK
OKLA
OREG
PA
R I
S C
TENN
UTAH
VT
VA
MASH
V VA
*YO
U.S.
1
1974 ).
1
1
1000
246
BOO
538
17*0
2?B
16*
518
558
360
274
ZA4
238
127
226
6283
138
.20
12
68
16
34
1.3
10
45
9
13
38
1.4
31
9
92
71
28
1.4
1.7
7
12
15
45
48
13
82
1.4
90
101
6
.8
69
10
7
6
7416
B»F.EDING
1975
IAS
NUMBER 1
!
I
* OF!
1974 1
HFtO PERCENT
»?8
a?3
573
19?7
?»!
1*8
»65
512
»n5
304
?*0
345
122
205
SJ6B
148
.20
12
77
76
16
1.6
10
14
9
12
40
1.4
35
9
It
ft 7
?5
1.4
1.3
7
10
IS
HI
48
16
D3
1.4
T8
ISO
8
1.3
122
10
6
S
7634
93
103
107
105
101
102
90
92
113
111
98
103
96
90
101
107
100
100
113
163
106
123
100
76
100
92
105
100
113
100
107
94
89
100
76
100
83
100
136
100
123
101
100
87
149
133
163
177
100
86
83
103
1
1974 !
1
1
101)0
1344
570H
376?
11660
152?
936
31B2
3342
2690
1616
1686,
146?
813
1172
40887
612
.90
87
202
10B
246
5.2
40
247
5?
97
137
5.6
192
45
623
385
16?
8.6
7.0
KB
54
87-
27T
262
82
551
7.4
520
679
35
2.4
506
65
48
33
47646.
MARKET
t
1975 1
IAS « OFI
NUMBER' 1974 !
HEAD
1072
4777
3327
10773
1419
83?
2535
2688
2295
1596
1415
1155
65B
945
35487
672
.50
85
22S
112
254
S.2
45
206
49
78
130
5.9
200
46
602
284
120
7.6
7.4
91
43
75
289
252
74
577
7.6
462
770
35
3.2
538
61
44
25
41968
PERCENT
80
84
88
92
93
89
80
80
85
99
84
79
81
81
87
83
56
98
111
104
103
100
113
83
94
80
95
105
104
102
97
74
74
88
106
103
80
86
104
96
90
105
103
89
113
100
133
106
94
92
76
88
1
1974 1
t
1
1000
1590
6500
4300
13400
1750
1100
3700
3900
3050
1890
1950
1700
940
1400
47170
950
1.10
99
270
124
280
6.5
50
292
61
110
175
7.0
2?3
54
715
456
190
10.0
8.7
95
66
102
322
310
95
633
8.8
610
780
41
3.2
S7S
75
55
39
5S062
TOTAL
1975
IAS > OF
NUMBER! 1974
HEAD
1300
5600
3900
12600
1650
1000
3000
3200
2700
1900
1675
1400
780
1150
41855
820
.70
97
302
138
290
6.8
55
240
58
90
170
7.3
235
'55
700
351
145
9.0
8.7
98
b3
90
350
300
90
660
9.0
540
920
43
4.5
660
71
SO
30
49602
PERCENT
82
BA
91
94
94
91
81
82
89
101
86
82
83
B2
89
86
64
98
112
111
104
105
110
82
95
82
97
104
105
102
98
77
76
90
100
103
80
88
109
97
9«i
104
102
89
118
105
141
115
95
91
77
90
Table 2. CENSUS BY STATE FOR ON-FARM HOG POPULATIONS,
DECEMBER 1, 1974 AND 1975.
25
-------
1975 Pig Crop
The United States pig crop for December, 1974, (USDA 1975) through September,
1975, was 71.3 million head, 15 percent below a year ago and 19 percent
less than 1973. The December, 1974, to May, 1975, pig crop at 35.5
million was down 21 percent from a year earlier and June-November, 1975,
pig crop at 35.8 million was 8 percent lower than the same period in 1974.
The 5 million sows farrowed during June-November, 1975, was 9 percent
below the same period a year earlier. Average litter size during
this period was 7.21 pigs, compared with 7.11 in June-November, 1974.
Value per head for all hogs and pigs as of December 1, 1975, was
$80.30 as compared to $45.10 for 1974 and $60.40 for 1973. Correspond-
ingly, the total value for 1975 was $3.98 billion compared with
$2.48 billion in 1974 and $3.69 billion in 1973, Table 3.
Farrowing Intentions
Hog producers in the United States intend to farrow 5.4 million sows during
December, 1975-May, 1976, (USDA 1975), an increase of 8 percent from
December, 1974-May, 1975, but 16 percent less than the same 6-month
period two years earlier. These intentions indicate a pig crop of
38 million, 7 percent more than a year earlier, but 16 less than
December, 1973-May, 1974. Intentions in the 14 quarterly states are for
2 million sows to farrow during the three month period, December, 1975,
to February, 1976, up 10 percent. If these intentions are realized,
the expected increase would be the first since 1971 for this 6-month
period. As the barograph in Figure 9 shows, production intensity
of hogs at the national level usually follows cycles over a relatively
short number of years and are responsive to market conditions.
Production Unit Distribution
Swine Specialists Survey
Data were collected from knowledgeable swine specialist personnel
in the top ten swine producing states, which account for about 85
percent of total United States hog production, to assess the fraction
of hogs grown in typical production units, Table 4. Evaluation of these
data indicates that approximately 30 percent of the market hogs in the
United States were produced in concrete floor units, that is partially
or totally roofed houses or concrete pad types units. About 20 percent
of the swine were grown in slotted floor houses, with the majority of
the production units having partial slotted rather than total slotted
26
-------
H06S AND PISSt NUMBER DF OPERlMONS KITH HOGS. INVENTORY. VALUE PER HEAD.
»NO TOTAL VALUF. OECFMBEH 1.1974-75
STATE
B*
ILL
1MB
IOWA
KANS
KY
MINN
MO
NEBR
N C
OHIO
S OAK
TEX
HIS
TOTAL
U STS.
LA
ALAS
ARIZ
ARK
CALIF
COLO
CONN
DEL
FLA
HAN
IDAHO
LA
MAINE
MO
MASS
MICH
MISS
MONT
NEV
N H
N J
N ME>
N Y
N QAK
0
-------
Table 4. PROPORTION OF SWINE GROWN ACCORDING TO PRODUCTION UNIT
AS ESTIMATED BY KNOWLEDGEABLE UNIVERSITY SPECIALISTS
IN EACH STATE
State
Iowa
Illinois
Indiana
Missouri
Mi nnesota
Nebraska
Ohio
N. Carolina
Kansas
S. Dakota
Selected
Average
Value for
Uni ted
States
Solid
Concrete
Floor Units
30%
20 - 25%
20 - 25%
25 - 30%
75%
35%
33%
20%
15 - 25%
78%
30%
Buildings with
Slotted Floor
10%
12 - 15%
20 - 25%
20 - 25%
20%
15%
11%
10%
35%
22%
20%
Pasture
or Dirt Lot
60%
65%
50%
50%
5%
50%
56%
70%
40 - 50%
*
50%
Information
Source
Estimate
Estimate
Estimate
Estimate
Estimate
Estimate
Estimate
Survey by Jones
(Jones 1972)
Estimate
Estimate
28
-------
floors. About 50 percent of the swine in the United States are produced
on pasture or dirt lot as indicated by the selected average values
summarized in Table 4.
National Poll
Summary copies of the 1971 and 1974 survey conducted by the National
Pork Producers Council are presented in Tables 5 and 6 to compare trends
noted by this poll over the last several years. The 1971 poll data
represented 1,499 respondents to the 50,000 questionnaires distributed,
or producers of only about 2 percent of total hogs marketed in 1971.
Comparison of the 1971 and 1974 poll data shows many similarities in
production trends such as: age bracket, type of production, hogs
marketed, farrowing facilities, finishing facilities, and waste manage-
ment systems. The major change appears to be greater use of slotted
floors, increasing from about 14 percent in 1971 to 37 percent in 1974,
with 1974 data showing a further differentiation between totally
slatted (10 percent) and partially slatted (27 percent). This increased
utilization of slotted floor facilities verifies indicated national
trends to totally enclosed units with slotted floors as the most cost-
effective for both production and waste management.
Data for yearly pork producer polls continue to show that about 90
percent of the respondents practice terminal land application. Illinois
data (Day 1975) shows that oxidation ditches serve about 120,000 pigs or
about 0.2 percent of the total on-farm hog population are corroborated
by poll data indicating that only about 0.2 percent of the respondents
had oxidation ditches.
In overview, it appears that responses came from producers who have
made substantial investments in recent years, since about 70 percent
were between the ages of 20 and 49 and about 60 percent produced over
200 hogs in 1974. It also appears that the trend is toward larger
production units because between 1971 and 1974 the number producing
under 500 hogs decreased, while the number producing above 500 hogs
increased with the greatest differential being in the group between
1,000 and 2,999 hogs marketed. Although the representativeness and
accuracy of poll data must temper major conclusions, it does appear
that producers who are ready to characterize their production and
waste management techniques have high density units with either slatted
or concrete floors and exercise terminal land application.
State-Wide Survey, North Carolina-
During 1974, a survey was conducted throughout North Carolina on
a county-by-county basis to obtain data on the number of producers,
29
-------
Table 5. RESULTS OF NATIONAL PORK PRODUCERS COUNCIL POLL OF MEMBER
FARMERS, 1971
PRODUCTION TRENDS:
1. Into which age bracket do you fall:
(1) 13.5% 20-29 (4) 20.6% 50-59
(2) 28.8% 30-39 (5) 5.6% 60-69
(3) 29.8% 40-49 (6) 1.1% Over 70
2. Describe your hog operation:
(1) 5.7% Feeder pigs only (3) 72.Q% Farrow to finish
(2) 7.7% Finish only (4) 3.7% Combination
3. How many hogs did you market for slaughter in 1971
(1) 12.8% 0-200 (4) 17.6% 1,000-3,000
(2) 33.1% 200-500 (5) 3.6% 3,000 up
(3) 30.6% 500-1,000
4. Describe your farrowing facilities:
0) 7Q'Q% Central farrowing house
(2) 5.7% Individual houses
(3) 1.7% Pasture farrowing
(4) 14.3% Combination
5. Check your finishing facilities:
(1) 26% Enclosed building (3) 10% Pasture
(2) 36% Open shed building (4) 23% Combination
6. Check type of flooring in facilities:
(1) 13.8% Slotted (3) 20.9% Both
(2) 50.4% Solid (4) 10.0% Other
7. Check your waste management pattern:
(1) 69.5% Manure spreader
Honey wagon
Lagoon
Oxidation ditch
Combination
Natural drainage
30
-------
Table 6. RESULTS OF NATIONAL PORK PRODUCERS COUNCIL POLL OF MEMBER
FARMERS, 1974
PRODUCTION TRENDS:
1. Into which age bracket do you fall:
(1) 13.7% Under 30 (4) 20.5% 50-59
(2) 28.9% 30-39 (5) "Of 60-69
(3) 30.9% 40-49 (6) 1.2% 70 or over
2. Describe your type of hog production:
Feeder pigs only (3) 74.3% Farrow to finish
Finish only (4) 12.4% Combination
3. How many hogs did you market for slaughter in 1973:
(1) 11.1% Under 200 (4) 23.2% 1,000-2,999
(2) 27.2% 200-499 (5) 4.1% 3,000 and up
(3) 32.3% 500-999
4. What is the maximum number of hogs weighing more than 50 Ibs.
that you have on your farm at one time:
(1) 64.7% Under 500 (4) 1.6% 1,500-1,999
(2) 23.9% 500-999 (5) 0.9% 2,000-2,499
(3) 6.3% 1,000-1,499 (6) 1.9% 2,500 and up
5. Describe your farrowing facilities:
(1) 72.1% Central farrowing house
(2) 5.2% Individual houses
(3) 1.5% Pasture farrowing
(4) 16.3% Combination of above
6. Describe your finishing facilities:
(1) 26.0% Enclosed building (3) 8.6% Pasture
(2) 38.1% Open front building (4) 23.9% Combination of above
7. Describe type of flooring in facilities:
(1) 10.2% Totally slatted (4) 11.7% Combination of above
(2) 2678%" Partly slatted (5) 8.0% Other
(3) 46.0 Solid concrete
8. Describe your waste management system:
(1) 62.6% Manure spreader (open wagon)
(2) 21.0% Liquid manure spreader
(3) 5.8% Lagoon
(4) 0.3% Oxidation ditch
(5) 5.0% Combination of above
(6) 4.9% Natural drainage
31
-------
production facilities, and waste management practices. The survey
forms were mailed to county extension chairmen under a cover letter
by the Director of the North Carolina Agricultural Extension Service
and a 100 percent response occurred. Original data on number of units
in each system for specified herd sizes was extrapolated to indicate
the number of hogs for each system type according to herd size using
the average for each size interval as the weighting factor, Table 7.
Results of this data expansion to determine number of hogs grown
in each production system resulted in some discrepancies because some
producers have more than one unit and thus are included under several
system types; jL.e_., the total number of producers in the state is
21,451 whereas there are 24,649 different units. These differences
were not considered significant. The fraction of total hogs produced
in the three typical housing units based upon 2,818,806 total hogs
was 28 percent on solid floors (System 1, 2 and 5); 31 percent on
slatted floors (System 3 and 4); and 41 percent produced on
pasture and drylot (System 6 and 7). A further refinement shows that
34 percent of all hogs are produced in dirt lots and 7 percent on
pasture. On a unit basis using the total number of units (24,649)
rather than producers (21,451), the percent in each housing category
are: solid floors - 13 percent, slatted floors - 7 percent, pasture -
23 percent, and dirt lots - 57 percent. Therefore,_on a total hog
basis, industry structure in North Carolina is approximately: solid
floor facilities - 30 percent, slatted floors - 30 percent, and
pasture or drylot - 40 percent; and on a unit basis: sojjd floor -
13 percent, slatted floors - 7 percent, and pasture or drylot - 80
percent. Obviously, pasture or drylot units are most numerous but
generally smaller operations and slatted floor units are most
common for the large, totally enclosed units. This is consistent
with the fact that North Carolina leads the nation in production
units for over 1,000 hogs and most of these new units are environmentally
controlled with underfloor ventilation systems.
National Evaluation-
A recent report "Implications of EPA Proposed Regulations of November 20,
1975, for the Animal Feeding Industry," was developed to provide analyses
of proposed regulations to help insure that regulations represent a
balance between control and adverse impacts on the animal feeding
industries (USDA 1976). Data for this USDA report were not based on
a survey of animal feeding operations, but represented judgement of
experts in major livestock and poultry producing states. These states
account for 90 percent of hog and pig marketing in the United States.
Concentrated animal feeding operations that would come under the proposed
EPA criteria were determined according to any one of three criteria:
32
-------
Table 7. SWINE INDUSTRY FOR NORTH CAROLINA, 1974
Total number of swine in state: 2.866.860
Total number of producers in state: 21,451
1.
2.
3.
4.
S.
6.
7.
Waste Management System
Solid floor & storage tank (units)
Total number of swine
Percent of total (unit basis)
Percent of total (hog basis)
Solid floor and lagoon (units)
Total number of swine
Percent of total (unit basis)
Percent of total (hog basis)
Slatted floor & lagoon (units)
Total number of swine
Percent of total (unit basis)
Percent of total (hog basis)
Slatted fl/w direct spreading
Total number of swine
Percent of total (unit basis)
Percent of total (hog basis)
Solid fl/w direct spreading (units)
Total number of swine
Percent of total (unit basis)
Percent of total (hog basis)
D1rt lot (units)
Total number of swine
Percent of total (unit basis)
Percent of total (hog basis)
Pasture lot (units)
Total number of swine
Percent of total (unit basis)
Percent of total (hog basis)
Total (unit basis)
Total (hog basis)
Percent of total (unit basis)
Percent of Jtal (hog basis)
Herd Size (In One Operating Unit)
1
to
24
3
36
5.4
0.2
94
1,128
4.6
0.2
63
756
4.1
0.1
14
168
15.4
0.4
348
4,176
30.7
2.8
8,315
99,780
28.9
10.5
3,901
46,812
69.1
21.8
12,738
152,856
51.7
5.4
25
to
99
16
800
28.6
5.0
439
21 ,950
21.5
3.5
228
11,400
14.8
1.4
4
200
4.4
0.5
379
18,950
33.5
12.7
3,813
190,650
27.0
20.0
1,313
65,650
23.2
30.6
6,192
309,600
25.1
11.0
100
to
299
16
3,200
28.6
20.2
832
166,400
40.7
26.8
282
56,400
18.3
6.8
31
6,200
34.0
15.2
229
45,800
20.2
30.8
1,433
288,600
10.2
30.3
385
77,000
6.8
3,218
643,600
13.1
22.8
300
to
499
12
4,800
21.3
30.3
417
166,800
20.4
26.9
416
166,400
27.1
20.2
31
12,400
23.1
30.5
157
62,800
13.8
42.2
332
132,800
2.3
13.9
35
14,000
0.6
6.5
1,400
560,000
5.7
20.0
500
to
999
7
5,250
12.5
33.2
195
146,250
9.5
23.6
370
277,500
24.1
33.6
15
11,250
16.5
27.6
18
13,500
1.6
9.1
154
115,500
1.1
12.1
15
11,250
0.3
5.2
774
580,500
3.1
20.6
1,000
to
2,499
1
1,750
3.6
11.1
67
117,250
3.3
18.9
179
313,250
11.6
37.9
6
10,500
6.6
25.8
2
3,500
0.2
2.4
72
126,000
0.5
13.2
__
._
327
572,250
1.3
20.3
Totals
55
15,836
100
100
2,044
619,778
100
100
1.-638
825,706
100
100
101
40,718
100
100
1,133
148,726
100
100
14,129
953,330
100
100
5,649
214,712
100
100
24,649
2,818,806
100
100
33
-------
1). opgrations that have a man-made waste conveyance that discharges
to navigable water, 2) measurable waste discharges directly into
navigable water originating off-site and traversing the production
unit, and 3) runoff from less than the 25-year, 24-hour storms for
operations of 1,000 animal units or more. The estimated number of
swine production sites considered to be concentrated animal feeding
operations under these criteria are 48,470, Table 8.
If only the 25-year, 24-hour storm criteria were applied to all units
regardless of size, 54,580 units would be effected, Table 8. The
total number of animal feeding units to be considered as concentrated
animal feeding operations under the conveyance, navigable water and
total implementation of the runoff criteria regardless of unit size
are thus the addition of the two separate groups in Table 8 or 103,050,
which is about 25 percent of all operations.
Most of the 54,580 producers throughout the United States that would
be affected by runoff criteria probably have unroofed facilities such
as drylots and concrete pad units. Assuming all of the 14,129 dirt
lots in North Carolina would come under the case-by-case rainfall
runoff criteria, then a comparison of these two data sources indicates
that about 25 percent of all units impacted by the rainfall criteria
are in North Carolina. Although all drylots throughout the United
States may not require retention of runoff from less than a 25-year,
24-hour storm because of differing management techniques and geo-
climatic conditions, it is most improbable that all of these units
are in the Southeast, based on linear extrapolation of North Carolina
data through a similar production and geoclimatic region. The
discrepancy among various data sources available for assessing how
swine are raised or which systems have environmental consequences is
not presently resolved.
In summary, it appears that the total economic and technical impact of
proposed EPA criteria on existing swine production units is not fully
understood, nor well documented. Therefore, the need for better
characterization of the swine industry and more research on runoff
transport, discharge definition, and impact on receiving streams in
light of associated economic and technical considerations is emphasized.
Trivia
The center of the United States hog population was calculated using standard
center of population techniques. For the years 1974 and 1975, the hog
center was along the La Moine River between Brooklyn and Colmar, Illinois.
The population center moved northwest from near Brooklyn in 1974 to
near Colmar in 1975.
34
-------
Table 8. IMPACT OF EPA CRITERIA ON SWINE INDUSTRY IN MAJOR LIVESTOCK PRODUCING STATES (USDA 1976)
u>
VJ1
Swine Industry
Estimated number of
operations in major
livestock producing
states
Discharge and runoff
control for operations
with more than 1,000
animal units
Runoff control only for
all units regardless of
size
Percent of all operations
Discharge and runoff
control for all units
regardless of size
Percent of all operations
Less than
100
252,800
.
31,330
34,840
14%
66,170
26%
Operating
100-
199
104,600
11,800
13,890
1356
25,690
25%
capacity (in
200-
299
40,200
4,240
4,850
12%
9,100
23%
animal
300-
999
8,500
760
1,000
12%
1,760
21%
units) 2/
1,000
and over
4,200
330
-
330
8%
Total
410,300
48,470
54,580
13%
103,050
25%
-------
SECTION V
PROPERTIES OF SWINE WASTE AND
PRODUCTION UNIT WASTE LOAD
The waste load produced at any swine growing unit has a single common
basis which is derived simply from the magnitude of animals present,
expressed in total liveweight. In general, it is this common waste
load, hereafter called the defecated or raw waste load, which must be
considered in the utilization, disposal, or treatment of swine waste.
Different swine production units provide various levels of storage and
pretreatment prior to the conveyance of the raw waste defecated by
the hog from the production unit. The waste load from a production
unit is defined herein as that waste material leaving the area or
building in which the hogs are produced. With this definition, it
should be theoretically possible to compare the waste from the
several types of production units to the raw waste to determine the
magnitude or percentage of alteration. As a convenient descriptive
assumption, pretreatment unit processes physically located in the
production unit are characterized as following the housing facility
and are discussed in a later section. This choice is arbitrary,
but does provide a clear delineation between production unit waste
load and evaluation of the many uniquely different disposal, pretreat-
ment, or utilization schemes extramural to the production unit.
The chemical concentrations used in characterization of swine waste
were either mass of a species per unit volume of total waste (mg/1)
or mass of a species per unit mass of total dry solids (ppm or %).
Bacterial densities were reported as numbers per 100 ml of swine
waste. The generation rate was expressed as the mass of a species
produced per day per 45-kg hog (100 Ib). This rate is the antici-
pated waste load for a 45-kg hog and data for other average weights
were corrected by the appropriate weight ratio. The generation rate
was not the waste load per 45-kg of liveweight gain since that would
vary depending on the initial weight. The relationship between data
presented in this report and relevant housing units is detailed in
Figure 10.
36
-------
Concrete slab units
Slotted floor-pit facilities
Waste volume and mass
Waste volume and mass
Solids content
Solids content
| Nitrogen
Cations and Anions
Organics
Bacteria Content
Miscellaneous parameters
Drylot or pasture
Waste volume
and mass
Solids content
Nitrogen
Cations and
anions
Organics
Bacteria content
Miscellaneous
parameters
Figure 10. Flow chart for data presentation of waste load from
swine production unit categories.
37
-------
CONCRETE SLAB AND SLOTTED FLOOR-PIT SWINE WASTE LOADS
The properties of defecated swine waste are affected by a multiplicity
of factors which determine the very being of an animal. A number
of qualitative and basic nutritional or physiological discussions are
available which document waste determining factors (Morrison 1959).
Limited data exist for effects of controlled environment housing, hog
activity and correspondingly volume and ratio of feed and water consumed.
Basic studies of defecated waste are useful in defining relationships
between waste constituents and physiologic factors.
Type and Size of Animal
Waste quantity and quality data reported for different types and sizes
of hogs (Irgens 1965, Muehling 1971, Day 1969, and ASAE 1972) are
presented in Tables 9 , 10, 11 and 12. Swine age, when normalized on
a per kg of animal weight basis, does not appear to significantly
influence the amount or chemical content as reflected in the BOD^
of the raw waste. Gestating sows and boars appear to produce a lower
BOD5 based upon kg BOD/kg animal and thus may have a slightly lower
environmental impact. In terms of total national swine production,
about 15 percent are boars and gestating sows.
In all subsequent discussion, the waste loads are grouped (within the
limits of literature clarity) according to the three main classes of
production units: 1) concrete slab, 2) slotted floor over pits, and
3) swine drylot or pasture, Table 13. It is intended that only experi-
mentally measured values are listed in the raw waste summaries. These
data have been distilled and collected from articles listed in the
reference section and from a search of the conference proceedings
listed. A partial list of workers who have used or summarized
original data in, or who have made additional estimates and allowances
for, particular management methods areas follows: Spillman 1960, Morris
1961 and 1971, Linn 1973, Willrich 1966, Midwest Plan Service 1966,
McKinney 1967, Muehling 1969, Laak 1970, Fogg 1975, Loehr 1968, Okey
1971, Windt 1971, ASAE 1972, Pork Producers 1972, and Bruns 1975.
Waste Volume and Mass - Concrete Slab Units
The predominance of data for concrete-slab units was for feces and urine
which were scraped or water-washed into a side gutter or sump. The
frequency of waste collection was usually daily or at the most within
48 hours. From an independent poll by the National Pork Producers
Council and North Carolina State University, the usual producer scraping
frequency is 2-4 times per week; hence, literature data for nonconserva-
tive elements may be higher than actual producer waste loads.
38
-------
Table 9. MANURE PRODUCTION OF GROWING AND FINISHING PIGS (IRGEN 1965)
Pig Weight
(kal
\ ^y /
5.5 - 18
18 - 36
36 - 54
54 - 72
72 - 90
Age
fUppl
j """
8 -
12 -
16 -
20 -
-------
Table 10. APPROXIMATE DAILY MANURE PRODUCTION (MEDIAN VALUES FOR UNDILUTED MANURE WITHOUT
BEDDING) (MIDWEST PLAN SERVICE 1969)
Age
(Weeks)
Pigs
6-9
9-13
13 - 18
18 - 23
Sows, Boars
20 - 52
52+
Sow + Litter
Weight
(kg)
18
45
68
95
135
225
Liquids and Solids
Liter
1.9
3.8
6.5
8.4
11.0
18.8
15.0
Liter/kq of animal
0.100
0.082
0.093
0.087
0.082
0.082
....
Wet Solids Only
kg
1.1
2.7
4.0
5.5
8.0
13.6
13.6
kg/kg of Animal
0.060
0.059
0.059
0.057
0.058
0.060
-------
Table 11. RAW WASTE LOAD GENERATED FOR DIFFERENT TYPE OF SWINE (Day 1969)
Animal
Boar
Ge stating Sow
Sow with Litter
Nursery Pig
Growing Pig
Finishing Pig
Weight/ Animal
kg
160
125
170
16
30
68
BOD5
kg/day/animal
0.18
0.18
0.34
0.03
0.06
0.14
BOD5
kg/day/kg of animal
0.00114
0.00145
0.00200
0.00200
0.00200
0.00200
-------
Table 13. PRODUCTION UNITS REPRESENTED IN THREE CATEGORIES OF
FACILITIES DELINEATED IN STATE-OF-THE-ART REPORT
Report Category
Common Product!on Faci11 ty
Concrete Slab
Slatted Floor-Pit
Drylot
Side curtain totally roofed concrete
floor building
Partially roofed, high density concrete
slab system
Minimally shaded concrete slab facilities
Partially slotted confined housing
Totally slotted floor units
Slotted floor units with environmental
regulation and ventilation
Dirt lot with shaded feeders
Pasture production
42
-------
Table 12. ASAE FACT SHEET 1972, AW-D-1, FRESH MANURE (FECES AND URINE)
PRODUCTION AND CHARACTERISTICS PER 450 kg LIVE WEIGHT
Characteristic
Raw Manurs
Volume
Total Solids
Volatile Solids
BOD5
COD
Nitrogen
Phosphorus
Potassium
Units
kg/ day
liters
kg/ day
% of raw manure
kg/ day
% of total solids
kg/ day
%of total solids
kg/ day
% of total solids
kg/ day as N
% of total solids
kg/ day as P
% of total solids
kg/ day as K
% of total solids
Swine
Feeder
34.000
34.000
13.000
8.000
10.600
80.000
4.400
33.000
2.600
95.000
0.230
8.300
0.068
2.500
0.140
5. 000
Breeder
23.0
23.0
9.5
8.6
7.0
75.0
2.9
30-0
2.4
90-0
43
-------
Characterization values were not consistently reported either as waste
volume (liters, 1) or mass (kilogram, kg); hence, a conversion factor,
swine waste density (kg/1), was needed to obtain greater data commonality.
A determination was made of swine waste density over the range of 1.3
to 17.8 percent solids, Table 14. A unity conversion factor between
kilograms and liters was selected as representative and within the
precision of subsequent literature references. Using this factor
to expand the data base, the total waste load from concrete slab unit,
Table 15, was determined, for minimal excess water use to be 3.4 kg/d
and 3.4 1/d per 45-kg hog. Larger values, repotted up to 38 l/d/45-kg
hog, are accurate and simply reflect the water use typical of leaky
waterers, low pressure hose washing, or excess summer mist cooling.
The effect of such excess water is simply to dilute defecated waste
and proportionally increase the required waste handling and transpor-
tation. The dependence of research data on the amount of excess process
water is responsible for the high variability of total waste volume
data. This variability is also present in producer facilities and is
an important management option which can be directly controlled to reduce
waste handling costs.
Waste Volume and Mass - Slotted Floor-Pit Facilities
For a partial or totally slotted floor unit with manure pits, literature
values for daily swine waste volume and mass were tabulated, Table 15.
As with concrete slab facility data, there were high waste volume
values indicating excess water usage. The characteristic swine waste
volume and mass was determined to be 4.1 l/d/45-kg hog and 4,1 kg/d/45-kg
hog which is slightly higher than the concrete slab unit possibly
because of the small data base available for concrete slab facilities.
Because of the strong influence of water-related equipment condition
and cleaning techniques, the possible differences between concrete slab
and slotted floor units were not judged significant. Including the
data from unspecified housing units, Table 15, the swine waste volume
representative of minimum excess water usage'was 3.8 l/d/45-kg hog
ranging up to 40 l/d/45-kg hog for high water usage in cleaning,
flushing or malfunctioning waterers and foggers. The corresponding wet
manure plus urine mass was 3.8 kg/d/45-kg hog at minimum water input.
The waste volumes of 2.4 kg/d/45-kg hog was recommended (Taiganides 1964)
as the solid waste amount after excess liquid was drained. That is, the
amount to be handled in solid form. When calculating the solids as a
percent of the average total waste volume, the solids-only data correlates
well with literature references which report the ratio of feces to
total waste mass as 45-70 percent, Table 15.
44
-------
Table 14. DENSITY OF ANIMAL WASTE SLURRIES (OVERCASH 1972, 1973)
Waste Type
Swi ne
Swi ne
Swi ne
Swine
Swine
Swine
Swine
Poultry
Percent Solids
0.13
0.65
1.30
2.70
3.60
8.20
17.80
13.30
Density, g/ml
0.9970
1.0070
1.0100
1.0160
1.0043
1.0210
1.0500
0.9800
45
-------
Table 15. SWINE HASTE GENERATION-VOLUME AND MASS
Concrete slab facilities
(1-3 day holding times)
Converse 1970
Humenlk 1972
Jones 1972
Loynachen 197c
Ngoddy 1971 (metabolic cages)
Overcash 1972
ScMd 1969
Talgantdes 1964 (solid fraction)
Value judged most reliable
Slotted floor-pit systems
Evans 1975 (Scotland)
Hepherd 1975
Irgen 1965
Kesler 1966
Koch 1975
Haddex 1975
Overcash 1973
Ponttn 1968 (finishing hog)
(sov.)
Scheltlnga 1966
Sewell 1973 (waterer Input)
Value judged most reliable
Unspecified confinement housing
Baines 1964
Davis 1969
Geldrelch 1962
Hobson 1973
Lane 1975
Lynn 1968
Muehling 1969
Scholz 1971
Webber 1968
Volume.
l/d/45-ltg hou
42.0
4.9
7.6
2.3
9.5
3.4
2.3
3.4
14.0
4.5
1.5
4.2
5.7
5.7
4.5
7.9
9.5
3.1
5.3
4.2
11-22
4.2
4.9
5.7
3.8
3.6
3.8
ffiss,
ka/d/45-kg hog
5.2
42.0
4.9
7.6
2.3
9.5
3.4
2.3
3.4
14.0
4.5
1.5
4.2
5.7
5.7
4.5
7.9
9.5
3.1
5.3
4.2
11-22
4.2
4.9
5.7
3.8
3.6
3.8
Feces * of
total waste mass
44
65
63
71
46
-------
Solids Content (Total, Volatile. Suspended, and Volatile Suspended);
Concrete Slab Unit
The daily total solids (TS) and ratio of volatile solids (VS) to total
solids are frequently documented in waste generation and pretreatment
research studies, Table 16. The reported concentrations of TS and other
parameters were found to depend somewhat on feeding technique (Willrich
1966). Floor feeding does not make excess feed available as does
self-feeding operations. Hogs clean up the floor and less feed
becomes part of the production unit waste load. A reduction in the
waste load from 0.3 to 0.2 kg VS/day/45-kg hog was reported in
association with conversion from self-feed to floor feeding. However,
a confounding factor can be the variability and test differences
associated with the analytical method employed (trakasam 1975).
In review of the available data, Table 16, there was good consistency
in the total solids waste load, especially in comparison to the
variability of the total production unit waste amount. The value
judged most reliable was 0.27 kg TS/d for a 45-kg hog.
The ratio of volatile solids (VS) to total solids (TS) was a frequently
measured parameter, Table 16. The VS/TS ratio judged most reliable
was 0.79 for manure plus urine as the total waste. A higher ratio of
0.84 appeared to better characterize the feces or solids-only values.
Hence, where refinements in waste process design are needed, the
appropriate VS/TS ratio should be used for manure plus urine or for
manure solids only. The amount of VS generated from a concrete slab
unit was determined to be 0.21 kg VS/d/45-kg hog, Table 16.
Solids Content (Total, Volatile, Suspended, and Volatile Suspended);
Slotted Floor-Pit Facilities
Data from slotted floor facilities were not as abundant, Table 16.
The range in the four values for total solids was from 0.12 to 0.25
kg TS/d/45-kg hog.
Although the data base for total solids from slotted floor units was
not large, the range and average values were about 25 percent below
the results from concrete slab units. The average annual generation
rate was determined to be 0.20 kg TS/d/45-kg hog.
There are a^ priori reasons for differences between concrete slab
and slotted floor facilities, such as detention time on floor,
exposure to sun and wind, decomposition during pit storage, etc.
However, the literature data suggest that resulting differences are
not great (i..e. less than 30 percent) in comparison to the levels of
detection inherent in field measurements and that a single value can
be used.
47
-------
Table 16. SWINE WASTE GENERATION TOTAL (TS) AND VOLATILE SOLIDS (VS)
Concrete slab facilities
(1-3 day holding times)
Barth 1975 (sol Ids only)
Clark 1965
Converse 1970
Gramms 1971 (feces-24 hrs.)
Humenik 1972
Humenlk 1972 (feces)
Oett 1973 (feces-48 hrs.)
Jones 1972
Loynachen 1972
Ngoddy 1971 (metabolic cage,
80 percent feces, 20 percent urine)
Schmld 1969
Taiganldes 1964 (solids only)
Uillrich 1966
Value judged most reliable
Slotted floor-pit systems
fong 1973
Hepherd 1975
Irgen 1965
KesTer 1966
Overcash 1973
Value judged most reliable
Unspecified confinement
housing
Benne 1961
Collins 1975
Fischer 1975
Hart 1965
Hobson 1973
Holland 1975 (feces)
Jeffrey 1965
Lynn 1968
Pearce 1975 (feces)
Robinson 1966 (feces)
Scholz 1971
Spill man 1960
TS
kg/d/45-kg hog
0.23
0.25
0.26
0.30
0.23
0.27
0.34
0.27
0.24
0.12
0.25
0.20
0.20
..
__
0.36
0.86
0.36
VS
kg/d/45-kg hon
0.18
0.20
0.21
0.21
0.23
0.18
0.21
0.25-0.30
0.19
0.21
0.10
0.15
0.11-0.16
0.28
__
__
VS/TS
0.85
0.79
0.81
0.83
0.83
0.81
0.86
0.77
0.77
0.83
0.80
0.74-0.84
0.79
0.85
0.88
0.78
0.80
0.80
0.69
0.85
0.78
__
0.85
0.87
0.79
0.82
0.84
,
0.85
48
-------
The volatile solids generation was judged to be lower for the slotted
floor-pit facility 0.13 kg VS/d/45-kg hog, although there were only
two data points. The volatile to total solids ratio was about 0.83.
Thus, refinements in VS and TS loads could be applied to different
production units as needed.
Absorbing the 25 percent variation for different production units and
the data from unspecified housing facilities, Table 16, the rates of
0.18 kg VS/d/45-kg hog and VS/TS equal to 0.81 were chosen as representa-
tive of swine waste from slotted and concrete slab units. The relatively
high VS and TS values reported over 15 years ago (Taiganides 1969)
were acknowledged to represent earlier feed rations and management
practices.
Conversion of TS and VS and waste volume generation from Tables 15
and 16 into production unit waste concentrations yields approximately
70,000 mg TS/1 and 55,000 mg VS/1. The corresponding raw waste moisture
content is 93 percent. Larger waste volume due to excess water input
would produce a proportional dilutional effect on these solids concen-
trations.
Limited data are available for total suspended solids (TSS) and volatile
suspended solids (VSS), Table 17. For reported data (Yagi 1975 and
Collins 1975a) which were expressed as a percent of TS, the average
value of 0.27 kg TS/d/45-kg hog was used to calculate the total
suspended solids generation. The TSS and VSS values judged most
reliable were 0.19 and 0.15 kg/d/45-kg hog, respectively. Calculated
raw waste concentrations were thus 50,000 mg TSS/1 and 40,000 mg VSS/1.
Nitrogen
The forms of nitrogen present in swine waste are organic (0-N) and
ammonia nitrogen (NH3-N). The total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) is the
sum of these two nitrogen forms with the exception of certain more
resistant compounds which are not detected by this procedure (Standard
Methods 1971). Constituents not detected by the TKN analysis are not
present at significant levels in swine waste. Literature data for
nitrogen generation from a concrete slab facility, Table 18, are
somewhat more variable than those for TS. The average generation rate
is 0.018 kg/d/45-kg hog. Also tabulated in Table 18 are data for
nitrogen amounts from a slotted floor-pit facility for which the
average value is 0.018 kg/d/45-kg hog. Finally, a number of references
were found in which the production unit was unspecified, Table 18.
49
-------
Table 17. SWINE WASTE GENERATION-TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS (TSS) AND
VOLATILE SUSPENDED SOLIDS (VSS)
Concrete slab and slotted
floor-pit facilities
TSS
kg/d/45-kg hog
VSS
kg/d/45-kg hog
Collins 1975 (using 0.27 kg
TS/d/45-kg hog)
Converse 1970
Davis 1969
Evans 1975
Hobson 1973
Jones 1972
Pontin 1968
Schmid 1969
Yagi 1975
Value judged most reliable
0.15
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.86
0.17
0.15
0.21
0.21
0.19
0.13
0.17
0.15
50
-------
Table 18. SWINE WASTE GENERATION AND DRV MATTER COMPOSITION-NITROGEN
Concrete slab facilities
(1-3 day holding times)
Barth 1975 (solids only)
Clark 1965
Converse 1970
Gramnis 1971
Jett 1973 (feces)
Jones 1972
Loynachen 1972
Negulescu 1975
Ngoddy 1971 (metabolic cages-SOZ
feces. 20% urine)
Overcash 1972
Scheltlnga 1966
Talganldes 1964 (sol Ids only)
WHIHch 1966
Value judged most reliable
Slotted floor-pit systems
Evans 1975
Fong 1973
Hepherd 1975
Irgen 1965
Kesler 1966
Oatway 1975
Overcash 1973
Value judged most reliable
Unspecified confinement housing
Baldwin 1975
Benne 1961
Clawson 1974 (feces)
Davis 1969
Hart 1965
Holland 1975 (feces)
Kornegay 1975
Lane 1975
Moore 1969
Orr 1971 (feces)
Pearce 1975 (feces)
Poelma 1966
Robinson 1966 (feces)
Splllman 1960
Stevenson 1975
Stevermer 1974
Webber 1968
ragi 1975
Value judged most reliable for
all confinement housing units
o_ _
g/d/45-kg hog
9
8
10
9
26
12
18
16
23
22
24
18-32
18
26
11
10
24
18
18
__
9
_.
10
14
38
23
--
32
--
..
31
26
18
R 1
Percent TS
3.4
3.3
3.8
3.3
4.4
10.0
7.3
7
6.5
4.5
..
9.3
4.4
9.8
7
3.0
4.0
-w
4
3.8
3.7
-.
.»
3.4
3.0
_w
2.7
6.1
3.4-4.1
..
6.6
8.8
6.5
NHs-N/TKN
0.42
0.21
0.41
0.49
0.93
--
0.5
0.53
0.21
0.44
0.4
__
._
__
0.74
~
__
m
..
0.48
_.
.-
..
0.45
0.5
51
-------
The evaluation of the relative advantages of slotted floor or concrete
slab units for nitrogen losses or conservation is limited because of
incomplete documentation of the total defecated amount, the severe
restrictions of sample storage and analysis (Overcash 1975a, Moore 1975, and
Humenik 1975) and the variability of field sampling (Reddell 1975).
Two authors (Clawson 1974 and Stevermer 1975) using a specific ration
and carcass value determined by difference that the nitrogen excreted
was 0.031 kg/d/45-kg hog. Few values this high appear in Table 18,
and as shown in a later section, similar theoretical calculations for
conservative elementsj phosphorus and potassium, were above average
measured values by 150 to 180 percent. Therefore, data inconsistencies
exist in establishing the excreted nitrogen load.
As an approximation of housing unit effect on waste nitrogen, one may
assume that the consistent upper values of 0.023 to 0.027 kg/d/45-kg
hog in Table 18 represent the defecated waste load. Thus in comparison,
the waste load from the concrete slab and slotted floor with storage
pit units is reduced by 20 percent-30 percent. Neither unit appears
to have a disproportionately greater nitrogen waste load. Alternatively,
a more realistic estimate of waste load may be the average of all
data or 0.018 kg/d/45-kg hog. Further evidence of the expected low TKN
losses for manure pit conditions was presented in a study of room
temperature storage losses (Moore 1975). Less than 10 percent loss
of TKN was found after 4 weeks.
Another study (Lauer 1975) under controlled conditions showed 10-30
percent nitrogen loss for exposed dairy waste after one day. It would
be expected that when wastes are stored in tanks or pits below slotted
floors the nitrogen volatilization losses would be reduced below that
for wastes on a concrete floor exposed to weather conditions for 1-3
days. Literature data are variable and do not show such a trend. Quite
possibly substantial nitrogen losses may occur rapidly before manure
is forced through slots to the pit so that similar nitrogen losses occur
in both production units. Again, in lieu of a more precise definition,
the approximate values in Table 18 can be used and possibly supplemented
by actual waste analyses.
The waste fraction which is in the ammonia form (NH3-N) showed
considerable variation, Table 18. Demonstrated rapid changes in sample
ammonia concentrations (Moore 1975) even under refrigerated conditions
would account for the NH3-N/TKN variability. An average value of 0.50
as the ratio of NH3-N/TKN was adopted.
With the daily generation rate of TKN, TS, and total waste volume,
several average concentrations can be calculated. The nitrogen,
as a percent of the solid dry matter, was 7.8 percent. Recorded
52
-------
values in Table 18 (many for feces only) were generally 50-60 percent
of this value. One possible explanation could be that since much of
the nitrogen is ammonia, storage or drying losses were substantial.
For minimum water use, raw swine waste concentrations were approximately
5,500 mg N/l for 3.8 1 waste volume/d/45-kg hog.
In summary, the percentage loss of nitrogen in the material leaving
concrete slab or slotted floor production units could not be accurately
estimated because of insufficient data. The waste load from concrete
slab and from slotted floor-pit units was not substantially different.
A similar conclusion for nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium was reached
for a detailed comparison of beef wastes in slotted floor-pit and
totally-roofed, concrete slab units (Adriano 1975). The relationship
of these production unit waste loads could not be compared to the
defecated waste because of lack of defecated waste data.
Cations and Anions Expressed as Elements
There are a number of conservative constituents in swine waste which
present an environmental impact, sometimes as the land limiting
components. This impact is often categorized as: 1) salt content or
salinity or 2) potentially toxic heavy metals. The cations and anions
in this category are conservative and thus the defecated amounts are
equal to the amounts leaving the production unit and reaching the
pretreatment process (excepting the miniscule amounts necessary for
microbial biomass).
There are several discussions of the toxic and salinity effects of
wastes applied to land or accumulating in biological waste treatment
systems (Stewart 1976, Bomke 1975, Horton 1975, Loehr 1973). With
respect to land application, swine waste is very concentrated when
expressed as mg of various ions per liter of waste. However, the
critical factor in the plant-soil system is the total mass of various
constituents applied annually and the volume of dilution water from
rainfall. That is, the plant-soil receiver has a capacity for a
large variety of salts, ions, and elements; and the concentration of
application is less important in the long term than the actual mass
applied. This is not true for many water-based treatment systems in
which peak concentrations represent potentially deleterious shock
loads. Hence, it is important to document the generation rate, as well
as the concentrations of various conservative constituents.
The format for literature reporting is usually mg/gTS, mg/1 of waste,
or g/d/45-kg hog. Predominantly^ the amount of an element per unit
of total dry solids is used. Additionally, some researchers have
given detailed feces analyses. Data for feces (expressed as a percent
53
-------
of TS) can be used to represent the entire waste load if the contribu-
tion from urine is small. That is, certain constituent analyses are
urine sensitive. In a detailed reporting (Ngoddy 1971) of the feces
and urine fractions of swine waste, it was determined that potassium
(K), sodium (Na), and possibly sulfur (S) analyses expressed per unit
of total solids are strongly dependent on urine content. For the
parameters phosphorus (P), calcium (Ca), magnesium (Mg), iron (Fe),
zinc (Zn), copper (Cu), and manganese (Mn), the feces and total waste
values expressed as mass per unit of dry solids are nearly equal.
Thus, feces data can be used directly for these elements. Using the
chelation bonding strength relations proposed and demonstrated for
swine waste lagoon pretreatment (Overcash 1976b), the elements cadmium
(Cd) and cobalt (Go) are projected to be urine insensitive. It is
unclear whether this would be true for lead (Pb), molybdenum (Mo)
and aluminum (Al), but the assumption of feces analysis equating to
total waste analysis is necessarily made due to lack of urine data.
The ratio of individual elements to total dry solids (expressed as ppm
or percent) are tabulated in Table 19 for feces plus urine, feces only,
and those data which were unspecified as to housing unit. For those
parameters which were urine insensitive or where there were few data,
a single value judged most reliable is given, Table 19. For phosphorus,
potassium and sodium, a value was determined for feces only and for the
feces plus urine data, Table 19.
The sodium and potassium amounts per unit of total dry solids were
found to be consistently lower for feces only, Table 19, indicating
the need for extra caution in collecting swine waste samples and for
interpreting literature values. Phosphorus, one of the urine insen-
sitive parameters, was similar in concentration for the average of
the feces plus urine and for feces only. Thus, total waste, manure
solids, or feces data can be used for the urine insensitive para-
meters.
Evaluation of parameter generation rate in Table 20 involves: 1) the
concentration determination per unit of waste volume or per unit
of total solids and 2) a measure of daily waste volume or solids
production. Several literature evaluations, Table 20, were found for
phosphorus and potassium, while only limited data were available for
other parameters. Therefore, an additional entry using the waste
concentration from Table 19 and the average total solids rate (0.23
kgTS/d/45-kg hog) was included for all parameters, Table 20. The
summary of all available data was included in Table 20 to give the
daily output of these elements per 45-kg hog.
54
-------
tn
Ui
Concrete slab and slotted
floor-pit housing units
Benne 1961
Clark 1965
Collins 1975
Converse 1970
Hart 1965
Hepherd 1975
Holland 1975
Humenik 1972
Irgen 1965
Jones 1972
Kessler 1966
Lane 1975
Maddex 1975
Ngoddy 1971
Oatway 1975
Overcash 1976
Overcash 1973
Unspecified confinement
housing
Holland 1975 (feces)
Orr 1971 (feces)
Pearce 1975 (feces)
Robinson 1966 (feces)
Baldntn 1975
Barth 1975 (solids only)
Batey 1972
Eggum 1974
Fischer 1975 (manure)
Koch 1975 (pit solids)
Kornegay 1975
Taiganides 1964 (solids only)
Mebber 1968
P
0.56
1.0
2.2
0.7
1.9
3.0
6.5
2.5
1.1
3.1
3.7
2.8
2.1
3.0
2.1
1.6
2.5
1.8
0.56
2.9
2.2
2.2
2.2
1.2
1.6
K
UTS
1.5
1.4
1.4
3.5
0.9
1.7
6.3
3.5
2.7
4.2
1:3
1.0
1.2
0.6
0.85
1.4
4.3
1.8
Ca
2.3
3.2
2.3
4.4
6.4
2.5
2.9
2.7
2.5
3.2
2.9
4.0
3.2
3.5
Hg
3,200
12,700
7,700
11,700
9,000
12,000
8,000
9,900
9,300
1,000
8.000
6,400
13,400
9,000
5,000
Na ft
21,000 1,100
5,800
3,050
6,300 500
12,000
14,900
2,600 455
1,940
2,100 970
3,070
2,160
1,730
Zn Cu
913 74
633 74
620
680 1 76
500
600
650 65
530 63
509 110
526
1 ,690 82
640
540 92
650 72
377 98
Cu high diet-
ary Cn level Hn 8 Cl S Cd *1 Co Ho Pb
pom TS basis
5,400
325 81 ,000
980
540 16,300
500 200
1,300 270 <.l
400 28,000
177 10,050
342 3,000 1 544 6.1 0.3 12
1 ,020 190
990
675
566
1,750
263 9,050
Value judged most reliable
8,500 12,000 1,700
650 90
1,000
250 400 50,000 9,000 0-1. 550 6 0-0.3 12
-------
Table 20. SHINE HASTE WKERATIOB AND LIQUID CONCENTHATIOH - CATIONS AND MIONS EXPRESSED AS ELEMENTS AS ELEMENTS
Ui
ON
Concrete slab and slotted
floor-pit housing unit
Converse 1970
Davis 1969
Hart 1965
Hepnerd 1975
Humenlk 1972
Irgen 1965
Jones 1972
Kessler 1966
Lane 1975
Hoore 1969
Ngoddy 1971
Overcash 1976
Stevencr 1974 (theoretical
calculation)
Talganldes 1964 (solids
only)
Webber 1968
(Ullrich 1966
Composite using average
TS generation and dry
matter composition
(Tables 16 and 19)
Value judged most
reliable, s/d/45-kg hog
L^uld concentration
calculated on basis of
3.8 l/d/45-kg hog. mg/1
t
5.5
3.9
2.5
4.5
7.7
7.3
2.8
9.1
3.2
8.2
6.8
16
4.1
6.4
5.9
5.9
5.9
1,500
K Ca Hg Na Fe Zn
3.5
5.
8.2 5.5 1.8 1.4
0.16
4.3
6.4 17.3 2.4 0.82 0.18
11.4
7.7 5.5 2.7 1.4 0.11 0.11
5.9 5 1.7 2.3 0.086
11.4
15 12.3 1.7 0.6 0.13
1.3
11:4-22.8
7.3 9.1 2.3 2.3 0.45 0.17
8.2 9.1 2.3 2.3 0.45 0.14
2,200 2,400 600 600 120 35
Ca high dlet-
Cu ary Cu level HnBclS Cd Al Co * n
q/d/45-kg hog
0.25
0.045 0.15 4.4
0.11 0.045
0.16 0.05
0.034 0.09 3.1
O.B23 0.27 0.068 0.11 13.6 2.4 0-2.7X10'* 0.15 1.6x10-3 0-9X10"5 3.2x10°
0.023 0.18 0,058 0.11 13.6 3.2 0-2,7xlO'4 O.U l.BxlO"3 0-9X10'5 3.2xlO"3
6 50 15 0.3 3,500 850 0-0.1 35 0.5 0-0.025 0.8
-------
For comparative purposes, the waste generation rates judged most
reliable were converted to concentration values based on the total
swine waste volume. The value of 3.8 l/d/45-kg hog was used with
the resultant concentrations expressed as mg/1, Table 20.
In a recent study (Overcash 1976) the production unit mass balance
for seven cations (Ca, Mg, K, Na, Cu, Zn, Mn) was evaluated. The study
spanned a period of 6 years. Feed amounts were determined, as well as
the waste generation from a concrete-slab, fully-roofed swine produc-
tion unit. The waste as a percentage of feed (carry-over factor) for
Cu, Zn, Mn, Ca, Mg, K, and Na was 86 percent, 110 percent, 79 percent,
40 percent, 74 percent, 59 percent, and 66 percent, respectively.
Organic-Related Parameters
The two most widely used measures of the total aggregate of organic
compounds in swine waste are the chemical oxygen demand (COD) and the
five-day biochemical oxygen demand (6005). A detailed discussion of
the techniques and significance of these parameters can be found in
several literature sources (Standard Methods 1971, Webber 1973, Arial
-1971). In essence, these two analyses approximate the oxidative
state of organic compounds by determining the amount of oxygen required
to convert waste organics completely to carbon dioxide and water
(COD) or the amount of oxygen utilized by microorganisms in a five
day period of aerobic oxidation (BODc). A third parameter, the total
organic carbon (TOG), offers the advantage of determining the actual
mass of carbon present in the heterogeneous swine waste mixture.
Thus, TOG is approximately the mass of carbon while COD, and BOD5
approximate the oxidation level of swine waste. Several literature
references (Orr 1971 and Miner 1968) were found which detailed some of
the individual compounds present in swine waste, but as a rule such
specific analyses are not widely performed. Trends toward byproduct
recovery will add emphasis to such detailed constituent analyses
(Driggers 1976).
Comparison of the COD generation for concrete slab and slotted floor-
pit facilities, Table 21, indicates that these waste loads are of a
similar magnitude. A recent study (Moore 1975) on storage of raw
swine manure at room temperature for four weeks indicated that only
10 percent-15 percent changes in COD and TOG concentrations occurred
under these concentrated conditions. Thus, manure pit losses or
stabilization of organic constituents are probably not large. The
value judged most reliable was 0.30 kg COD/d/45-kg hog. Similar
£ priori arguments for facility differences and explanations for lack
of difference can be made for these organic, nonconservative parameters
as were made earlier for nitrogen. The BOD5 load for all housing
57
-------
Table 21. SWINE WASTE GENERATION AND DRV MATTER COMPOSIT10N-ORGANICS
Concrete slab and slotted
floor-pit housing units
Barth 1975 (solids)
Clark 1965
Collins 1975
Converse 1970
Evans 1975
Fong 1973
Humenlk 1972
Irgen 1965
Jones 1972
Loynachen 1972
Negulescu 1975
Ngoddy 1971
Overcash 1972
Overcast) 1973
Pontln 1968 (finishing hog)
(sow)
Scheltlnga 1966
Schnrtd 1969
Ta1gan1des 1964 (solids only)
Will rich 1966
Unspecified confinement
housing
B«1nes 1964
Collins 197S
Davis 1969
Day 1969 (finishing hog)
(SON
Fischer 1975 (manure)
Gram 1971 (feces)
Hart 1965
Jeffrey 1965
Little 1966
Lynn 1968
Poelrna 1966
Webber 1968
Yag.1 1975
Value judged most reliable
COD
kq/d/45-ka hoo
0.37
0.35
0.29
0.23
0.38
0.24
0.19
0.45
0.27
..
..
0.25
0.24
0.33
0.32
»
..
__
**
..
0.34
.-
--
..
--
-.
0.30
-------
units was 0.12 kg BOD5/d/45-kg hog. One investigator (Schmid 1969)
determined the ultimate BOD to be 0.20 mg/1, Table 21, with the ratio
of BODU to COD being 0.38. For TOG there were less data available,
Table 21. The total mass of organic carbon was determined to be 0 09
kg TOC/d/45-kg hog.
A number of reports also based the COD, BOD5, and TOG on a percentage
of the total dry solids, Table 21. Calculation of these ratio for the
average waste generation yielded 130 percent, 50 percent and 40 percent
of TS for the COD, BODs, and TOG, respectively. The three literature
values for the COD/TS ratio for feces or swine solids only were also
lower than values for the total waste load as previously noted for
urine sensitive constituents. Expressed on a liquid basis for the
swine waste volume representative of minimum excess water, 3.8 1/D/
45-kg hog, the concentrations for COD, BODc, and TOC are 80,000,
32,000 and 24,000 mg/1, respectively.
Bacteria Content
As anticipated, the bacterial concentrations for swine waste were
both high and displayed more variability than the chemical parameters,
Table 22. The range of values was approximately a hundred-fold for the
various bacterial species measured. In addition to quantitative
determinations, several qualitative analyses for microorganism present
in swine wastes were made, Table 22. To put the bacteria concentra-
tions on the basis of a daily generation rate, the average waste volume
(3.8 l/d/45-kg hog) was used, Table 22. These data are, at best,
order of magnitude results considering the environmental and sampling
factors affecting bacterial decline or death and variations in
analytical techniques. Reported data represent semicommercial and
research herds, but are applicable to the majority of well managed
commercial confinement operations.
Miscellaneous Parameters
Several investigators have measured the volatile acid content and the
total alkalinity of swine waste, Table 23. Volatile acids are
expressed in terms of equivalents of acetic acid per unit total dry
solids. Alkalinity is reported as calcium carbonate equivalents.
The average concentrations and generation rates were 50,000 and
6.5 ppni TS and 0.012 and 1.5xlO~6 kg/d/45-kg hog for volatile acids and
alkalinity, respectively.
59
-------
Table 22. SNINE WASTE GENERATION, LIQUID COMPOSITION. AND PRESENCE OF BACTERIA
ON
O
All confinement housing
units
Arlal 1970
Clark 1965
Collins )97S
Davis 1969 (feces)
Geldreich 1962
Hobson 1973
Koon 1970
HcCoy 1969
Bobbins 1971
Ta1gan1des 1964 (solids only)
Range of values or order
of magnitude value
Fecal
Col f form
80
3.6
1
0.03-1.9
340
100
1-340
Total
Coliform
200
60
16
330
1,100
16-1,000
Enterococcus
group
20
840
100-1,000
20-1,000
Strep to co
count1
a
8.400
85
3-8,400
Eseherichi a Enterococcus Streptococci Streptococci Streptococci Enterococcus
Coli Anaerobes Aerobes Facultative group Sallvarlus Bovls Equimus Biotjrpes
counts/100 ml (nUllions) i of samples in which bacteria were detected
50.000 113,000
100.000 50.000 100,000
Composite generation using
3.8 l/d/45-kg tiog of waste
volume and range of
bacterial densities, billion
counts/d/45-kg hog 0.04-13
Z.OOQ 4,000
-------
Table 23. SWINE WASTE GENERATION AND DRY MATTER COMPOSITION-MISCELLANEOUS PARAMETERS
All confinement Alkalinity
housing units ppmTS
Earth 1975 (solids only)
Benne 1961
Clark 1965
Clawson 1974 (feces!
Fong 1973 5.6
Grarans 1971 (feces) 7.1
Hart 1965
Holland 1975 (feces plus
urine)
(urine)
Oett 1973 (feces)
Overcash 1973
Pearce 1975 (feces)
Robinson 1966 (feces)
Feed (Pearce 1975)
Value judged most reliable 6.5
Volatile
Acids
2.1
7.8
4.8
4.8
5
Crude
Fiber
15.3
15
18
16
Ether
Extract
10.2
8
6.9
6.6
5.6
8
Crude
Protein
«TS
25.1
23.5
20.9
17.4
23
Nitrogen
Free
Extract
30.7
38.3
41.4
29
35
Inorganic Gross
Fat Carbon Energy
kcal/g
1.8
2.9
4.6
2.0
8
4.3
5.9
1.8 8 4
Composite generation
using TS average and
average dry matter
composition, (Table
16), kg/d/45-kg hog
Liquid concentration
(waste volume of 3.8 l/d/45-kg
hog), mg/1
1.5xlO-6 0.012 0.037 0.018
0.4
0.053
0.08
0.004 0.018
3,200 10,000 4,800 14,000 21,000 1,100 4,800
900 kcal/
d/45-kg hog
-------
From research on the nutritive value of swine waste, literature
references were found for crude fiber, ether extract, crude protein,
nitrogen-free extract, and the gross energy (heat of combustion).
Except for the gross energy value, the other parameters are expressed-
as a percent of total dry solids with gross energy reported as
kcal per gram of total dry solids. The parameter values judged
reliable are listed in Table 23. The average energy value is about
one fourth to one third the value of the heat of combustion of most
organic compounds (10-13 kcal/g. Perry 1973) indicating the presence of
noncombustible reduced compounds. For comparison, parameter concen-
trations for 17 percent protein feed are also given in Table 23.
Conversion of the average parameter expressions on a dry solids
basis in Table 23, to a daily generation rate and per unit volume of
total waste were accomplished using the average values of 0.23 kg
TS/d/45-kg hog and 3.8 l/d/45-kg hog.
Factors Affecting Waste Production
Very few reports were found regarding climatological, management, or
housing unit effects, per se. The separation of data in previous
sections is a first approximation to differentiate the effect of
housing unit. No controlled studies were found which have attempted
to evaluate such parameters as nitrogen loss, solids reduction, or
organic stabilization of total waste or the urine and feces fractions
from different swine housing units. Continued references, however,
were found concerning excess water or total waste volume in production
facilities.
Feeding Procedure-
Feeding procedures in concrete-floor and partially-slotted units can
influence the unit waste load (Willrich 1966). Floor feeding does
not make excess feed available as does self-feeding operations. Hence,
hogs clean up the floor and less feed becomes part of the production
unit waste load. A reduction in the waste load from 0.3 to 0.2 kg
VS/day/45-kg hog has been reported with conversion from self-feed to
floor feeding (Willrich 1966).
Climatological Effects-
Temperature dependence of waste constituent generation for different
production units is necessary to refine and transfer data obtained
under a variety of climatological conditions. Data in previous
tables were generally unspecified as to temperature or season; hence,
probably represent a variety of conditions. Physiologic information
(Mount 1968) indicated a 40 percent increase in water intake between
20 C and 30° C with concomitant urine increases.
62
-------
Two references were available on seasonal effects, Table 24. The
waste load from a concrete slab unit was determined in which there
was some confounding effect due to frequent pen washing (Taiganides
1964). The total waste, total solids, and total volatile solids
generation rates were found to be reduced by 50 percent, 37 percent,
and 35 percent, respectively, during a summer period as compared to
tests conducted in winter and spring. In a partial-slatted confinement
house, water use was reduced by use of nipple waterers, a timed
sequence fogging system responding to ambient pen temperature, and
floor scraping with waste stored in the pit for two weeks prior to
emptying (Overcash 1973). The waste volume showed a slight increase
during the warmer periods. The COD, TOG, and TKN expressed as kg/d/45-kg
hog or as a ratio of a given parameter to orthophosphorus (a conservative
element) did not evidence large shifts between cold and warm periods.
Therefore, it was concluded that seasonal generation changes were not
large. At this time, satisfactory studies for evaluating the clima-
tological influence on waste generation are limited.
Typically, a slotted floor-manure pit facility will be operated until
the pit is full and then overflow to a lagoon will occur until pit
emptying is feasible. The nitrogen concentration of the pit supernatant
or overflow liquid was found to be about one third of the completely
mixed pit contents (Overcash 1973, Sewell 1975). If this overflow or
a sample of pit liquid without careful depth integration were used
to determine pit losses of waste parameters, a higher apparent loss
would result. Some literature data citing high nitrogen losses in
pit storage may result from inadequate sampling.
A complete summary of the waste generation rate judged as most
reliably representative of concrete slab and slotted floor production
units was made, Table 25. This is a compilation of Tables 15-23.
From this table, the hypothetical concentration of raw swine waste
without excess water can be directly calculated. Values in Table 25
were used as the input to pretreatment processes in determining process
performance.
SWINE WASTE LOAD FROM DRYLOT AND PASTURE PRODUCTION UNITS
Swine drylot or pasture units represent both a functional system for
finishing hogs and the most often employed facility of the three
production categories. In contrast, the waste load generated, the
environmental impact, and the relative economics are the least
documented. Also, in comparison to the considerable research on
beef feedlots and more recently dairy loafing areas, the swine
drylot has received negligible attention. Miner <197Q)
63
-------
Table 24. SEASONAL EFFECT ON RAW SWINE WASTE PARAMETERS
Reference
Taiganides 1964
Overcash 1973
Dates
Jan
Aug
Apr
June-Aug
Sept-Nov
Dec-Feb
Mar-May
June-Aug
Average air
temperature, °C
12
27
18
24
14
7
16
24
Raw swine waste, kg/d/45-kg hog
TS
0.39
0.22
0.44
VS
0.29
0.18
0.36
--
COD
--
0.21
0.27
0.27
0.38
0.25
TKN
--
0.014
0.016
0.018
0.028
0.013
t-P04-P
--
0.004
0.005
0.005
0.009
0.004
-------
Table 25. SUMMARY OF SWINE WASTE GENERATION FROM CONCRETE
SLAB AND SLOTTED FLOOR-PIT PRODUCTION UNITS
Parameter Generation rate,
g/d/45 kg hog
Total waste mass ,
(density - 1.0 g/cnT) (3
Total solids
Volatile solids
Total suspended solids
Volatile suspended solids
Nitrogen
Anmonla - Nitrogen
Phosphorus
Potassium
Calcium
Magnesium
Sodium
Iron
Zinc
Copper (no feed copper supplement)
3800
.8n/d/45 kg hog)
230
180
180
160
18
9
e
8
9
2
2
0.45
0.14
0.02
(feed copper supplement 150-350 ppm) 0.2
Manganese
Boron
Chloride
Sulfur
Cadmium
Aluminum
Cobalt
Molybdenum
Lead
0.055
0.001
14
3
0 - 3x1 0"4
0.14
0.002
0 - 9x1 O'5
0.003
Parameter
Chemical oxygen demand
Biochemical oxygen demand
(5 day)
Total organic carbon
Alkalinity (as calcium carbonate)
Volatile adds (as acetic acid)
Crude fiber
Ether extract
Crude protein
Nitrogen - free extract
Fat
Inorganic carbon
Gross energy
Fecal conform
Total colifonn
Enterococcus group
Streptococci
EscherlcMa coli
Anaerobes
Aerobes
Facultative organisms
Seneration rate,
g/d/45 kg hog
(unless noted otherwise)
300
120
90
0.002
15
45
20
65
90
4.5
18
900 kcal/d/45 kg hog
Generation rate,
billions of counts/
d/45 kg hog
0.04 - 13 (literature range)
0.6 - 42 (literature range)
0.8 - 38 (literature range)
0.1 - 320(l1terature range)
0.4 (order of magnitude)
4000 (order of magnitude)
2000 (order of magnitude)
4000 (order of magnitude)
65
-------
concluded several years ago that "although runoff from feeding areas
confining animals other than cattle may be expected to be high in
organic matter, no data are currently available concerning these
sources". A recent assessment of swine waste (Overcash 1975) stressed
the need to evaluate waste generation and design of swine feedlot
controls. United States Environmental Protection Agency and some
state regulations now require retention and land application of all
runoff from production areas which do not maintain vegetative cover.
Therefore, there is an urgent need to obtain data for application
of these regulations to swine drylots since these units are usually
operated at lower stocking densities, do not accumulate manure packs,
and are managed in a different manner than beef feedlots. The design
and economics of such controls will be a function of differing runoff
retention structure requirements, projected annual pumping costs,
and nutrient value of runoff liquid.
Waste defecated in a swine drylot or pasture is subject to A number
of processes resulting in constituent changes. The major waste
migration pathways or effluents from a feedlot are; 1) rainfall and
snow melt runoff, 2) decomposition, volatilization, and incorporation
into soil and/or plants, and 3) movement with soil water to either
surface waters or ground water. In perspective, the most visible
and currently scrutinized effluent by regulatory agencies is drylot
rainfall runoff. This effluent stream can be controlled, collected,
and handled in an environmentally acceptable manner. A study (Barker
1976) was recently begun at a producer site to determine swine drylot
runoff quantities and constituent transport, stream impact, and
natural or background runoff and constituent transport from a comparable
set of geographical conditions. Volatilization, decomposition and
soil incorporation losses represent the greatest effluent pathway
because most swine drylots are seldom scraped or develop the manure
pack characteristic of beef feedlots.
The soil water movement or percolation losses are the least understood
and at present, very little research or control technology is being
directed to this loss pathway. Descriptions of soil-manure proper-
ties, interconversions between forms of nitrogen, etc., are not
available. A recent study (Spray 1974) suggests that drylot rotation
and subsequent crop harvesting can have an advantageous impact on
reducing potential soil-water transport of waste constituents.
Further estimation of waste movement by this pathway is not included
in this report because of the lack of even descriptive data on lot
conditions. The attendant conclusion is a strong recommendation for
research and documentation of the total environmental impact of swine
drylots.
66
-------
The production unit waste generation for swine drylot or pasture
units is thus taken to be runoff and the resulting constituent
transport. This evaluation is limited by several factors, the
first of which is that no direct data for lot runoff were available
in the literature. However, one closely associated study (Robbins
1972) on the pollutional potential of swine area runoff was performed
on a watershed basis. In the study of watersheds, swine waste was
applied to a plant-soil system, hogs raised on drylots, and even
some direct stream access by swine. Comparisons were made to natural
pollutional load on streams draining adjacent agricultural lands
devoid of farm animals. Mass balances for the watershed with 200
sows on 1.2 hectares of drylot plus wastes from 300 confined hogs
spread on 2 hectares show that 0.69 percent, 1.66 percent and 3
percent of the defecated BOD5, TOG and nitrogen, respectively, was
present in the stream draining that watershed. Their conclusions
included that even in cases when disposal sites are poorly located
or where swine are grown on dry lot the amount of pollutants
(natural plus animal wastes) that reach streams is less than 10
percent of the raw waste deposited in the watersheds.
As another data limitation, the available feedlot information for
volume and parameter concentrations are for beef feedlots, predominantly
located in the Midwest. Thus, waste generation for swine drylots are
necessarily extrapolated from beef feedlot data. Some interchangeable
basis is needed since swine stocking densities on drylots are not as
high as most beef units. Possible interconversion factors are the
animal weight per unit of feedlot area or differences of nitrogen
defecated per unit of feedlot area. A final data limitation is the
documented data variability for feedlot pollutant transport at a
given site (Clark 1975).
Under these conditions, the determination of swine drylot or pasture
runoff waste generation was developed as a range of probable values.
That is, an envelope of probable maximum and minimum runoff transport
was established. The upper limit is taken to be beef feedlot runoff
while the minimum is taken to be runoff transport from established
plant-soil systems receiving recommended rates of swine waste.
Rainfall runoff is usually expressed as cm of runoff and has been
correlated to precipitation and to antecedent soil moisture conditions
(Edwards 1975). There appears to be little effect of feedlot slope,
animal ration, or animal stocking density on runoff volume (Clark
1975). The investigated densities for beef lots are listed in Table
26 along with comparable swine stocking, both expressed as liveweight
per unit area and based on defecated nitrogen per unit area. The
equivalent liveweight swine stocking densities to that of beef feedlots
67
-------
Table 26. TRANSLATION OF STUDIED BEEF FEEDLOT STOCKING DENSITIES (CLARK
1975) INTO EQUIVALENT SWINE DRYLOT STOCKING DENSITIES.
Feedlot
Location
McKinney, Tx.
Bush! and, Tx.
Ft. Collins, Cal.
Mead, Neb.
Pratt, Ks.
Bellville, Tx.
Gretna, Neb.
Sioux Falls, S.D.
Beef
Stocking rate
mz/
animals
9
12
19
19
33
35
46
53
animals
/ha.
1,100
830
530
530
300
290
220
190
Equivalent
stocking rate
for swine based
on liveweight
animals/ha.
8,900
6,700
4,200
4,200
2,400
2,300
1,700
1,500
Equivalent
stocking rate
for swine based
on kg N defecated
per animal live-
weight, animals/ha.
4,500
3,400
2,100
2,100
1,200
1,200
850
750
68
-------
range from 1,500-8,900 animals/ha, which is substantially above the
usual swine densities (125-500 animals/ha.). Since the runoff volume
was found to be relatively insensitive to stocking density, the runoff
per unit of liveweight generally decreases in a linear manner as
stocking increases.
Concentration ranges for runoff liquid from concrete surfaced cattle
feedlots are: COD, 2,760 mg/1 (Miner 1966) to 48,000 mg/1 (Wells 1972).
Total nitrogen values (ammonia plus organic) range from 94-1,000 mg/1
(Miner 1966) to 68-1,057 mg/1 (Wells 1972). Nitrate values are from
0.1-11 mg/1 (Miner 1966) to 0-1,270 mg/1 (Wells 1972). Suspended
solids are about 1,100-13,300 mg/1 (Miner 1966).
Concentration ranges for runoff from unpaved cattle feedlots are:
COD from about 1,300-8,247 mg/1 (Gilbertson 1970) to 10,900-286,000
mg/1 (Gilbertson 1971). Total nitrogen (ammonia plus organic) range
from 50-540 mg/1 (Miner 1966) to 1,500-10,000 mg/1 (Gilbertson 1971).
Nitrate values are from 0-17 mg/1 (Gilbertson 1971). Suspended solids
are about 1,100-7,000 mg/1 (Miner 1966) to 2,400-17,400 mg/1 (reported
as percent total solids, Gilbertson 1970).
Winter runoff values for an unpaved cattle feedlot were reported
(Gilbertson 1970) to be: 14,129-77,804 mg/1 COD, 1,429-5,765 mg/1
total nitrogen, and 30,000-198,000 mg/1 total solids.
Subsequent articles (Gilbertson 1971 and McCalla 1972) continue
to reference previously reported findings (Gilbertson 1970) that
only 3 to 6 percent of the material deposited on beef feedlots
will be transported in rainfall runoff. Conclusions presented (Gil-
bertson 1970) were that about 6 percent of the volatile solids
deposited on unpaved beef feedlot surfaces was transported in runoff
for lots with stocking rates of 19 m^/head and 3 percent for stocking
rates of 9.5 m^/head. If winter runoff was included, the corresponding
percentage values were 14 percent and 26.8 percent. Differences among
COD values were not apparent for the different types of feedlots
studied or the cattle densities of 19 and 9.5 m /animal (Gilbertson
1970). Doubling cattle population densities from 490 to 980 per
hectare was reported to increase pollutional potential of runoff
by only 25 percent (Lippet 1969). The runoff pollutant concentrations
were approximately twice as great for a concrete lot as for an
unsurfaced lot (Lipper 1969 and Miner 1966). In a summary of these
and other data, the runoff concentrations were variable, but a discernable
trend of proportionally increasing concentration with increasing stocking
was evidenced, Table 27. Runoff liquid concentrations of around 400
mg TN/1 at about 40 m2/head increased to around 1,500 mg TN/1 at 10-20
m'Vhead, a roughly linear relationship.
69
-------
Table 27. AVERAGE OR TYPICAL RAINFALL RUNOFF LIQUID CONCENTRATION
OF TOTAL NITROGEN - BEEF FEEDLOTS OF VARIOUS STOCKING
DENSITIES (Clark 1975)
Location
Stocking Density
nr/animal
Average or typical
total nitrogen con-
tent of runoff
liquid, nig TN/1
McKinney, Tx
Bush!and, Tx
Mead, Neb.
Ft. Collins, Col.
Pratt, Ks.
Bellville, Tx
Sioux Falls, S.D.
9
12
19
19
33
35
53
1,140
1,530
150
1,750
750
90
300
70
-------
Total beef feedlot runoff transport per unit liveweight is about the
same regardless of stocking density or unit type because of the general
relationship between runoff volume and concentration. Although this
analysis is approximate, it does corroborate conclusions of various
researchers that about 5 percent of defecated waste load leaves
feedlots as runoff (Madden 1971 and Gilbertson 1970). The range of
runoff transport is about 3 percent to 10 percent of the defecated
waste and increases directly with annual rainfall. Thus, runoff
transport can be normalized by the amount of runoff (a direct propor-
tion to the amount of rainfall is assumed) to give the mass of a
constituent per head per cm of runoff (Environmental Protection Agency
1973).
Using a maximum of 10 percent of defecated waste for feedlot rainfall
transport and the raw waste amounts in Table 25, an upper value for
swine drylot was calculated, Table 28. These production unit waste
loads are the input to subsequent pretreatment processes such as
retention ponds or are the amounts of material available for direct
land application. The amount of a given constituent per cm of runoff
was calculated based on certain assumptions in a later section describing
runoff retention ponds.
The lower limit of estimated swine drylot or pasture runoff is the
transport found from areas receiving applications of animal waste at
recommended rates of 300-600 kg N/ha./yr. Based on the raw waste
defecated, these land application rates would be equivalent to 40 to 80
hogs per hectare. Such a stocking density is just on the border
between a pasture situation and a drylot in terms of ability to support
a vegetative cover (Dobson 1975). Therefore, results presented here
for runoff transport from areas receiving recommended rates of animal
waste will represent: 1) the approximate waste load from pasture
production units averaging 40-80 hogs/ha., and 2) a lower estimate of
runoff transport from swine drylots.
Several data sources were found for runoff concentrations, Table 29.
The concentrations are 20 to 1,000-fold lower than feedlot values
indicating primarily the much lower amount of waste constituents per
unit area. On a mass balance basis (Humenik 1976) the percent of applied
swine lagoon effluent material which appeared in rainfall runoff from
Coastal Plains-Bermuda grass plots was between 0.9 percent and 4.3 percent
for TN, COD and t-P04-P. Thus, approximately 2.5 percent of the applied
waste load was assumed to appear in runoff transport from plots
receiving the equivalent of fertilizer recommendations and thus this
value was used to determine the lower limit on drylot production
unit waste load, Table 28. While it is anticipated that the percent
71
-------
Table 28. ESTIMATED MAXIMUM, MINIMUM AND AVERAGE RAINFALL-
RUNOFF TRANSPORT OF SWINE WASTE FROM DRYLOT
PRODUCTION UNIT
Minimum generation
rate (Z-5* of defe-
cated load), g/d/45-
Pararaeter kg hog
Total waste mass
Total solids
Volatile solids
Total suspended-solids
Volatile suspended solids
Nitrogen
famonia - nitrogen
Phosphorus
Potassium
Calcium
Magnesium
Sodium
Iron
Z1nc
Copper (no feed copper supplement)
(feed copper supplement 150-350 ppsr)
Manganese
Boron
Chloride
Sulfur
Cadmium
Alutnfnum
Cobalt
Molybdenum
Lead
Chemical oxygen demand
Biochemical oxygen demand (5 day)
Total organic carbon
Alkalinity (as calcliw carbonate)
Volatile adds (as acetic acid)
Crude fiber
Ether extr*rt
Crude protein
Nitrogen - free extract
Fat
Inorganic carbon
Gross energy
Fecal coHfonn
Total coll form
Enterococcus group
Streptococci
Escherlchla coll
Anaerobes
Ae robes
Facultative organisms
90
5.5
4.5
4.5
4
0.45
0.2
0.15
0.2
0,2
0.055
0.055
O.OJ
0.003
5.5xlO"4
0.0045
0.0015
3x1 O'5
0.4
0.06
0-Q.7xlO-5
0.003
4.5alO~5
o-2xi(r*
8x7Q-5
a
3
Z
4.5xlO'5
0.4
1
0.5
1.8
2
0.1
0.4
22 kc*-l/
d/45-kg hog
Generation rate.
0.001-0.3
0.015-1
0.02-1
0.0025-6
D.01
100
50
100
Maximum generation Average dry lot
rate (10* of defe- generation rate (51
cated load), g/d/45- of defecated load),
kg hog g/d/45-lcg hog
380
23
18
18
16
1.8
0.9
0.55
0.8
0.8
0.22
0.22
0.04
0.014
0.0022
0.018
0.006
12xlO'5
1.6
0.32
2.8XW5
0.014
1 .8*10"*
0-9xlO"6
3-ZxlO"4
32
12
e
l.tellT*
1.6
4
2
6
8
0.4
1.6
90 keel/
d/45-kg hog
billions of counts/d/45-kg f»g
0.004-1.3
0.06-4.2
0.08-3,8
0.01-32
0.04
400
200
400
180
11
9
9
S
0.9
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.11
0.11
0.02
0.007
0.001
0,009
0.003
6x1 0~S
0.8
0.16
0-1 .4xlO"5
0.007
9xlO-5
0-«xW*
1.8x10'*
16
6
4
ta»-»
0.8
2
1
3
4
0.2
0.8
45 kcal/
d/45-kg hog
0.002-0.6
0.03-2
0.04-2
0.005-16
0.02
200
100
200
72
-------
Table 29. CONCENTRATIONS OF RAINFALL RUNOFF FROM LAND RECEIVING
ANIMAL MANURE AND FROM PASTURE OR CONTROL AREAS.
Source
Sewell 1972
heavily grazed pas-
ture and resting area
heavily grazed pas-
ture and resting area
McCaskay 1973
irrigated dairy
manure (3,900 kg
N/ha./yr)
tank spread dairy
manure (1 ,700 kg
N/ha./yr)
no manure applica-
tion
Overcash 1974
swine lagoon effluent
application
300 kg/ha. /yr
600
1,200
control
Loehr 1974
land receiving
manure
crop land
Concentration of rainfall runoff liquid, mg/1
TN
4.5
5.1
15-35
15-25
7-12
2-20
2-20
5-35
1-10
1-12
9-10
BOD5
14
17
20-107
30-45
11-14
-
0-P04-P
7.1
1.2
-
-
-
t-P04-P
-
-
4-14
4-5
2-4
0.5-3.5
0.5-3.5
1-8
-
0.3-4
0.02-2
Ca
-
-
1-12
1-20
-
73
-------
of waste in animal runoff would also be directly proportional to annual
rainfall or runoff volumes, no comparative data were found and so a
single percent (2.5 percent) was used.
Pasture production waste load is estimated to have as an upper limit
the 2.5 percent of the defecated waste as translated from experiments
described in Table 29. A lower limit on pasture production runoff
transport are concentration results from the background controls or
checks used in previously cited studies, Table 29. The control data for
pasture area under recommended management were one-fourth to one-third
of the amount of pollutant transport from waste applied areas. Thus,
a lower limit on pasture production waste load is 0.6 percent to 0.8
percent of defecated waste load. Applying this percentage to raw swine
waste yields minimum constituent generation rates for pasture runoff,
Table 30. The two columns in Table 30 represent the upper and lower
limits descriptive of pasture swine production. An average of these is
1.5 percent of the defecated waste load which is taken as pasture
production unit effluent.
The one available study involving swine drylots (Robbins 1972) as
well as land application, concluded that 0.69 percent, 1.66 percent and
3 percent of the defecated BOD5, TOG, and TN reached the stream. These
results are impacted by attenuation zones between drylots and the
stream; and therefore, these percentages are necessarily low although
the nitrogen value was within the range of estimated swine drylot
runoff transport.
It is important to note that results for beef feedlots and extrapolated
percentages for swine drylot and pasture production are generally for
the period 1966-1972. Subsequently, significant research progress and
design modifications (Shuyler 1973) have resulted in considerable
reduction of runoff transport. Therefore, with sound application of
these techniques and adaptions for swine drylot and pasture conditions
there will result in significant reduction in the waste production
values in Tables 28 and 30. Data on production unit runoff should be
a high priority to allow most economical compliance with regulatory
constraints.
In summary, the swine drylot waste load as rainfall runoff was taken
to be between 2.5 percent and 10 percent of the defecated waste load
while the pasture production units yielded between 0.7 percent and
2.5 percent of the defecated waste load. As approximate average values,
5 percent and 1.5 percent were selected as representative of the rainfall-
runoff waste load from swine drylot and pasture production facilities,
respectively. Such single percentages represent crude estimates since no
differentiation is made among decomposition modes, mobile conservative
constituents, soil bound compounds, or specific feedlot conditions.
74
-------
Table 30. ESTIMATED MAXIMUM, MINIMUM AND AVERAGE RAINFALL-
RUNOFF TRANSPORT OF SWINE WASTE FROM PASTURE
PRODUCTION UNIT
Parameter
Total waste mass
Total solids
Volatile solids
Total suspended solids
Volatile suspended solids
Nitrogen
taawnla - Nitrogen
Phosphorus
Potassium
Calcium
Magnesium
Sodium
Iron
Z1nc
Copper (no feed copper supplement)
(feed copper supplement 150-350 ppm)
Manganese
Boron
Chloride
Sulfur
Cadnlum
Aluminum
Cobalt
Molybdenum
Lead
Chemical oxygen demand
Biochemical oxygen demand (5 day)
Total organic carbon
Alkalinity (as calcium carbonate)
Volatile adds (as acetic acid)
Crude fiber
Ether extract
Crude protein
Nitrogen - free extract
Fat
Inorganic carbon
Brass energy
Fecal conform
Total conform
Enterococcus group
Streptococci
EscherlcMa colt
Anaerobes
Ac robes
Facultative organisms
Minimum generation
rate {0.7&of defe*
cated load), g/d/4S-
kg hog
25
1.5
1.3
1.3
1.1
0.13
0.06
0.04
0.06
0.06
0.015
0.01 5
0.003
8x1 O"4
1.5x10-*
0.0013
4x1 0'4
O.BxlO'5
0.11
0.02
0-O.ZxlO"5
0x10-*
1 .3x10-5
0-0.6x10-6
2x10-5
£
0.8
0.6
l,3xlO"5
0.1
0.3
0.15
0.4
0.6
0.03
O.I
6 kcal/
d/46-kg hog
Generation rate,
0.0003-0.08
0.004-0.3
0.006-0.3
0.007-2
0.003
30
15
30
Maximum generation
rate (2.5* of defe-
cated load), g/d/45-
kg hog
90
5.5
4.S
4,5
4
0.45
0.2
0.15
0.2
0.2
0.055
0.055
0.01
0.003
5.5x10-*
0.0045
0.0015
3x10-5
0.4
O.OB
0-0.7xlO-5
0.003
4.5x10"5
0-2x1 O-6
8x10-5
8
3
2
4.5x10-5
0.4
1
0.5
1.5
2
0,1
0.4
22 kcal/
d/4S-kg hog
Average pasture
generation rate (I.St
of defecated load).
g/d/45-kg hog
55
3.3
2.7
2.7
2.4
0.3
0.1
0.09
0.1
0.1
0.03
0.03
0.006
0.002
3.3xlO'4
0.003
9x10-*
l.BxlO'6
0.24
0.06
0-0. 4x1 O"5
0.002
3x10-5
0-1 Xl0'6
5x10-5
5
2
1
3xlO-5
0.24
0.6
0.3
0.9
1.2
0.06
0.3
13 kcal/
d/45-kg hog
billions of eounts/d/45-kfl hog
0.001-0.3;
0.015-1
0.02-1
0.0025-8
0.01
100
50
100
0.0006-0.2
0.009-0.6
0.01-0.6
0.0015-5
0.006
60
30
60
75
-------
SECTION VI
PRETREATMENT PROCESSES
OVERVIEW
A large number of processes which receive the waste load from the
various swine production housing units have evolved. These are
referred to as pretreatment processes since: 1) these facilities
are operated prior to some terminal receiver system, Figure 3,
2) the use of these units results in further reduction of the
generated waste load for some or all of the waste constituents,
and 3) such unit processes alone or in combinations are a part of
the total swine production-waste management system. Pretreatment
processes are to be differentiated from waste handling unless the
waste handling results in reduction of waste constituent(s) load.
The swine waste pretreatment facilities are in one of five cate-
gories or groups, depending on the design philosophy or objectives
of the total system, Figure 11.
The first category is that of zero pretreatment in which swine wastes
generated in the housing units are conveyed by one of many alternative
means (scrape, flush, etc.) in a direct manner to the plant-soil
receiver system. Such minimal pretreatment involves a large area of
technology and development research, but does not significantly alter
the total waste load. While this category is important, since it
represents direct land application and a means to achieve a high
level of plant nutrient recovery, it will not be elaborated in this
discussion of pretreatment processes affecting the swine waste load.
A number of pretreatment alternatives are in a second category where
the basic design philosophy is to alter the amount of the land limiting
constituents (LLC) in swine waste sd> that the area of plant-soil
receiver is reduced. In large part, these processes result in loss
of nitrogen and other nutrients and might thus be termed as predominantly
destructive. In this category are lagoons (anaerobic, mechanically
aerated, or facultative), runoff retention facilities, oxidation ditch,
76
-------
ZERO PRETREATMENT
DIRECT LAND
APPLICATION
PRETREATMENT FOR'
DISSIPATION OR
REMOVAL OF LAND
LIMITING WASTE
CONSTITUENTS
LAGOONS - ANAEROBIC
LAGOONS - MECHANICAL-
LY AERATED
PRETREATMENT FOR
PARTIAL RESOURCE
RECOVERY FROM
WASTE
PRETREATMENT FOR
NEARLY COMPLETE
RECYCLING OF WASTE
PRETREATMENT FOR
STREAM OR WATER
RECEIVER
HIGH RATE DIGESTION-
METHANE PRODUCTION
SOLIDS SEPARATION
LAGOONS - NATURALLY
FACULTATIVE
PYROLYSIS
RAINFALL RUNOFF
RETENTION PONDS
REFEEDING
PROCESSES
OXIDATION DITCH
SYNTHESIS GAS
CONVERSION
OVERLAND FLOW
ALGAL SYSTEMS
LAND
BARRIERED LANDSCAPE
WATER RENOVATION
SYSTEM
1
I
RECEIVE
AMMONIA REMOVAL
PROCESSES
Figure 11. Pretreatment alternatives for swine wastes.
-------
barriered landscape water renovation system, and overland flow systems.
In the following detailed analysis of pretreatment processes, sufficient
data were not found to evaluate the barriered landscape water renovation
system. All of these unit processes have effluents which have been
reduced in the land limiting constituent (nitrogen), but which still
contain a significant waste load to a land receiver system. The design
of the total waste management system is an economic balance between the
costs of LLC(s) pretreatment removal and land application pursuant
to minimal total system cost.
In the third pretreatment group are those processes which employ
either a separation or a conversion stage in order to utilize some
waste fraction. These utilization schemes result in waste recycling,
but also have an effluent or unutilized portion which must be land
applied. The pretreatment alternatives are in essence nondestructive.
They are not designed necessarily to reduce the LLC(s) but to recover
valuable constituents. In this third category are methane production,
solids separation, pyrolysis, hydrogasification, synthesis gas production,
algal or hydroponic systems, combustion, ammonia recovery units, refeeding,
drying-refeeding, fermentation and direct refeeding or other waste
conversation processes followed by refeeding. The following detailed
process analysis does not include hydrogasification, synthesis gas,
algal or hydroponic systems, combustion or ammonia recovery because of
insufficient data on animal waste performance or extrapolatable
mechanisms.
The fourth category of pretreatment alternatives involves processes
which primarily recycle or utilize the waste. The resultant effluents
are quite small and represent minor disposal problems. This group is
also basically nondestructive, resulting in a much higher or complete
level of swine waste recycle and recovery. Processes in this group
are composting, pyrolysis, hydrogasification.
The final category of pretreatment processes involve units,which are
predominantly aerobic in operation and are designed along, conventional
municipal and industrial approaches for stream discharge. Treatment
demands for stream discharge of swine waste are exceedingly severe and
expensive. In this category, researchers have investigated activated
sludge (Laak 1974), extended aeration (Hermanson 1967), sludge dewatering
(Hepherd 1975), and nitrification-denitrification (Prakasam 1974a).
Because of the variety of other alternatives more suited to satisfying
present and future federal and state regulations, this pretreatment
category is not detailed in this report. The reader is directed to the
references cited above for design information in this pretreatment
category.
78
-------
PRETREATMENT PROCESSES ORIENTED TOWARD ALTERING THE LLC OF SWINE WASTE
Lagoons - Anaerobic
Waste.Constituent Reduction Mechanisms-
The anaerobic lagoon is a useful pretreatment process for both reduction
of the swine waste load from production units and as a management tool
to better integrate constant waste generation with the specific intervals
for optimal land application. There ate different pathways or mechanisms
for lagoon removal of the various waste constituents. Likewise from
the management standpoint, there are a variety of possible lagoon
design and operating variables which must be specified to satisfy the
total waste management system objectives.
The overall removal pathways for an anaerobic lagoon are illustrated in
Figure 12. In simplified stages, the raw waste enters the lagoon, a
fraction settles, a variety of chemical and biochemical transformations
occur both in the sludge and the supernatant including sludge-supernatant
transfer of breakdown products, and finally, excess liquid is removed
for land application. Lagoon seepage is acknowledged to occur in many
systems, but the loss magnitude after initial soil sealing and the
environmental impact of such losses have only been recently evaluated.
In a Virginia study of a one-year old swine lagoon located in a poorly
drained, high water table soil, there was pollutant movement at a 3-m
distance but none at 15 m (Collins 1975). Limited, but similar
findings were reported for two other producer swine lagoons in Virginia
(Collins 1975). Test wells located at 3, 7.7, 14, 21.5, 29 and 300
meters from a swine lagoon have been used to demonstrate the degree
of constituent movement (Smith 1975). Concentrations were elevated
at the 3 and 7.7m wells over that in the remaining wells. This is
a new lagoon and tests after soil sealing should indicate reduced
environmental impact. A similar, more detailed testing program of
three established swine producer lagoons in South Carolina has been
started and should yield more results concerning seepage and impact
(Hegg 1975).
Monitoring before and after waste input for a dairy lagoon system
indicated that after 2 months, the initially elevated concentration
levels at 30 in from the lagoon had returned to previous levels (Sewell
1975). Under high groundwater conditions in Florida (Nordsted 1971),
in which clay layers reduced vertical movement, several years of
monitoring at horizontal distances from an anaerobic and facultative
dairy lagoon have shown little pollutant seepage at 30 meters. A
California monitoring program detected effective soil sealing for a
dairy lagoon after 4 months from startup and several mechanisms for the
79
-------
00
O
TRANSFER OF SLUDGE
DECOMPOSITION PRODUCTS
TO SUPERNATANT
[SLUDGE BIOLOGICAL REACTIONS]
Figure 12. Pathways for removal or stabilization of swine waste in an anaerobic lagoon.
-------
reduction in seepage losses were proposed (Davis 1973). In summary,
these preliminary studies indicate lagoon sealing may be expected
within about 6 months after which the area of seepage impact becomes
restricted to approximately 10 meters.
Nitrogen loss from anaerobic lagoons occurs primarily as surface
volatilization of ammonia (Koelliker 1973, Miller 1976). Because of
the high fraction of ammonia in raw waste and lagoon supernatant
Table 25, the conversion of organic nitrogen to ammonia does not
appear to be a limiting step in nitrogen loss (Humenik 1976).
Secondary nitrogen losses can be attributed to the net solid
material remaining in the lagoon sludge. Initial nitrogen loss
due to settling has been determined to be approximately 40 percent
of the input swine waste; but after sludge biological activity and
transfer to the supernatant, the net amount of nitrogen loss to the
sludge is about 25 percent (Howell 1976). A tertiary nitrogen loss
mechanism is the volatilization of short chain organic compounds such as
amines. While this pathway probably is small as a nitrogen loss,
the impact as an odor or nuisance problem is well documented (Miner
1968, Barth 1971, and White 1971),
The salts in swine waste, expressed on an elemental basis, are
removed in an anaerobic lagoon by chelation-settling or precipitation.
Losses of various cations can range from less than 10 percent to over
90 percent. The Irving-Williams series for soil organic chelates
or the degree of element electronegativity was shown to be useful
in predicting cation removal in swine lagoons (Overcash 1976), thus
verifying losses by settling and chelation. Direct analysis of
phosphate solubility limits and precipitate crystals (Booram 1973)
and concentration response in lagoons (Humenik 1976) indicate
phosphate precipatation occurs in lagoons.
Organic constituents of swine waste are removed in anaerobic lagoon
systems primarily by microbial stabilization and subsequent release
of methane and carbon dioxide. Net sludge settling also accounts for
about 30 percent losses of both total organic carbon (TOG) and chemical
oxygen demand (COD). As with organic nitrogen compounds, some surface
losses due to volatilization of short chain molecular occurs.
Many microorganism transformations occur in anaerobic lagoons. The
lagoon supernatant microbiaf populations at the usual range of lagoon
loading rates (0.03 to 0.50 kg COD/week/m3) are very much under-
utilized (Humenik 1976), especially in relation to high rate anaerobic
digesters designed for maximum methane generation. Research investiga-
tions of Salmonella species, total coliform, and fecal coliform survival
in anaerobic swine lagoons indicated that within 20-30 days dieoff was
81
-------
essentially complete (Krieger 1975). Porcine enterovirus was found
to be undetected analytically or by pig infection after 4 days of
anaerobic residence time (Meyer 1971). Under conditions of epidemic
use of antibiotics plus sulfa drugs in swine feed, a carry-over effect
was found with subsequent rapid lowering of the lagoon microbial
populations (Clark 1965). On discontinuation of antibiotics, the lagoon
copper medicinal supplements (150-300 ppm in feed) even over a continuous
10-year period did not produce adverse effects on microbial performance
in an anaerobic lagoon (Overcash 1976b). Thus, anaerobic swine lagoons
with typical residence times of greater than 300 days would be expected
to give substantial pathogen dieoff and maintain strong, mixed popula-
tions of microorganisms for organic decomposition.
Odor resulting from anaerobic degradation of swine manure can become
a nuisance. The causative volatilization process can be controlled to
a certain degree by lagoon loading rate. An approximate estimation of
lagoon odor (Humenik, 1976) determined that: 1) between 0.22 and 0.45
kg COD/week/m^ lagoon there is a threshold of odor, and 2) regardless
of loading rate, lagoons will have an odor although the percentage of
days when the odor is offensive decreases drastically as the loading
intensity decreases. A Texas investigation determined that the swine
production housing facility had a substantial odor intensity (Reddell
1975a), thus continuing the question of the relative odor from a lagoon
versus a production house,
Design and Climatological Factors-''
Estimation of anaerobic lagoon performance in terms of liquid concen-
trations is dependent on a number of factors. For anaerobic lagoon
pretreatment performance assessment, the effect of contributory live-
weight, lagoon volume and configuration, temperature, periods of freezing
weather, annual rainfall, and frequency of loading are considered in
detail in this section. The primary determinant of effluent quality
is contributing liveweight or loading intensity. Detailed monitoring
(Humenik 1976) of lagoon supernatant quality and cyclic production unit
liveweight has demonstrated a rapid concentration response. The total
Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) was particularly responsive to liveweight
with lag times of approximately 4 weeks. COD and TOG were found to
respond less rapidly. Phosphate concentrations were insensitive to
cyclic contributory liveweight. These data indicate the need to document
production unit liveweight at least as frequently as concentration
since even temporary increases or decreases can affect lagoon perfor-
mance. At larger production facilities where fluctuations in live-
weight are small in comparison to total liveweight routine concentrations
monitoring is sufficient.
82
-------
In comparison of two or more swine production units with similar
contributory liveweight, the most important lagoon design factor is
the volume provided per unit of liveweight (m^ lagoon/45-kg hog).
A more universal and technically based expression of lagoon design
rate is to divide the daily production unit waste load of COD (or VS)
by the lagoon volume to yield a loading rate such as kg COD/d/m^
lagoon volume. This loading criterion was studied under controlled
field conditions (Humenik 1976) and the results demonstrated a nearly
linear increasing relation between effluent or supernatant concentration
(COD, TOG, TKN) and lagoon loading rate, Figure 13-15. This increasing
relationship is in agreement with the removal mechanisms for both
organic and nitrogenous compounds. Phosphate was less dependent on
loading until the highest input rate at which hindered settling and
solubility became controlling. Over the span of investigated lagoon
loading rates ranging from 0.03-3.6 kg COD/week/m^ lagoon [less than
the criteria for naturally aerobic lagoons (Soil Conservation Service
1970) to greater of any current recommendation] the TKN concentration
varied by a factor of 330 indicating the importance of documenting
accurately the lagoon loading rate when comparing literature values.
Surface area is also a factor in odor and nitrogen losses, hence,
lagoon monitoring programs should specify the complete lagoon
dimensions as well as the loading rate. The relative importance
of surface area, lagoon volume, and other physical factors has not
been fully delineated.
Another operational factor which has not been fully examined is
lagoon loading frequency. In a series of laboratory lagoons, the
frequency of loading was varied from once per hour to once per three
weeks in units receiving the same total waste load (Howell 1974).
Several total waste loads were also tested. No significant effect
of frequency was evidenced for COD, TOC, or TKN concentrations at
swine waste loadings of 1.15 and 4.6 kg COD/week/nr lagoon. However,
at a lower loading of 0.28 kg COD/week/m lagoon, a 30 percent lower
COD and TOC supernatant concentration resulted with continuous loading,
These studies indicate that at higher loading rates the advantage of
continuous input is masked while at lower rates, possibly lag times
associated with cyclic batch, growth patterns reduce biostabilization
rates below steady-state conditions. The effect of frequency on
nitrogen concentrations appears to be negligible; but is not fully
defined at this time. In any case, the frequency of loading effect
was judged to be smaller, secondary determinant of effluent quality.
The frequency of lagoon loading may, however, be a large factor in
performance when very infrequent, large loads are introduced to a
lagoon. Such shock loading can result in overloaded conditions and
83
-------
3000
01
2400
00
o
I 1800
o
o
o
1200
X
o
CJ
600
75
150
225
300
375
450
LOADING RATE, £/week
Figure 13.
Steady-state supernatant COD concentrations for pilot-scale swine
lagoons receiving various loading rates (Humenik, 1976).
-------
1500;
D)
1200
oo
Ul
UJ
O
z
o
o
o
o
o
CD
oi
-------
1500 r
1200 -
900 _
o
o
00
600 -
<£.
a
_j
UJ
3
300 -
Figure 15.
LOADING RATE, A/week
Steady-state supernatant TKN concentration for pi lot-scale swine
lagoons receiving various loading rates (Humenik, 1976).
-------
inhibition of biological activity. Studies have been undertaken
to determine the probability of lagoon failure due to shock loadings
(Willrich 1966) and it was concluded that for loading rates less than
0.27 kg VS/week/m3 lagoon there was little probability of shock failures.
Since anaerobic lagoon response to shock loads is very complex and
failure is not certain, but is expressed on a probability basis, the
practice of infrequent pulse inputs is not invalid, but should be
regarded as a very marginal practice. For similar technical reasons,
the loading of a nearly empty lagoon with raw waste (after irrigation
or drawdown) should not be recommended. Similarly, other adulterants
added to lagoons such as large doses of diesel oil for mosquito control
can lead to potential performance problems. Thus, for frequency of
lagoon loading between once per month and continuously, the effluent
concentration in a producer lagoon is relatively independent of frequency.
In order to compare lagoons with similar size and contributory loading
rates between various climatic regions, information on temperature,
rainfall, and freezing conditions are needed. The temperature or
seasonal effects on lagoon concentration were determined under Iowa
conditions (Koelliker 1973). The range of TKN concentration for a
lagoon loaded at 0.33 kg VS/week/m3 was 200 to 600 mg TKN/1 or + 50
percent of the annual average, 400 mg TKN/1. This 50 percent variation
is an estimate of the seasonal variation in lagoon concentration and
demonstrates the need to document the date or lagoon liquid temperature
when monitoring. It would appear, however, that in comparison to the
effect of lagoon loading rate the seasonal temperature influence is
not as great a factor.
The effect of frozen surfaces on lagoon effluent TKN concentrations
represents another seasonal factor. A mass balance on nitrogen can
be performed to judge this effect by assuming no NH3-N volatilization
losses and no settling pattern changes when the surface is frozen.
Sludge composition would be determined by the fraction settled since
little biological sludge breakdown and retransfer to the supernatant
is expected at these temperatures. Initial TKN settling has been
determined to be 40 percent (Howell, 1976). The resulting increase
in supernatant concentration above the concentration at freezing for
several lagoon loading rates over a 0-6 month period are shown in
Figure 16.
The change in nitrogen concentration calculated after 3 months of
frozen conditions represents an increase of 30-60 percent above the
lagoon concentration prior to surface freezing. A 60-120 percent
increase would occur after six months depending on the loading rate.
Comparison of these changes to the average cycle of TKN concentrations
87
-------
3500
3000
2500
2000
g 1500
5?
g
g
1000
500
LOADING - kg COD/week/m lagoon
A - 0.06
B - 0.22
C - 0.91
D - 3.6
KOELLIKER - 0.59
12345
DURATION OF FROZEN SURFACE, MONTHS
Figure 16. Increase in lagoon concentration anticipated for periods of
freezinci conditions.
88
-------
in studied North Carolina lagoons in which winter temperatures are around
0° C but no consistent freezing occurs (Howell 1976), indicates that
the freezing effects are greater than seasonal temperature changes on
ammonia volatilization. Corroboration of frozen surface effects on
swine lagoon supernatant TKN concentration were obtained in Iowa
(Koelliker 1973) showing a nearly linear increasing relation with
time, Figure 16. The lagoon loading rate was about 0.33 kg VS/week/m3
of lagoon.
Rainfall input varies considerably on a national basis and represents
an additional liquid volume which must be handled. The volume of liquid
which must be removed from a lagoon to maintain steady operation is
the net moisture excess (wastewater plus rainfall minus the pan
evaporation). Data obtained for a dairy waste pond in which the moisture
loss from a pond with bottom sealing and a floating pan test in the
same lagoon were within 0.43 cm/month of each other (Pratt 1975) show
pan evaporation can represent lagoon evaporation.
On a broad geographic basis, approximate levels of net rainfall input
can be calculated from maps depicting moisture balance areas, the
expected swine waste input, and lagoon specifications. With the
assumption of 7.5 l/d/45-kg hog as the swine waste volume, the ratio
of the net moisture excess (i.e.. total volume of waste plus rain
minus evaporation) to the production unit waste volume was determined
for various climatic moisture deficits in the United States, Figure
17. The national map of moisture deficits is presented in Figure 18
to relate these data to specific geographic areas.
In moisture excess regions, there is a cost advantage in terms of
reduced rainfall volume to be handled for lagoons with a smaller
surface area. On a design basis, this may mean a deeper unit or a
higher loading rate (.i.je. less lagoon volume per hog). The net
rainfall input for North Carolina lagoons (about 38 cm of moisture
excess) sized to control odors 9.2 m^/45-kg hog represents about 75
percent more lagoon liquid handling when the production waste load is
7.5 l/d/45-kg hog. Production waste loads at the minimum of 3.8
l/d/45-kg hog would be increased about 150 percent due to the net
moisture input. Many large hog production states in the Great Lakes
area are in the moisture excess region of about 25 cm for which the
net rainfall excess liquid is about 50 percent, still a substantial
increase. The extra liquid to be handled can be made less than 20
percent of the waste load for all the moisture excess regions by using
a heavier lagoon loading rate.
89
-------
c
OJ
o
S-
OJ
Q.
~ 250
LU
I
00
200
oo
o
00
OO
LU
<_3
X
UJ
o:
ID
i
oo
ii
O
o
o
CD
-------
VO
125
-25
(Excess
Moisture)
Figure 18. Lines of moisture deficit (in centimeters) for the United States (Chow, 1964)
-------
In moisture-deficit regions, the lagoon represents a liquid reduction
technique, Figure 17. Again, these volume reductions, while not affecting
the total land area needed for lagoon effluent, do reduce the transpor-
tation costs (pumping and hauling). The major hog production states
of Iowa, Missouri, and Minnesota are in the 12 to 25 cm moisture deficit
range and thus have a reduction of the production unit waste volume
to 30-60 percent of the estimated 7.5 l/d/45-kg hog. The net liquid
loss from these systems provides a cost advantage to large surface
area, shallow lagoons or lagoons at lower loading rates. This contrasts
with the cost trends for moisture-excess regions and should be considered
in proposed lagoons recommendations. For a swine waste load of 7.5
l/d/45-kg hog and a given moisture-deficit region the swine lagoon
. loading rate (m^/45-kg hog) at which evaporative losses match rainfall
and waste inputs can be deduced from Figure 17. The intercept of
surface area lines (interpolated if necessary) with the zero net
lagoon moisture excess ratio axis yields this swine loading rate
in surface area/45-kg hog.
Anaeyobic Lagoon Effluent-
The supernatant or effluent concentration of a number of chemical
constituents has been determined by either periodic or aperiodic
field sampling of farm scale producer or university units or by
controlled comparative studies of lagoon variables. Field monitoring
is the basis for the majority of available swine lagoon data, but is
severely Vimited by the uncontrolled and unmeasurab.le variables. In
particular, the average annual swine input is usually estimated but
is not sufficiently accurate to assess the contributory liveweight as
demonstrated by the high sensitivity of lagoon concentration to changes
in unit liveweight. In addition, little, if any, climatological or
seasonal variables are reported to define temperature variations.
These obvious limitations insure that data variability will be high.
In addition, nonuniform sampling techniques which include algae
or scum layers would produce variability. As a positive aspect,
lagoon supernatant has been found to be very nearly uniform with
respect to position; hence, depth or relation to influent pipe are
probably not significant in sampling (Overcash 1976b).
There are not many controlled studies of long duration on a well
documented facility or to compare several loading rates, but this
approach is evolving and will yield data in which contributory live-
weight is fixed or at least documented, seasonal effects are recorded,
and a uniform sampling and analysis scheme is used.
In the present review of swine lagoons, data from all sources were
utilized since these represent approximations of actual field conditions
and the present state-of-the-art is insufficient to put the data on
92
-------
a more normalized basis. Nitrogen content of lagoon effluent or
supernatant from 12 sources was plotted versus the loading rate
expressed as kg VS/d/m3 lagoon (calculated from the raw waste
generated and the lagoon volume per unit weight of contributing
animals), Figure 19. The percent reduction in nitrogen is difficult
to assess since the influent concentration or effluent volume are
unspecified in many of the literature studies but effluent concen-
tration appears to be related to loading rate. Thus, relying on the
few more extensively monitored studies, a lagoon mass balance was
approximated- At the commonly recommended lagoon loading rate of 0.54
kg VS/week/m lagoon, the effluent quality was 700-1,200 mg TKN/1
which on an annual cycle was 30-50 percent of the influent (assuming
7.5 1 of wastewater/d/45-kg hog). Thus, the nitrogen loss was about
60 percent at this loading. By similar calculations, the percentage
reduction at 1.08 and 0.13 kg VS/week/m lagoon were 30 percent and
85 percent, respectively. Applying these percentages to the raw waste
input yields the amount of nitrogen leaving lagoons with these loading
rates and thus, the lagoon pretreatment performance.
Removal of cations and anions was documented for 7 lagoons, Table 31.
While only three of the studies documented the influent (Collins 1975a
and Overcash 1973, 1976b) and effluent on a mass basis, these three
studies were used to evolve the percentage removal of selected cations,
Table 31, because of variable water use and the effect on concentrations
in other studies. The effluent concentrations, Table 31, provide
an estimate of the liquid loading intensities. These data are limited;
and therefore, the percent removals to sludge zone are very approximate.
The effluent calcium, potassium, sodium, and chlorine concentrations
are about 75 percent of the influent while magnesium, copper, manganese,
and zinc are present at about 10 percent of the influent levels. The
amount of these parameters in the effluent, g/d/45-kg hog, were deter-
mined, Table 32, from these percentages and the raw waste loads.
Literature data on the relationship between organic parameters
(COD and 6005) and loading rate were more variable, Figure 20. These
analyses were utilized in many of the early studies in which there was
little specification of critical operational variables. The percent
removal was determined as with TKN for a waste input of 40,000 mg
COD/1 and 16,000 mg BOD5/1.
Effluent COD and BOD5 as a percent of influent for 1.08, 0.54 and
0.13 kg VS/week/m3 were: 40 percent - 60 percent and 25 percent -
40 percent; 10 percent - 25 percent and 10 percent - 20 percent;
and 2 percent - 10 percent and 3 percent - 6 percent, respectively.
These calculated values which were within literature ranges, were
used to determine lagoon effluent levels in Table 32. These percen-
tages and the raw waste generation were used to determine the lagoon
effluent amounts for three loading rates, Table 32.
93
-------
2.0
c
o
o
O)
(O
OJ
CD
C7;
1.6
1.2
0.8
Q
<:
o
o
o
- 0.4
CO
o
©
HUMENIK, 1976
1000 2000 3000 4000
TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN (TKN) CONCENTRATION, mg/£
Figure 19. Effluent concentration of TKN reported for swine lagoons
loaded at various rates.
94
-------
Table 31. EFFLUENT CONCENTRATION OF VARIOUS CATIONS AND ANIONS FROM ANAEROBIC SWINE LAGOON, EXPRESSED AS ELEMENTS
VO
Ui
Reference
Mutlak 1975
Overcash W76b
Collins 1975a
Slevers 1975
Overcash 1973
Hlllrich 1966
Midwest Plan
Service 1975
Effluent concentration
as a percentage of
Influent, Collins W5a
and Overcash 1976b
Loading
rate, kg COD/
week/mj laqoon
0.5
0.2
0.7
0.9
0.6-0.8
K
700
240
340
496
825
105
302
75*
Na
103
220
480
75*
Ca
115
54
72
106
124
51
20!
Hq
58
58
45
29
53
60*
Cu
2
0.5
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.55
3*
Zn
O.B
0.45
1.4
1.3
1.7
0.45
10*
Hn
2
0.4
0.3
1.0
0.7
154
Cl
335
75*
Al
5.6
Ni
0.4
B
0.65
-
Cr
3.1
Fe
2.8
Pb
1.5
Mb
0.02
Conduc-
tivity
5,400
5,000
-------
2.0
1.6
1.2
s
- 0.8
0.4
oo
o o
O r>°
2.0
2 1.6
1.2
0.4
HUMENIK, 1976
O
44.0OO
14.400
15,000
1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND (BODg) CONCENTRATION, mg/1
69,000
5,000 lo.ono i!,,ooo ?o,nnn ?i.,imo .10.000 35,000
CIIIMIcni (IXYOIN 1)1 HAND (Kim) CONCI NIKAI ION, ini|/.
Figure 20. Effluent concnntrrttions of COD and BOI>6 ri-iiorli-d for l.uimins loaded at various rates.
96
-------
Table 32. APPROXIMATE PRETREATMENT PERFORMANCE OF ANAEROBIC SWINE LAGOON BASED ON PRODUCTION
RAW WASTE INPUT, TABLE 25
vo
Parameters
Nitrogen
Rhosphorus
Potassium
Sodium
Calcium
Magnesium
Copper
Zinc
Manganese
Chloride
Chemical oxygen demand
Biochemical oxygen demand, BODj
Lagoon
1.1
13
0.6
6
1.5
1.5
0.2
0.002 -
0.01
0.005
10
115 - 185
30-45
Effluent
loading rate, kg VS/week/m3 lagoon
0.55
Effluent, g/d/45-kg hog
5 - 9
0.4
6
1.5
1.5
0.2
0.02 0.002 - 0.02
0.01
0.005
10
35 -75 10 -
15-25 5 -
rate, billions of counts/d/45-kg hog
0.13
1.5 - 3.5
0.2
6
1.5
1.5
0.2
0.002 - 0.02
0.01
0.005
10
30
10
Conform 0.001 - 0.8
Fecal conform 0.0004 - 1
Fecal streptococci 5 x 1Q~6 - 50
Enterococcus 8 x 10"^ - 0.02
-------
Lagoon monitoring for various microbial species has resulted in a range
of values, Table 33. The percentages remaining in the effluent are order
of magnitude assessments from which the expected reduction due to
lagoon pretreatment was calculated, Table 32. A dependence of micro-
bial population on the COD of the effluent was postulated in an Alabama
study (Koon 1970) which would imply that different loading rates would
yield varying levels of biological indicators but to date detailed
confirmative studies have not been performed.
In summary, the anaerobic lagoon is a flexible pretreatment process
which can be designed or operated to yield a variety of effluent
concentrations. With respect to nitrogen, a lagoon can be used for
nitrogen conservation or for dissipating the majority of the input
nitrogen. The producer's total system objectives and costs should
be considered in specifying lagoon design and operation. In moisture-
deficit regions, the salt content and cation balance should also be
considered in land receiver determinations since these constituents
are only slightly changed by lagoon pretreatment. Heavy metals, as
may occur in swine waste, are substantially removed by lagoon pretreat-
ment.
Lagoon - Mechanically Aerated
Mechanical aeration is used primarily for oxygen input, odor control
and nitrogen removal (Hermanson 1972, Dale 1969, Miller 1976). The
floating surface aerator is most common, Figure 21, but fixed aerators
or subsurface diffused air systems could be employed. Surface aeration
allows the design of a smaller lagoon per unit of liveweight because
of enhanced stabilization or volatilization removal of waste constituents
created in the aerobic surface zone and continued settling and anaerobic
degradation in the lower zone. Odor constituents generated in the
anaerobic zone are mitigated in the top aerobic zone.
Waste constituent removal mechanisms for anaerobic lagoons are altered
by the introduction of a floating aerator. Nitrogen loss ia enhanced
by the improved supernatant - air contacting associated with the spray
plume discharge of such aerators (Overcash 1976). The larger surface
area created and the opportunity for reducing the air transfer resistance
lead to increased ammonia volatilization losses. The nitrification-
denitrification pathway for nitrogen loss with surface aeration cannot
be verified nor dismissed at this time since only limited total
nitrogen data are available. The fact that nitrate does not accumulate
does not mean that this pathway is not operating, but at this time the
relative magnitude nitrogen loss mechanisms cannot be determined.
98
-------
Table 33. EFFLUENT CONCENTRATIONS OF BACTERIA FROM ANAEROBIC SWINE LAGOON
Reference
Clark 1965
Koon 1970
Arial 1971
Robbins 1971
Collins 1975a
Barth 1975
Total range
Effluent con-
centration as a
percentage of
influent using
Table 25
Effluent concentration, mi 11 ions of species/100 ml
Fecal
Col i form
0.08-1.9
0.4
0.2-1.0
0.3
0.08-3
IX- 10%
Col i form
1.4
0.4-2
0.3-0.5
0.3-2
0.2%-2X
Enterococcus
0.012
0.012
o.oon-o.05%
Fecal
Streptococci
0.5
0.5
0.005%-1 5%
Salmonella
rare
V£>
VO
-------
o
o
ANAEROBIC ZONE
Figure 21. Schematic of mechanically aerated swine lagoon.
-------
Input of oxygen from mechanical aeration enhances the stabilization
of organic matter (Miller 1976), although no residual dissolved oxygen
levels are routinely detected. A confounding factor in assessing the
impact of surface aeration has been the problem of sludge scour which
increase the supernatant concentrations. That is, the influence of
flow patterns generated by surface aerators (including those using
anti-erosion plates to minimize bottom scour) appears to reach about
1.5 m below the surface which is the approximate depth of most lagoons.
Initial data indicate that units of 3.5 m or deeper should be used to
allow for swine waste settling to the sludge zone and allow full surface
aeration pretreatment potential. Ultimately, the sludge will accumulate
until it reaches the zone of surface aerator influence at which time
sludge removal or lagoon retirement should be instituted.
With respect to cation removal, the presence of a surface aerator
will probably have little influence. Surface aerators do not appear
to hinder substantially the immediate settling of swine wastes (Humenik
1976); therefore, if resuspension is eliminated by use of a deep
lagoon or anti-erosion shields the cation supernatant concentrations
should be only slightly elevated over similarly loaded anaerobic
lagoons. The slight elevation would be due to the extent of aerator-
induced hindered settling. The ratio of salts to nitrogen in the effluent
will increase because of ammonia losses thus requiring a re-examination
of land application rates especially in moisture-deficit regions.
Design criteria and operating data for the mechanical aeration of lagoons
are limited. Aeration input for odor control is specified by the oxygen
demand of the waste and the lagoon configuration. Recommended aeration
levels, range from 30 percent-50 percent (Dale 1969) of the input BOD,.
to 150 percent-200 percent for oxidation ditch systems. Quite possibly,
the lower rates of surface aeration (Dale 1969 and Humenik 1975)
are characteristic of outdoor units with natural odor dilution while
the higher aeration rates (Kroeker 1975) are needed for completely
confined operations. Tests in swine lagoons loaded at 1.8 kg COD/week/
m3 volume have shown that an aerator rated at about 2.1 kg 02/kw/hr had
about 80 percent transfer efficiency or 1.7 kg 02/kw/hr (Miller 1976).
It is difficult to separate oxygen or power input from the effect of
lagoon configuration on effluent quality since an aerator can influence
only a limited area or volume in the lagoon. Lagoon surfaces which are
beyond the affected zone are subject to foam buildup and localized odor
problems. A reasoned analysis and experiments of the surface area
requirements are not presently available and would need to be performed
on a number of aerator types. The surface area per unit of power
input is given in Table 34 for several tested systems along with
101
-------
Table 34. SURFACE AERATION CHARACTERISTICS FOR LAGOONS FOR ODOR CONTROL
Location
Clayton, N.C.
Siler City, N.C.
Lexington, N.C.
Period 1
Period 2
Blacksburg, Va.
Lafayette, Ind.
Period 1
Period 2
Waste
Swi ne
Hatchery
Swi ne
Swine
Dairy
Surface
dimension, m
23 x 28
15 x 42
28 x 43
28 x 43
6.7 (dia.)
15 x 22
15 x 22
Power,
kw
3.7
11.0
4.5
7.5
2.2
1.5
3.7
Surface area
per unit of
power input,
rr)2/kw
175
57
270
160
16
220
89
Odor
performance
Slight
Excess aeration
Unsatisfactory
Satisfactory
Satisfactory
Satisfactory
o
Ni
-------
general odor control judgements. Initial trial and error evaluations
have indicated that about 125 m2/kw is a satisfactory operational design,
but equipment variations preclude complete specification of design
or operational factors.
Effluent quality estimates from surface aerated field units in which
sufficient depth is allowed to prevent sludge scour are not presently
available. All existing reported systems are not sufficiently deep as
evidenced by the elevated phosphate levels over similarly loaded
unaerated anaerobic lagoons (Humenik 1976). However, for units in
Table 34 with depths of 1.8-2.2 m, the effluent TKN is reduced to about
30 percent of the influent. Thus, effluent nitrogen levels for surface
aerated swine lagoons are about 6 g N/d/45-kg hog. Based on anticipated
percent reductions and the daily raw waste amounts, Table 35,
available data for oxygen demand and total organic carbon data were determined
for a 1.9 m diameter unit with sludge scour and thus, are approximate
values.
In terms of information gaps regarding surface aeration, the performance
of field units in which the sludge zone is unaffected has not been
determined for the critical constituents in land application. The
economics of reduced lagoon size, aerator operations, and reduced
receiver land areas need to be evaluated especially when a number of
such deep units have been tested. The operational mechanisms for
units with bottom scour have been established for removal of nitrogen
and other parameters.
Lagoon - Naturally Facultative
Design specifications proposed for naturally aerobic swine lagoons are
based on surface area per unit animal liveweight which is also a surface
area per unit of daily oxygen demand input (Soil Conservation Service
1970). Removal or stabilization for naturally facultative units derive
from the larger surface area in relation to anaerobic lagoons. Large
surface area lagoons are generally employed to control odor rather than
to achieve a high quality effluent. With respect to nitrogen these
very lightly loaded lagoons with large surface areas (assuming
lagoon depth is constant) have an improved mechanism for nitrogen loss
via ammonia volatilization. Naturally facultative units which do not
sustain supernatant dissolved oxygen represent the upper range of nitrogen
loss for lagoon pretreatment.
The effect of lower lagoon loading rates for facultative performance
on cation or metals removal has not been experimentally determined.
However, based on previously discussed lagoon removal mechanisms,
cation removal would be expected to remain approximately the same
103
-------
Table 35. APPROXIMATE PRETREATMENT PERFORMANCE FOR SURFACE AERATED
SWINE LAGOON (1.8 kg COD/WEEK/m3 LAGOON), BASED ON
PRODUCTION UNIT RAW WASTE, TABLE 25
Parameter
Effluent, g/d/45-kg hog
Nitrogen
Phosphorus
Potassium
Sodium
Calcium
Magnesium
Copper
Zinc
Manganese
Chloride
Chemical oxygen demand
Total organic carbon
6
0.6
6
1.5
1.5
0.2
0.002-0.02
0.01
0.005
10
100
35
104
-------
as at higher lagoon loadings. Stabilization of carbonaceous parameters
(COD, BOD5 or TOG) is improved in the facultative or aerobic systems
until conditions are reached where inorganics are converted to biomass
by pulse algal or bacterial growths. With respect to pathogen reduction,
little field data are available, but the increased residence times in
these naturally facultative lagoons should greatly enhance dieoff.
Lagoon moisture balance considerations are amplified for facultative
lagoons since the large surface area acts as water trap or evaporative
body depending on the geographical location.
Experimental lagoons have been operated above and below the recommended
loading rate for naturally aerobic lagoons (Howell 1976), Table 36,
resulting in very long residence times. The range of recommended
anaerobic lagoon loading among 10 Southeastern states is from 25 to
144 g VS/d/m3 volume (Earth 1975). In the units receiving 2.4 and 4.8
g VS/d/m3 reactor and in the third stage unit of a three lagoon series
(first lagoon loaded at 77 g VS/d/m3 reactor) dissolved oxygen levels
were periodically observed (1-15 mg/1). These dissolved oxygen concen-
trations were at the surface but by the one meter depth were undetectable.
At higher loadings no surface oxygen levels were found. The COD concen-
tration of the supernatant bulk was found not directly to indicate the
presence or absence of dissolved oxygen (Humenik 1976). Therefore, it
was concluded that a 0.6 m to 1.0 m deep unit loaded at 2.4 g VS/d/m3
volume was not completely aerobic and that still lower loading rates
(possibly 2 or 3-fold lower) would be needed to achieve this with
swine lagoons.
Nitrogen in the effluent was 1.4 percent and 0.6 percent of the influent
for loadings of 4.8 and 2.4 g VS/d/m3 respectively, which with about 13
percent accumulation in the sludge meant that the net losses were about
86 percent for both units. The net COD and TOC losses were about 80
percent of the influent when discounted for sludge accumulation. The
daily effluent constituent amount per unit was calculated for a naturally
facultative pretreatment unit from these percentage removals and assuming
the same cation removal determined for more heavily loaded swine lagoons,
Table 37. Even at these low loading rates, the effluent quality
does not approach requirements for stream discharge. The common stream
effluent quality needed is BODu (=BOD5+4.TKN) in the range of 20-100
mg/1 as compared to values over 200 mg/1 for the studied facultative
lagoons.
Rainfall Runoff Retention Ponds
The performance and design of runoff structures for swine drylots
must be developed from basic principles and related data because few
such ponds exist and no evaluations have been reported. The unknowns
105
-------
Table 36. EFFLUENT CONCENTRATION AND DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS FOR SWINE LAGOONS LOADED AS NATURALLY
FACULTATIVE UNITS
Source
Soil Conservation
Service recommen-
dation 1970
Midwest Plan
Service 1975
Humenik 1976
Humenik 1976
Loading rate
m2/45-kg hog
27.5
18.0
41.2
20.8
kg BOD5/d/ha.
70-1 30
37
70
kg VS/d/m-i
lagoon
4.4
2.4
Residence
time, d
9,400
4,700
Effluent
concentration, mg/1
COD
250
500
IOC
90
175
IKN
30
70
0-P04-P
15
30
-------
Table 37. APPROXIMATE PRETREATMENT PERFORMANCE OF SWINE LAGOONS
LOADED AS NATURALLY FACULTATIVE UNITS, BASED ON SWINE
WASTE LOAD IN TABLE 25
Parameter
Effluent,
g/d/45-kg hog
Nitrogen
Phosphorus
Potassium
Sodium
Calcium
Magnesium
Copper
Zinc
Manganese
Chloride
Chemical oxygen demand
Total organic carbon
0.2-0.5
0.2
6
1.5
1.5
0.2
0.002-0.02
0.01
0.005
10
2-4
1-1.5
107
-------
are runoff volume, constituent transport, and reductions resulting from
pond storage prior to land application. In order to estimate the
pretreatment effect of rainfall retention ponds, the following order
of magnitude assumptions were made:
1) The rainfall runoff was 30 percent of the annual rainfall
as approximated from beef feedlot data and interpretation of
rainfall runoff models (Phillips 1976).
2) The amount of waste constituents transported from beef
feedlots has been estimated at 5 percent of the defecated
waste load (see analysis in Section 4). These beef studies
are all in the dry Midwest region in which annual rainfall
is about 60 cm. Thus for 30 percent annual runoff the waste
transported is 0.08 percent of the defecated waste per cm of
rainfall or 0.28 percent cm of runoff.
3) In view of the rainfall and temperature patterns of major
swine producing regions, Figure 22, the maximum holding period
is probably 8 months (winter) and the minimum about 4 months
(high rainfall summer periods).
4) Retention pond losses of nitrogen and organics for the 8
month and 4 month periods are similar to lagoons receiving
waste at rates of 0.54 kg VS/week/m3 (hydraulic detention of
290 d) and 108 kg VS/week/m3 (hydraulic detention of 145 d),
respectively. The basic assumption is that ponds with
similar detention times produce nearly the same ammonia loss
and organic stabilization.
While there are recognizable limitations to these assumptions, the
order of magnitude results should qualitatively indicate geoclimatic
trends. The percentages of annual rainfall occurring in June, July,
August and September and the remaining eight months for the regions in
Figure 22 were determined using climatic data, Table 38. In order to
compare various regions, the average annual rainfall was determined
to calculate runoff volume, Table 38.
The movement of swine waste constituents during rainfall-runoff events
was evaluated using 0.28 percent of the defecated waste load per cm of
runoff. For this limited analysis the aperiodic runoff was calculated
on a daily basis assuming no waste degradation on the drylot. A
stocking density 27.5 m /hog was selected as representative of swine
dry lot conditions. These assumptions specify the amount of constituent
waste load, g/d/45-kg hog, which enters the runoff retention pond and
the corresponding liquid volume from which the nominal average concen-
tration was evaluated to be about 65 mg TN/1. On an annual basis the
108
-------
I5r
o
VO
12
o
NORTH CENTRAL PLAINS
SOUTH CENTRAL PLAINS
-o- GREAT LAKES
NORTHEAST
SOUTHEAST
I
I I I I I I
M A M J J A
ANNUAL CYCLE, months
0 N D
Figure 22.
Annual rainfall pattern for major swine production regions of the
United States.
-------
Table 38. ANNUAL AND MONTHLY PERIOD RAINFALL, RUNOFF, AND NITROGEN TRANSPORT ESTIMATED FOR SWINE
PRODUCTION REGIONS OF THE UNITED STATES, DRYLOTS
Region
North Central Plains
(MN, IA, WI, NE, SD,
ND,
South Central Plains
(KS, MO AR, OK)
Southeast
(VA, NC, SC, AL,
GA)
Northeast
(PA, NY, New
England)
Great Lakes
(IL, IN, OH, MI)
Rainfall , cm
Annual Oct-May June-Sept.
60 27 33
94 53 41
125 76 49
104 67 37
91 54 37
Runoff, cm
Annual Oct-May June-Sept.
18 8 10
28 16 12
38 23 15
31 20 11
27 16 11
Nitrogen in runoff,
g/d/45-kg hog
Annual Sept-May June-Aug.
0.9 0.4 0.5
1.4 0.8 0.6
1.9 1.2 0.7
1.6 1.0 0.6
1.4 0.8 0.6
-------
five regions representing the major swine producing areas have
similar runoff constituent amounts, Table 38. The North Central
Plains and the Southeast are about 35 percent below and 35 percent above,
respectively, the average of all regions. Retention pond input for the
4-month, summer period was between 60 percent - 80 percent and of
runoff occurring in the other 8-months period, Table 38. The
greater number of large rain events during the summer was thus evidenced
in the runoff amount.
The loss or percent reduction of various waste constituents which occurs
during retention pond holding periods were determined according to
procedures for anaerobic lagoons, Table 32. The retention pond removal
was multiplied by the runoff input amounts of each waste constituent
in order to evaluate order of magnitude effluent amounts, Table 39.
The percent of the waste entering the runoff pond which appears as
effluent nitrogen, COD, BODj and TOG after the 8 and 4 month periods
were 40 percent and 70 percent, 20 percent and 50 percent, 15 percent
and 30 percent, and 20 percent and 50 percent, respectively. These
were derived from previously described anaerobic lagoon systems
of comparable residence time. The retention pond effluent for the 4
and 8 month periods was in the range of 0,5 percent - 2 percent of the
defecated waste load and thus represents a sizable total removal.
Nitrogen conservation can be practiced, within the limits of the amount
of material in the runoff, by frequent retention pond pumping to minimize
ammonia volatilization losses. The upper limit of nitrogen conserva-
tion would be the runoff nitrogen itself which would be 5 percent -
9 percent of the defecated waste load, Table 38. Total nitrogen levels
in effluent from swine drylot runoff ponds are on the order of 10 -
30 mg N/l. The nominal cation concentration in retention pond liquid
does not meet irrigation standards for moisture deficit regions (Reed
1972).
In summary, the system of swine drylot and runoff retention pond has
not been experimentally measured but based on a series of mechanistic
assumptions where effluent levels between 0.5 percent and 2 percent of the
defecated waste load were derived. This pond liquid is probably salt
limited in moisture-deficit regions and hydraulically limited in
moisture-excess regions. For the major swine production areas,
regional variations in runoff amounts were less than 35 percent of the
mean for those regions.
Oxidation Ditch
Considerable research and farm scale monitoring have been accomplished
for oxidation ditch pretreatment of swirie wastes as well as for a number
of other agricultural wastes. Consequently, there are available an
111
-------
Table 39. APPROXIMATE PRETREATMENT PERFORMANCE OF RAINFALL RUNOFF
PONDS FOR SWINE DRY LOTS, BASED ON INPUT DATA TABLE 28
Parameter
Nitrogen
Phosphorus
Potassium
Sodium
Calcium
Magnesium
Copper
Zinc
Manganese
Chloride
Chemical oxygen
demand
Biochemical oxygen
demand (BODs)
Total organic
carbon
Effluent,
g/d/45-kg hog
8-month storage
0.25-0.4
0.015
0.3
0.06
0.3
0.01
0.0001-0.0009
0.0007
0.0003
0.6
1.5-3
0.5-1
0.5-1
4-month
storage
0.4
0.02
0.3
0.06
0.3
0.01
0.0001-0.000?
0.0007
0.0003
0.6
4-6
1-2
1-2
112
-------
inclusive series of articles and reports summarizing performance, design,
and operational variables (Kroeker 1975, Day 1975, Prakasam 1974, and
Loehr 1973). These summary papers include the theory of removal
mechanisms, predictive and design equations, and virtually all information
needed for oxidation ditch assessment. The large data base is in con-
trast to the fact that less than 0.2 percent of all swine waste is
treated in this manner.
In overview, the use of oxidation ditch pretreatment has evolved into
three categories of treatment strategy; odor control, nitrogen removal,
and nitrogen conservation. These alternatives require three levels
of oxygen input and hence, increasing costs (Kroeker 1975). For each
pretreatment strategy there are two major operational modes: 1)
continuous operation until the ditch is full and then empty, or 2)
continuous operation with ditch filling and overflow until solids
buildup requires emptying. These operations have an effluent concen-
tration difference in the short term but similar effluent yields
on an annual basis. Summarizing the overall oxidation ditch techno-
logy, it appears that: 1) nitrogen removal can be made very efficient,
2) there are cold region applications in which the principal goal is
odor control and storage, but that alternative odor control techno-
logies should be considered to achieve the best long range economic
solution, 3) the oxidation pretreatment does not yield effluent which
is amenable to stream discharge; hence, land is the receiver, and
4) the cost and energy requirements are high. Trends in the farm
scale use of oxidation ditches are difficult to assess and will be
highly dependent on energy and maintenance costs.
Design of oxidation ditches involves specification of the input waste
load, the oxygen transfer needed for the employed pretreatment strategy,
and the configurational parameters of ditch length and volume. The
recommended ditch volume is 0.18 m3/45-kg hog (Midwest Plan Service
1975). For odor control (Kroeker 1975) the oxygen transfer should equal
the carbonaceous demand of the waste input, Table 40, or 0.3 kg 02/d/45-
kg hog and with the recommended oxygen transfer for oxidation ditch
rotors (Midwest Plan Service 1975) of 0.86 kg O^/kwh about 0.015 kw/45-
kg hog would be required. As a point of comparison, the power require-
ments providing the same daily oxygen input for odor control in
mechanically aerated lagoons (measured C>2 transfer = 1.3 kg 02/kwh)
would be 0.0095 kw/45-kg hog, or 35 percent lower.
In order to achieve maximum nitrogen removal both the carbonaceous
and nitrogenous oxygen demand must be supplied. With 3.57 g 0 required
per gram of ammonium ion converted to nitrate (Kroeker 1975), the oxida-
tion ditch nitrogenous power requirements are 0.0016-0.0032 kw/45-kg hog.
113
-------
Table 40. OXIDATION DITCH REQUIREMENTS FOR SWINE WASTE
Oxidation ditch
strategy
Oxygen requirements
g 02/d/45-kg hog
Power requirements,
(assuming 0.86 kg 02/
kwhr), kw/45-kg hog
Odor control
Nitrogen removal
Nitrogen conservation
300
332-364
332.01-364.01
0.015
0.016-0.018
0.016-0.018
114
-------
Total oxidation ditch requirements are about 0.017 kw/45-kg hog
depending on the degree of TKN conversion. This is only slightly
greater than the odor control power requirements. Operation at this
level of oxygen input should result in no dissolved oxygen in about
50 percent of the ditch and thus a good environment for denitrification.
The third alternative ditch operation is to maintain continuously a
dissolved oxygen level of greater than 2 mg/1 throughout the ditch.
Additional inputs for this are less than 0.1 percent above the
power inputs of 0.017 kg/45-kg hog.
Oxidation ditch performance may be determined in a number of ways
depending on whether the operation is a batch or continuous unit. The
concentration of effluent can be that of the mixed liquor with continuous
overflow, the mixed liquor with solids buildup until a critical level
requires emptying, or as an effluent which has been clarified after
overflow from the ditch. These differences are very much producer
related and exhibit short term variations. However, if it is recognized
that on a long term all constituents not stabilized or lost as gaseous
products must be handled then the material requiring land application
for this pretreatment alternative can be determined.
Total nitrogen losses have been reported for oxidation ditches, Table
41. A differentiation between operation for odor control or maximum
nitrogen removal was not made in these reports, so that corresponding
nitrogen losses were difficult to assess as a function of treatment
strategy. However, one study on poultry manure was found in which
operation for odor control resulted in about 50 percent nitrogen
removal which, as expected for a system with little nitrification
and only ammonia losses, was lower than the nitrification-denitrifica-
tion operations (80 percent reduction). Oxidation ditch effluent
nitrogen levels were determined from these percentage losses while
cation and metal species were considered conservative with respect
to the total long term operation, Table 42.
The organic removal or stabilization for oxidation ditches has been
evaluated by means of COD, BODs, TS, and VS, Table 41. Mixed liquor
concentrations are given in Table 41, as well as representative effluent
concentrations following clarification. Percentage removals from
reported mass balance results and from ratios of the mixed liquor
concentration to influent concentration were in agreement and were used
to determine the long term effluent amounts for oxidation ditch
pretreatment, Table 42. It should be noted that even with clarification
the effluent is not suitable for stream discharge.
115
-------
Table 41. OXIDATION DITCH TREATMENT OF SWINE WASTES
Reference
Talganldes 1972
Tenrillger 1975
(odor control }
Day 1971
Jones 1969
Scheltlnga 1966
Kindt 1971
Day 1969
Smith 1971
Mulligan 1972
Jones 1972
Foree 1969
Kroecker 1975
(odor control, poultry
manure)
Value judged most reliable
Oxidation ditch with
clarlfer
Scheltlnga 1966
Smith 1971
Jones 1972
Loading
rate, m3/
45-kg hog
1
1.6-3.2
6-10
8.4
10
10
11
12
12
29
30
10
12
29
Oxidation ditch nixed
liquor concentration, mq/1
COB BODjj TS
6,000- 1,000- 8,000
12,000 4,000
12,000 3,000 12,000
15,000 1,500 15,000
6,000 3,000 10,000
12,000 3,000 12,000
550 15
500-1,000 50-150 -
2,750
Percent loss of constituents, %
TN COD BODg TS
- - 80
- 69 70 65
- 90
- - 96
- 60 90 53
80 75 80
- 59 55
80 90 100
- - 93
50 45
80 75 90 65
VS
-
74
50
50-55
-
-
-
78
--
-
..
75
116
-------
Table 42. APPROXIMATE PRETREATMENT PERFORMANCE OF OXIDATION DITCHES
FOR SWINE WASTES WITH INPUT DEFINED IN TABLE 25
Parameter
Effluent,
g/d/45-kg hog
Nitrogen-removal strategy
Nitrogen-odor control
Phosphorus
Potassium
Sodium
Calcium
Magnesium
Copper
Zinc
Manganese
Chloride
Chemical oxygen demand
Biochemical oxygen demand
Volatile solids
3.5
9
6
8
2
9
2
0.02-0.2
0.14
0.055
14
75
12
45
117
-------
Overland Flow (OLF)
The promotion of controlled runoff from the application of wastewater
and subsequent effluent collection represents a pretreatment for swine
wastes. A schematic of a typical overland flow system is presented in
Figure 23. In such systems more than half the applied wastewater is
available as runoff for reuse or terminal land application. This effluent
is reduced in the various influent waste constituents with the mechanism
and efficiencies or removal being dependent on the specific parameter.
No performance reports were found for OLF pretreatment of swine wastes,
but two references for swine lagoon effluent applied as OLF were
reported (Sievers 1975 and Humenik 1975). To supplement these data,
it was felt that the waste type was relatively less important in
delineating the mechanism and removal percentages hence, 5 additional
agriculturally related wastes and 6 municipal systems were used
to estimate overland flow pretreatment of swine waste. (Stevens 1969,
Mather 1969, Bendixen 1969, Locke 1972, Walker 1972, Witherow 1973,
Carlson 1974, Thomas 1974, Myer 1974, Brack 1975, Overcash 1976 a).
The mechanism of stabilization and removal for organic and nitrogen
inputs has been discussed with respect to microbial pathways (Carlson
1974). In overview, organic solids are initially removed by filtration,
settling, and soil sorption. Between waste applications, the soil
microbial zone interfacing the atmosphere becomes aerobic and thus
initially removed material is aerobically stabilized.
Net system removal of nitrogen involves ammonia volatilization,
nitrification-denitrification (in the flowing liquid and/or in the
cyclic loading and rest periods), soil infiltration, and plant uptake.
The relative magnitude of these pathways have not been well established.
Phosphorus removal is primarily by sorption and soil complex formation.
With respect to cations and heavy metals, few data are available
especially on the critical question of OLF pretreatment longevity.
Initial removal of cations by the soil surface has been demonstrated
but the capacity of this zone for long term removal is not known
(Sievers 1975 and Thomas 1974).
The capacity of OLF to effect substantial pathogen dieoff has been
demonstrated (Thomas 1975); presumably because of the basically aerobic
system, the cyclic drying, and the competition with existing soil
microorganisms. Odor reduction was proposed as a potential advantage
of OLF (Thomas 1975). The frequent, low application procedure main-
tains aerobic surface conditions and provides odor control.
118
-------
EVAPORATION
SPRAY APPLICATION
SLOPE
2-4%
GRASS AND VEGETATIVE LITTER
100 - 500 FEET
RUNNOFF
COLLECTION
Figure 23. Schematic of OLF pretreatment process.
-------
OLF pretreatment was judged from the data for a variety of systems.
The differences in performance were not large (Overcash 1976a). It
should be noted, however, that design variables for OLF can be mani-
pulated to produce effluent concentration changes but these are not
specified in this state-of-the-art review. The average OLF system
is 10-40 m in flow distance and can receive anywhere from 1-15 cm/week
of liquid. Ground-level applicators (e,.£. gated pipe) or conventional
sprinkler systems have been used to apply the wastewater to the upper
portion of OLF systems. Animal waste must be diluted for successful
treatment by OLF, hence, it is compatible with flushing operations in
which substantial additional water is used for waste transport.
Following the OLF with a lagoon system permits recycle of water for
flushing thereby greatly reducing fresh water inputs. Lagoon moni-
toring for cation constituents signals when critical toxic levels of
one or more species are reached and irrigation outside the OLF system
is required. Recharge with fresh water allows safe continuation of
the OLF system.
Percentage removal for total nitrogen was evaluated to be approximately
85 percent while BOD5, TSS and P were 95 percent, 95 percent, and 40
percent, respectively. Research results for COD and TOG were not
available and hence, were assumed equal to that for BODij. Wastes from
slatted floor-pit or concrete slab facilities and swine dry lots were
evaluated as potential influent sources for OLF. The former would be
similar to municipal or food processing systems and the latter similar
to effluents from grassed buffer zones or the switch back runoff
pretreatment facility proposed for beef feedlots (Swanson 1975). The
percentage of constituents remaining after OLF and analogous input
amounts were used to evaluate OLF pretreatment, Table 43. Cations
were not included in Table 43 because of the previously discussed
data gap on long term performance.
Research is needed to assess the performance potential and economics
for swine waste nitrogen removal by means of OLF. A total system of
OLF, lagoon recycle and periodic land application would appear to
produce high levels of nitrogen pretreatment. The long term system
efficiency with respect to cations merits research since the quality of
effluent for terminal land application is critcal in moisture-deficit
regions.
120
-------
Table 43. APPROXIMATE PRETREATMENT PERFORMANCE OF OVERLAND FLOW
SYSTEMS RECEIVING SWINE WASTES FROM CONCRETE SLAB OR
SLOTTED FLOOR-PIT UNITS, TABLE 25, AND FROM DRYLOT
PRODUCTION UNITS, TABLE 28
Parameter
Nitrogen
Chemical oxygen demand
Biochemical oxygen
demand (BODs)
Total organic carbon
Total suspended solids
Phosphorus
Effluent, g/d/45-kg hog
Input-concrete slab
or slotted floor-pit
unit raw waste
2.7
15.0
6.0
4.0
9.0
3.5
Input-drylot
runoff
0.15
0.80
0.30
0.20
0.45
0.20
121
-------
PRETREATMENT PROCESSES ORIENTED TOWARD PARTIAL REUSE
High Rate Anaerobic Digestion-Methane Production
Swine waste digestion represents a pretreatment process in which some
recovery or utilization value is obtained. Methane is formed under
anaerobic conditions from swine waste organics with the rate of produc-
tion dependent on the waste loading rate. High rate, heated digesters
for swine waste have similar microbial transformations, but greater rates
and efficiencies of gas production than anaerobic lagoons. The considera-
tion of high rate methane production from animal wastes has been widespread
and a number of good reviews of the biochemistry, production efficiency,
and operation are available (Smith 1973 and Jeffrey 1963). Additionally,
a recent excruciatingly complete bibliography and data summary (Shadduck
1975) has become available. These reports and the similarity to
anaerobic lagoon pretreatment obviate the need for a detailed mechanistic
discussion in this report.
The major differences in the fermentation of swine waste constituents
in digesters versus lagoons is due to the enclosed, small volume
construction of digesters. Nitrogen removal by ammonia volatilization
is virtually eliminated with controlled methane reactors. This is a
distinct advantage because all the fertilizer value is retained, as well
as extracting fuel value from the organic fraction. The low reactor
volume per hog and the use of mixing or heating with high rate digesters
means that there is little opportunity for sludge accumulation. Therefore,
cations or metals which would settle are periodically removed from the
digester and therefore, represent the total effluent. These elements
are conservative; and hence, the methane generator as a pretreatment
alternative does not alter the amount of cations or metals as generated
in the swine production unit waste loads.
With respect to organic stabilization, the reduction in volatile solids
and COD for a number of digesters was determined to be about 47 percent
and 42 percent, respectively (Midwest Plan Service 1975). Reduction
of TOG was approximated from the average gas generation value of 1.8
m /d/1,000 kg animal (Midwest Plan Service 1975) and the carbon content
of the gas as 48 percent. BODg reduction is judged to be similar to
COD or about 42 percent. Assuming these percent reductions for carbon-
aceous compounds and total conservation of other constituents,. yields the
performance of high rate digesters or methane generation as a pretreat-
ment for swine waste, Table 44.
122
-------
Table 44. APPROXIMATE PRETREATMENT PERFORMANCE OF METHANE DIGESTERS
RECEIVING SWINE WASTES, TABLE 25
Parameter
Effluent, g/d/45-kg hog
Nitrogen
Phosphorus
Potassium
Sodium
Calcium
Magnesium
Copper
Zinc
Manganese
Chlorine
Chemical oxygen demand
Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5)
Total organic carbon
Volatile solids
18
6
8
2
9
2
0.02-0.2
0.14
0.055
14
175
70
47
95
123
-------
Solids Separation
The physical separation of a portion of the solid material in swine
waste can be accomplished by a variety of conventional devices. In
terms of waste management, the objectives of a solids separation
process are: 1) to recover organic solids for reuse in such processes
as refeeding, methane generation, pyrolysis, composting, etc., 2) to
reduce total solids and thereby facilitate pumping and handling, and
3) to reduce the solids prior to processes adversely affected by
clogging such as ion exchange, reverse osmosis, etc. As with other
pretreatments, solids separation can be evaluated with respect to the
change in waste constituents.
Mechanisms for solids removal are dependent on two general principles.
The first is the physical dimensions of the solid particles which
dictate whether or not a particle will pass through an opening of
defined size. Those which do not pass the opening are separated from
the bulk of the liquid. In this group of separators, swine waste
studies have been reported for the vibrating screen (Ngoddy 1971),
the stationary screen (Shutt 1975), the rotating drum filter (Glerum
1971), other filter arrangements (Hepherd 1975), and the centrisieve
(Glerum 1971).
The second solids separation principle is based upon phase separation
by specific gravity resulting in a solids zone and a clarified liquid.
These zones can be withdrawn selectively and the phase separation
accomplished. Settling can occur with normal or elevated gravitational
fields with the latter improving the rate and efficiency of separation.
In this category, swine waste separation has been reported in the upflow
settling chamber with a variety of detention times (Fischer 1975, Shutt
1975, Jett 1973, Wong-Chong 1975, Glerum 1971), centrifuge (Guidi 1971),
decanter centrifuge (Jones 1972 and Glerum 1971), rotated flighted
cylinder (Miner 1975b) and hydrocyclone,(Shutt 1975). The equipment
for these solids separation modes are well illustrated in several
sources (Midwest Plan Service 1975, Glerum 1971, and Shutt 1975).
The separation of solids (evaluated by TS, VS, COD, BOD5, and crude
protein, etc.) also brings about the removal of nitrogen. Organic
nitrogen removal proceeds as the solids removal; but in addition,
ammonia is separated by weak absorption to organic matter and by the
physical entrapment of liquid with the solid fraction. The degree of
ammonia separation is highly dependent on the particular device and
operational characteristics. Several studies have monitored nitrogen
separation (Ngoddy 1971, Hepherd 1975, and Fischer 1975), but no
distinction or explanation of the ammonia-organic nitrogen relation is
currently available.
124
-------
Removal of phosphorus and various cations during solids separation has
been monitored, but the mechanisms for these species removal are
speculative. The quantity incorporated in biomass or plant tissue is
small. Chelates or other tightly bound complexes of Cu, Zn, and Mn
with organic matter assist separation in anaerobic lagoons (Overcash
1976) and correspondingly, would be expected to contribute to removal
in raw swine waste separation processes. It is anticipated that other
species such as K, Na, and Ga which are less tightly bound to organics
would be less affected during solids separation. The behavior of
precipitates (MgNH3 P(>4, Booram 1973) in swine waste separation is not
presently known. The physical retention of liquid in the solids
fraction leads to apparent cation removals as was also noted for ammonia.
Solids separation also reduces swine hair thus improving waste handling
properties. No data were found on microbiological or pathogen removal
occurring with swine waste separation by any device.
The performance of various solids separation devices for swine waste
were arranged according to efficiency of dry matter removal, Table 45.
The physical screening of material appears to be less efficient than
the settling class of devices. One exception is the high efficiency
obtained with a filter-settling chamber combination (Hepherd 1975).
As anticipated, the removal of solids was more efficient as the opening,
through which the swine wastes were forced, decreased with an upper
limit at about 50 percent removal. Since data are limited, comparisons
of efficiency among the various size classifying devices was not possible,
As a general estimate, it appears that the opening size is the pre-
dominant factor regardless of the particular device, Table 45. COD
and N removals were not always consistent, but generally followed TS
reduction. COD and N data were not as complete and with N there were
confounding factors such as ammonia absorption and physical carryover
of liquids with the solid fraction. If effective separation is obtained
(opening size less than 1 mm), the screen devices yield a TS removal of
about 40 percent whereas the vacuum filters yield about 50 percent
removal. Based on limited data, the COD and N removals in the solid
fraction for the size-type separators were approximately 30 percent
and 55 percent, respectively.
The gravity settling type devices produced a separation of 65 percent-
85 percent for TS while use of centrifugal force increased solids
separation to about 90 percent. COD and N removals which are not well
documented are estimated to be 60 percent and 45 percent, respectively,
for settling chambers and possibly up to 90 percent with centrifugal
force (greater than 1,000 g).
125
-------
Table 45. SEPARATION PERFORMANCE OF VARIOUS DEVICES RECEIVING RAW SHINE WASTE
Reference
Shutt 1975
Shutt 1975
Ngoddy 1971
Hgoddy 1971
Ngoddy 1971
Ngoddy 1971
Glenn 1971
Hepherd 1975
Glerum 1971
Fischer 1975
Shutt 1975
Hong-Chong 1975
Glerum 1971
Hepherd 1975
Gu1d1 1971
Jones 1972
Glerum 1971
Opening size
Device fraction
stationary screen 1.5 inn hole
1.0m
v1H»t1ng screen 0.25 mm
0.15 mn
0.075 m
0.044 nm
centH sieve 0.03 m
rotating vacua*
drum filter 0.2 m
rotating vacuum
drum filter
settling chamber
settling chamber
settling chamber
settling chamber
filter-settling chamber
centrifuge
centrifuge (decanter)
centrifuge (decanter)
Fischer 1976 VS - 55-70*
Ngoddy 1971 Zn-55*. Cu-49«, Ml-571
Fe-60I
1 DM
3-10
10-25
33
39
40
42
55
46-53
51
55-60
-
84
85
81
90
96
65
Percent removal from Influent. X
COD N P VS Ca Mg
10,24
50-70
26 59 58 St SB
29 58
30 58
35 61
28
26 10 26 21
50-60 40-60 30-50 55-70
55
33 89
75
45 100 86 62
90
96 95 94
52 ~ --
K Da
56 52
16 20
56 50
Jett 1973
Crude prote1n-l7X, ether extract-?^
ash-131, nitrogen free extract-32t
126
-------
Phosphorus removal is not well documented, but the settling chamber
devices would be expected to reach removals associated with anaerobic
lagoons of approximately 90 percent (Humenik 1976). Such high removals
would not be anticipated for screen separators since about 70 percent
of the total phosphosus is loosely bound (ortho-phosphorus) which
is easily solubilized and thus carried with the liquid fraction (Howell
1976). The remaining swine constituents are listed in Table 45, but
reliable estimation of percent removal is not currently justified. For
Ca, Mg, K and Na, the Ca removal with the solid fraction were usually
larger than other cations which qualitatively agrees with lagoon removal
trends. However, the similarity among these parameters and the similarity
to Cu, Zn, and Mn (more tightly bound to organics) indicates that possibly
the liquid carryover is significant. A fixed percent of liquid removed
would appear as a constant percent extraction for all cations and might
mask any variation due to chelated or bound materials.
Translation of the percent removals into the pretreatment effect on the
amount of the various defecated waste constituents was performed, Table
46. These data are for the liquid effluent stream, but in some instances
the solids fraction might be considered as the effluent or least
desirable fraction. The solids stream can be obtained as the difference
between values in Tables 25 and 46. Future research emphasis should
be on target waste constituents, £.£. N and cations rather than TS.
In addition, a uniform economic evaluation is greatly needed since
reported data are highly variable and usually include only investment
or power costs. If the pretreatment objective(s) of solids separation
ate defined, the data in Tables 45 and 46 will aid in selecting the
type of device which will produce the desired separation.
Pyrolysis
The pretreatment of animal waste by thermochemical processes has been
investigated by several groups in which various aspects of inputs and
effluents have been reported (White 1971a, Corvino 1975, Nelson 1975,
and Appell 1971). Pyrolysis is a thermochemical process in which waste
is chemically decomposed in a closed system at elevated temperatures
(200° C- 800° C). Three product or effluent streams are produced,
1) a solid fraction termed char or residue, 2) a gas fraction which when
condensed is an oil or fuel, and 3) a gas fraction which when condensed
is aqueous in nature. All three streams can be used as products,
Figure 24. Generally, the char and oil are recycled completely while
the aqueous stream would be most feasibly applied to the land. Thus,
from the pretreatment perspective, the aqueous portion is the
pyrolysis effluent. The char is a second possible effluent for land
application and has been investigated in this regard for poultry manure
(Nelson 1975). The char was acceptable for land application if proper
design for salt limitation was used. An excellent discussion of the
implications of pyrolysis for poultry operations which can be readily
related to swine wastes is available (Nelson 1975).
127
-------
Table 46. APPROXIMATE PRETREATMENT EFFECT OF SOLID SEPARATION DEVICES RECEIVING SWINE WASTES,
AS DETAILED IN Table 25
00
Parameter
Nitrogen
Chemical oxygen demand
Total solids
Phosphorus
Cations
Liquid effluent, g/d/45-kg
Size separator Gravitational
class separator class
8 10
210 120
90-110 30-90
0.3
hog
Centrifugal
separator class
2
30
20
--
highly contingent on individual device design and
operation
-------
MANURE
PYROLYZER
LIQUID
FRACTION
SOLID
RESIDUE
SEPARATOR
SIZE
REDUCTION
OIL
I
AQUEOUS
FRACTIONA-
TION TO
PETROCHEMI-
CAL PROD.
FERTILIZER
PRINTING
INK
RUBBER
TILES
CHARCOAL
BRIQUETTES
Figure 24. Pyrolysis process streams and potential end uses for
terminal wastes (Corvino, 1975).
129
-------
A related process to pyrolysis is hydrogenation in which manure is heated
under pressure in the presence of carbon monoxide, steam, and a catalyst.
Similar product streams are produced and one demonstration for animal
waste was reported in the literature (Appell 1971). The costs and optimal
conditions for pyrolysis and hydrogenation have not been well documented
for swine wastes; therefore, the limited performance data are extrapolated
from available animal waste information. These thermochemical processes
represent a very high level of utilization or recycling of animal wastes.
Data were extracted and calculated from the four reports concerning
animal waste in order to derive mass balances. Since this overall
approach was not previously reported not all the data sources were
totally inclusive and assumptions especially regarding the constituent
content of the input were necessary. From available sources including
data for hyrdogenation, assessments of TS, N, and C were made, Table 47.
A limited reference (Corvino 1975) was also included although it con-
sistently differed from the other data, possibly because of the lower
temperature employed or the method of data reporting. It should be
noted that the percentages listed are approximations and represent
a number of operating and experimental conditions.
Considering the aqueous portion as the pretreatment process effluent,
the fraction of the initial solids remaining in the effluent is about
one-third. However, if wet manure is pyrolysed the water portion is
nearly one hundred percent recovered thus increasing the effluent
volume. About 40 percent of the nitrogen and 25 percent of swine
waste carbon would be in the aqueous effluent. The estimation
of effluent amounts of phosphorus, potassium,various cations and heavy
metals has not been well documented. Pyrolysis temperature would be
critical since elements are vaporized in varying and substantial amounts
above approximately 600° G. Pyrolysis and hydrogenation at low
temperatures, 200° C to 500° C (Corvino 1975 and Appell 1971) result
in very little nonorganic vaporization and incorporation into the
aqueous effluent. However, pyrolysis processes operated between 600° C
and 800° C (Nelson 1975 and White 1971a) would cause volatilization
of phosphorus, potassium, etc., but the extent and percentage cannot
be defined a, priori. The relative merits of concentrating various
metals in the char of aqueous phase is dependent on the end use of
these products and warrants further study.
Applying the percentage removal to the swine waste generation rates » the
pretreatment performance of pyrolysis can be established, Table 48.
The limited data base for this calculation should be noted.
130
-------
Table 47. SEPARATION OF WASTE CONSTITUENTS FROM ANIMAL WASTES BY PYROLYSIS PROCESS
Constituent
Reference
Percentage of constituent waste
input in effluent streams, %
Char
Oil
Aqueous
TS
White 1971a (swine, poultry, beef
and dairy)
Corvino 1975 (cattle
Nelson 1975 (poultry)
Appell 1971 (bovine-hydrogenation)
Value judged most reliable
White 1971a
Corvino 1975
Nelson 1975
Appell 1971
Value judged most reliable
White 1971a
Corvino 1975
Nelson 1975
Appel1
Value judged most reliable
30-40
34-58
20
12
30
10-20
10-20
10
10
12-25
32
35
7
25
40-60
1-8
10-30
22-35
38
45 25
50 30-40
3.5
80-90
50 40
50 40
-90
63
50
30
25
-------
Table 48. APPROXIMATE PRETREATMENT PERFORMANCE FOR PYROLYSIS
OF SWINE WASTES, BASED ON WASTE GENERATION IN
TABLE 25
Parameter
Nitrogen
Total solids
Carbon
Effluent, g/d/45-kg hog
7
60
25
132
-------
Refeeding Processes
As a utilization pretreatment, the direct refeeding or the processing
of wastes prior to refeeding yields direct benefits in waste reduction
and in reducing the principal cost of animal production-feed. The appli-
cability of refeeding is based on the similarity of chemical composition
(amino acids, minerals, etc.) between waste and commonly employed feeds.
However, other waste constituents, often introduced into feeds, impose
refeeding limitations because of recycling buildup, e_.£. heavy metals
hormones, etc. An additional concern is the potential for disease
transmission. Suggested techniques for overcoming these limitations
(Harper 1975) include dispersion of wastes to animals not producing
waste for recycling, waste dilution using feeds with lower concentrations
of critical constituents, and extraction or conversion of limiting
constituents from manure prior to refeeding.
The predominance of the research and farm scale application of refeeding
processes has been in the beef and poultry industry. Beef waste
is attractive because of the point source density and the fibrous, high
solids content. Processing of beef wastes for refeeding has involved
drying, ensilage, separation and partial reuse, and fractionation with
full recovery. Reviews of the processes are available (Harper 1975,
Midwest Plan Service 1975, Anthony 1971, and Yeck 1975). Poultry manure
or litter have been demonstrated and evaluated as feed for beef cattle
and other animals (Fontenot 1966, Flegal 1972, and Creger 1973). Wide-
spread interest currently exists for ensiling poultry litter and refeeding
to ruminants. The high nitrogen to carbon ratio of poultry waste
emphasizes the refeeding advantages of poultry waste or processed poultry
wastes (Midwest Plan Service 1975).
Swine waste refeeding processes are less advanced from a research-demonstration
standpoint although interest is increasing. The overall characterization
of swine waste has been expanded. Refeeding parameters such as crude
protein, ether extract, etc., Table 23, and amino acid distribution,
Table 49, depicting refeeding potential have been documented. However,
field techniques for treating high moisture content manure, using the
soluble versus solids fraction, and selecting the most advantageous
preprocessing scheme for refeeding have not been developed.
Refeeding results for dry swine feces with percentage substitution of
feces between 10 percent and 40 percent to swine have been obtained
(Diggs 1965, Orr 1971, and Holland 1975). With the exception of a 15
percent substitution (Diggs 1965) the digestibility and feed efficiencies
were depressed by approximately 10 percent-20 percent below the normal
ration. Studies comparing wet feces versus dry feces as a fraction of
the feed showed no difference in digestibilities or mineral retention
133
-------
Table 49. AMINO ACID CONTENT OF SWINE FECES AND SWINE OXIDATION DITCH
MIXED LIQUOR AS RELATED TO REFEEDING POTENTIAL
Phenylalanine
Lysine
Histidine
Arginine
Threonine
Valine
Isoleucine
Leucine
Aspartic
Serine
Glutamic Acid
Proline
Glycine
Alanine
Cystine
Methionine
Tyros ine
Tryptophan
Gouwens 1966
0.81
0.60
0.14
0.44
0.53
0.58
0,52
0.92
Orr 1971
0.87
1.11
0.40
0.67
0.80
1.04
1.03
1.57
1.37
0.58
3.37
0.91
1.51
1.14
0.12
0.58
0.65
Day 1975
(Oxidation ditch
mixed lagoon)
1.48
1.42
0-47
1.28
1.96
2.06
1,49
2.79
3.73
2.55
5.06
1.29
2.29
2.83
0.77
1.17
0.28
134
-------
by the test swine (Holland 1975) . Swine oxidation ditch mixed liquor
was used as drinking water for swine with the result that gain and
feed efficiency values were improved (Harmon 1973). The investigators
indicated that the beneficial effect was probably the addition of certain
amino acids or trace elements since the nutritive value of this liquid
was very low. Research results for feeding dried swine feces to rats
(Eggum 1974) and to sheep and cattle (Pearce 1975) also evidenced lower
digestibility than the unsubstituted ration. The decreased digestibility
and conversion efficiency for refeeding swine waste which results in
longer growing periods are offset economically by the low cost associated
with waste material used as feed. This is especially true for use of
manure "as is" since processing by drying or fractionation significantly
increases cost.
Viewed as a pretreatment process, refeeding swine wastes represents a
reduction in the overall amount of various constituents depending directly
upon whether any of the material is removed by the animal receiving the
recycled manure. If as shown for several elements, there is no retention
by the animal then the total amount of these elements which must ultimately
be land applied is the same. Research in Virginia (Holland 1975) has
described quantitatively the changes in feces and urine content of
swine receiving 0 percent, 22 percent, and 37 percent (d.m.b.) of the
ration as swine feces. The fecal content of crude fiber, ether extract,
crude protein, magnesium, copper, and zinc increased as the feces in the
feed increased, while the ash, nitrogen-free extract, calcium, phosphorus,
and potassium were constant. However, to calculate the amount of the
various constituents taken up by the animal in the second feeding, the
mass of feces excreted after first and second feeding would be needed.
Data indicate that at 22 percent and 37 percent feces in the ration
the wet feces output was 196 percent and 254 percent, respectively,
of the no feces ration while the urinary output and feed intake were
the same. On a mass balance basis, this would indicate an inconsistency
of constituent generation during refeeding. Possibly the solids content
(not reported) was greatly reduced with the feces substitution or there
were some short term factors affecting the experiment.
In summary, sufficient data are not available to completely assess the
effect of refeeding swine feces to swine or other animals on the basis of
waste constituent amount (g/d/45-kg hog). Available qualitative infor-
mation indicates that portions of the organic and mineral content of
swine waste are available to the animal and therefore, refeeding has a
pretreatment effect of reducing the total effluent from swine production.
Research to quantify the pretreatment effect is needed as well as to
evaluate the potential, techniques, and hazardous limitations of this
technology.
135
-------
PRETREATMENT PROCESSES ORIENTED TOWARD NEARLY COMPLETE RECYCLING OR
REUSE OF SWINE WASTES
Composting
The process of composting is basically an aerobic treatment occurring in
the the thermophilic temperature range ( 70° C). The more conventional
system involves waste products in a solid, low moisture form in which
oxygen diffusion from the air is augmented by windrowing the solids or
blowing air through the stack. Such a system requires less energy than
a liquid phase reactor to input the needed oxygen and takes advantage
of exothermic biological activity to attain the thermophilic regime
(Midwest Plan Service 1975). Recently data have been reported for
animal waste composting in the liquid phase (Grant 1975 and Terwilleger
1975).
The mechanism for pretreatment reduction of nitrogen in composting swine
waste involves several pathways. Nitrate formation and subsequent
denitrification, when all or a portion of the compost turns anaerobic,
appears to be a principal mechanism when large losses of N are observed
(Stombaugh 1975). However, nitrogen can be conserved by prevention of
anaerobiosis. Under these conditions, the principal loss mechanism
is ammonia volatilization. In the liquid composting systems, the N
loss pathways are not well defined, but nitrification-denitrification
potential exists as well as some volatilization from the large foam
layer which builds at the liquid surface. Additional factors having a
lesser effect on N loss are C/N ratio (University of California 1953),
presence of superphosphate, nature of carbon substrate, and windrow
configuration (Willson 1975, Stombaugh 1975, and Wong-Chong 1975).
For swine waste parameters such as phosphorus, potassium, cations, and
heavy metals, the composting process provides no pretreatment removals.
The only effect anticipated would be some concentrating of these species
as volatile solids are lost from the system. The exception is composting
in open piles which is both less efficient and because of precipitation
input leads to drainage and potential loss of soluble ions and compounds.
Carbonaceous constituents are readily removed by the aerobic composting
process through microbial conversion to carbon dioxide and water. These
losses are substantial and result in waste volume and weight reduction.
The aerobic environment leads to odorless operation due to the nature
of endproducts of the predominant microorganisms. Pathogen dieoff or
inhibition of most species is also accomplished with these thermophilic
processes (Midwest Plan Service 1975).
From limited data, Table 50, the losses of nitrogen are approximately
25 percent of the raw waste input. The higher loss of 70 percent was for
a system (Stombaugh 1975) in which waste is treated aerobically and then
136
-------
Table 50. LOSSES OF SELECTED CONSTITUENTS OF ANIMAL WASTE DURING COMPOSTING OPERATIONS
Reference
Stombaugh 1975
Will son 1975
Singley 1975
Wells 1969
Martin 1972
Waste type
Swine
Dairy
Swine
Cattle
Swi ne
Carbon: Nitrogen
ratio
5-15
13-30
10-15
12
Constituent loss, % of input
N
70
20-26
0-20
low
16-50
VS
75-89
17-28
30
25
COD
22-40
to
-------
as more wastes are added, a lower anaerobic storage zone is developed.
A nitrogen loss of 58 percent was also reported for a compost which was
periodically anaerobic and aerobic (Willson 1975). Depending on the
system design, a wide range of N losses can occur; however, since
the major end use is land application, those systems with nitrogen
conservation may be the most beneficial and were selected as the
representative and achievable effluent. For the aerobic system, the
VS and COD losses were assumed to be about 30 percent. These percent
losses can be applied to the swine waste generation rate to establish
the amount of various species leaving the composting process, Table 51.
WASTE PRETREATMENT UNIT PROCESS-SELECTION AND COMPARISON
Total waste management systems necessarily include the production unit,
the intermediate pretreatmeht process(es), and the terminal receiver.
The most cost-effective terminal receiver for swine waste is the plant-
soil system. Critical design factors for land-based systems are nitrogen,
and salts in moisture-deficit regions because these swine waste components
limit land application rates. Pretreatment processes are devices or
technologies which can operate singly or in combination (in series or
parallel) to allow more convenient handling or reduce limiting constituents
levels so that more waste can be safely applied to a unit area. The
decision on which pretreatment process to recommend depends primarily
on the economics of alternative systems which are environmentally
acceptable.
Technically, the major challenge is to balance the waste load with the
available land. If land is not limiting, then pretreatment may consist
of convenient handling and storage units with maximum conservation
potential. However, if sufficient land is not available to assimilate
all waste constituents, then the least cost pretreatment process to
reduce critical constituent levels to land assimilation capabilities
becomes the predominant factor. Hence, there is a critical need to
understand the comparative capability of pretreatment unit processes
to reduce the nitrogen and cations or salt content.
Nitrogen-Based Comparison
An initial comparative assessment of pretreatment alternatives was made
by listing the unit processes previously described according to effluent
nitrogen content, Table 52. Pretreatment processes having at least
70 percent retention of the defecated nitrogen load would comprise
the nitrogen conservation alternatives. As the value of swine waste
nitrogen increases, the least cost total system will favor selective
pretreatments that conserve nitrogen- high rate methane digesters,
composting, high loading rate lagoons, and direct land application.
138
-------
Table 51. APPROXIMATE PRETREATMENT PERFORMANCE OF COMPOSTING RAW
SWINE WASTE, BASED ON TABLE 25
Composted effluent, g/d/45-kg hog
Parameter
Nitrogen
Phosphorus
Potassium
Sodium
Calcium
Magnesium
Copper
Zinc
Manganese
Chloride
Chemical oxygen demand
Volatile solids
14
6
8
2
9
2
0.02-0.2
0.14
0.055
14
210
125
139
-------
Table 52. COMPARISON OF PRETREATMENT PROCESSES FOR SWINE WASTES BASED
ON REMOVAL EFFICIENCY FOR NITROGEN
Production unit or pretreatment process
Effluent amount
of nitrogen,
g/d/45-kg hog
Swine raw waste, Table 25
High rate digester-methane generation
Composting
Lagoon-loading, 1.1 kg COD/week/m3
Solids separation-gravitational devices
Oxidation ditch-odor control design
Solids separation-size differentiation devices
Lagoon-loading, 0.55 kg COD/week/m3
Surface aerated lagoons
OLF
Pyrolysis
Oxidation ditch-nitrogen removal design
Lagoon-loading, 0.13 kg COD/week/m3
Solids separation-centrifugal force devices
Drylot runoff, Table 28
Drylot runoff retention pond
Lagoon-naturally facultative
Pasture unit runoff, Table 30
18
18
14
13
10
9
8
5-9
6
2-7
4.5
3.5
1.5-3.5
2
0.9
0.25-0.4
0.2-0.5
0.09
140
-------
The economics of these pretreatments may be enhanced by the value of
the organic fraction or decreased handling and storage requirements.
The cost of such selective and sequential pretreatments is needed
to evaluate accurately such pretreatment or conservation approaches.
These determinations must be made on a producer basis. A rough cost
rating of the most conservative pretreatments would be heavily loaded
lagoons, composting, and then high rate digester for methane generation
as the most expensive.
When land is not sufficient to receive the total waste nitrogen, then
those pretreatment processes which produce the greatest nitrogen removal
are most cost-effective. Basically, these are dispersive processes
which result in greater than 90 percent nitrogen removal such as drylot
production, drylot runoff retention pond, lagoons designed in the range
of 0.03-0.06 kg COD/week/m3 of lagoon, and pasture production units,
Table 52. Thus, lagoons can be most cost effective for both nitrogen
conservation or destruction depending on loading intensity. Nitrogen
removal economics must be included with these performance data in order
to provide the best total system.
Many of the commonly used pretreatment processes are intermediate
with nitrogen removals between 30 percent and 60 percent. The cost
of each process divided by the nitrogen removal is a most useful
parameter. This cost per unit of nitrogen removed is needed to
balance against the value of nitrogen conserved by land application.
Cation or Salt-Based Comparison
The salt content of swine waste may limit land application more than
nitrogen in some areas. Salt contents for various pretreatments were
limited, so as an approximation the summation of the cations sodium,
potassium, calcium, and magnesium was used when possible, Table 53.
These elements represent approximately 95 percent of the raw waste
cation content and thus were indicative of the relative pretreatment
reduction of salts. Basically, the producer objective is to remove
cations rather than to conserve them. There is little or no cation
removal for most of the studied pretreatments while lagoons provide
an intermediate level of about 50 percent reduction. Those units in
which swine waste contacts the soil provide the best salt pretreatment
c.f_. drylot, drylot runoff retention pond, and pasture systems. Although
n"ot well documented, extrapolation of removal mechanisms would indicate
that overland flow and barried landscape renovation systems would provide
substantial salt pretreatment removal.
141
-------
Table 53. COMPARISON OF PRETREATMENT PROCESSES FOR SWINE WASTE BASED
ON REMOVAL EFFICIENCY FOR SALTS
Production unit or pretreatment process
Effluent amount
of Na+K+Ca+Mg,
g/d/45-kg hog
Swine raw waste, Table 25
Oxidation ditch-odor control design
Oxidation ditch-nitrogen removal design
High rate digestors-methane generation
Composting
Lagoons 1.1 kg COD/week/m3
Lagoons 0.55 kg COD/week/m3
Lagoons 0.13 kg COD/week/m3
Lagoon naturally facultative
Surface aerated lagoons
Drylot runoff, Table 28
Drylot runoff retention pond
Pasture runoff, Table 30
21
21
21
21
21
9.2
9.2
9.2
9.2
9.2
1
0.67
0.10
142
-------
SECTION VII
SWINE WASTE AND PRETREATMENT RESEARCH NEEDS
In the period 1971-1976, considerable detailed evaluation of waste
pretreatment processes has occurred. Much of the data available are
sufficient to allow selection of such processes based on the objectives
of individual producers. However, for many processes better estimates
and more transferability of data is needed for effluent nitrogen and
particularly cations or salt content. The pretreatment performance
with respect to these two constituent categories should be given
research emphasis. The transferability aspect must be addressed by
ploser reporting and correlation with climatological data.
Specific research needs for the individual pretreatment processes
covered in previous sections are found in the performance discussion
of these unit processes. With the performance data based on percent
removal of LLC the net cost per unit removal of land application
limiting constituents must be the next emphasis in the utilization
of waste management technology.
The highest current research priority is to determine actual producer
costs of available pretreatments and the balance between these and
land application.
143
-------
SECTION VIII
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Adriano, D. C. Chemical Characteristics of Beef Feedlot Manures as
Influenced by Housing Type. In: Proc. of the 3rd Int'l Symp.
on Livestock Wastes. St. Joseph, Mich. Amer. Soc. Agr. Eng.
Proc-275, April 1975. pp. 347-350.
Anthony, W. B. Cattle Manure as Feed for Cattle. In: Proc. Int'l
Symp. on Livestock Wastes. St. Joseph, Mich. Amer. Soc. Agr.
Eng. ASAE PROC-271. April 1971. pp. 293-296.
Appell, H. R., Y. C. Fu, S. Friedman, P. M. Yavorsky and I. Wendes.
Converting Organic Wastes to Oil. U. S. Dept. of Interior,
Bureau of Mines. Washington, D. C. RI 7560 1971. 20 pp.
Arial, J. D. The Influence of Feed Additives on the Biochemical
Oxygen Demand Analysis for Swine Wastes. North Carolina State
University. M. Sc. thesis, 1970. 72 pp.
Arial, J. D., F. J. Humenik, and G. J. Kriz. BOD Analysis of Swine
Wastes as Affected by Feed Additives. In: Proc. Int'l. Symp.
on Livestock Wastes. St. Joseph, Mich. Amer. Soc. of Agr.
Eng. ASAE Proc-271. April 1971. pp. 180-183.
American Society of Agricultural Engineers Tentative Guidelines.
Fresh Manure Production and Characteristics per 1,000 Pounds
Liveweight. SE-412 Committee. St. Joseph, Mich. AW-D-1.
ASAE. 1972.
Baines, S. Some Aspects of the Disposal and Utilization of Farm
Wastes. J. Inst. Sewage Purification: 578-583, 1964.
Baker, W. R., Jr. Central Crops Research Station (North Carolina State
University), personal communication. 1975.
144
-------
Baldwin, C. Manure as Fertilizer. In: Manure Management Seminar Notes,
Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food. Feb. 9, 26, March 5,
1975. Ontario.
Barker, J. C. Environmental Impact of Coastal Plains Swine Drylot.
Biological and Agricultural Engineering. Sponsored by N. C."
Agricultural Extension Service, EPA, and N. C. Agricultural*
Experiment Station. 1976-1978.
Barth, C. L. and L. B. Polkowski. Identifying Odorous Components of
Stored Dairy Manure. Clemson University. ASAE Paper No. 71-568.
(Presented at ASAE meeting, December 1971) 26 pp.
Barth, C. L. and J. H. Bond. Water Management in Livestock Waste
Handling Systems. Water Resources Research Institute. Clemson,
S. C. Report No. 51. Clemson University. January 1975. 87 pp.
Batey, T., C. Berryman and C. Line. The Disposal of Copper-Enriched
Pig Manure Slurry on Grassland. J. Br. Grassland Soc. 27:139-143,
1972.
Bendixen, T. W., R. D. Hill, F. T. DuByne and G. G. Robeck. Cannery
Waste Treatment by Spray Irrigation-Runoff. JWPCF 41(3):385-
391, 1969.
Benne, E. J., C. R. Hogland, E. D. Longnecker and R. L. Cook. Animal
Manure-What Are They Worth Today. Agr. Expt. Station, Lansing,
Mich. Bui. No. 231. Michigan State University. 1961.
Bomke, A. A. and L. M. Lavkulich. Composition of Poultry Manure and
Effect of Heavy Application on Soil Chemical Properties and Plant
Nutrition, British Columbia, Canada. In: Proc. of the 3rd
Int'l Symp. on Livestock Wastes. St. Joseph, Mich. Amer. Soc.
Agr. Eng. Proc-275, April 1975. pp. 614-617.
Booram, C. V., R. J. Smith, and T. E. Hazen. Some Chemical and Physical
Aspects of Phosphate Precipitation from Anaerobic Liquors Derived
from Animal Waste Treatment Lagoons. Iowa State University
ASAE Paper No. 73-4522 (Presented ASAE meeting, December 1973)
21 PP.
Brack, L. J. Study of the Environmental Implications of Purification
Schemes for the Western Sewerage System. Melbourne Metropolitan
Board of Works, Melbourne, Australia. August 1975. 22 pp.
145
-------
Bruns, E. G. and J. W. Crowley. Solid Manure Handling for Livestock
Housing, Feeding, and Yard Facilities in Wisconsin. Cooperative
Extension Programs, Madison, Wisconsin. A2418. University of
Wisconsin. 1975. 75 pp.
Carlson, C. A., P. G. Hunt and T. B. Delaney, Jr. Overland Flow
Treatment of Wastewater. U. S. Army Engineer Waterways Experi-
ment Station. Vicksburg, Miss. Miscellaneous Paper Y-74-3.
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. Aug. 1974. 107 pp.
Chow, V. T. Handbook of Applied Hydrylogy. New York. McGraw-Hill.
1964.
Christenson, R. K., H. S. league, A. C. Grifo, and W. L. Roller. The
Effect of High Environmental Temperature on the Boar. In: Ohio
Swine Research and Information Report-1972. Research Summary
61. Wooster. Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center.
1972.
Clark, C. E. Hog Waste Disposal by Lagooning. J. San. Eng. Div. Proc.
ASCE. 91(SA6): 1965.
Clark, R. C., C. B. Gilbertson and H. R. Duke. Quantity and quality
of beef feedyard runoff in the Great Plains. In: Proc. of the
3rd Int'l Symp. on Livestock Wastes. St. Josephs, Mich. Amer.
Soc. Agr. Eng. Proc.-275, April 1975. pp. 429-431.
Clark, R. N., A. D. Schneider and B. A. Stewart. Analysis of Runoff
From Southern Great Plains Feedlots. ARS Bushland, Tx.
ASAE Paper No. 74-4017. 1974.
Clawson, A. J. Animal Science Dept. (North Carolina State University).
Personal communication, 1974.
Collins, E. R., Jr., T. G. Ciravolo, D. L. Hallock, D. C. Martens,
H. R. Thomas, E. T. Kornegay. Effect of Anaerobic Swine Lagoons
on Groundwater Quality in High Water Table Soils. In: Proc.
of the 3rd Int'l Symp. on Livestock Wastes. St. Joseph, Mich.
Amer. Soc. Agr. Eng. Proc.-275, April 1975. pp. 366-368.
Collins, E. R., Jr., D. C. Martens and E. T. Kornegay. Effects of Swine
Lagoon Effluent Disposal on Soil-Plant-Runoff Quality. In: Live-
stock Research Report, Research Div. Report 163. Blacksburg,
Va. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. July
1975a. pp. 216-220.
146
-------
Converse, J. G. Odor Control and Degradation of Swine Manure with
Minimum Aeration. University of Illinois. Ph.D. thesis.
1970. 190 pp.
Converse, J. C., D. L. Day, J. T. Pfeffer, and B. A. Jones, Jr.
Aeration with ORP Control to Suppress Odors Emitted from Liquid
Swine Manure Systems. In: Proc International Symp. on Livestock
Waste. St. Joseph, Mich. Amer. Soc. of Agr. Eng. ASAE Proc-271
April 1971. pp. 267-271.
Corvino, C., B. Dunn, E. Tseng and J. D. McKenzie. Product Applications
of Treated Livestock Wastes. In: Proe. of the 3rd Int'l Symp.
on Livestock Wastes. St. Joseph, Mich. Amer. Soc. Agr. Eng.
Proc-275, April 1975, pp. 241-243.
Creger, C. R., F. A. Gardner and F. M. Farr. Broiler Litter Silage for
Fattening Beef Animals. Feedstuffs 45(3):25, 1973.
Dale, A. C., J. R. Ogilvie, A. C. Chang, M. P. Douglass, and J. A.
Lindley. Disposal of Dairy Cattle Wastes by Aerated Lagoons and
Irrigation. In: Animal Waste Management. Cornell University
Conference on Agricultural Waste Management. Syracuse, N. Y.
Jan. 1969. pp. 150-159.
Davis, R. E. Personal Communication. In: Kenner B. Fecal Streptoccocal
Densities: Quantification in Feces. Am. J. Public Health
50(10):1553-1559, 1969.
Davis, S., W. Fairbank, and H. Weisheit. Dairy Waste Ponds Effectively
Self-Sealing. Trans. ASAE 16(1):69-71, 1973.
Day, D. L., D. D. Jones, J. C. Converse, A. H. Jensen and E. L. Hansen.
Oxidation Ditch Treatment of Swine Wastes, a Summary Report.
Illinois University. ASAS Paper No. 69-924 (Presented at ASAE
meeting, December 1969) 16 pp.
Day, D. L., D. D. Jones, J. C. Converse, A. H. Jensen and E. L. Hansen.
Oxidation Ditch Treatment of Swine Wastes. Agricultural Engineering,
February: 71-73, 1971.
Day, D. L., D. D. Jones, A. C. Dale and D. Simons. Oxidation Ditches for
Livestock Wastes. In: Proc. of the 3rd Int'l Symp. on Livestock
Wastes. St. Joseph, Mich. Amer. Soc. Agr. Eng. Proc.-275,
April 1975. pp. 510-513.
147
-------
Day, D. L. and B. T. Harmon. Properties Related to Utilization.
In: Standardizing Properties and Analytical Methods Related to
Animal Waste Research, Willrich, T. L., J. R. Miner, and M. R.
Overcash (ed.). St. Joseph, Mich. Amer. Soc. Agr Eng 1975a.
PP. 48-59.
Diggs, B. G., B. Barker, Jr. and F. C. James. Value of Pig Feces in
Swine Finishing Rations. J. of Animal Science 24:291» 1965.
Dobson, S. H. Crop Science Department (North Carolina State University),
Personal Communication, 1975.
Dornbush, J. N. and J. M. Madden. Pollution Potential of Runoff from
Production Livestock Feeding Operations in South Dakota. South
Dakota State University, Brookings, S. D. Report No. A-025-SDAK.
1973.
Driggers, L. B., C. M. Stanislaw, C. R. Weathers, and J. R. Jones. North
Carolina Development Center. North Carolina Agricultural Extension
Service, Raleigh, N. C. Circular 551. North Carolina State
University. September 1973.
Driggers, L. B., C. M. Stanislaw, and C. R. Weathers. Breeding Facility
Design to Eliminate Effects of High Environmental Temperatures.
North Carolina State University. ASAE Paper No. 73-4511 (Presented
at Chicago, 111. 1973a).
Driggers, L. B. Ventilation of Swine Buildings. Biological and Agricul-
tural Engineering Department. Raleigh, North Carolina. Circular
581. North Carolina Agricultural Extension Service. July 1974.
15 PP.
Driggers, L. B., G, R. Baughman, M. R. Overcash, and F. J. Humenik.
Energy Aspects of Livestock Production and Waste Management.
World Review of Animal Production. Inpress 1976.
Duke, H. R. data referenced. In: Quantity and Quality of Beef Feedyard
Runoff in the Great Plains, by Clark, R. N., C. B. Gilbertson,
and H. R. Duke. In: Proc. of the 3rd Int'l Symp. on Livestock
Wastes. St. Joseph, Mich. Amer. Soc. Agr. Eng. Proc.-275.
April 1975. pp. 429-431.
Edwards, W. M. and J. L. McGuinness. Estimating Quantity and Quality of
Runoff from Eastern Beef Barnlots. In: Proc. of the 3rd Int'l
Symp. on Livestock Wastes. St. Josephs, Mich. Amer. Soc. Agr.
Eng. Proc.-275, April 1975. pp. 408-411.
148
-------
Eggum, B. D. and K. D. Christensen. Utilization by Rats of Proteins
in Pig Feces Relative to Barley and Fortified Casein Proteins.
Agric. Environ. 1:59, 1974.
Environmental Protection Agency. Development Document for Proposed
Effluent Limitations Guidelines and New Source Performance Standards
for the Feedlots Point Source Category. Office of Air and Water
Programs. Washington, D. C. August 1973. 302 pp.
Environmental Protection Agency. Recycling Municipal Sludges and
Effluents on Land. Washington, D. C. United States Library
of Congress. Catalog No. 73-88570. 1973a. 244 pp.
Evans, M. R., R. Hissett, D. F. Ellam, and S. Baines. Aerobic Treatment
of Piggery Waste Prior to Land Treatment. A case study. In:
Proc. of the 3rd Int'l Symp. on Livestock Wastes. St. Joseph,
Mich. Amer. Soc. Agr. Eng. Proc.-275, April 1975. pp. 556-559.
Fischer, J. R., D. M. Sievers and C. D. Fulhage. Settling Characteristics
of Swine Manure as Related to Digester Loading. In: Proc. of the
3rd Int'l Symp. on Livestock Wastes. St. Josephs, Mich. Amer.
Soc. Agr. Eng. Proc.-275, April 1975. pp. 456-458, 462.
Flegal, C. J., C. C. Sheppard and D. A. Dorn. The effects of Continuous
Recycling and Storage on Nutrient Qualtiy of Dehydrated Poultry
Waste (DPW). In: Proc. Cornell Agr. Waste Mgmt. Conf. Washington,
D. C. Graphics Mgmt. Corp. 1972. 295-300.
Fogg, C. E. Agricultural Waste Management Field Manual. Soil Conserva-
tion Service. Washington, D. C. U.S.D.A. August 1975.
Fong, W. Methane Production from Animal Wastes by Anaerobic Decomposition.
University of Manitoba. M. Sc. Thesis 1973.
Fontenot, J. P., A. N. Bhattacharya, C. L. Drake and W. H. McClure.
Value of Broiler Litter for Ruminants. In: Proc. National Symp.
on Animal Waste Mgmt. St. Joseph, Mich. Amer. Soc. Agr. Eng.
SP-0366, May 1966. pp. 105-108.
Foree, G. R. and R. A. O'Dell. Farm Waste Disposal Field Studies
Utilizing a Modified Pasveer Ditch, Settling Tank, Lagoon System.
In: Proc. Cornell Agr. Waste Management Conf. Ithaca, N. Y.
Cornell University. 1969. pp. 185-192.
149
-------
Frus, J. D., T. D. Hazen, and J. R. Miner. Chemical Oxygen Demand as
a Numerical Measure of Odor Level. ASAE Paper No. 69-929.
(Presented at Chicago, Dec. 1969). 17 pp.
Geldreich, E. E., R. H. Bordner, C. B. Hugg, H. F. Clark and P. W.
Kabler. Type Distribution of Coliform Bacteria in Feces of Warm-
Blooded Animals. JWPCF 34(2):295-301, 1962.
Gilbertson, C. B., T. M. McCalla, J..R. Ellis, 0. E. Crass, and W. R.
Woods. The Effect of Animal Density and Surface Slope on
Characteristics of Runoff Solid Waste and Nitrate Movement on
Unpaved Beef Feedlots. Agr. Eng. Dept. Lincoln, Neb. Pub.
SB508, University of Nebraska Agr. Exp. Station. 1970. 23 pp.
Gilbertson, C. B., T. M. McCalla, J. R. Ellis and W. R. Woods.
Characteristics of Manure Accumulations Removed from Outdoor,
Unpaved Beef Cattle Feedlots. In: Proc. Int'l Symp. on
Livestock Waste. St. Joseph, Mich. Amer. Soc. Agr. Eng.
ASAE Proc.-271. April 1971. pp. 56-59.
Gilbertson, C. B., J. A. Nienaber, T. M. McCalla, J. R. Ellis and
W. R. Woods. Beef Cattle Feedlot Runoff, Solids Transport,
and Settling Characteristics. Trans. ASAE 15(6):1132-1134. 1972.
Glerum, J. C., G. Klomp and H. R. Poelma. The Separation of Solid and
Liquid Parts of Pig Slurry. In: Proc. Int'l Symp. on Livestock
Waste. St. Joseph, Mich. Amer. Soc. Agr. Eng. ASAE Proc.-271.
April 1971. pp. 345-347.
Gouwens, D. W. Influence of Dietary Proteins and Fiber on Fecal
Amino Acid Excretion of Swine. University of Illinois. M. S.
thesis. 1960.
Gramms, L. C., L. B. Polkowski and S. A. Witzel. Anaerobic Digestion
of Farm Animal Wastes (dairy bull, swine and poultry). Trans.
ASAE 14:7-11, 1971.
Grant, F. A. Liquid Composting of Dairy Manure. In: Proc. of 3rd
Int'l Symp. on Livestock Wastes. St. Joseph, Mich. Amer.
Soc. Agr. Eng. Proc.-275, April 1975. pp. 497-500", 505.
Guidi, G. Unpublished data. In: Proc. of Int'l Symp. on Livestock
Wastes. St. Joseph, Mich. Amer. Soc. Agr. Eng. ASAE Proc.-271.
April 1971. pp. 201.
150
-------
Harmon, B. G., D. Day, D. H. Baker and A. H. Jensen. Oxidation Ditch
Mixed Liquor as a Source of Nutrients. J. of Animal Science
37:280, 1973.
Harper, S. M. and D. Seckler. Engineering and Economic Overview of
Alternative Livestock Waste Utilization Techniques. In: Proc.
3rd Int'l. Symp. on Livestock Wastes. St. Joseph, Mich.
Amer. Soc. Agr. Eng. Proc.-275, April 1975. pp. 22-25.'
Hart, S. A. and M. E. Turner. Lagoons for Livestock Manure, JWPCF
37(11):1578-1596, 1965.
Hegg, R. 0. Agricultural Engineering Department (Clemson University)
personal communication, 1975.
Hepherd, R. 0., and L. E. Osborne. A Pig Slurry Treatment System Based
on Separation Before Aerobic Treatment and Sludge De-watering.
In: Proc. of the 3rd Int'l Symp. on Livestock Wastes. St. Joseph,
Mich. Amer. Soc. Agr. Eng. Proc.-275, April 1975. pp. 186-189.
Hermanson, R. E., T. E. Hazen, and H. P. Johnson. A Laboratory Inves-
tigation of the Activated Sludge Stabilization of Swine Wastes.
Iowa State University ASAE Paper No. 67-929. (Presented at
Chicago, 111. December 1967) 36 pp.
Hermanson, R. E. and J. L. Kaon. Management of :Swine Waste by a
Lagoon Effluent. Auburn University. ASAE Paper No. 72-953.
(Presented at ASAE Meeting, December 1972, Chicago) 24 pp.
Hobson, P. N. and B. G. Shaw. The Anaerobic Digestion of Waste from
an Intensive Pig Unit. Water Research 7:437-449, 1973.
Holland, M. R., E. T. Kornegay and J. D. Hedges. Nutritive Value of
Swine Feces for Swine. In: Livestock Research Report, Research
Div. Report 163. Blacksburg, VA. Virginia Polytechnic Institute
and State University. July 1975. pp. 202-207.
Horton, M. L., J. L. Halbeisen, J. L. Wiersma, A. C. Dittman, and
R. M. Luther. Land Disposal of Beef Wastes: Climate, Rates,
Salinity, and Soil. In: Proc. of the 3rd Int'l Symp on Livestock
Wastes. St. Joseph, Mich. Amer. Soc. Agr. Eng. Proc.-275,
April 1975. pp. 258-260.
151
-------
Howell, E. S., F. J. Humenik, and M. R. Overcash. Unaerated Swine
Waste Lagoon Response to Loading Intensity and Frequency. ASAE
Paper No. 74-4514 (Presented at ASAE Meeting, Chicago, 111,,
Dec. 1974).
Howell, E. S., Jr. Swine Lagoon Laboratory and Pilot Scale Investiga-
tions, North Carolina State University. Ph.D. thesis in preparation.
Humenik, F. J. Swine Waste Characterization and Evaluation of Animal
Waste Treatment Alternatives. Raleigh, N. C. Water Resources
Research Institute of the University of North Carolina Report
No. 61, June 1972. 152 pp.
Humenik, F. J., R. E. Sneed, M. R. Overcash, J. C. Barker and G. D.
Wetherill. Total Waste Management for a Large Swine Prodtfttion
Facility. In: Proc. of the 3rd Int'l Symp. on Livestock Wast'es.
St. Joseph, Mich. Amer. Soc. Agr. Eng. Proc.-275, April 1975.
pp. 168-171.
Humenik, F. J., M. R. Overcash, T. Miller. Surface Aeration: Design
and Performance for Lagoons. In: Proc. of the 3rd Int'l Symp.
on Livestock Wastes. St. Joseph, Mich. Amer. Soc. Agr. Eng.
Proc.-275. April 1975. pp 568-571. 1975a.
Humenik, F. J. and M. R. Overcash. Discussion of Analyzing Physical
and Chemical Properties of Liquid Wastes. In: Standardizing
Properties and Analytical Methods Related to Animal Waste Research,
Willrich, T. L., J. R. Miner, and M. R. Overcash (ed.). St.
Joseph, Mich. Amer. Soc. Agr. Eng., 1975a. pp. 167-183.
Humenik, F. J. and M. R. Overcash. Design Criteria for Swine Waste
Treatment Systems. Environmental Protection Agency, Corvallis,
Washington. 1976. 291 pp.
Irgens, R. L., and D. L. Day. Laboratory Studies of Anaerobic Stabiliza-
tion of Swine Wastes. Farm Structures Report, Urbana, 111.
University of Illinois. January, 1965.
Irgens, R. L. and D. L. Day. Laboratory Studies of Anaerobic Stabiliza-
tion of Swine Wastes. J. Agr. Eng. Research 11(1):1-10. 1966.
Irgens, R. L. and D. L. Day. Laboratory Studies of Anaerobic Treatment
of Swine Wastes. In: Proc. of the 1969 Cornell Agricultural
Waste Management Concerence, Ithaca, N. Y. College of Agricultural
and Life Sciences, Cornell University. 1969. pp. 58-60.
152
-------
Jeffrey, E. A., W. C. Blackman, Jr. and R. L. Ricketts. Aerobic and
Anaerobic Digestion Characteristics of Livestock Wastes. Univ.
of Missouri Eng. Expt. Station Bull. 57. 1963. IDS pp'.
Jeffrey, E. A., W. C. Blackman and R. Ricketts. Treatment of Livestock
Wastes - a Laboratory Study. Trans. ASAE 8:113-117, 1965.
Jett, S. C., I. J. Ross, H. E. Hamilton and V. W. Hays. Size Distribution
and Nutritional Value of Swine Manure Separates. ASAE Paper No.
73-4502. (Presented at Chicago, 111., Dec. 11-14, 1973) 11 pp.
Jones, D. D., D. L. Day and J. C. Converse. Field Tests of Oxidation
Ditches in Confinement Swine Buildings. In: Proc. Cornell Agr.
Waste Management Conf. Ithaca, N, Y. Cornell University, 1969.
pp. 160-171.
Jones, J. R. Estimated Swine Situation Reports by County Extension
Workers. Animal Science Department. Raleigh, North Carolina.
North Carolina Agricultural Extension Service. 1972.
Jones, P. H. and N. K. Patni. An Oxidation Ditch-Lagoon System in
Southern Ontario for Handling Swine Wastes. University of
Toronto Environmental Sciences and Engineering. Toronto, Ont.
Publ. EG-8, May 1972. 149 pp.
Kesler, R. P. and R. A. Hinton. An Economic Evaluation of Liquid
Manure Disposal from Confinement Finishing Hogs. Illinois Agr.
Expt. Sta., Urbana, 111. Bulletin 722, University of Illinois,
1966. 28 pp.
Kesler, R. P,. Economic Evaluation on Liquid-Manure Disposal from
Confinement Finishing of hogs. In: Proc. Nat'l Symp. on Animal
Waste Management. St. Joseph, Mich. Amer. Soc. Agr. Eng. SP-0366
May 1966, 122-126.
Koch, B. A., R. H. Hines, G. L. Allee, and R. T. Lyper. KSU Aerobic
Swine Waste Handling Six Years of Problems and Progress. In:
Proc. of the 3rd Int'l Symp. on Livestock Wastes. St. Joseph,
Mich. Amer. Soc. Agr. Eng. Proc.-275, April 1975. pp. 181-183, 195.
Koelliker, J. K., J. R. Miner, T. E. Hagen, H. L. Person, and R. J.
Smith. Automated Hydraulic Waste-Handling System for a 700-Head
Swine Facility Using Recirculated Water. In: Proc. of the 1972
Cornell Agricultural Waste Management Conference. Ithaca, N. Y.
College of Agricultural and Life Sciences, Cornell University.
1972. pp. 249-261.
153
-------
Koelliker, J. K. and J. R. Miner. Desorption of Ammonia from Anaerobic
Lagoons. Trans. ASAE 16:148-151, 1973.
Koon, J. L., R. E. Hermanson, T. A. McCaskey and A. E. Hiltbold.
Experiences with Anaerobic Swine Lagoons. (Presented at Southeast
Regional ASAE meeting, February 1-4, 1970). 13 p.
Kornegay, E. T., J. D. Hedges, D. C. Martens and C. Y. Kramer.
Effect on Soil and Plant Mineral Levels Following Three Annual
Applications of Swine Manures of Different Copper Contents. In:
Livestock Research Report, Research Div. Report 163. Blacksburg,
Va. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. July
1975. pp. 212-215.
Kreis, R. D., M. R. Scalf and J. F. McNabb. Characteristics of Rainfall
Runoff from a Beef Cattle Feedlot. Environmental Protection Agency,
Ada, Oklahoma. EPA-R2-72-061. 1972.
Krieger, D. J., J. H. Bond, and C. L. Earth. Survival of Salmonellae,
Total Coliform, and Fecal Coliform in Swine Waste Lagoon Effluents.
In: Proc. of the 3rd Int'l Symp. on Livestock Wastes. St.
Joseph, Mich. Amer. Soc. Agr. Eng. Proc.-275, April 1975.
pp 11-14.
Kroeker, E. S. and R. C. Loehr. A Design Approach for the Use of An
Oxidation Ditch for Livestock Waste Treatment. In: Proc. of the
3rd Int'l Symp. on Livestock Wastes. St. Joseph, Mich. Amer.
Soc. Agr. Eng. Proc.-275, April 1975. pp. 517-521.
Laak, R. Cattle, Swine and Chicken Manure Challenges Waste Disposal
Methods. Water Sewage Works:134-138, April 1970.
Laak, R., C. C. Shu, and J. J. Kolega. Poultry Manure Disposal at
Conventional Sewage Treatment Plants. University of Connecticut.
(Presented at ASAE meeting, Stillwater, Oklahoma, June 1974).
Lane, T. H. Agronomic Considerations. In: Manure Management
Seminar Notes. Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food. Feb.
9, 26, March 5, 1975.
Lauer, D. A. Limitations of Animal Waste Replacement for Inorganic
Fertilizers. In: Energy, Agriculture, and Waste Management.
Jewell, W. J. (ed.) Ann Arbor, Mich. An Arbor Science, 1975.
Linn, A. Whipping the Manure Problem. The Farm Quarterly: 10-11, July
1972.
154
-------
Lipper, R. I. Design for Feedlot Waste Management-History and Character-
istics. Kansas State University (Presented at seminar on design
for feedlot waste management, Topeka, Kansas. Jan. 23, 1969).
Little, F. J. Agriculture and the Prevention of River Pollution as
Experimented in the West of Scotland. J. Proc Inst Sewage
Purif.:452-454, 1966.
Locke, E. T. Lakeland's Grass Filter Removes Most BOD, Suspended Solids-
But Not Enough Nutrients. Overflow. May:8-10, 1972.
Loehr, R. C. Pollution Implications of Animal Wastes-a Forward Oriented
Review. Water Pollution Control Research Series. Washington,
D. C. 13040-07168. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency.
July 1969. 148 pp.
Loehr, R. C., T. B. S. Prakasam, E. G. Srinath, J. D. Joo. Development
and Demonstration of Nutrient Removal from Animal Wastes.
Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, D. C. EPA-R2-73-
095. January 1973. 340 pp.
Loehr, R. C. Characteristics and Comparative Magnitude of Non-Point
Sources. JWPCF 46:1849-1873, 1974.
Loehr, R. C. Agricultural Waste Management. New York. Academic
Press, 1974a. 576 pp.
Loynachan, T. E. M. S. Thesis, Iowa State University, 1972.
Lynn, H. P. The Effects of Loading Rate on the Design and Operation
of Anaerobic Swine Lagoons. Clemson University. M. S. Thesis,
1968.
McCalla, T. M., J. R. Ellis, C. B. Gilbertson and J. R. Woods. Chemical
Studies of Solids, Runoff, Soil Profile and Groundwater from Beef
Cattle Feedlots at Mead, Nebraska. In: Proc. Cornell Agr. Waste
Management Conf. Washington, D. C. Graphics Mgmt. Corp. 1972.
pp 385-405.
McCaskey, T. A., G. H. Rollins and J. A. Little. Water pollution by
Dairy Farm Wastes as Related to Method of Waste Disposal. Water
Resources Research Institute. Auburn, Ala. Bull. 18 Auburn
University. October 1973. 85 pp.
McCoy, E. Removal of Pollution Bacteria from Animal Wastes by Soil
Percolation. ASAE Paper No. 69-430. {Presented at Lafayette,
Ind. June, 1969).
155
-------
McJunkin, F. E. and P. A. Vesilind (ed.). Ultimate Disposal of Water-
waters and Their Residuals. Raleigh, N. C. Water Resources
Research Institute of the University of North Carolina, 1973.
315 pp.
McKinney, R. E. and R. Bella. Water Quality Changes in Confined Hog
Waste Treatment. Kansas Water Resources Research Institute.
Manhatten, Kansas. Report Number 24. December 1967. 88 pp.
Madden, J. M. and J. N. Dornbush. Measurement of Runoff and Runoff
Carried Waste from Commercial Feedlots. In: Proc. Int'l Symp.
on Livestock Waste. St. Joseph, Mich. Amer. Soc. Agr. Eng.
ASAE Proc.-275, April 1971. pp 44-47.
Maddex, R. L., T. L. Loudon, L. R. Prewitt, and C. H. Shubert.
Evaluation of Dairy, Beef, and Swine Waste Handling Systems.
In Proc. of the 3rd Int'l Symp. on Livestock Wastes. St. Joseph,
Mich. Amer. Soc. Agr. Eng. Proc.-275, April 1975. pp. 104-106,
111.
Maine Guidelines for Manure and Manure Sludge Disposal on Land. Life
Sciences and Agricultural Experiment Station. Orono, Me.
Misc. Report 142. July 1972. 21 pp.
Manges, H. L., L. A. Schmid and L. S. Murphy. Land Disposal of Cattle
Feedlot Water. In: Proc, Int'l Symp. on Livestock Waste.
St. Joseph, Mich. Amer. Soc. of Agr. Eng. ASAE Proc.-271.
April 1971. pp 62-65.
Mather, J. R. An Evaluation of Cannery Waste Disposal by Overland
Flow Spray Irrigation. Campbell Soup Company, Paris Plant.
Publications in Climatology XX11(2):l-73, 1969.
Merkel, J. A., T. E. Hazen, and J. R. Miner. Identification of Gases
in a Confinement Swine Building Atmosphere. Trans. ASAE 12(3):
310-313, 1969.
Meyer, R. C., F. C. Hinds, H. R. Isaacson, and T. D. Hinesly. Porcine
Enterovirus Survival and Anaerobic Sludge Digestion. In: Proc.
of 3rd Int'l Symp. on Livestock Waste. St. Joseph, Mich. Amer.
Soc. of Agr. Eng. ASAE Proc.-271. April 1971. pp. 183-184.
Midwest Plan Service. Handling Swine Manure. Ames, Iowa. AED-1 and
AED-8. Midwest Plan Service, University of Iowa, 1966.
156
-------
Midwest Plan Service. Handling Swine Manure. Ames, Iowa. Iowa State
University. AED-11. 1969. 4 pp.
Midwest Plan Service. Swine Handbook-Housing and Equipment. Ames, Iowa.
Iowa State University. MWPS-8. July 1972. 84 pp.
Midwest Plan Service. Livestock Waste Management with Pollution
Control. Ames, Iowa. Iowa State University. MWPS-19,
June 1975. 89 p.
Midwest Plan Service. Livestock Waste Facilities Handbook. Ames,
Iowa. Iowa State University. MWPS-18. July 1975a. 95 pp.
Miller, T. D. Surface Aeration of Swine Waste Lagoons. North Carolina
State University. MS thesis. 1976.
Miner, J. R., L. R. Fina, J. W. Funk, R. I. Lipper, and G. H. Larson.
Storm-Water Runoff from Cattle Feedlots. In: Proc. Nat'l
Symp. on Animal Waste Mgmt. St. Joseph, Mich. Amer. Soc. Agr.
Eng. Pub. SP-0366. pp. 23-27. 1966.
Miner, J. R. and T. E. Hazen. Ammonia and Amines: Components of Swine
Building Odor, Iowa State University. ASAE Paper No. 68-910.
(Presented at ASAE Meeting, Chicago, December 1968).
Miner, J. R. and T. L. Willrich. Livestock Operations and Field-
Spray Manure as Sources of Pollutants. In: Agricultural
Practices and Water Quality. Iowa State University. Press,
Ames, Iowa pp. 231-240. 1970.
Miner, J. R. and W. E. Verley. Application of the Rotating Flighted
Cylinder to Livestock Waste Management. In: Proc. of 3rd Int'l
Symp. on Livestock Wastes. St. Joseph, Mich. Amer..Soc. Agr.
Eng. Proc.-275. April 1975b. pp 452-455.
Moore, J. A. Managing Livestock to Control Pollution. In: Water
Pollution by Nutrient Sources, Effects and Control. Minneapolis,
Minn. Water Resources Research Center, University of Minnesota,
1969.
Moore, J. A., M. R. Overcash, and T. B. S. Prakasam. Animal Waste Sample
Preparation and Preservation. In: Standardizing Properties and
Analytical Methods Related to Animal Waste Research, Willrich, T.
L., J. R. Miner, and M. R. Overcash (ed.). St. Joseph, Mich.
Amer. Soc. Agr. Eng., 1975. pp. 297-333.
157
-------
Morris, W. H. W. and T. W. Robinson. The Economics of Disposal of Hog
Manure in Confinement Systems. ASAE Paper No. 61-422. (Presented
at Amer. Soc. Agr. Eng. Winter Meeting, Chicago, 111. Dec. 1961).
20 pp.
Morris, W. H. M. Economics of Waste Disposal from Confinement Livestock.
In: Proc. Int'l Symp, on Livestock Waste. St. Joseph, Mich.
Amer. Soc. of Agr. Eng. ASAE Proc.-271. April 1971. pp. 195-
196.
Morrison, F. B. Feeds and Feeding. 22nd Edition. Clinton, Iowa,
The Morrison Publishing Co., 1959.
Mount, L. E. Climatic Physiology of the Pig. Monograph of the Physio-
logical Society. No. 18, London 271 pp. 1968.
Muehling, A. J. Swine Housing and Waste Management. A research review.
Dept. of Agricultural Engineering. Urbana-Champaign, 111.
AEnd-873. University of Illinois. August 1969. 91 pp.
Muehling, A. J. Swine Waste Management. In: Proc. Nat'l Symp.
on Animal Waste Management. Washington, D. C., U. S. Dept.
of Agriculture, Sept. 1971. 205 pp.
Mulligan, T. J. and J. C. Hesler. Treatment and Disposal of Swine
Wastes. In: Proc. Cornell Agr. Waste Mgmt. Conf., Washington,
D. C. Graphics Mgmt. Corp. 1972. pp. 517-536.
Mutlak, S. M., A. D. McKelvie, and K. Robinson. The Yield Response
of Grass to Aerobically Stabilized Swine Wastes. In: Proc. of
the 3rd Int'l Symp. on Livestock Wastes. St. Joseph, Mich.
Amer. Soc. Agr. Eng. Proc.-275, April 1975. pp. 274-276, 281.
Myer, E. A. and R. M. Butler. Effects of Hydrologic Regime on Nutrient
Removal from Wastewater Using Grass Filtration for Final Treatment.
Dept. of Agricultural Engineering. Pennsylvania State University.
Number 88. Institute for Research on Land and Water Resources.
Dec. 1974. 65 pp.
National Pork Producers Council. Pork Producers Guidelines for Use to
Preserve Environmental Quality. Des Moines, Iowa 1972. 4 pp.
Negulescu, C. A. L. Two-stage Activated Sludge Treatment of Effluent From
Industrial Hog Breeding Farms. In: Proc. of the 3rd Int'l
Symp. on Livestock Wastes. St. Joseph, Mich. Amer. Soc. Agr.
Eng. Proc-275, April 1975, pp 184-185.
158
-------
Nelson, D. M. and R. C. Loehr. Conservation of Energy and Mineral
Resources in Waste Through Pyrolysis. In: Energy, Agriculture
and Waste Management. Proc. 1975. Cornell Agricultural Waste
Management Conference. W. J. Jewell, (ed.). Ann Arbor, Mich.
Ann Arbor Science. October 1975. pp. 495-514.
Ngoddy, P. 0., J. P. Harper, R. K. Collins, G. D. Wells, and F. G.
Heider. Closed System Waste Management for Livestock. Water
Pollution Control Research Series. Washington, D. C. 13040
DKP 06/71. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. June 1971.
110 pp.
Nordstedt, R. A., L. B. Baldwin, and C. C. Hortenstine. Multistage
Lagoon Systems for Treatment of Dairy Farm Waste. In: Proc.
Int'l Symp. on Livestock Waste. St. Joseph, Mich. Amer.
Soc. of Agr. Eng. ASAE Proc.-271. April 1971. pp. 77-80.
North Carolina Agricultural Extension Service. Plans for Farm Service
Buildings and Equipment. Raleigh, N. C. North Carolina State
University. 1974.
Oatway, E. T., D. D. Schutle and L. Shwaluk. Field Evaluation of a
Settling Chamber for Swine Wastes. In: Proc. of the 3rd Int'l
Symp. on Livestock Wastes. St. Joseph, Mich. Amer. Soc. Agr.
Eng. Proc.-275, April 1975, pp. 402-404, 411.
Okey, R. W. and S. Balakrishman. The Economics of Swine Waste Disposal.
In: Proc. International Symposium on Livestock Waste. St.
Joseph, Mich. Amer. Soc. of Agr. ASAE Proc.-271. April 1971.
pp. 199-203.
Orr, D. E. Recycling Dried Waste to Finishing Pigs. Department of
Animal Husbandry. Lansing, Mich. AH-SW-7115, Report No. 148.
Michigan State University. 1971. pp. 63-68.
Overcash, M. R. Biological and Agricultural Eng. Dept. (North Carolina
State University) unpublished Clayton Data. 1972-1976.
Overcash, M. R. Biological and Agricultural Eng. Dept. (North Carolina
State University) unpublished Unit II Data. 1973-1976.
Overcash, M. R. and P. W. Westerman. Swine Waste Rainfall Runoff
Studies. Environmental Protection Agency Project-Interim Report.
1974.
159
-------
Overcash, M. R., F. J. Humenik and L. B. Driggers. Swine Production
and Waste Management: State-of-the-Art. In: Proc. of the 3rd
Int'l Symp. on Livestock Wastes. St. Josephs, Mich. Amer.
Soc. Agr. Eng. Proc.-275. April 1975. pp. 154-160.
Overcash, M. R., A. G. Hashimoto, D. L. Redell, and D. L. Day.
Evaluation of Chemical Analyses for Animal Wastes. In: Standardizing
Properties and Analytical Methods Related to Animal Waste Research,
St. Joseph, Mich. Amer. Soc. Agr. Eng., 1975a. pp. 333-355.
Overcash, M. R. Technologies for Utilizing Waste. North Carolina State
University (presented at Soil Conservation Society of America.
San Antonio, August 10-12, 1975) 13 pp. 1975b.
Overcash, M. R., F. J. Humenik, J. C. Barker, and P. W. Westerman.
Management of Lagoons for Odor Control. North Carolina State
University ASAE Paper No. 76-4017 (Presented at ASAE meeting,
Lincoln, Neb. June 1976).
Overcash, M. R., Covill, D., P. W. Westerman and G. W. Gilliam. Overland
Flow System for Poultry Waste. Biological and Agricultural
Engineering. Raleigh. N. C. Report No. Water Resources Research
Institute of the University of North Carolina. 1976a.
Overcash, M. R., J. W. Gilliam, F. J. Humenik, and P. W. Westerman.
Lagoon Pretreatment: Selected Heavy Metal and Cation Removals.
Submitted to JWPCF. 1976b.
Pearce, G, R. The Inclusion of Pig Manure in Ruminant Diets. In:
Proc. of the 3rd Int'l Symp, on Livestock Wastes. St. Josephs,
Mich. Amer. Soc. Agr. Eng. Proc.-275, April 1975. pp. 218-219, 221.
Perry, R. H. and C. H. Chilton. Chemical Engineers' Handbook Edition
5. New York, McGraw-Hill, 1973. pp. 3-145-147.
Phillips, R. L. and M. R. Overcash. Dairy Feedlot Hydrology-Southeast.
North Carolina State University ASAE Paper No. 76-2087 (Presented
at ASAE meeting, Lincoln, Neb. June 1976).
Poelma, H. R. The Biological Breadkown of Pig Urine. Institute for
Farm Buildings. Wageningen, Netherlands. Bulletin No. 18. 1966.
Pontin, R. A. and S. H. Baxter. Wastes From Pig Production Units.
Water Poll. Control 67:632-638, 1968).
160
-------
Powers, W. L., G. W. Wallingford, L. S. Murphy, D. A. Whitney, H. L.
Manges, and H. E. Jones. Guidelines for Applying Beef Feedlot
Manure to Fields. Dept. of Agronomy. Manhatten, Kansas. Report
No. 1413, May 1974. 11 pp. F
Powers, W. L., G. W. Wallingford, L. S. Murphy. Research Status on
Effects of Land Application of Animal Wastes. Environmental
Protection Agency. Corvallis, Oregon. EPA-660/2-75-010. June
1975. 95 pp.
Prakasam, T. B. S., R. C. Loehr, P. Y. Yang, T. W. Scott and T. W.
Bateman. Design Parameters for Animal Waste Treatment Systems.
Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, D. C. EPA-660/2-74-063,
1974.
Prakasam, T. B. S., Y. D. Joo, E. G. Srinath, and R. C. Loehr. Nitrogen
Removal from a Concentrated Waste by Nitrification and Denitrifi-
cation. Cornell University (Presented at 29th Annual Purdue
Industrial Waste Conf. West Lafayette, Ind. May 1974a) 25 pp.
Prakasam, T. B. S., E. G. Srinath, P. Y. Yang, and R. C. Loehr.
Evaluation of Methods for the Analysis of Physical, Chemical,
and Biochemical Properties of Poultry. In: Standardizing
Properties and Analytical Methods Related to Animal Waste Research,
Willrich, T. L., J. R. Miner, and M. R. Overcash (ed.). St. Joseph,
Mich. Amer. Soc. Agr. Eng., 1975, pp. 114-167.
Pratt, G. L., A. W. Wieczorek, R. W. Schottman and M. L. Buchanan.
Evaporation of Water from Holding Ponds. In: Proc. of the
3rd Int'l Symp. on Livestock Wastes. St. Joseph, Mich.
Amer. Soc Agr. Eng. Proc.-275, April 1975. pp. 391-394.
Ramsey, R. H. Livestock and the Environment. Environmental Protection
Agency. Washington, D. C. EPA-660/2-74-024. April 1974. 357 pp.
Reddell, D. L. and G. G. Wise. Water Quality of Storm Runoff from a
Texas Beef Feedlot. Agricultural Engineering Texas Agr. Expt.
Sta. College Station., Texas PR-3224, 1974.
Reddell, D. L., and J. I. Sewell, C. B. Gilbertson, and H. C. Zindel.
Sampling of Liquid and Solid Animal Wastes. In: Standardizing
Properties and Analytical Methods Related Animal Waste Research,
Willrich, T. L., J. R. Miner, and M. R. Overcash (ed.). St.
Joseph, Mich. Amer. Soc. Agr. Eng., 1975. pp. 258-282.
161
-------
Reddell, D. L. and J. M. Sweeten. Evaluation of Odor Intensities at
Livestock Feeding Operations in Texas. In: Proc. of the 3rd
Int'l Symp. on Livestock Wastes. St. Joseph, Mich. Amer. Soc.
Agr. Eng. Proc-275, April 1975a. pp. 358-361.
Reed, S. C. Wastewater Management by Disposal on the Land. Hanover,
N. H. Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory. May
1972. Page 5.
Robbins, J. W. D., D. H. Howells and G. J. Kriz. Role of Animal Wastes
in Agricultural Land Runoff. Water Pollution Control Research
Series. Washington, D. C. Report 13020 DGX 08/71. August 1971.
114 pp.
Robbins, J. W. D., D. H. Howells and G. J. Kriz. Stream Pollution from
Animal Production Units. JWPCF 44(8):1536-1544. 1972.
Robinson, K., J. R. Saxion and S. H. Baxter. Microbiological Aspects of
Aerobically Treated Swine Wastes. In: Proc. National Symposium
on Animal Waste Management. St. Joseph, Mich. Amer. Soc. Agr.
Eng. SP-0366, May 1966. pp. 225-228.
Ross, D. S., R. A. Aldrich, D. E. Younkin, G. W. Sherritt, and J. A.
McCurdy. Exhause System for Underfloor Liquid Manure Pits.
In: Proc. of the 3rd Int'l Symp. on Livestock Waste. St. Joseph,
Mich. Amer. So. Agr. Eng. Proc.-275. April 1975. pp. 336-368.
Scheltinga, H. M. J. Aerobic Purification of Farm Wastes, J. Proc.
Inst. Sewage Purification, 585-588, 1966.
Schmid, L. A. and R. I. Lipper. Swine Waste Characterization and
Anaerobic Digestion. In: Proc of the 1969 Cornell Agricultural
Waste Management Conferences. Ithaca, N. Y. College of Agricul-
tural and Life Sciences, Cornell University. 1969. pp. 50-57.
Scholz, H. G. Systems for the Dehydration of Livestock Wastes, a
Technical and Economical Review. In: Proc. International Symp.
on Livestock Waste. St. Joseph, Mich. Amer. Soc. of Agr. Eng.
ASAE Proc.-271. April 1971. pp. 27-29.
Sewell, J. I. and J. M. Alphin. Effects of Agricultural Land Use on
the Quality of Surface Runoff. Univ. of Tenn. (Presented at S.E.
Region ASAE, Richmond, VA. Feb. 14, 1972). 8 pp.
162
-------
Sewell, J. I. and J. R. Overton. Liquid Waste Management at a Slatted
Floor Swine Barn. Tenn. Farm and Home Science: 22-25, July-
September, 1973.
Sewell, J. I., J. A. Mullins, and H. 0. Vaigneur. Dairy Lagoon System
and Groundwater Quality. In: Proc. of the 3rd Int'l Symp.
on Livestock Wastes. St. Joseph, Mich. Amer. Soc. Agr. Eng.
Proc.-275, April 1975. p. 286-288.
Shadduck, G. and J. A. Moore. The Anaerobic Digestion of Livestock
Wastes to Produce Methane. Agricultural Engineering, St. Paul,
Minnesota. University of Minnesota. 1975. 103 pp.
Shutt, J. W., R. K. White, E. P. Taiganides and C. R. Mote. Evaluation
of Solids Separation Devices. In: Proc. of 3rd Int'l Symp. on
Livestock Wastes. St. Joseph, Mich. Amer. Soc. Agr. Eng.
Proc.-275, April 1975. pp. 463-467.
Shuyler, L. R., D. M. Farmer, R. D. Kreis, and M. E. Hula. Environmental
Protecting Concepts of Beef Cattle Feedlot Wastes Management.
Environmental Protection Agency, Ada, Oklahoma, July 1973.
Sievers, D. M., G. B. Garner, and E. E. Pickett. A Lagoon - Grass
Terrace System to Treat Swine Wastes. In: Proc. of the 3rd
Int'l Symp. on Livestock Wastes. St. Joseph, Mich. Amer. Soc.
Agr. Eng. Proc.-275, April 1975. pp. 541-543, 548.
Smith, R. E. Agricultural Engineering Department (University of
Georgia), Personal Communication, 1975.
Smith, R. J., T. E. Hazen, and J. R. Miner. Manure Management in
a 700-Head Swine Finishing Building; Two approaches Using Renovated
Wastewater. In: Proc. Int'l Symp. on Livestock Waste. St.
Joseph, Mich. Amer. Soc. of Agr. Eng. ASAE Proc.-271. April
1971. pp. 149-154.
Smith, R. J. The Anaerobic Digestion of Livestock Wastes and the
Prospects for Methane Production. (Presented at Midwest Livestock
Waste Management Conference. Nov. 27-28, 1973) 30 pp.
Soil Conservation Service. Interim Specifications-Disposal Lagoons
U. S. Department of Agriculture. Washington, D. C. Advisory
ENG-5. 1970.
Spillman, C. K. Characteristics and Anaerobic Digestion of Swine
Wastes. University of Illinois, M.S. thesis. 1960. 54 pp.
163
-------
Spray, R. A. and T. C. Peele. Nitrogen Levels Under a Swine Feedlot
in South Carolina. Clemson University ASAE Paper No. 74-4534.
(Presented at Chicago, 111, Dec. 10-13, 1974). 18 pp.
Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater. 13th
Edition. New York American Public Health Association. 1971. 354 pp.
Stanislaw, C. M., C. R. Weathers, and D. G. Spruill. 1974 Production
and Financial Summary-Swine Development Center. North Carolina
Agricultural Extension Service, Raleigh, N. C. Misc. Extension
Publication No. 103. North Carolina State University, April 1975.
Stevens, T. G. and G. G. Dunn. Grass Filtration-Pond Stabilization
of Canning Waste, a Two-Step Process. In: 16th Ontario Industrial
Waste Conference Proc. Toronto, Ontario. Ontario Water Resources
Commission. June, 1969. P. 161-175.
Stevenson, R. Personal Communication. In: Manure Management Seminar
Notes. Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food. Feb. 9, 26,
March 5, 1975. Ontario, p. c-6.
Stevermer, Disagree about value of manure. National Hog Farmer:
Editorials Page, December 1974.
Stewart, B. A. and B. Meek. Soluble Salt Considerations with Waste
Application. In: Soils for Management and Utilization of
Organic Wastes and Wastewaters. Madison, Wisconsin. Soil
Science of America, In Press, 1976.
Stombaugh, D. P. and R. K. White. Aerobic Composting-New Built-Up
Bed Technique. In: Proc. of 3rd Int'l Symp. on Livestock
Wastes. St. Joseph, Mich. Amer. Soc. Agr. Eng. Proc.-275.
April 1975. pp. 485-489.
Swanson, N. P., L. N. Mielke, J. C. Lorimor, T. M. McCalla and J. R.
Ellis. Transport of Pollutants from Sloping Cattle Feedlots as
Affected by Rainfall Intensity, Duration, and Recurrence. In:
Proc. International Symposium on Livestock Waste. St. Joseph,
Mich. Amer. Soc. of Agr. Eng. ASAE Proc.-271.
April 1971. pp. 51-55.
Swanson, N. P., C. L. Linderman and L. N. Mielke. Direct Land Disposal
of feedlot runoff. In: Proc. of the 3rd Int'l Symp. on Livestock
Wastes. St. Joseph, Mich. Amer. Soc. Agr. Eng. Proc.-275,
April 1975, pp. 255-257.
164
-------
Taiganides, E. P., T. E. Hazen, E. R. Baumann, and H. P. Johnson.
Properties and Pumping Characteristics of Hog Wastes. Trans.
ASAE 7(2):123-124, 127. 1964.
Taiganidesi E. P. Mission Impossible: Dispose of Animal Waste.
Proc. 24th Indus. Waste Conf. Purdue Univ. 542-549, 1969..
Taiganides, E. P. and R. K. White. Automated Handling and Treatment
of Swine Wastes, in: Proc. Cornell Agr. Waste Mgmt. Conf.
Washington, D. C. Graphics Mgmt. Corp, 1972. pp. 331-339.
1972.
Taiganides, E. P. and R. K. White. Automated Handling and Treatment
of Swine Wastes. In: Proc. of 3rd Int'l Symp. on Livestock
Wastes. St. Joseph, Mich. Amer. Soc. Agr. Eng. Proc.-275,
April 1975. pp. 564-568.
Terwilleger, A. R. and L. S. Cramer. Liquid Composting Applied to
Agricultural Wastes. In: Proc. of 3rd Int'l Symp. on Livestock
Wastes. St. Joseph, Mich. Amer. Soc. Agr. Eng. Proc.-275,
April, 1975. pp. 501-505.
Thomas, R. E., K. Jackson and L. Penrod. Feasibility of Overland
Flow for Treatment of Raw Domestic Wastewater. R. S. Kerr
Envir. Research Lab. Ada, Okla. EPA-660/2-74-087. Environ-
mental Protection Agency. July 1974. 31 pp.
Thomas, R. E. Overland Flow Treatment of Raw Domestic Wastewater.
R. S. Kerr Envir. Research Lab, EPA. (Presented at Second
Nat'l Conf. on WaterReuse, A.I.CH.E. and EPA. Chicago,
May 1975) 13 pp.
University of California. Reclamation of Municipal Refuse by Composting.
Technical Bulletin 9, 1953.
U. S. Department of Agriculture. Implications of EPA Proposed Regulations
of November 20, 1975, for Animal Feeding Industries. USDA Animal
Waste Subcommittee. Washington, D. C. USDA January 30, 1976. 20 pp.
U. S. Department of Agriculture. Hogs and Pigs. Statistical Reporting
Service-Crop Reporting Board. Washington, D. C. MEAN 4. U.S.D.A.
December 22, 1975. 20 pp.
Walker, R. G. Tertiary Treatment of Effluent From Small Sewage Works,
Water Poll. Contr.:198-201, 1972.
165
-------
Webber, C. I., T. H. Lane, and J. H. Nodwell. Guidelines to Land
Requirements for Disposal of Liquid Manure. Univ. of Guelph,
Ont. Unpublished, 1968.
Webber, C. I. (editor). Biological Field and Laboratory Methods
Measuring the Quality of Surface Waters and Effluents. Environmental
Monitoring Series. Cincinnati, Ohio. EPA 670/4-73-001. U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency. July 1973.
Wells, D. M., G. F. Meenaghan, R. C. Coleman, F. G. Albin, and W. Grub.
Characteristics of Waste fmm Southwestern Beef Cattle Feedlots.
In: Proc. Cornell Agr. Waste Mgmt. Conf. Washington, D. C.
Graphics Mgmt. Corp. 1972, pp 385-405.
White, R. K. and D. P. Strombaugh. Sampling of Gases and Aerosals.
In: Standardizing Properties and Analytical Methods Related to
Animal Waste Research, St. Joseph, Mich. Amer. Soc. Agr. Eng.
1975. pp. 85-110.
White, R. K,, E. Taiganides, and C. D. Cole. Chromatographic Identifi-
cation of Malodors from Dairy Animal Waste. In: Proc. Int'l
Symp. on Livestock Waste. St. Joseph, Mich. Amer. Soc. of
Ag. Eng. ASAE Proc.-271. April 1971. pp. 110-113.
White, R. K., and E. P. Taiganides. Pyrolysis of Livestock Waste.
In Proc. Int'l Symp; on Livestock Waste. St. Joseph, Mich.
Amer. Soc. Agr. Eng. ASAE Proc.-271. April 1971a. pp 190-191,
194.
Willrich, T. L. Primary Treatment of Swine Wastes by Lagooning. In:
Proc. National Symposium on Animal Waste Management. St. Joseph,
Mich. Amer. Soc. Agr. Eng. SP-0366, May 1966. pp. 70-74.
Willson, G. B. and J. W. Hummel. Conservation of Nitrogen in Dairy
Manure During Composting. In: Proc. of 3rd Int'l Symp. on
Livestock Wastes. St. Joseph, Mich. Amer. Soc. Agr. Eng,
Proc-275, April 1975. pp. 490-491. 496.
Wilson, C. W. and F. E. Beckett (ed.). Municipal Sewage Effluent
for Irrigation. Ruston, La. Louisiana Tech Alumni Foundation,
1968. 169 pp.
Windt, T. A., N. R. Bulley, and L. M. Staley. Design, Installation,
and Biological Assessment of a Pasver Oxidation Ditch on a Large
British Columbia Swine Farm. In: Proc. Int'l Symp. on Livestock
Waste. St. Joseph, Mich. Amer. Soc. of Agr. Eng. ASAE Proc-271.
April 1971. pp. 213-217.
166
-------
Witherow, J. L. Small Meat Packers Wastes Treatment Systems. Pacific
Northwest Environmental Research Laboratory, EPA (Presented at
4th National Symposium on Food Processing Wastes, Syracuse,
March 1975.
Wong-Chong, G. M., W. I. Hugh, J. H. Koshi, T. Tanaka, and C. Schlottfeldt,
Livestock Agriculture in the State of Hawaii-A Regional Approach
to Waste Management. In: Managing Livestock Wastes, Proc 3rd
Int'l Symp. on Livestock Wastes. St. Joseph, Mich. Amer. Soc.
Agr. Eng. Proc.-275. pp. 405-407, 411. 1975.
Yagi, M. Treatment of Livestock Waste for Pollution Abatement in Japan.
Department of Feeding and Management. Chiba-Ken, Japan. Nat'l
Inst. of Animal Industry, 1975. 17 pp.
Yeck, R. G., L. W. Smith and C. C. Calvert. Recovery of Nutrients from
Animal Wastes-An Overview of Existing Options and Potentials for
Use in Feed. In: Proc; of 3rd Int'l Symp. on Livestock Wastes.
St. Joseph, Mich. Amer. Soc. Agr. Eng. Proc.-275. April 1975.
pp. 192-194, 196.
167
-------
SECTION IX
PUBLICATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH PROJECT RESULTS
Overcash, M.R., F.J. Humenik and L.B. Driggers. Swine production and
waste management: state-of-the-art. In: Proc. of the 3rd Int'l
Symp. on Livestock Wastes. St. Josephs, Mich. Amer. Soc. Agr.
Eng. PROC. -275, April 1975, pp. 154-160.
Overcash, M.R., F.J. Humenik, J.C. Barker, P.W. Westerman, and L.B.
Driggers. Swine production and waste management. North Carolina
State University (presented at International Pig Veterinary
Society Congress. June 22-24, 1976, Ames, Iowa).
168
-------
SECTION X
REFERENCES
1. Nat'l Symp. on Animal Waste Mgmt. Michigan State Univ., E. Lansing,
Michigan, ASAE Pub. SP-0366, 1966.
2. Wastes in Relation to Agriculture and Forestry, USDA Misc. Publ.
1065, March, 1968.
3. Cornell Conferences on Agricultural Waste Management. 1969, 1970,
1971, 1972, 1973, 1975.
4. Livestock Facilities Seminar Cooperative Extension Service,
Agricultural Experiment Station and School of Agriculture,
Auburn Univ. January 1970.
5. Pennsylvania Conf. on Agricultural Waste Mgmt. Commonwealth of
Penn. Dept. of Agriculture and Pennsylvania State Univ.
College of Agriculture. Harrisburg, Pa. Nov. 17-18, 1970.
6. Agricultural Practices and Water Quality, Conf. on the Role of
Agriculture in Clean Water, edited by T. L. Willrich and
G. E. Smith, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa. Nov. 17-20,
1969.
7. Pennsylvania Livestock Day, Animal Science Research Summary,
Pennsylvania State University. March 31, 1971.
8. Int'l Symp. on Livestock Wastes. Ohio State Univ., Columbus,
Ohio. ASAE PROG-271. 1971.
9. Waste Treatment Lagoons - State of the Art. US E.P.A., 17090
EHX. July 1971.
10. National Symp. on Animal Waste Mgmt, The Airlie House, Warrenton,
Va. Sept. 28-30, 1971.
11. Annual Report of Agricultural Engineering Dept., Agricultural
Experiment Station, Oregon State University, Corvallis,
Oregon. 1972.
12. Bibliography of Livestock Waste Management, Miner and Jordan,
Midwest Plan Service, MWPS-17. Iowa State Univ., Ames, Iowa.
June 1971.
169
-------
13. Int'l Symp. on Livestock Wastes. University of Illinois. ASAE
PROG-275. 1975.
14. Standardizing Properties and Analytical Methods related to Animal
Waste Research. Willrich, T. L., J. R. Miner, and M. R.
Overcash (ed.) ASAE Special Publication SP-0275.
170
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(f lease read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
EPA-600/2-76-290
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION-NO.
STATE-OF-THE-ART: SWINE WASTE PRODUCTION AND
PRETREATMENT PROCESSES
5. REPORT DATE
December 1976 (Issuing Date)
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
Michael R. Overcash and Frank J. Humenik
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO
ION NAME AND ADDRESS
North Carolina State University
P.O. Box 5906
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
1HB617
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
R-804002
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Lab.
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Ada, Oklahoma 74820
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES ~ ' ~
- Ada, OK
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final (5/74 - 2/76)
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/15
16. ABSTRACT "~ "
A review of waste generation and pretreatment processes was compiled, expanded,
and interpreted for the swine production industry. Typical swine units based upon
waste management techniques were detailed as concrete slab facilities, slotted floor-
pit units, and swine drylot or pasture operations. This approach was used instead
of actual or theoretical raw waste defecation data because the defecated waste load
has not been documented for producer facilities.
Pretreatment processes for the production unit waste load were evaluated in
relation to land as the terminal receiver and for waste conversion mechanisms
affecting utilization processes. The pretreatment effects on waste constituents
were examined for all forms of nitrogen, cations or salts, organics, microbial or
pathogen content, and nuisance factors.
The state-of-the-art report confirmed the large number of definitive studies
on various pretreatment processes and the characterization of swine waste. The
need to augment the current technical base with economic analyses of field systems
was the principal recommendation.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COSATI Field/Group
Agricultural wastes, Swine, Livestock,
Waste disposal, treatment processes
Animal wastes, Land
application, Water
pollution potentials,
Wastes characteristics
02/03
02/04
02/05
3. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
RELEASE TO PUBLIC
19. SECURITY CLASS (ThisReport}'
UNCLASSIFIED
21. NO. OF PAGES
185
20. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)
UNCLASSIFIED
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
171
U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1977-757-056/5603 Region No. 5-11
------- |