United States
             Environmental Protection
             Agency
           Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research
           Laboratory
           Ada OK 74820
EPA-600 2-79-029
January 1979
             Research and Development
c/EPA
Overland  Recycling
System  for Animal
Waste Treatment

-------
                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 interface in 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-600/2-79-029
                                              January 1979
   OVERLAND RECYCLING SYSTEM FOR ANIMAL WASTE
                    TREATMENT
                       by

                 Harold E* Grier
                Willie C. Burton
            Animal Science Department
             Alcorn State University
            Lorman, Mississippi 39096
               Grant No. R-802336
                 Project Officer

                 Lynn R. Shuyler
            Source Management Branch
Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory
               Ada, Oklahoma 74820
ROBERT S. KERR ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
       OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
     U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
               ADA, OKLAHOMA 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 the 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

-------
                                 FOREWORD
     The Environmental Protection Agency was established to coordinate
administration of the major Federal programs designed to protect the
quality of our environment.

     An important part of the agency1s effort involves the search for
information about environmental problems, management techniques and new
technologies through which optimum use of the nation's land and water
resources can be assured and the threat pollution poses to the welfare
of the American people can be minimized.

     EPA's Office of Research and Development conducts this search
through a nationwide network of research facilities.

     As one of these facilities, the Robert S. Kerr Environmental
Research Laboratory is responsible for the management of programs to:
(a) investigate the nature, transport, fate and management of pollutants
in groundwater; (b) develop and demonstrate methods for treating waste-
waters with soil and other natural systems; (c) develop and demonstrate
pollution control technologies for irrigation return flows, (d) develop
and demonstrate pollution control technologies for animal production
wastes; (e) develop and demonstrate technologies to prevent, control
or abate pollution from the petroleum refining and petrochemical in-
dustries, and (f) develop and demonstrate technologies to manage pol-
lution resulting from combinations of industrial wastewaters or indus-
trial/municipal wastewaters.

     This report contributes to the knowledge essential if the EPA
is to meet the requirements of environmental laws that it establish
and enforce pollution control standards which are reasonable, cost
effective and provide adequate protection for the American people.
                                     William C. Galegar, Director
                                     Robert S. Kerr Environmental
                                       Research Laboratory
                                    iii

-------
                                  ABSTRACT
      The purpose  of  this research was to evaluate the technical and economic
 feasibility of  an alternate disposal and utilization system of animal waste
 management in an  operation involving overland spray for crop production.
 The system included  two lagoons, one anaerobic and the other aerobic, in
 close proximity to the swine installation.  These lagoons were used in
 series to dispose of the swine waste and to improve effluent quality for
 land application.  Hence, there was a time lag with economic constraint to
 complete the cycle through a terminal aerobic lagoon.

      A primary  objective of this project was delineation of techniques for
 deriving nutrient benefits from animal wastes and making them directly
 available for selected crop production.  In this respect, this investigation
 has contributed to developing a workable design that addresses itself to the
 evaluation of an  overland spray system using animal wastes.  For this purpose
 swine waste was transported into two adjacent lagoons and pumped through
 7.6 centimeters (cm)  PVC and improvised gas lines to irrigate three demon-
 stration fields and  12 research plots equipped with runoff and soil water
 collection devices.

      Vegetable  crops were grown in the plots and animal forages were grown in
 the demonstration fields where growth responses were assessed.  Preliminary
 soil analyses were conducted to determine the extent of uniformity of soil
 elemental contents.   A soil profile determined successive depths for soil
 water sampling.   Soil water from three trial periods was chemically analyzed
 for pH,  chloride,  specific conductance, nitrate, nitrite, and ammonia nitro-
 gen.   These parameters were meticulously evaluated with respect to their
 impact on the soil-plant-soil water system.

      Inventories  of  feed consumption and swine numbers were maintained to
 assess the contribution to the lagoon system.  Subsequent degradation pro-
 cesses were periodically examined with respect to the effect of the treat-
 ment  units on nutrient preservation and effluent quality.  In this study,
 emphasis  was upon conservation and transformatiort processes of nutrients
 pursuant  to the lagoon changes.  Nitrogen-containing nutrients known to be
 valuable  for adequate plant responses were appraised and the impact on the
 native ground water  system was documented.

     This  report was  submitted in fulfillment of Grant No. R-802336 by Alcorn
 State University under the partial sponsorship of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.  This report covers the period January 1, 1974 to January
30, 1978.
                                      iv

-------
                                 CONTENTS

Foreword	    ill
Abstract	     iv
Figures	    vii
Tables	viii
Acknowledgments	     xi

Section

I         Introduction	      1
          A.  General	      1
          B.  Perspective and Background 	      1

II        Conclusions	      4

III       Recommendations	      6

IV        Experimental Procedure 	 	      7
          A.  Swine Facility and Lagoon System	      7
          B.  Overland Spray System	      7
          C.  Experimental Design	      8
              1.  Preapplication - Period 1	      8
              2.  Trial 1 - Period 2	      8
              3.  Trial 2 - Period 3	      8
              4.  Trial 3 - Period 4	      9
          D.  Experimental Land Plots	      9
          E.  Analytical Methods - Chemical	     11
          F.  Statistical Analysis 	     12

V         Preliminary Data - Period 1	     15

VI        Trial 1 - Period 2	     19

VII       Trial 2 - Period 3	     25
          A.  Runoff and Soil Characteristics	     32
          B.  Importance of Timing Effluent	     34

VIII      Trial 3 - Period 4	     35
          A.  Runoff Analyses	     35
        ,  B.  Soil Water Analysis	     38

IX        Summary:  Periods 1, 2, 3, and 4	     44
          A.  Period 1	     44
          B.  Periods 2, 3, and 4	     44

-------
X         Exhibits	    49




XI        References	    60




XII       Publications Associated with Results 	    64




XIII      Appendix	    65
                                     Vi

-------
                                   FIGURES

Number                                                                 Page

   1      Feeding and overland treatment area	10

   2      Schematic of a typical 6 x 6 m plot showing arrangement of
            soil water samplers and runoff material	32

   3      Ammonia nitrogen concentration of treatments applied to
            the soil and change in ammonia and nitrate nitrogen as
            measured in soil water	45

   A      Portion of pasture showing section where grass - clover
            mixture gave good growth	47

   5      A very good stand of winter grazing for feeder pigs-sprayed
            with aerobic effluent	48

   6      Monthly pH analyses of lagoons containing swine waste. ...  51

   7      Monthly ammonia analyses of lagoons containing swine waste  .  52

   8      Monthly nitrate analyses of lagoons containing swine waste  .  53

   9      Monthly nitrate analyses of lagoons containing swine waste  .  54

  10      Monthly chloride analyses of lagoons containing swine waste.  55

  11      Monthly specific conductance analyses of lagoons containing
            swine waste	56

  12      Monthly BOD,, analyses of lagoons containing swine waste. .  .  57

  13      Swine population of farrowing barn providing influent to
            lagoon	58

  14      Swine population of farrowing barn providing influent to
            lagoon	59
                                     vii

-------
                                   TABLES
Number                                                                  Page

  1       Analysis of Variance:   Test for Change in Variables  After
          Overland Spray for Trials 1,  2, and 3	13

  2       Analysis of Variance:   Comparison of Nitrate Nitrogen in
          Soil Water Immediately After Spraying and After 135  Days  .  .   13

  3       Analysis of Variance:   Comparison of the Mean Changes for
          Ammonia Nitrogen for All Treatments—Trials 1,  2,  and 3 ...   14

  4       Analysis of Variance:   Comparison of the Mean Changes for
          Nitrate Nitrogen for All Treatments—Trials 1,  2,  and 3 ...   14

  5       Change in Soil Contents After Swine Waste Was Sprayed From
          Aerobic Lagoon to Fields	16

  6       pH of Soil at Various Depths Before Irrigation	17

  7       Chloride Content of Soil At Various Depths Before  Irrigation   18

  8       Mean Values of Aerobic Effluent and Tap Water Used as
          Irrigation Spray on Plots and Fields—Trial 1 	   19

  9       Change in pH After Treatments Were Sprayed Overland  as
          Measured in Soil Water at Different Depths  	   20

 10       Change in Chloride as Measured in Soil Water At Various
          Depths	21

 11       Change in NO--N Concentration After Treatments Were
          Sprayed Overland  	   22

 12       Change in Chloride Content of Soil Water After Overland
          Application of Treatments	23

 13        Change in Ammonia-Nitrogen Concentration After Treatments
          Were  Sprayed Overland  	   24

 14        Analyses  of Treatments A,  B,  and C Used as Irrigation
          Spray on  Plots and Fields—Trial 2	25
                                    viii

-------
                           TABLES (Continued)
15       Change in pH After Various Treatments Were Sprayed
         Overland	   26

16       Change in Chloride Content After Treatments Were
         Sprayed Overland—Trial 2   	   27

17       Nitrate Content of Soil Water At Various Depths
         Immediately After Spraying and 135 Days After Spraying  . .   28

18       Treatment (Nitrate) Means After Spraying and 135 Days
         Later-Depth, 45.7 Centimeters 	   29

19       Change in NHL-N Content After Various Treatments Were
         Sprayed Overland  	   30

20       Change in NO--N Content After Treatments Were
         Sprayed Overland  	   31

21       Change in NH,,-N Concentration in Runoff From Volumes
         of Aerobic Effluent Sprayed Overland  	   33

22       Change in Nitrate Nitrogen Concentration in Runoff From
         Various Volumes of Aerobic Effluent Sprayed Overland  ...   34

23       Analyses of Treatments A, B, and C Used as Irrigation
         Spray on Plots and Fields	   35

24       Change in Ammonia-Nitrogen Content of Various Volumes of
         Aerobic Effluent as Measured in Plot Runoff	   36

25       Change in pH of Various Volumes of Aerobic Effluent as
         Measured in Plot Runoff	   37

26       Change in Nitrate Nitrogen Content of Various Volumes of
         Aerobic Effluent as Measured in Plot Runoff 	   37

27       Change in Chloride Content of Various Volumes of Aerobic
         Effluent as Measured in Plot Runoff	   38

28       Decrease in pH of Various Volumes of Aerobic Effluent
         Sprayed Overland as Measured in Soil Water At Different
         Depths	   39
                                    ix

-------
                           TABLES (Continued)
29       Decrease in NH--N Content of Various Volumes of Aerobic
         Effluent as Measured in Soil Water At Different Depths ...  40

30       Change in NO»-N Content of Various Volumes of Aerobic
         Effluent as Measured in Soil Water   	41

31       Change in Chloride Content of Treatments Sprayed Over-
         land as Measured in Soil Water At Different Depths	42

32       Decrease in Specific Conductance of Treatments as Measured
         in Soil Water At Different Depths	43

33       Summary of pH Values of Soil Water After Trials 1, 2,
         and 3	46

-------
                              ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
     The preparation of this report was supported by Grant No. R-802336, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.  The cooperation of Lynn R. Shuyler, Project
Officer, Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory, Ada, Oklahoma is
gratefully acknowledged.  The help of others associated with EPA is highly
appreciated.

     The statistical assistance of Fay Hagan, MAFES Statistician, Mississippi
State University and the technical assistance of William R. Crumpton, Agri-
cultural and Biological Engineering Department, Mississippi State University,
and Suresh Tiwari, Agronomist, Alcorn State University, were also helpful
in the preparation of this report.
                                      XI

-------
                                 SECTION I

                               INTRODUCTION
GENERAL

     This was a three-year study to evaluate the technical and economical
aspects of an alternate disposal and utilization system for swine waste
management which incorporates overland spray irrigation for crop production
and an anaerobic-aerobic lagoon system for effluent improvement.

     The material presented in this report delineates changes in the con-
stituents of aerobic effluent sprayed on crops as reflected by soil analyses
before and after applications.  Results of this study also serve to improve
techniques for exploring the ecological effects of land recycling of animal
waste and to present such ideas more meaningfully.  Such knowledge is
imperative^ if we are to develop regional or nationwide guidelines making
livestock waste disposal methods compatible with public interests.

PERSPECTIVE AND BACKGROUND

     More than 80 million hogs were produced and processed in 15 leading
hog-producing states during 1969 (1)-.  Thirteen and one-half million of these
hogs were grown in the confinement of pigsties.  The feedlot growing of hogs
has been increasing rapidly in the Southeastern states.  There is an increas-
ing number of hogs grown in feedlots in Mississippi (2).  In North Carolina,
confinement structured units using lagoons constitute approximately 18 percent
of all units (3).  On a national basis, data indicate that the number of
producers with enclosed units is increasing.  In 1969, 26 percent of the
producers from 15 of the leading hog-producing states utilized either a
paved lot or confinement system of production (1).

     In a study conducted in 1975 characterizing hog production systems on a
national scale, the trend in production systems was toward dirt lots and
total confinement (4).  The pasture production system of hog production ac-
counted for nearly one-third of all producers in 15 leading hog-producing
states, most of whom were small producers (5).  The amount of land required
for pastures is quite large, and, in terms of land value in certain areas,
pasture use for hog production represents a substantial part of the invested
dollar.  The use of pasture for hog production requires labor for fence and
gate repair, handling of animals, and a small amount for waste management.

-------
      In certain sections  of  the United  States and in other parts of  the
 world,  the terrain is  hilly  and wooded, which gives limited space for pastures
 or the  production of crops for finishing hogs.  Therefore, a system  of en-
 closed  confinement feeding and pasture-grazing  is promising for economical
 production (6).

      To utilize this system  of production discretely,  the producer must be
 cognizant of the limitations of pasture as a nutrient  source and adjust his
 stocking rate accordingly.   The number  of animals per  hectare can and should
 be regulated to insure efficient waste  utilization for plant growth.

      Establishing sufficient pasture vegetation for animal growth or main-
 tenance is a natural means of waste utilization in the enclosed confinement-
 pasture-grazing system; however, it is  necessary to remove the animals from
 the pasture during the dormant stage.   This is  required for adequate growth
 of winter grasses and  legumes when used in a rotation  scheme.  An accompanying
 problem of waste disposal is apparent.  The feeder pig type of production
 often requires a central  farrowing house, and it is appropriate to pasture
 feed weaned sows and replacement gilts.  Handling swine in this manner re-
 lieves  congestion in the  enclosed confinement areas and reduces the  waste
 output  to lagoons.

      An enclosed confinement-pasture-grazing system of hog production offers
 potential because pasture grasses and legumes can utilize the nutrients in
 animal  waste transported  from lagoons.  Overland application of animal waste
 offers  promise as a method of disposal  wherever land is readily available in
 the U.S.  Several studies confirm use of this system as a means of removing
 concentrated nutrients from  waste water (7, 8,  9, 10).  Swine producers need
 to know the limiting number  of hogs when defecated waste is applied  to the
 land for crop production  and how to adapt their crop production to the waste
 output  of their swine  unit.

      The Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972  (PL  92-500)
 were the focal points  which  directed attention  to development of techniques
 for waste disposal that would be environmentally appropriate.  The Environ-
 mental  Protection Agency's standards centered around alternative systems
 that were economically sound, thus land application was a process which
 presented a challenge  to  the states  (11).

      The Congressional point of view is cited as conclusive and positive
 indication that  land treatment is potentially an effective alternative and
 substantiates accord between the House  and Senate on the effective role of
 crop land treatment  with  animal waste (12).

      It was  discerned  that the need for regulations would arise and  that
 certain  theories  and recommendations should be  researched to  serve as  guides
 for  states,  municipalities,  and Federal authority in the devlopment  of
waste water  and runoff water quality standards. Water quality  standards  for
 the  land  application alternative most generally apply  to the  constituents
 in ground water  (13).   In a  study conducted to  test the effectiveness  of

-------
overland recycling (14), soil water samples were collected weekly using
porous ceramic samplers installed at depths of 46 to 61 cm and 122 to 132
cm.  Effluent that was to be applied to land had mean values of 13.8 mil-
ligrams per liter (mg/1) for ammonium nitrogen (NH,-N), 1.3 mg/1 of nitrate
nitrogen (NO_-N), 319 mg/1 of chloride (Cl), 8.20 for pH, and 1695 micromhos
per centimeter conductivity (y mhos/cm).  Analysis of NH.-N and NO^-N in
in effluent showed that as NH.-N changed, there was a converse change in
NO,-N.  Evidence revealed from mean monthly concentrations of nitrate in
soil water (samples were taken at 122 cm depths) were 3.8 to 8.2 mg/1 for
2.5 cm per week applications of effluent.  At lower depths the concentration
of nitrate was approximately 2 times as high (15).

     Increased nitrogen removal from soil was observed as the application
rate of nitrogen increased (16).  Where a limited amount of nitrogen removal
from soil occurred, there was very little ion removal by certain types of
plants through harvesting (17).  It was likewise concluded that in addition
to soil infiltration, nitrogen removal from the soil is affected by the
capacity of plant-soil systems to uptake and degrade nutrients and by the
lack of physical transport of energy-containing nutrients to deeper strata
for the denitrifiers.  Crop removal of nitrogen in its various forms was
highly recommended as a means of reducing these variables (14, 15).

-------
                                SECTION II

                                CONCLUSIONS
 1.  In this study, peak periods of reductions from Cell 1 to Cell 2 were
    94.44 percent for biochemical oxygen demand, 56.07 percent for specific
    conductance and 104.79 percent for ammonia nitrogen.  The pH increased
    during the same period.  These changes of chlorides, ammonia nitrogen,
    nitrate nitrogen, biochemical oxygen demand, pH and conductance varied
    with precipitation, number of animals, temperature and other factors
    after waste was transported from Cell 1 to Cell 2.

 2.  An additional decrease in NH»-N was observed after application to the
    soil-plant system to as little as 0 mg/1 in some soil water samples.
    There were similar decreases in NH«-N for all soil water samples within
    treatments and at different depths, whereas chloride and nitrate nitrogen
    analyses varied from sample to sample within treatments.

 3.  After spraying, soil water had a Trial mean content of 8.64, 13.66, and
    33.16 milligrams per liter of nitrate nitrogen for treatments A, B, and
    C, respectively.  A substantial decrease in nitrate nitrogen occurred
    during Trial 3 compared to the preceding Trials.  Reduction in nitrate
    nitrogen in the treatment material and of that which accumulated after
    treatment was important from a standpoint of improving water quality,
    and the method was economically sound since vegetable crops utilized it
    as a source of nitrogen.

 4.  The data for pH of soil water showed reductions from 7.42 to 6.90 and
    7.54 to 5.95 after water, and effluent, respectively, were applied to
    the soil during Trial 1.  Similarly, pH reductions were observed after
    Trial 2 and Trial 3.

5.  The findings of this research indicated higher acidity in soil water
    after all trials than the pretreatment soil analysis because hydrogen
    ions were attached to clay particles in the soil, but were free in
    soil water.   Increasing the volume of applications in successive trials
    was a form of induced anaerobic soil conditions wherein chemical reduc-
    tions took place and H  ions were released without harmful effects to
    the vegetable crop.

-------
6.  Accumulated nitrate nitrogen was reduced in successive trials presumably
    by microbial dentrification of unassimilated nitrate nitrogen and was
    associated with release of hydrogen ions.

7.  Chloride concentrations at all depths and after all trials, were evidence
    of treatment percolation and did not exceed acceptable levels for ground
    water.

8.  Considerable aerobic lagoon and soil-plant post treatment reduction of
    specific conductance were noted.

9.  The response of pasture forages on demonstration fields and selected
    grazing areas to aerobic effluent applications was very good.  Vegetable
    crops also gave very good response.

-------
                                SECTION III

                              RECOMMENDATIONS
1.  Determine the extent of interaction between time after spraying and
    volume of application which may affect nitrate nitrogen concentration
    in soil-soil water-plant systems.  More data are needed relating to
    nitrate nitrogen production after applying 2.5 cm or more of aerobic
    effluent per week for periods exceeding six weeks.

2.  More data are needed on nitrate nitrogen production after overland
    spray so that recommendations can be made to producers who have large
    volumes of waste to dispose of on limited available land.

3.  Investigate the effects of applying swine waste when concentrations of
    ammonia nitrogen in aerobic effluent exceed 75 milligrams per liter.

4.  Investigate more throughly the chemical composition of the edible portion
    of livestock forages and vegetables when animal waste is used as a source
    of water and nutrients for plant growth.

-------
                               SECTION IV

                         EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE
SWINE FACILITY AND LAGOON SYSTEM

     The swine facilities consisted of one farrowing barn and a sow and
boar shed.  Concrete floors of both facilities were sloped to drain into
concrete ditches which were adjacent to each facility.  A 15.2 cm PVC
sewer pipe transported the daily washing of swine waste (including spilled
feed and animal hair) from these ditches to a concrete block collecting
area 1.5 meters (m) in circumference and 2.1 m deep.  The swine waste was
further transported through 30.5 m of 15.2 cm PVC sewer pipe to an anaerobic
lagoon.

     The farrowing barn housed a maximum of 26 sows and their litters in
individual pens.  The boar and sow shed housed 3 boars in individual pens
and 3 pens of 12 weaned sows per pen.  Animals in these swine facilities
were fed commercial feed rations that were nutritionally balanced for
starting, growing, finishing and breeding purposes.  Farrowing and weaned
sows consumed 3.18 and 1.81 kilograms (kg) of feed per day, respectively.
Each feeder pig consumed 1.51 kg of feed per day for approximately 60 days
per year.  There were 224,604 kg of feed consumed from January 30, 1974
through August 30, 1977 by all animals in the two facilities.

     The lagoon system was designed to facilitate anaerobic and aerobic
degradation of swine waste.  The anaerobic lagoon had a capacity for 2678
cubic meters (m ) of swine waste before beginning to drain through a
15.2 cm PVC sewer pine into the aerobic lagoon which had a capacity of
2153 cubic meters (m ) of swine waste.  When filled to capacity, the
aerobic lagoon would begin to drain through a 15.2 cm PVC sewer pipe into
a valley 21.3 m beyond and into the river.  Both lagoons were open to
environmental weather conditions—effects of the sun and rain water.  How-
ever, diversion ditches prevented most rain from going into the lagoons.
Unlike lagoons receiving cattle waste, these swine waste lagoons had only
a small quanity of feed debris from roughage intake to accumulate on the
surface of the liquid.  The amount of water in both lagoons was greater
during the winter months than in summer due to greater rainfall and less
evaporation.

OVERLAND SPRAY SYSTEM

     Aerobic effluent was pumped to the irrigation sites with a 10.1 metric
horsepower, 56.2 Kg/cm  pump via 442.3 m of 7.6 cm abandoned gas line.  At

-------
 the irrigation site,  a  riser on  riser valve continued the transport of ef-
 fluent through a 10.2 cm aluminum aboveground irrigation line to three
 demonstration fields  sprayed by  standard overhead Rain Bird sprinklers.
 Underground 7.6 cm PVC  pipes continued  the transport of effluent to a con-
 crete junction box which housed  four regulator valves with undergound ir-
 irigation wiring attached.  A  7.6 cm PVC water line was also installed to
 transport tap water to  this junction box.  A 2.5 cm PVC water pipe continued
 from the junction box to 12 research plots - transporting tap water, tap
 water and effluent, and effluent only to four plots for each of these treat-
 ments.   The plots were  sprayed with Rain Bird pop-up sprinklers.  Four strands
 (450 m each) of underground wiring connected a Rain Bird Rain Clox eight con-
 troller to four regulator valves in the junction box so that automation was
 controller—valve regulated.   This system delivered the treatment volumes to
 plots on a timed basis  (according to manufacturer's specifications) for
 selected days, morning  and evening.

 EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN

      Three treatments were applied to the 12 research plots and will be
 referred to as treatments A, B,  and C in Subsequent discussions and tables.

                      Treatment  A was tap water;
                      Treatment  B was 50% tap water and
                          50% effluent;  and
                      Treatment  C was effluent.

      There were four  periods during the conduct of this study.  These periods
 were delineated accordingly as:

 Preapplication — Period 1

      No treatment was applied, so only  baseline data were taken.

 Trial 1 — Period 2

      Treatments A,  B, and C were applied at a rate of 0.5 cm per application
 with three applications per week, making a total weekly application per plot
 of  15.2 cm.   Treatments were applied on Monday, Wednesday, and Saturday for
 a period  of four weeks  (January  26, 1976 - February 28, 1976), giving a
 total of  7.6 cm per plot.

 Trial 2 —  Period 3

     Treatments  A, B, and C were applied at a rate of 0.5 cm per application
with six  applications per week,  making  a total weekly application  of 3.0  cm
per plot.   Treatments were applied Monday through Saturday from July 18
 through September 6,  1976 for  36 days (eight days excluded), giving a  total
of 18.3 cm  per plot.

-------
Trial 3 — Period 4

     Treatment A, B, and C were applied at a rate of 0.5 cm per application
with 12 applications per week, morning and evening, making a total weekly
application of 6.1 cm per plot.  Treatments were applied Monday through
Saturday from June 13 through July 30, 1977 for a total of 36 days (appli-
cations were not made for six days during this period).  A total of 36.6 cm
for each treatment was applied per plot.

EXPERIMENTAL LAND PLOTS

     The prepared irrigation site was on a grass and brush covered ridge
that meandered through miles of woodland, and varied in width from 30 to
90 m with valley depths of 6 to 25 m on either side.  Like most soil in this
area, the soil in the research area is said to have been blown in and de-
posited during the dust bowl years of the 19th century.  It is Memphis silt
loam, easily eroded, and has the capacity to "take in" a large amount of
water.

     The site selected for demonstration and research purposes is 152 x 82 m.
It was divided into four parts; three parts were used for demonstration
fields and were designated as fields 1, 2, and 3 (Figure 1).  The three
demonstration fields were developed, sprayed with effluent, and chemical
analyses were made for parameters of interest prior to establishing the re-
search plots.  The fields were to simulate conventional irrigation of crop-
land.  Furthermore, waste handling mechanisms were studied as well as the
means for evaluating the effects of defecated waste upon soil and soil water
content and the response of selected forages and vegetables; namely, ladino
clover, rye grass, bermuda grass, oats, tomatoes, collards, turnips, etc.
A 6 x 6 m plot in each field was used for vegetable growth, sprayed along
with the rest of the field, and provisions were made for collecting runoff
effluent.  Each field was 0.12 hectares.

     The fourth part (32 x 41 m) of the irrigation site was subsequently
divided into 12 research plots, 6 x 6 m, having 3.4 m of grass work area
bordering each plot from all sides.  The average slope was 3.8 cm.  A
typical plot was arranged so that runoff application from treatments A, B,
and C flowed slowly from the plots into adjacent runoff ditches and thence
into a cone-shaped collecting hole 38 cm in diameter at ground level and
45.7 cm deep.  This runoff collecting hole was dug in a corner of each plot
at the lowest elevation.  A 35.5 cm strip of polyethylene (Visqueen) was
used as lining for the runoff ditches — tucked under the soil, slightly
below the elevation of the plot and extending into the polyethylene-lined
cone.  A portion of polyethylene was cut 91.4 cm in diameter and then folded
to fit the shape of the cone.  Placement of lining material was done while
the soil was moist to facilitate tucking and adherence to the soil's surface.
Rain water was kept from draining onto the plots by a 10 to 12 cm dam or
diversion ditch where required.  Three soil water samplers having a porous
ceramic cup on the below ground end where placed in each plot at depths of
15.2, 30.5, and 45.7 cm.  The samples were evacuated with a manual suction
pump and sealed.

-------
FIELD 3
              FIELD 2
                                       OLD GAS LINE-EFFLUENT
                                                                UNDERGROUND
                                                                WIRING
             RESEARCH
             PLOTS
PVC
EFFLUENT
  CONTROLL
  ER
                                                                PUMP
                      Figure 1.  Feeding and overland treatment area.

-------
     A variety of vegetables consisting of blackeye peas, collards, turnips,
tomatoes, etc., were planted, in season, on the prepared plots, so as to
have similar varieties on each plot.

ANALYTICAL METHODS—CHEMICAL

     Monthly analyses of the two lagoons were conducted for nitrite (NO-),
nitrate  (NO^) and ammonia (NH,.) nitrogen (N), pH, biochemical oxygen demand
5-day (BOD^J, chloride (Cl), conductance, and total coliform.  Similar
analyses or soil water samples were conducted with the exception of BOD,.
and total coliform.

     Total coliform was determined using a membrane filter technique as de-
scribed by the 13th Edition of Standard Methods for Examination of Water and
Waste Water.  The number of bacteria was reported as colonies per 100 milli-
liters (ml) of sample.

     Pretreatment analyses  of soil was done for pH by using a standard pH
meter.  Chloride concentration was determined by using the Mohr (silver
nitrate) method.  Post treatment chemical analyses of soil samples were
conducted for nitrate- and  ammonia-N, pH and chloride using a Lamotte soil
analysis kit (Model STH-14).

     Chemical analysis of soil water and effluent was done using the Hach
DR/EL-2  Spectrophotometer Conductivity Meter.  The analytical procedure in-
volved in each analysis is  detailed below.

     Chloride:  The Merwine nitrate titration method for water and wastewater
analysis was used.  Ten ml  of the water or effluent samples were pipetted
into a 50 ml Erlenmeyer flask.  The contents of one diphenyl - carbasone
indicator buffer powder pillow was added and mixed.  While constantly swirl-
ing the  flask, the sample was titrated with standard mercuric nitrate until
the color changed from yellow to purple.  From the number of ml of standard
mercuric nitrate used, the  mg/1 of chloride concentration was determined.

     Nitrate Nitrogen:  Nitrogen as nitrate was determined using the cadmium
reduction method for waste  water analysis.  Twenty-five ml of the water or
effluent samples were placed in a clean spectrophotometric cell.  To this
was added the content of one nitranea V nitrate reagent powder pillow.  The
cell was stoppered and vigorously shaken for exactly one minute.  It was
allowed to stand for five minutes;  Another clean spectrophotometric sample
cell was filled with 25 ml  of the water or effluent sample and placed in
the spectrophotometric cell holder.  The nitrogen nitrate (nitriver V method)
meter scale was inserted in the meter and the wavelength dial adjusted to
500 millimeters (mm).  The  light control meter was then adjusted for a meter
reading of zero mg/1.  This sample cell was then removed and the first pre-
pared sample in the cell was placed in the holder.  The meter was read as
mg/1 of nitrate nitrogen.   The shaking and standing time and the time dif-
ference between standing and final reading were kept constant in all the
analyses.  Results were expressed as mg/1 nitrate (N0«) by mutiplying the
mg/1 nitrate nitrogen by 4.4.  Interference from nitrate was removed by the
addition of bromine.


                                    11

-------
      Nitrite Nitrogen:   Nitrite nitrogen was  determined by  the diazotization
 method using the registered nitriver III reagent.   A 25 ml  sample  of  the
 effluent was taken in a clean spectrophotometric  cell and the contents  of  one
 nitriver III nitrite reagent powder pillow was  added.  After stoppering, the
 cell was shaken vigorously for exactly one minute and allowed to stand  for
 10 minutes.   Another clean spectrophotometric cell was filled with 25 ml of
 the sample solution and placed in the cell holder.   The nitrogen,  nitrite
 (nitriver III) method meter was inserted in the meter scale and the wave-
 length dial adjusted to 500 mm.  The light control switch was adjusted  for
 a meter reading of zero mg/1.  After this, the  prepared sample cell was
 inserted in its place and the mg/1 nitrite nitrogen reading was read  on the
 meter scale.  The results were expressed as mg/1  of nitrite nitrogen  by
 multiplying the mg/1 of nitrite nitrogen by 3.3.

      The shaking time,  the standing time,  and the difference between  standing
 and final reading were kept constant in all the analyses.

      Nitrogen Ammonia:   This was determined using Nessler's method.   A  25  ml
 sample of the effluent was placed in a clean  spectrophotometric sample  cell.
 Twenty-five ml of demineralized water (prepared by using the carbon ion
 exchange resin) was placed in another cell.   To each of these samples was
 added one ml of Nessler's reagent using a one ml  calibrated dropper.  The
 samples were swirled to mix.  After 10 minutes, the sample  cell containing
 the prepared demineralized water solution was placed in the spectrophotometer
 holder.  The ammonium nitrogen meter scale was  inserted and the wavelength
 dial adjusted to 425 mm.  The light control switch was then adjusted  for a
 meter reading of zero mg/1.  Then,  this cell  was  removed and the other  cell
 containing the prepared effluent solution was introduced.   The scale  was
 read as mg/1 of ammonia nitrogen.   The result was expressed as mg/1 of  NH_-N
 by mutiplying the final scale reading by 1.22.

      Specific Conductance:   The sample was neutralized by mixing the  contents
 of one powder pillow (gallic acid 0.2g) with  approximately  50 ml of sample.
 If the gallic acid remained undissolved, four drops of phenolphthalein  solu-
 tion were added to 50 ml of sample and then gallic acid was added  until the
 pink color completely disappeared.

      Biochemical Oxygen Demand:  Biochemical  Oxygen Demand  was determined  by
 the Hach BOD_ apparatus, Model 2173,  which combined the features of the
 standard type manometric apparatus by Warburg and Sierp.  Samples  were
 allowed to run for five days at 20°C,  then values were reported as mg/1.

 STATISTICAL  ANALYSIS

     Treatments  A,  B, and C were assigned at  random to the  12 research  plots
before  installation of  the  spray system.  It  was  hypothesized that no signif-
icant differences  in plots  would be found among pretreatment samples  since
no application of  treatments was made on the  plots.  Preliminary analysis
of variance  indicated there were no differences in the plots to begin with;
therefore, post  treatment difference,  if any, would indicate effects  due  to
treatments.
                                     12

-------
      The analysis of variance to test post treatment data Table 1 was a
 split plot design with treatments in a completely random design in the whole
 plots.

 TABLE 1.  ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE:  TEST FOR CHANGE IN VARIABLES AFTER OVERLAND
 	SPRAY FOR TRIALS 1. 2. AND 3	

 Source of  Variation    	d_f	

 Treatments                               2
 Ea                                        9
 Depths                                   2
 T X D                                    4
 Eb                                      18


      All analyses were performed on data for main treatment effects and
 effects due to depth according to the methods of Steel and Torrie (18).
 There were four replications of each treatment, designated 1, 2, 3, and 4.
 Mean values are averages obtained from four plots receiving either treat-
 ment A, B, or C.

      The analysis of variance for comparing NO--N data Table 2 immediately
 after spraying and 135 days after spraying of plots was a split-split plot
 design.

 TABLE 2.  ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE:  COMPARISON OF NITRATE NITROGEN IN SOIL
           WATER IMMEDIATELY AFTER SPRAYING AND AFTER 135 DAYS

Source
Treatment
Error a
Depth
Treatment X depth
Error b
Time
Treatment X time
Depth X time
Treatment X depth X time
Error c
df
2
9
2
4
18
1
2
2
4
20
F
N.S

<1
<1

12.90**
8.90**
5.93**
3.00**


**
  Significant at .01 level.
      The analysis of variance for a split-split plot gave a significant
 second order interaction  involving treatment, depth and time.  The data
 were analyzed, therefore, within depths to determine the effects of treat-
 ment and time.  Because of variance between plots, within treatment vari-
 ance between treatment means within time was tested.
                                     13

-------
      An analysis was made of the combined data (Table 3) from the three trials
 for ammonia nitrogen and nitrate nitrogen using a split plot design to test
 for significant differences due to source of variance.  The combined analysis
 for ammonia nitrogen gave error terms that were similar and Ea
-------
                                  SECTION V

                         PRELIMINARY DATA—PERIOD 1
     The application of aerobic effluent to three demonstration fields was
initiated in the fall of 1974.  A rye-oats-clover mixture was planted in
the three fields in the early fall of 1974 followed by a planting of bermuda
in early spring of the next year.  Application of defecated swine waste was
begun shortly after seeding.  The applied waste was the only source of plant
nutrients.  It was applied to the 0.12 hectare fields on a timed basis in the
proportion 1:2:3 for fields numbered 1, 2, and 3, respectively.  Defecated
lagoon waste was applied at a rate of 1.9 cm per hour so that minimal tensi-
ometer readings for good growth were maintained.  These fields were used to
investigate management practices for applying animal waste to cropland using
conventional Rain Bird sprinklers having 1.5 m risers on 10.1 cm aluminum
pipe.  Also, techniques for collecting waste runoff and soil water samples,
plot size, and crop response were studied.

     Runoff was difficult to handle using 94.6 liter containers embedded
1.8 m from 6 x 6 m plots within the fields, with roof gutters, down spouts,
etc., to transport the runoff.  The slope of one percent caused some flooding
of the 6 x 6 m plots by rain water from the surrounding area.  Runoff of
effluent was high because of excess slope.  Growth response of rye grass,
clover, bermuda grass, and oats was very encouraging on all fields.  Field
3 had the highest rate of application (1.9 cm per hour).  Spraying of aerobic
effluent on field 3, in late spring, caused about one-fourth of the plant
foliage to drop to the ground, adhere to the soil, and decay.

     On all three demonstration fields, as the duration of spraying of the
aerobic lagoon effluent increased, the changes in all parameters measured,
with the exception of ammonia nitrogen, also increased (Table 5).  Each
value in Table 5 represents the difference between the soil and the aerobic
lagoon effluent for that particular parameter.
                                      15

-------
 TABLE 5.  CHANGE IN SOIL CONTENTS AFTER SWINE WASTE WAS SPRAYED FROM AEROBIC
           LAGOONa TO FIELDS
Soil
Depth
Field (cm)
1 91
2 91
3 91
Volume
Sprayed
(cm)
1.96
3.91
5.88
Time
Sprayed
(hr.)
1.08
2.16
3.25
Parameters

Cl N03-N N02-N NH3-N pH
mg/1
10 2.20 -.033 -.49 0.55
35 6.60 -.029 -.06 -0.10
25 11.20 .182 -.37 1.50

Specific
Conduct-
ance
( ymhos/cm)
-90
15
111

  Aerobic effluent -25 mg/1 chloride,  13.2 mg/1  nitrate.  0.0 mg/1  nitrite,
  25.93 mg/1 ammonia,  2 mg/1 oxygen, pH 7.6   and  600 Mmhos/cm conductance.

      Field application of effluent was studied  from December  1974 through
 March 1975.  Then the strategy for researching  overland  application  of waste
 was changed to use of plots and more  sophisticated  methods  of controlling  the
 application process.   Pretreatment analyses  of  the  soil  in  these  plots at
 depths of 15.2, 30.5  and 45.7 cm were conducted to  ascertain  the  degree  of
 uniformity among the  plots.

      Results in Table 6 show uniform  pH among the 12 plots  at all depths.
 This was an expected  observation since nothing  had  been  applied to the plots.
 The chloride content  of the soil over all plots was considerably  uniform
 before application with the exception of the 10 mg/1 values (Table 7).
 Another study indicated that the chloride concentration  of  soils  tend to vary
 among samples even when they are taken in close proximity of  each other  (19).
 There were no significant differences (P < 0.01) in chloride  concentration
 among depths of 15.2,  30.5,  and 45.7  cm,  which  indicated that percolation  of
 water through the soil in all plots was uniform.  Chloride  analyses  are  use-
 ful to monitor the impact of the treatment percolates because negatively
 charged chloride ions  do not adhere to the soil (20, 21).   Preliminary
 analysis of the soil  for chloride content yielded results which indicated  a
 potential to reduce the chloride concentration  of aerobic effluent when  it
 is  sprayed overland.   It is possible  that this  could be  accomplished by  the
 uptake of the chloride ions in aerobic effluent by  the soil and by plant
 tissue.   Salt concentration in soil,  measured by electrical conductivity
 (22),  increased with increased rates  of application of swine  waste.  Also,
 soil  chloride concentration increased from 1.87 milliequivalents  per liter
 (meq/1)  (66.30 mg/1) to  6.80 meg/1 (241.08 mg/1) at depths  from 30.5 cm.
When  swine waste was applied to cropland (23),  corn leaves  showed significant
increases in  phosphorus  and  sodium at the 0.05  and  0.01  confidence level,
respectively,  as the volume  of lagoon liquid was increased.   In this current
study, nitrogen analyses were impractical for preliminary soil samples be-
cause the excess time between taking  the samples and analyzing them  had  con-
tributed to a  loss of most of the nitrogen.
                                     16

-------
TABLE 6.   pH OF SOIL AT VARIOUS DEPTHS BEFORE IRRIGATION
Proposed
Replication
1
2
3
4
Mean Values

Depth
(cm)
15.2
30.5
45.7
15.2
30.5
45.7
15.2
30.5
45.7
15.2
30.5
45.7
15.2
30.5
45.7

Proposed
A
5.40
5.45
5.80
5.40
5.65
5.90
5.80
5.45
5.90
5.40
5.20
5.30
5.50
5,41
5.72
5.54a
Treatments
B
5.30
5.65
5.45
5.80
5.80
5.90
5.70
5.80
5.45
5.40
5.45
5.70
5.55
5.67
5.62
5.61a

C
5.45
5.45
5.70
5.65
5.65
6.05
5.45
5.45
5.70
5.30
5.30
5.40
5.46
5.41
5.71
5.53a





5.50a
5.50a
5.68a


Tlean values followed by a common letter are similar as determined by
 DNMRT (P <.01).
                                     17

-------
 TABLE  7.   CHLORIDE CONTENT OF SOIL AT VARIOUS DEPTHS BEFORE IRRIGATION
Proposed Depth
Replication (cm)
1 15.2
30.5
45.7
2 15.2
30.5
45.7
3 15.2
30.5
45.7
4 15.2
30.5
45.7
Mean Values 15.2
30.5
45.7

Proposed Treatments
A

6.50
7.50
7.00
7.50
7.50
7.00
6.50
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.50
6.50
6.63
6.88
6.63
6.71a
B
mg/1
7.50
7.50
10.00
7.50
7.50
7.00
7.50
7.50
7.50
6.50
7.50
7.50
7.50
7.50
8.00
7.67a
C

10.00
8.50
7.25
6.50
6.50
6.50
7.50
7.50
7.50
7.50
7.50
7.50
7.88
7.50
7.18
7.52a





7.34a
7.30a
7.27a

aMean values followed by a common letter are similar as determined by
 DNMRT (P <,01).
                                     18

-------
                                 SECTION VI

                              TRIAL I—PERIOD 2
     Anaerobic and aerobic effluents were analyzed monthly for the parameters
used to evaluate the environmental pollution abatement problems of this study.
Results of chemical and bacteriological analyses of the liquids used for
treatments A and C (Trial 1) are given in Table 8.

TABLE 8.  MEAN VALUES OF AEROBIC EFFLUENT AND TAP WATER USED AS IRRIGATION
	SPRAY ON PLOTS OF FIELDS—TRIAL 1	

           Parameters                            A               C
 Chloride,  (mg/1)

 N03-N,

 N02-N,

 NH3-N,

 BOD,  (mg/1)

 Specific Conductance,  ( ymhos/cm)

 pH

 Coliform,  (colonies/100 ml)
 15.00

 17.60

  0.00

  0.00

  5.00

300.00

  7.42

  0.00
 40.00

 12.00

  0.59

 38.74

 40.00

728.00

  7.54

200-1600
     The analysis for treatment B was not done because of an oversight.
Values represent analysis of the treatments at the time of application to the
plots.  BOD- values of 200-1600 mg/1 for aerobic effluent indicate the demand
for oxygen that waste water from lagoon cells will exert on the land disposal
site.  The type of collection device used to take soil water samples pre-
cluded the possibility of obtaining coliform values because of its filtering
actions.  Other bacteria are also prevented from entering the semiporous
sample collecting device; consequently, BOD- analyses of soil water were not
practical.  However, bacteria will be available for action in the soil, thus
lowering BOD5-
                                      19

-------
      Soil water data for pH,  chlorides, nitrate and ammonia-N after treat-
 ment were compared with treatment concentration of these constituents and
 reported as change in concentration in soil water after application.

      Analyses of soil water from plots after application of treatment A, B,
 and C indicated that pH decreased with penetration downward through the soil,
 accounting for greater change in pH values as  the depths increased.

      Analyses were less for all values (exception of one) after treatments
 were applied to the plots,  even for tap water.  There was a significant
 difference between the change of pH (P <  .01)  at all application rates,
 Table 9.

 TABLE 9.  CHANGE IN pH AFTER TREATMENTS WERE SPRAYED OVERLAND AS MEASURED
           IN SOIL WATER AT DIFFERENT DEPTHS
 Replication
Depth
 (cm)
                                              Treatment
 Mean Values
15.2
30.5
45.7

15.2
30.5
45.7

15.2
30.5
45.7

15.2
30.5
45.7

15.2
30.5
45.7
             -0.64
             -0.35
             -0.77

             -0.90
             -0.60
             -0.85

             -0.07
             -0.30
             -0.09

             -0.35
             -0.50
             -1.00

             -0.49
             -0.44
             -0.63

             -0.52
                                         _change in pH units	

                                               -1.29         -1.01
                                               -0.99         -1.90
                                               -1.54         -1.64

                                               -0.10         -1.19
                                               -1.44         -1.94
                                               -0.99         -2.04

                                               -0.24         -1.74
                                               -0.89         -1.76
                                               -1.64         -1.39

                                               -1.09         -1.64
                                               -1.12         -1.54
                                               -0.85         -1.44
-0.68
-1.11
-1.25
       0.67a
       0.88f»b
-1.17   1.02b
-0.85
-1.10
                                        a
                                                -1.01        -1.59C
a,b,c
     Mean values  not  followed by a common letter differ as determined by
     DNMRT,  (P <.01).

     Differences between post  treatment soil water values  for  chloride con-
centration and treatment concentrations of chloride are shown  in  Table 10.
The first column of Table 10  is  the difference in chloride concentration of
soil water post treatment values and chloride concentration in tap water.
There was an increase in negative value from 15.2 to  30.5  cm which means
                                     20

-------
there was less chloride at the 30.5 cm depth.  More chloride is in the 45.7
cm depth than the 30.5 cm depth.  Chloride ions and clay particles have the
same negative charge, thus the chloride ions should move downward in the soil
along with water movement.  Tap water sprayed overland gave least change in
chloride content of soil water after treatment.  There were significantly
greater changes (P < .05) in chloride content of soil water after treatment
with 0.25 and 0.51 cm of aerobic effluent per application.  Significant
(P < .05) differences in change of chloride content due to depth were noted.

TABLE 10.  CHANGE  IN  CHLORIDE AS MEASURED  IN  SOIL WATER AT VARIOUS DEPTHS1

                     Depth          	  Treatment	
Replication           (cm)          ABC
                                                                  i

                                               mg/1
1 15.2
30.5
45.7
2 15.2
30.5
45.7
3 15.2
30.5
45.7
4 15.2
30.5
45.7
Mean Values 15.2
30.5
45.7

10
- 5
0
5
0
0
20
5
5
0
0
0
9
0
1
a
3.3
-10
-10
-25
- 5
-15
-15
-15
-10
-10
-15
-15
-10
-11
-12
-15
-13b
5
-25
40
-25
-15
- 5
- 5
-20
-15
10
-25
-25
- 4 - 2a
-21 -llb
- 1 - 5a
_9b

  ' Mean values not  followed  by  a  common letter  differ  as  determined by  DNMRT,
   (P <. 05).
1
  Values represent difference between treatments and soil  water  analysis.

     There were no significant differences  (P <  .05) in change  of nitrate
concentration with depth when aerobic effluent was  sprayed overland  (Table 11),
Nitrate-N should behave similarly to chloride ions,  i.e., show  some  apparent
increase as the soil depth increases because it  also has  the same negative
                                     21

-------
 change as the soil.  The  slight difference in the amount of nitrate-N in the
 top 15.2 cm of soil  as  compared with lower depths for treatments A and B is
 not only due to the  addition of effluent but also accounted for by the
 nitrification of the organic matter which is constantly taking place in the
 top soil.  Nitrate-N ion  concentration increased significantly (P < .05)
 when aerobic effluent containing 12.08 mg/1 NO--N was sprayed overland
 (Table 11).

 TABLE 11. CHANGE IN  N03-N CONCENTRATION AFTER TREATMENTS WERE  SPRAYED
           OVERLAND
 Replication
Depth
 (cm)
                                              Treatment
                                                mg/l_
1 15.2
30.5
45.7
2 15.2
30.5
45.7
3 15.2
30.5
45.7
4 15.2
30.5
45.7
Mean Values 15.2
30.5
45.7

-4.40
1.76
-4.40
-2.20
1.76
4.40
-1.76
-4.40
4.40
-6.40
-4.40
0.00
-3.45
-2.20
-1.88a
22.00
0.50
0.90
9.00
15.60
9.44
9-00
15.60
12.52
11.20
16.48
13.13
9.10
10.61
10.94b
13.40
11.20
20.00
18.24
46.40
29-20
36.28
11.20
24.40
9.00
20.00
20.00
19.23
22.20
23.40
21.61C




10.783
9.28a
12.07a


 a'  '  Mean  values  not  followed  by  a  common letter  differ  as determined by
      DNMRT,  (P <.05).
     Pretreatment and post treatment data were compared to determine  change
in concentration of chloride in soil water after overland application (Table
12).  Since a lapse of about 60 days occured between pre- and post  treatment
sampling and analysis, it is quite likely that frequent rainfall  affected
results and the change in mean aerobic effluent concentration after overland
application, as given in Table 10 may be more meaningful.
                                     22

-------
TABLE 12. CHANGE IN CHLORIDE CONTENT OF SOIL WATER AFTER OVERLAND
          .APPLICATION OF TREATMENTS

Replication
1
2
3
4
Mean Values
Depth Mean
Depth
(cm)
15.2
30.5
45.7
15.2
30.5
45.7
15.2
30.5
. 45.7
15.2
30.5
45.7
15.2
30.5
45.7
-

A

0.00
0.00
0.00
5.00
0.00
-10.00
- 5.00
5.00
5.00
- 5.00
0.00
0.00
- 1.25
1.25
- 1.25
- 0.42a
Treatment
B
mg/1
-10.00
-10.00
0.00
5.00
0.00
0.00
-10.00
- 5.00
-10.00
-10.00
5.00
- 5.00
- 6.25
- 1.25
- 4.17b

C

8.00
- 2.00
6.00
- 5.00
10.00
- 5.00
0.00
- 5.00
-10.00
-15.00
-10.00
- 6.50 -4.17a
- 3.00 -2.67a
- 4.75 -2.42a
- 4.75b

a' Mean values not followed by a common letter differ as determined by
   DNMRT,  (P<0.05).


     A study of Table 13 indicates the effectiveness of the nitrification
process in converting ammonium salts to other components when aerobic efflu-
ent is sprayed overland.  The negative values in Table 13 mean that the con-
centration NH,-N are that much less in soil water after various treatments
than in aerobic effluent, e.g., wherever the value -38.74 occurs in Table 13
all NH--N which was in treatments B and C was reduced to zero after land
application.
                                     23

-------
TABLE 13. CHANGE IN AMMONIA NITROGEN CONCENTRATION AFTER TREATMENTS  WERE
          SPRAYED OVERLAND

Depth
Replication (cm)
1 15.2
30.5
45.7
2 15.2
30.5
45.7
3 15.2
30.5
45.7
4 15.2
30.5
45.7
Mean Values 15.2
30.5
45.7


A

0.07
0.00
0.09
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.24
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.08
0.00
0.02
0.03a
Treatment
B
mg/1
-15.74
-14.57
-15.87
-15.87
-15.87
-15.87
-14.71
-15.87
-15.13
-15.87
-15.87
-15.87
-15.55
-15.55
-15.69
-15.60b

C

-28.37
-38.74
-38.42
-38.41
-38.22
-38.34
-38.24
-38.51
-38.58
-38.62
-38.62
-38.08
-38.41 -25.64a
-38.52 -25.66a
-38.36 -25.64a
-38.43°

f\ 1* *-»
 ' '  Mean values not followed by a common  letter  differ as  determined by
     DNMRT, (P<0.05).
                                     24

-------
                                SECTION VII

                             TRIAL 2--PERIOD 3
     The second application of overland spray was conducted daily—six times
per week for 36 days on the same plots as applications for period one.  There
was a lapse of four and a half months between the end of Trial 1 and the
beginning of Trial 2.  The chemical and bacteriological analyses for con-
stituents of the liquids used for treatments A, B, and C during Trial 2 are
given in Table 14.

TABLE 14.  ANALYSES OF TREATMENTS A, B, AND C USED AS IRRIGATION SPRAY ON
           PLOTS AND FIELDS—TRIAL 2
Parameter
\
Chloride, (mg/1)
N03-N, (mg/1)
N02-N, (mg/1)
NH3-N, (mg/1)
BOD, (mg/1)
Specific Conductance, (Micromhos/cm)
PH
Coliform, (colonies/100 ml.)
A
15.00
4.40
0.00
0.00
0.00
300.00
7.15
0.00
B
30.00
0.30
0.0165
22.50
	
560.00
8.00
2500.00
C
61.25
0.70
0.4000
52.09
52.09
1139.00
8.08
4,040.00

 Aug.  -  Dec.  '76

     Change in pH was twice as high for the second period of application
compared with the first application (Table 15).  There were no significant
differences in the change of pH  (P <  .05) related to depth of infiltration.
This fairly uniform pH indicates uniform infiltration of soil water after
overland spray.  There was a significant greater (P <.05) reduction in pH
for two levels of effluent spray when compared with the application of water
only.
                                      25

-------
 TABLE 15.  CHANGEa IN pH AFTER VARIOUS TREATMENTS WERE SPRAYED OVERLAND
Depth
Replication (cm)
! 15.2
30.5
45.7
2 15.2
30.5
45.7
3 15.2
30.5
45.7
4 15.2
30.5
45.7
Mean Values 15.2
30.5
45.7

A

1.15
.58
1.05
1.15
.83
1.21
1.15
1.12
.96
1.45
.83
1.20
1.22
• .84
1.10
Treatment
B
change in pH units
2.00
2.30
2.31
1.90
1.99
1.85
2.06
1.73
2.33
1.59
2.00
2 - 02
1.73
2.01

C

2.18
2.08
1.83
2.29
2.51
2.48
2.10
1.68
2.06
2.08
2.13
1.96
2.16
2.10
2.08





1.80a
1.55a
1.73a
                                      1.05a
1.92C
2.11L
 aAll values negative (this much less in soil water than treatments).

 a»"Mean values not followed by a common letter differ as determined by
    DNMRT, (P<.01).


     Results pertaining to change in chloride contents of the various treat-
ments are shown in Table 16.  There was only slight variation in the samples
taken from the same depth from plot to plot.  Somewhat more variation in
samples was observed for nitrate nitrogen.  Results, in this respect, show
some similarity to another observation which indicated that water soluble
nitrate and chloride are not affected by the exchange complex of the soil
matrix, causing much greater variation from sample to sample (12).  Results
over all treatments for the 45.7 cm depth than for lesser depths when treat-
ment was applied to the land.

     There was a mean difference of 13.25 mg/1 less chloride in soil water
after applying treatment C to the soil (Table 16) than in treatment  C which
contained 61.25 mg/1 of chloride ions (Table 14).
                                     26

-------
TABLE 16„  CHANGE IN CHLORIDE  CONTENT AFTER TREATMENTS WERE  SPRAYED
	OVERLAND, TRIAL  2	
Replication
Depth
 (cm)
                                             Treatments
Mean Values
15.2
30.5
45.7

15.2
30.5
45.7

15.2
30.5
45.7

15.2
30.5
45.7

15.2
30.5
45.7
                                   15.00
                                    2.00
                                    0.00

                                   15.00
                                   15.00
                                    5.00

                                   15.00
                                    2.
                                    5.
                50
                00
                                  -  5
                00
              0.00
              0.00
             10.00
              4.87
              2.50
5.00
10.00
5.00
7.50
12.50
7.50
7.50
2.50
3.75
0.00
10.00
1.56
1.25
4.16
-18.50
-36.00
14.00
-31.00
-13.50
OQ nn
j j • \j\j
19.00
-13.50
-31.00
1.50
34.00
-21.00
- 7.25
-14.75
-17.75
         1.43a
             *
                                    5.79£
                            1.28C
-13.251
   Mean values  not  followed  by  a  common letter  differ  as  determined by
   DNMRT,  (P <-01).

 ( ---- ) A sample was not  available for  this  depth.
     In Table 17, it can be seen that the mean of NO«-N was greater 135 days
after application of treatment at two levels of applicaiton.  These samples
were analyzed at the end of the rainy season of November through February
and the results are very similar to predictable nitrate distribution in the
soil profile (24) which showed greatest concentration of NO--N  (in yg/g)
at a depth of 35.6 cm after infiltration by 5.1 cm of rainfall.

     When the concentrations of NOo-N in soil water after Trial 1 were com-
pared with concentrations of NO.--N 135 days later (Table 17), analysis of
variance gave a significant second order interaction involving  treatment,
depth and time (P < .01).  Because of this, the data were analyzed within
depths to determine the effects of treatment and time.  There were no signif-
icant sources of variance in either depth 1 or depth 2, but at  depth 3 the
                                      27

-------
     TABLE 17.   NITRATE CONTENT OF SOIL WATER AT VARIOUS DEPTHS IMMEDIATELY AFTER SPRAYING  AND  135 DAYS

                AFTER SPRAYING
to
00

Depth
Replication (cm)

1 15.2
30.5
45.7
2 15.2
30.5
45.7
3 15.2
30.5
45.7
4 15.2
30.5
45.7
Mean Values 15.2
30.5
45.7

Treatment
A

*
13.20
2.20
4.40
2.20
2.64
2.20
3.52
4.40
	
1.76
4.84
3.52
5.17
3.52
3.37
4.02

**
10.00
5.00
9.00
4.40
6.00
18.00
1.00
3.10
18.00
13.00
97.00
18.00
7.10
27.77
15.75
16.87
B
mg/1
*
10.80
	
36.08
19.30
3.08
	
71.28
2.64
3.50
8.80
	
11.00
27.54
2.86
16.86
15.75
C

**
31.00
119.00
61.00
9.00
18.00
8.00
53.00
37.00
18.00
40.00
60.00
30.00
33.25
58.50
29.25
40.33

*
14.08
	
	
13.20
37.50
25.52
41.00
13.20
6.60
2.08
11.00
6.00
17.59
20.59
12.70
16.79

**
14.00
14.00
18.00
35.00
22.00
— — — —
2.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
10.00
4.00
13.50
11.75
8.00
11.08
        *Immediately after irrigation - 1st Trial.

       **135 days after irrigation.

     	No sample.

-------
interaction between treatment and time was significant (P < .05) (Table 18).
Presumably, a substantial part of the nitrogen removed from the soil by
vegetable growth was returned since the vine portion containing assimilated
nitrogen was returned to the soil during the 135 days.

TABLE 18.  TREATMENT (NITRATE) MEANS AFTER SPRAYING AND 135 DAYS LATER -
           DEPTH, 45.7 CENTIMETERS

Treatment
Time A B
me/1
(3)*u (3) .
h 3 L*
10 O7 1 C. Q £
j. j/ lo. oo
(4) (4)
2 15.753 29.25a
C

12.70ab
8 . 00ab
 ab
   Means not followed by  the  same letter differ  (P< .05) as determined by
   DNMRT.

  *Numbers  enclosed with  parenthesis are number  of  observations in the mean.

     After  the second period  of spraying, the reduction of NH,-N in aerobic
effluent was almost complete, inasmuch as the maximum values obtained in
soil water  analysis were  0, 0.60, and 4.50 mg/1 after spraying with 0, 50,
and 100 percent aerobic effluent, respectively.  All values were rather uni-
form (standard deviation  + 0.0842) among these samples.  The effectiveness
of the nitrification process  can be seen by referring to the values shown in
Table 14.   Aerobic effluent may be seen to contain  52.09 mg/1 and the aerobic
effluent-water mixture 22.50  mg/1 of NHg-N.  Results in Table 19, showing
reductions  of NH~-N, are  almost equivalent to the analysis of treatment B
and C before application.  For the second period application of overland
spray, Table 20 shows that the mean increase of nitrate N at the 15.2 cm
depth was greater than depths of 30.5 or 45.7 cm.   Rainfall during this
period of application was negligible, and may have  been responsible for the
limited amount of soil infiltration of NO--N.

     Applying twice as much of all treatments during Trail 2 than during
Trial 1 gave findings of  0.77, 4.72, and 0.06 mg/i  mean increase in NO--N
for treatments A, B, and  C, respectively.  There was no significant (P < 0.05)
difference  in change of NO--N for 0.25 and 0.51  cm  of aerobic effluent ap-
plication but changes were significantly greater  (P < 0.05) at these two
levels of effluent than when  water only was applied.

     The nitrification process yielded 60 to 40  percent of NH3-N to NO^-N
conversion  after application  of treatments B and  C  as measured in soil water.
                                     29

-------
TABLE 19.    CHANGE IN NH-j-N CONTENT AFTER VARIOUS TREATMENTS WERE SPRAYED
           OVERLAND
___ 	 	 -- - 	 	 	 - 	 — 	 • 	 	 	 — — — — — — — 	 — 	 	
Depth
Replication (cm)

1 15.2
30.5
45.7
2 15.2
30.5
45 7
3 15.2
30.5
45.7
4 15.2
30.5
45.7
Mean Values 15.2
30.5
45.7

^MIIBMW^a»M^MBH«*VMVM«IW*«V
A

-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
fl—
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-a
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^•^•••^••••.^WBVBriM
Treatment
B
mg/1
-22.40
-22.22
-21.82
-22.50
-22.50
-22.48
-21.40
-22.49
-22.31
-22.50
-22.18
-22.42
-22.15
-22.18
-22.25b

C

-51.99
-52.09
-52.09
-52.09
-52.09
S? OQ
,)£. * U"
-52.09
-47.58
-52.09
-52.06
-52.04
-51.80
-52.06 -24.82a
-50.95 -24.36a
-52.02 -24.73a
-51.61C
a,b,c.



	No sample
     Mean values not followed by a common letter differ a determined by
     DNMRT (P< .05)
                                     30

-------
TABLE 20.  CHANGE IN NO-^-N CONTENT AFTER TREATMENTS WERE SPRAYED OVERLAND
Depth
Replication (in.)

I 15.2
30.5
45.7
2 15.2
30.5
AS 7
*T -J . /
3 15.2
30.5
45.7
4 15.2
30.5
45.7
Average 15 . 2
30.5
45.7


A

8.80
- 2.20
1.20
2.20
12.32
Uon
• jU
- 0.22
- 0.22
- 1.21
- 2.64
0.44
- 0.88
2.03
2.58
3.35
2.65a
Treatment
B
mg/1
13.56
23.90
35.34
18.59
6.08
45.10
3.22
6.95
5.20
3.21
9.60
20.61
9.10
17.29
15.66b

C

26.10
24.56
1.49
27.89
40.04
LI ?S
*+ / • L D
32.99
10.29
19.09
13.53
9.19
7.65
25.12 15.92a
21.02 10.69a
18.87 13.17a
21.67b
a»bMean values not followed by a common letter differ as determined by
   DNMRT, (P < .05).

	No sample.
                                     31

-------
RUNOFF AND SOIL CHARACTERISTICS

     Runoff from seven plots sprayed with various volumes of effluent con-
tained more NH~-N than the effluent which infiltrated the soil.  A schematic
of a typical plot showing the outlay of materials and means of collecting
runoff after applications of treatments is presented in Figure 2.
                                                                           ';-'
           Figure 2. v Schematic of a typical   6  x  6 m  plot showing
                      arrangement of soil  water samplers and runoff
                      materials   (insets show  details.)


-------
     Samples were taken 24 days after the application of effluent commenced.
Negative values of NH3-N concentration in Table 21 mean that the NH3-N con-
centration of the treatments was reduced by that amount after spraying over-
land.

 TABLE  21. CHANGE IN NH3-N CONCENTRATION IN RUNOFF FROM VOLUMES OF AEROBIC
            EFFLUENT SPRAYED OVERLAND
Replication
1
2
3
4
Average

A

3.66
1.50
1.25
1.25
1.91
Treatment
B
mg/1
6.25
-00.50
- 3.74
- 6.25
- 4.19

C

-10.90
25.35
18.85
10.35
10.91
     Values in Table 22 were also tabulated from the results of samples
collected after an application of treatments was made on the 24th day of
this trial period.  Runoff is from the 24th day application only.  At this
particular time of application, the NO,-N concentration was decreased in
replications receiving tap water or 100 percent effluent.  Runoff was less
from plots receiving treatments B and C containing liquid swine manure.
This was partly due to the density of vegetable plants; also, the liquid
treatment containing 100 percent aerobic effluent is more concentrated with
organic and inorganic solubles that abate erosion and enhance soil retention
(25).  Treatment C was a substantial contribution to soil improvement, giving
it a porous, crumbly texture, whereas the soil in plots receiving only tap
water was more impervious and resisted infiltration of this liquid.

     Soil receiving treatments B and C was darker after daily application of
effluent.  It was difficult to obtain runoff from plots that received 100
percent aerobic effluent; therefore, the higher concentration of NH--N in
runoff from these plots compared to the other plots should not imply that
the total amount of NH~N loss by this route was high.
                                    33

-------
 TABLE 22.  CHANGE IN NITRATE NITROGEN CONCENTRATION IN RUNOFF FROM VARIOUS
            VOLUMES OF AEROBIC EFFLUENT SPRAYED OVERLAND
Replication
1
2
• 3
4
Average

A

-0.75
-4.40
-0.88
0.88
-1.29
Treatment
B
mg/1
-7.42
1.32
0.44
-0.88
2.07

C

-0.09
-0.41
1.32
1.32
0.53
IMPORTANCE OF TIMING EFFLUENT APPLICATION

     Suppressed weed growth and a good stand of vegetables were obtained by
withholding daily application of effluent until the plants had a good start
on the weeds.  Two to three weeks was generally sufficient.  Vegetable
growth was very slow on the plots that received tap water and weed control
was difficult.  Vegetable growth was very rapid on plots sprayed with ef-
fluent, and weed growth was slow.

     Application of liquid manure was terminated one to four weeks before
time for gathering the vegetables.  Variety was a determining factor.
Termination of application of effluent hastened fruiting and ripening,
whereas on plots sprayed with tap water fruiting was negligible and ripening
was premature.
                                     34

-------
                                 SECTION VIII

                              TRIAL 3--PERIOD 4


      The third application of swine waste was sprayed morning and afternoon--
 6 days each week from June 13 through July 30, 1977.  Ground moisture was
 recorded as 12 on the tensiometer at the start of treatments.  A good stand
 of vegetable plants consisting  of tomatoes, cucumbers, collards, okra,
 cantaloupes, and peas was in all plots with the exception of those that had
 been sprayed with water only.   On these plots the stand of vegetable plants
 was scant.  Each kind of vegetable was planted in the same amount on all
 plots.  Applications of swine waste during this trial were on the same plots
 as Trials 1 and 2.  There was a lapse of 278 days between Trials 2 and 3.
 The contents of treatments A, B, and C used for Trial 3 are given in Table 23.

 TABLE 23. ANALYSES OF TREATMENTS A, B AND C USED AS IRRIGATION SPRAY ON
            PLOTS AND FIELDS

Parameter
Chloride, (mg/1)
N03-N, (mg/1)
N02-N, (mg/1)
NH3-N, (mg/1)
BOD, (mg/1)
Specific Cond. , (Micromhos/cm)
pH
Coliform, (colonies/100 ml)

A
10.00
2.20
0.01
0.00
0.00
330.00
8.20
0.00
Treatment
B
20.00
2.20
0.02
13.00
40.00
520.00
8.50
2500.00

C
20.00
2.20
0.03
33.55
110.00
690.00
8.00
2700.00

RUNOFF ANALYSES
     Tables 24 through 27 give a measurement  of  pH,  chloride,  NH -N,  and
N03~N in the runoff fr°™ the three  treatments applied  during  this trial.
                                      35

-------
The data  in Table 24 shows that replications receiving water only displayed
an overall increase in NH«-N content in the runoff.

 TABLE 24.  CHANGE IN AMMONIA-NITROGEN CONTENT OF VARIOUS  VOLUMES  OF AEROBIC
            EFFLUENT AS MEASURED IN PLOT RUNOFF

Treatment
Replication A
B
C
tng/1
1 0.83
2 0.46
3 1.22
4 1.04
Average 0.89
2.25
3.85
	
3.85
3.31
-13.42
	
-18.30
-13.42
-15.04

 	No sample.

      The  same  observation may be noted for three out of four replications
 receiving a mixture of 50 percent effluent and 50 percent tap water.  The
 exact opposite was observed in the data from plots treated with 100 percent
 effluent.  The NH--N content of the runoff was reduced by almost one-half.
 These effects  reflect differences in plant density among the plots.  Plots
 substantially  reducing NH--N had a heavier growth of plant material and the
 rate  of runoff was slow.

      Table 25  shows changes in pH of runoff.  In replications sprayed with
 water, the overall effect was essentially no change in pH.  Runoff from
 plots receiving the effluent and water mixture yielded a decrease in pH.
 Areas receiving pure effluent showed practically no change in pH due to
 overland  flow  of this treatment after spraying.

      It is possible that these irregularities in pH in the runoff reflect
 different  degrees of nitrification in the ground surface among these plots
 (26).                                           \

      The changes in NO--N are given in Table 26.  Runoff samples from re-
 plications receiving water only exhibited both increase and decrease in NO«-N
measurements with two plots having identical increase and the other two plots
 showing identical decrease in NO--N.  In samples from plots receiving treat-
ment  B, NO--N  content varied from one replication to another with two plots
 showing no change and the remaining two showing an increase and a decrease.
                                    36

-------
 TABLE  25.  CHANGE IN pH OF VARIOUS VOLUMES OF AEROBIC EFFLUENT AS MEASURED
            IN PLOT RUNOFF

Replication
1
2
3
4
Average

A

0.30
0.30
-0.40
-0.20
0.00
Treatments
B
change in pH units
-0.50
-0.50
-0.90
0.60
-0.30

C

-0.10
0.00
0.00
0.00
-0.02

TABLE 26. CHANGE IN
EFFLUENT
NITRATE NITROGEN CONTENT OF VARIOUS
AS MEASURED IN PLOT RUNOFF
VOLUMES OF AEROBIC

Replication
1
2
3
4
Average

A

1.32
1.32
-0.44
-0.44
0.76
Treatments
B
mg/1
0.00
-1.32
0.44
0.00
-0.88

C

-0.88
0.00
-2.20
-2.20
-1.32
     Sections treated with pure effluent gave a decrease in NO--N content.
When treatment A was applied to the soil, two plots showed an increase in
NO--N.  On plots receiving treatment C, less NO,-N was present in the run-
off from three plots than before the treatment was applied.

     There was 0 mg/1 (-2.20 mg/1) of NO^-N in samples from two of these
plots and 0.88 (-0.88) mg/1 less NO^-N in the runoff from one of the three
plots.  The density of plants on these three plots was high.  Wherever lateral
movement of water through the upper 15.2 cm of soil into the runoff occurred,
                                      37

-------
  the soil was effective in changing the concentration of treatments, especially
  so, if  the number of plants was high.  Similar conditions affect the runoff
  changes in N03~N from plots receiving treatment B but less than from plots
  receiving treatment C.  The data in Table 27 show changes in chloride of
  plots undergoing treatments A, B, and C.

  TABLE 27.  CHANGE IN CHLORIDE CONTENT OF VARIOUS VOLUMES OF AEROBIC
            EFFLUENT AS MEASURED IN PLOT RUNOFF

Treatment
Replication A
B
C
mg/1
1 5.0
2 5.0
3 5.0
4 10.0
Average 6.2
O.Q
0.0
5,0
0.0
1.2
5.0
0.0
5.0
5.0
3.7

      Samples from areas treated with tap water only and also  those treated
 with 100 percent effluent showed a definite increase in chloride content,
 while runoff samples from replications having treatment B applied to them
 remained practically unchanged.

 SOIL WATER ANALYSES

      After applications of the treatments were made during Trial 3,  pH re-
 duction in soil water was greatest at the 15.2 cm depth for treatments A
 and B and very near the same at  all depths for treatment C.   Groups of
 microorganisms,  having the capacity to degrade soil nutrients, reach large
 numbers in the surface of agricultural soils (28).   These microorganisms
 are agents for denitrification, a process believed to raise pH (26).   Evidence
 of  nitrification (Table 28)  at the 15.2 cm depth  is more apparent,  especially
 so  for  treatment B  at the 15.2 cm depth,  thus casting some doubt on the
 denitrification  and the increased pH hypothesis,  as there was an apparent
 greater reduction in pH at the 30.5 cm depth for  treatment B.  Nitrification
was  evident in Trial 3,  so speculation that denitrification contributed to
low mean nitrate production  at all depths may be  in order.  There was a
mean reduction of 22 percent for pH over all treatments (Table 26).   There
is more evidence for than against the denitrification - increased pH hypoth-
esis in this trial.   Denitrification usually occurs in situations where there
is overflooding  of  land  by irrigation (28),  but it  is temporary  and nitrifi-
cation is soon restored  after  the land is no longer saturated.
                                     38

-------
TABLE 28.  DECREASE IN pH OF VARIOUS VOLUMES OF AEROBIC EFFLUENT SPRAYED
           OVERLAND AS MEASURED IN SOIL WATER AT DIFFERENT DEPTHS
Depth
Replication (cm)
1 15.2
30.5
45.7
2 15.2
30.5
45.7
3 15.2
30.5
45.7
4 15.2
30.5
45.7
Mean Values 15.2
30.5
45.7

A

3.10
3.10
3.00
2.20
1.95
2.50
0.60
0.60
0.50
0.30
0.70
2.20
1.55.
1.58
2.05
Treatments
B
__pH unit decrease
2.40
2.80
3.10
2.40
2.50
2.20
0.95
2.60
1.40
2.50
1.50
0.95
2.06
2.35
1.19

C

2.20
2.70
2.90
2.00
2.00
1.80
0.80
0.80
0.80
1.50
0.60
0.60
1.62 1.74a
1.52 1.81
1.52 1.82a
                                     1.72^
2.10a
1.55C
aMean values followed by a common letter are similar as determined by
 DNMRT  (P <.01).

     The NH,,-N content of treatments B and C used during Trial 3 was near
half that used for Trial 2.  As expected, the percent reduction of NH--N
was 98  to 99 percent of the NH,-N in treatments B and C, respectively.
NH,-N was transported downward through the soil by water with apparently
very little transformation occurring along with movement, and, consequently,
uniform concentration of NH»-N at each depth.  A standard deviation of +
0.0914  mg/1 for NH_-N changes suggest uniformity of data within the treat-
ments (Table 29).

     The data in Table 30 shows considerable variation among the plots, with
most of the highest NO^-N values in plots receiving aerobic effluent appear-
ing at  the 15.2 cm depth.  NO.,-N was either generated (at most depths) or it
remained the same in the treatment percolate as it was in the treatments.
It was  considered that a substantial portion of the generated nitrate nitro-
gen would be utilized by the vegetable crops during the remaining growing
season  and returned to the soil by unused vegetation.
                                    39

-------
  TABLE 29.  DECREASE IN NH3~N CONTENT OF VARIOUS VOLUMES OF AEROBIC EFFLUENT
             AS MEASURED IN SOIL WATER AT DIFFERENT DEPTHS
  Replication
Depth
 (cm)
                                                 Treatment
                                                   m;
1 15.2
30.5
45.7
2 15.2
30.5
45.7
3 15.2
30.5
45.7
4 15.2
30.5
45.7
Mean Values 15.2
30.5
45.7

-0-
—0—
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
13.00
13.00
13.00
12.66
12.94
13.00
12.63
12.81
12.75
12.76
12.63
12.56
12.76
12.84
12.83
12.81b
33.49
33.49
33.49
33.37
33.37
33.55
33.55
33.55
33.55
32.46
33.19
33.31
33.21
33.40
33.47
33.36C




15.323
15.41a
15.43a


  a' '°Mean values not followed by a common letter differ as determined by
       DNMRT (P <.01).

     Differences between post  treatment  soil water values for chloride con-
 centration and  treatment concentration of  chloride ions  are given in  (Table
 31).   The  chloride  ion concentration of  soil water had a range of 10 mg/1
 (0 mg/1  change)  to  77  mg/1  (57 mg/1 change).  A portion  of the chloride
 ions that  was added to the  plots by the  treatments adhered to the soil.
 Uptake by  the plants removed a portion,  also.  Pretreatment (Trial 3) analysis
 of the soil in  all  plots for chloride ions gave a concentration of less than
 25 parts per million (ppm).  High concentrations of chloride ions in the
 soil water after treatment  are due to the  accumulation of chloride ions during
 Trial  3.   The decreases  in  specific conductance shown in Table 32 imply an
uptake of  salts  in  the treatments by the soil and plants.  Analyses of the
 soil prior to Trial  3  gave  a range of 150  to 1000 ppm of calcium among the
plot depths.  Analysis of the  soil was not conducted for post treatment
contents.
                                     40

-------
TABLE 30.  CHANGE IN N03-N CONTENT OF VARIOUS VOLUMES OF AEROBIC EFFLUENT
           AS MEASURED IN SOIL WATER

Depth
Replication (cm)
1 15.2
30.5
45.7
2 15.2
30.5
45.7
3 15.2
30.5
45.7
4 15.2
30.5
45.7
Mean Values 15.2
30.5
45.7


A

0.00
0.00
5.28
1.76
0.00
0.44
-0.44
-0.44
1.32
0.00
2.20
1.32
0.33
0.44
2.09
0.95a
Treatment
B
mg/1
41.80
17.60
8.80
1.76
0.00
0.00
26.84
2.20
8.80
6.60
1.30
2.20
19.25
5.27
4.95
9.82b

C

8.80
0.00
0.88
11.00
30.00
33.00
8.80
1.32
1.32
0.00
2.20
2.20
7.15 8.91a
8.38 4.69a
9.35 5.46a
8.29b

a'bMean values not followed by a common letter differ as determined by
   DNMRT (P <.05).
                                     41

-------
TABLE 31.  CHANGE IN CHLORIDE CONTENT OF TREATMENTS  SPRAYED OVERLAND AS
           MEASURED IN SOIL WATER AT DIFFERENT DEPTHS

Depth
Replication (cm)
1 15.2
30.5
45.7
2 15.2
30.5
45.7
3 15.2
30.5
45.7
4 15.2
30.5
45.7
Mean Values 15.2
30.5
45.7


A

20.00
10.00
25.00
15.00
17.00
15.00
25.00
13.00
20.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
17.5
12.5
17.5
15. 8a
Treatments
B
mg/1
-0-
-0-
5.00
10.00
51.00
51.00
8.00
3.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.7
14.7
16.5
12. 3a

C

40.00
35.00
57.00
-0-
-0-
10.00
30.00
15.00
35.00
55.00
25.00
25.00
31.5 18. 2a
18.5 15. 2a
31.7 21. 9a
27. 2a

wean values  followed by a common letter are similar as determined by
DNMRT,  (P<.05).
                                   42

-------
TABLE 32.  DECREASE IN SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE OF TREATMENTS AS MEASURED IN
           SOIL WATER AT DIFFERENT DEPTHS

Depth
Replication (cm)
1 15.2
30.5
45.7
2 15.2
30.5
45.7
3 15.2
30.5
45.7
4 15.2
30.5
45.7
Mean Values 15.2
30.5
45.7


A

190
195
215
230
223
218
228
226
180
220
221
240
217
216
213
215a
Treatment
B
ymhos/cm
220
270
245
365
220
190
245
270
410
383
380
370
303
285
303
297a

C

415
440
440
515
506
390
390
532
440
550
525
540
467 329a
500 333a
452 322a
47 3b

a,b
   Mean values not followed by a common letter differ as determined by
   DNMRT (P< .01).
                                     43

-------
                                  SECTION  IX

                       SUMMARY:   PERIODS 1, 2,  3, AND  4
 PERIOD 1

      Analyses of demonstration fields numbered  1,  2, and  3 were made after
 one,  two,  and three hours,  respectively,  of  spraying (1.96 cm/hr) with 100
 percent aerobic effluent.   The analyses  indicated  that  the soil-plant re-
 sponse to  aerobic effluent  was immediate for pH, chloride ions, NO»-N, etc.,
 at a depth of 91 cm.

      The pretreatment period findings indicated uniformity in  soil contents
 among the  experimental plots,  with standard  deviations  of + 0.19 for pH and
 + 0.67 ppm for chloride ion concentration among samples.  The  plots were,
 therefore, assigned treatments A,  B,  and C in a completely random design.

 PERIODS 2, 3, AND 4

      There was no significant  difference (P  < .05)  in percolation of treat-
 ments among depths for Trials  1 and 3, but there was significantly less
 (P <.01) chloride ion concentration at the 45.7 cm depth  compared to succes-
 sively lesser depths for Trial 2.   In all trials,  as in a similar investigation
 (29),. the  concentration of  chloride ions at  each depth  was an  indication of
 the extent of percolation of the treatments  through the soil.

      The fate of applied nitrogen was one of the principal concerns in this
 study.   Decreases in NH,-N  after application of the second and third levels
 of effluent were very similar  for Trials 1,  2,  and 3, although the total
 volumes for successive trials  were increased.   The reduction of NH--N in
 treatments B and C was more than 97 percent  after  all applications.  The
 nitrification process produced nitrate,  the  preferred form of  nitrogen for
 plant  growth (3),  from NH_-N,  the form of nitrogen that is found in defecated
 swine waste in addition to  organic nitrogen  (26).   Because of  the extent of
 the nitrification process in these trials, the  results  impose  recognizable
 limitations,  but trends in  mg/1 change of NHg-N have been established that
were associated with the volume of swine effluent  applied to land for vege-
 table crop production.
     Summaries of NH_-N  transformation and  NO--N generation and utilization
after spraying plots planted with vegetable crops are given in Appendix
Tables A-l and A-2.  NH--N  transformation and  NO--N generation and utilization
were plotted against the amount  of  NEL-N in all treatments for the combined
                                       44

-------
trials (Figure 3).  The curve for NH -N concentration in treatments and the
NH--N change after treatments is almost linear, suggesting that ammonia
nitrogen and inorganic nitrogen were almost completely transformed to NO_-N,
a considerable portion of which was presumed to have been utilized  by the
plants, and some denitrified.  Since only the fruit from the vegetable plants
was removed, some of the assimilated nigrogen was returned to the soil and
degraded by microoganisms.
                       NH3T-N,  N03r-N change, N03-N (sample) mg/1


         Figure 3.   Ammonia nitrogen concentration of treatments applied
                    to the soil and change in ammonia and nitrate nitrogen
                    as measured in soil water.
                                    45

-------
      The soil had the capacity to  adjust pH  to very near the same values in
 soil water,  especially in Trials 2 and  3  (Table 33).  The buffering action
 of the soil  limits change in  soil  pH, and after a period of time there
 should be more change (30), even in the pH of the soil water.  The specific
 conductance  measured in Trial 3 was considerably lower after all treatments.

 TABLE 33.  SUMMARY OF pH VALUES OF SOIL WATER AFTER TRIALS 1. 2. AND 3
                             	Treatments
 Trials                      A                      B
                                                   PH
   1                        6.90                 not rec.               5.95

   2                        6.10                   6.08                 5.87

   3                        6.48                   6.40                 6.45
      The volume of  runoff was not measured  in any of the trials, but it
 varied among the plots  from approximately 0.5 to 4.0 liters per application
 during Trial 1,  and somewhat more during Trial 3.  The volume of runoff was
 dependent upon the  density  of the plant and the percent of aerobic effluent
 in the treatment.

      The uptake of  NO~-N and chlorides in vegetable plant leaves (composite
 of three samples) did not exceed acceptable standards after Trial 3.  The
 response of  vegetable crops was good  in plots receiving treatment C after
 Trial 1,  and in plots receiving treatments  B and C after Trials 2 and 3, the
 response of  vegetable crops was very  good.  It was easy to control weeds and
 obnoxious grasses in plots  receiving  treatments B and C.

      It  was  considered  possible that  if analyses were conducted four to six
months after Trials 2 and 3, time would have contributed to the accumulation
of more  NO,-N as after  Trial 1, especially  if low temperatures prevailed
 (24)  during  the  post growing season.

      There was a greater change in pH for treatments B and C when compared
with  treatment A for all trials, except after treatment C, Trial 3  (Tables
8, 14, and 28).

      In addition to good growth of vegetable plants on the experimental
plots, good  stands  of grass and clover mixtures were obtained in early fall
of 1976 and  1977, as shown  in Figure  4.
                                     46

-------
             Figure  4.  Portion  of pasture  showing  section where  grass-clover
                       mixture  gave  good growth.   Aerobic effluent was  the
                       only  source of nutrients  in 1977.


     Aerobic effluent was applied quite heavily during the summer of 1977,
and again shortly after the rye-oat-subterranean clover mixture was planted
in September.  The liquid spray was as good for its moisture as for its
nutrients.

     Figure 5 shows an even better stand of a rye-oat-subterranean clover
mixture planted on bermuda grass, disked and irrigated with aerobic effluent.

     The lush growths of grasses and legumes as well as vegetable crops which
can be obtained in all seasons by utilizing the transformed anaerobic and
aerobic constituents of animal waste may well acquire far-reaching signifi-
cance in systems of animal production.
                                     47

-------
Figure 5.   A very good stand of winter grazing for feeder pigs.
           sprayed with aerobic effluent.


-------
                                  SECTION X

                                  EXHIBITS
     Figures 6 through 12 are monthly concentrations of inputs to the anaero-
bic lagoon against outputs from the aerobic lagoon to the forest area and for
overland spray of demonstration fields, plots and pasture areas.

     Figures 13 and 14 are summaries of the monthly swine population of the
farrowing area that provided influent to lagoons and monthly BOD5 analysis
of the lagoons.

     Figure 6 shows data for pH of both lagoons to be somewhat inconsistent
throughout the year of 1976.  The pH varied from 7.3 to 8.8 in the first
lagoon and from 6.6 to 7.4 in the second lagoon.  These pH values were
favorable for methane production and indicative of moderate loading.

     Ammonia nitrogen in the first lagoon (Figure 7) was considerably higher
than in the second lagoon during the early summer months.  So the first
lagoon was a better source of waste water from which the plant nutrients for
overland spray might have been obtained.  This finding is consistent with
data from work conducted at Ohio State University (31).  Seasonal variation
of ammonia nitrogen was less pronounced in the second lagoon than in the
first lagoon.

     Data for nitrate nitrogen given in Figure 8 show only slight difference
in this parameter as effluent passes from the first to the second lagoon.
NO,-N concentration in the lagoons was considerably below the level of
acceptable water quality throughout most of the year, but far exceeded these
limits in soil water where overland spray was applied.  Nitrite nitrogen was
found in the anaerobic lagoon in November and December in very small amounts.
Figure 9 shows that there was a range of 0 to 0.68 mg/1 of nitrite nitrogen
in the aerobic lagoon.  The chloride concentration was important because of
its effect on the taste of water.  Data for chloride concentration shown in
Figure 10 were well below acceptable water standards throughout 1976.

     Conductivity data given in Figure 11 showed a larger decrease during
the warm seasons after degradated anaerobic effluent passed into the second
lagoon.  Conductivity was highest in the hot weather months in the first
lagoon.  There was an increase in conductivity in the second lagoon for the
cooler months in 1976.  The data in Figure 11 indicate that monthly changes
in aerobic lagoon effluent coincided with monthly changes in anaerobic lagoon
                                      49

-------
effluent.  Monthly concentration of BOD5 (Figure 12) also coincided rather
closely with swine population (Figure 13 and 14), indicating that loading
rate affected BOD,, concentration in the lagoons.

     Data in Appendix Tables A-3 through A-8 document the percent reduction
in pH, BOD,-, specific conductance, coliform bacteria, chloride and NO^-N.
The pH was increased after the waste was transported to the second cell.
Nitrite and BOD,- was substantially decreased in the second lagoon because of
the moderate input of defecated waste to the lagoon (5).  The data presented
in Appendix Tables A-l and A-2 is the treatment mean summary of transformation
changes of NH--N and use of N03~N during Trials 1, 2, and 3.  Appendix Tables
A-9 and A-10 show the soil concentration of nitrate nitrogen and chloride
after spraying in Trial 3.
                                     50

-------
10


 9


 8


 7


 6
                                    PH
LEGEND
X ANAEROBIC
0 AEROBIC
 JAN   FEB    MAR   APR   MAY   JUN   JUL  AUG   SEP   OCT   NOV   DEC
                                 1976


Figure 6;  Monthly pH analyses of lagoons containing swine waste.
                                    51

-------
                          AMMONIA - NITROGEN
                                                   LEGEND
                                                   X ANAEROBIC
                                                   0 AEROBIC
   *     I      1      »      I    ~" T     I     I      t      I      I       I
  JAN   FEB   MAR   APR  MAY    JUN   JUt   AUG   SEP   OCT   NOV    DEC
                                 1976

FlgUte 7.  Monthly ammonia analyses  of lagoons  containing swine waste.
                                   52

-------
                            NITRATE NITROGEN
                                        LEGEND
                                         X  ANAEROBIC
                                         0  AEROBIC
   JAN   FEE   MAR   APR   MAY   JUN   JUL   AUG
                                   1976
SEP   OCT   NOV   DEC
Figure 8f.   Monthly nitrate analyses of lagoons containing swine waste.
                                    53

-------
1.0
oo
E
.5
                         NITRITE NITROGEN
                                                 LEGEND

                                                 X  ANAEROBIC

                                                 0  AEROBIC
  JAN  PEB  MAR   APR  MAY  JUN   JUL  AUG   SEP  OCT  NOV  DEC
                                     \

                              1976


 Figure 5. Monthly nitrite analyses of lagoons containing swine waste.
                                  54

-------
                              CHLORIDE
                                                    LEGEND
                                                    X  ANAEROBIC
                                                    0  AEROBIC
 JAN  FEE   MAR   APR  MAY   JUN   JUL   AUG   SEP   OCT   NOV   DEC
                                 1976

Figure  J.O.  Monthly chloride analyses of lagoons containing swine waste.
                                  55

-------
8  -
                            SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE
                                                LEGEND
                                                X  ANAEROBIC
                                                0  AEROBIC
                                                                       X



                                                                       o
          i     i      i      i      i      i      t     t     i      *      t

   JAN   FEE   MAR   APR   MAY   JUN   JUL   AUG   SEP   OCT   NOV   DEC


                                   1976

Figure 11.    Monthly specific conductance analyses of lagoons  containing
              swine waste.
                                     56

-------
600-
300-
                                MOMTHLY  BODC
200-
    LEGEND
X - Anaerobic
0 - Aerobic
  APR     MAY     JUN     JUL     AUG     SEP     OCT     NOV
100-
  Figure  12.   Monthly BOD5  analyses of lagoons containing swine waste.
                                   1976
                                      57

-------
JAN    FEE    MAR    APR   MAY     JUN    JUL    AUG   SEP   OCT   NOV  DEC
                             ofVarfc
Figure 13.  Swine population
rowing  barn providing influent to lagoon.
                                 58

-------
 JAN  FEB   MAR   APR   MAY   JUN   JUL   AUG   SEP   OCT   NOV   DEC
                                 1976
Figure 14.  Swine population of farrowing barn providing influent to
            lagoon.
                                   59

-------
                                 SECTION XI

                                 REFERENCES

 1.  Van Arsdall, R. N.  Economic Impact of Controlling Surface Water Runoff
    from  Point  Sources  in U.S. Hog Production.  Proceedings of the Cornell
    Agricultural Waste  Management Conference, Cornell University, Ithaca,
    New York, Rochester, New York, March 1974.  pp. 97-107.

 2.  Anonymous.  Cooperative Feeder Pig Marketing in Mississippi.  Cooperative
    Extension Service,  Mississippi State, Mississippi, 1974.

 3.  Overcash, M. R. and F. J. Humenik.  State-of-the-Art:  Swine Waste Pro-
    duction  and Pretreatment Processes.  Environmental Protection Agency.
    EPA-600/2-76-290, Ada, Oklahoma, December 1976.  170 pp.

 4.  Johnson, J. B. and  L. J. Connor.  Economic and Regulatory Aspects of
    Land  Application of Wastes to Agricultural Lands.  Proceedings of the
    Cornell  Agricultural Waste Management Conference, Cornell University,
    Ithaca,  New York, 1976.  pp. 29-44.

 5.  Humenik, F. J. and  M. R. Overcash.  Design Criteria for Swine Waste
    Treatment Systems.  Environmental Protection Agency.  EPA-660/2-76-233,
    Corvallis,  Washington, 1976.  291 pp.

 6.  Grier, H. E., B. C. Diggs, and D. C. Carter.  Alternative System of
    Farrowing for Feeder Pig Production.  Research Report, Vol. 1, Number
    10, Mississippi Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station, May 1975.

 7.  Thomas,  R.  E.  Feasibility of Overland-Flow Treatment of Feedlot Runoff.
    National Environment Research Center, U.S. EPA.  EPA-660/2-74-062,
    Corvallis,  Oregon,  August 1974.

8.  Connor, L.  J. and J. B. Johnson.  Economic and Regulatory Aspect of
    Land Application of Waste to Agricultural Land.  Land as a Waste Manage-
    ment Alternative, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, 1977.  pp. 29-43.

9.  Mathers, A.  C. and  B. A. Stewart.  Crop Production and Soil Analyses as
    Affected by Application of Cattle Feedlot Waste.  Livestock Waste in
    Management and Pollution Abatement.  ASAE Proceeding - 271, 1971.
    pp. 229-231.
                                      60

-------
10.   McCaskey, T. A., G. H. Rollins and J. A. Little.  Water Quality of
     Runoff from Grassland Applied with Liquid, Semi-Liquid and Dry Dairy
     Waste.  Livestock Waste Management and Pollution Abatement.  ASAE
     Proceedings - 271, 1971.  pp. 239-242.

11.   Morris, C. E. and W. J. Jewell.  Regulations and Guidelines for Land
     Application of Wastes.  A 50 State Overview.  Proceedings of the
     Cornell Agricultural Waste Management Conference, Cornell University,
     Ithaca, New York, 1976.  pp. 9-28.

12.   Freshman, J. D.  A Perspective on Land as a Waste Management Alterna-
     tive.  Proceedings of the Cornell Agricultural Waste Management Con-
     ference, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, 1976.  pp. 3-8.

13.   Haith, D. A. and D. C. Chapman.  Land Application as a Best Practicable
     Waste Treatment Alternative.  Proceedings of the Cornell Agricultural
     Waste Management Conference, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, 1976.
     pp. 45-61.

14.   Clapp, C. E., D. R. Linden, W. E. Larson, G. C. Marten and J. R. Hylund.
     Nitrogen Removal from Municipal Waste Water Effluent by Crop Irrigation.
     Proceedings of  the Cornell Agricultural Waste Management Conference,
     Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, 1976.  pp. 139-150.
         \
15.  Hook, J. E. and L. T. Kardos.  Nitrate Relationships in the Penn State
     "Living Filter" System.  Proceedings of the Cornell Agricultural Waste
     Management Conference, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, 1976.
     pp. 181-198.

16.   Schulte, D. D., R. C. Loehr, D. A. Haith  and D. R. Bouldin.  Effective-
     ness of Nitrogen Control in Poultry Waste Management as Estimated by
     Simulation Modeling.  Proceedings of the  Cornell Agricultural Waste
     Management Conference, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, 1976.
     pp. 189-199.

17.   Adriana, D. C., A. E. Erickson, A. R. Wolcott and B. G. Willis.
     Certain Environmental Problems Associated with Long-Term Land Disposal
     of Food Wastes.  Proceedings of the Cornell Agricultural Waste Manage-
     ment Conference, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, 1976.  pp. 222-
     233.

18.   Steel, Robert G. D. and James H. Torrie.  Principles and Procedures  of
     Statistics.  McGraw-Hill Book Company,  Inc., New York, 1960.

19.   Gburek, W. J. and W. R. Heald.  Effects of Direct Runoff from Agricul-
     tural Land on the Water Quality of Small  Streams.  Proceedings  of the
     Cornell Agricultural Waste Management Conference, Cornell  University,
     Ithaca, New York,  1970.  pp. 61-68.
                                    61

-------
 20.   Grier,  H.  E.,  Willie  Burton  and  Suresh Tiwari.  Overland Recycling
      System  for Animal Waste.   Proceedings of  the Cornell Agricultural
      Waste Management  Conference, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, 1976.
      pp.  693-702.

 21.   Satterwhite, M. B.  and  G.  L. Stewart.  Evaluation of an Infiltration -
      Percolation System  for  Final Treatment of Primary Sewage Effluent in a
      New England Environment.   Proceedings of  the Cornell Agricultural Waste
      Management Conference,  Cornell University,  Ithaca, New York, 1976.
      pp.  435-449.

 22.   Chang,  A.  C.,  P.  F. Pratt, K Aref  and D.  C. Baier.  Soil Modification
      for the Disposal  of Dairy  Cattle Waste.   Proceedings of the Cornell
      Agricultural Waste  Management Conference, Cornell University,  Ithaca,
      New York,  1976.   pp.  522-532.

 23.   Booram, C.  V., T. E.  Loynachan and J. K.  Kaeuiker.  Effects of Sprinkler
      Application of Lagoon Effluent on  Corn and  Grain Sorghum.  Proceedings
      of the  Cornell Agricultural  Waste  Management Conference, Cornell Univer-
      sity, Ithaca,  New York,  1974.  pp.  493-502.

 24.   Walter, M.  F., G. D.  Bubenzer and  J. C. Converse.  Movement and Trans-
      portation  of Manurial Nitrogen through Soils at Low Temperatures.  Pro-
      ceedings of the Cornell Agricultural Waste  Management Conference, Cor-
      nell University,  Ithaca, New York,  1974.  pp.  175-188.

 25.   St.  Amant,  P.  P.  and  P.  L. McCarty.  Treatment of High Nitrate Waters.
      J.  American Water Works  Association, 61:  659-662, 1969.

 26.   Uiga, A.,  I. K. Iskandar and A.  L.  Nackim.  Waste Water Refuse of
      Livermore  California.   Proceedings of Cornell  Agricultural Waste Manage-
      ment Conference,  Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, 1976.   pp. 511-
      531.

 27.   Doran, 'J. W.,  J.  R. Ellis  and T. M. McCalla.   Micro-dial Concerns When
      Waste We Applied  to Land.  Proceedings of the  Cornell Agricultural
      Waste Management  Conference, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, 1976.
      pp.  343-389.

 28.   Walter, W.  G.  and R.  N.  McBee.   General Microbiology.  Second  Edition.
      D. Van  Mostrand Company, Inc., Princeton, N. J., 1969.

 29.   Ketchum, B. N. and R. F. Vaccars.   The Removal of Nutrients and Trace
     Metals  by Spray Irrigation and in  a Sand  Filter Bed.  Proceedings of
      the Cornell Agricultural Waste Management Conference, Cornell  University,
      Ithaca, New York, 1976.  pp. 413-434.

30.  Tiwari, Suresh.  Personnal Communication.  Alcorn State University,
     Lorman, Mississippi,  1977.
                                     62

-------
31.  White, R. K., R. H. Miller and R. L. Curtner.  Performance of an
     Anaerobic Waste Treatment Lagoon System.  J. Art. No. 77, Ohio
     Agricultural Research and Development Center, Wooster and Columbus,
     Ohio, 1976.  p. 11.

32.  Abraham, Mazur and Benjamin Harrow.  Textbook of Biochemistry, 10th
     Edition.  Department of Chemistry, City College, City University,
     New York, 1971.

33.  Miner, R. J.  Farm Animal-Waste Management.  Special Report 67, May
     1971.

34.  Camp, T. R. Water and Its Impurities.  Dowden Hutchinson and Ross,
     Inc., Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania, 1971.  pp.  71-110.

35.  Hach Chemical Company.  Handbook for Water Analysis.  Ames, Iowa, 1973.

36.  Taras, M. J., A. E. Greenberg, R. D. Hook and M. C. Rand.  Standard
     Methods  for the Examination of Water and Waste Water, 13th Edition.
     American Public Health Association, Washington, D. C., 1971.

37.  Taras, M. J., A. E. Greenberg, R. D. Hook and M. C. Rand.  Standard
     Methods  for the Examination of Water and Waste Water, 13th Edition.
     American Public Health Association, Washington, D. C., 1976.
                                      63

-------
                               SECTION XII

              PUBLICATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH PROJECT RESULTS

Grier, H. E., W. Burton and S. C. Tiwari.  Overland Recycling of Animal
     Waste, Proceedings of the 1976 Cornell Agricultural Waste Management
    . Conference.  Ann Arbor Science Publishers, Inc., Ann Arbor, Mich.,
     pp. 693-702.

Grier, H. E., G. C. Gupta and W. Burton.  Salt Removal Efficiencies on
     Land Disposal of Swine Waste.  Journal of Environmental Engineers.
     Vol. 130, No. 4, 1977, pp. 551-556.
                                    64

-------
                                APPENDIX A


                          LIST OF APPENDIX TABLES


Number                                                                Page

 A-l      Summary of Mean NH^-N Utilization after Application
          of Effluent to Plots	   66

 A-2      Summary of Mean NO»-N Generation after Application
          of Treatment to Plots	   66

 A-3      Monthly Analysis of pH of Anaerobic and Aerobic
          Lagoons - 1976	   67

 A-4      Monthly Analysis of BOD,- of Anaerobic and Aerobic
          Lagoons - 1976	   67

 A-5      Monthly Analysis of Specific Conductance of Anaerobic
          and Aerobic Lagoons - 1976	   68

 A-6      Monthly Analysis of Coliform Bacteria of Anaerobic
          and Aerobic Lagoons - 1976	   68

 A-7      Monthly Analysis of Chloride of Anaerobic and Aerobic
          Lagoons - 1976	   69

 A-8      Monthly Analysis of NO_-N of Anaerobic and Aerobic
         .Lagoons - 1976 . . .	   69

 A-9      Nitrate Nitrogen Concentration of Soil after Spraying  .  .   70

 A-10     Chloride Concentration of Soil after Spraying  	   70
                                    65

-------
 TABLE A-l.  SUMMARY  OF MEAN NH3-N UTILIZATION AFTER APPLICATION OF
             EFFLUENT TO  PLOTS
 Experiments
                                                    Treatments
 TRIAL  1,  Volume,  cm
   NH3-N,  mg/1,  applied
                change

 TRIAL  2,  Volume,  cm
   NH3-N,  mg/1,  applied
                change

 TRIAL  3,  Volume,  cm
   NH3-N,  mg/1,  applied
                change
 7.6
18.3
36.6
           0.00      15.87*       38.75
           0.03a    -15.60*b     -38.43e
           0.00
22.50
           0.00      13-00,
           0.00a    -12.81
52.09
           0.00a    -22.25°      -51.61f
             33.55
            -33.36S
       ^leansnot  followed by  same letter differ  (P <.01) according to DNMRT,
 i^U
 Calculated  Values
TABLE  A-2.   SUMMARY OF MEAN N03-N GENERATION AFTER APPLICATION OF
             TREATMENTS TO PLOTS
Experiments
TRIAL
N03-


TRIAL
1,
-N,


2,
N03-N,

TRIAL

3,
N03-N,


Volume
mg/1,


Volume
mg/1,

Volume
mg/1,

, cm
applied
change
in soil water
, cm
applied
change
in soil water
, cm
applied
change
in soil water
7.6
17.
- 1.
16.
18.3
4.
2.
7.
18.3
2.
0.
3.

60
88a
72

40
65ab
05

20
95ab
15







0
15
15

2
9
12







•30 v
.66ab
.96

.20
.82ab
.02

12.
21.
33.

u.
21.
22.

2.
8.
10.

00
61
61


h
\j


70
67b
37

20
29
49


ab


    ~No analysis.

abMeans not followed by same  letter  differ  (P< .05)  according to DNMRT.
                                     66

-------
TABLE A-3.  MONTHLY ANALYSIS OF pH OF ANAEROBIC AND AEROBIC LAGOONS - 1976
Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr    May
                                                    June
July    Aug    Sept
Oct
                                                              Nov
Dec
Analys is
Anaerobic
pH
Aerobic
PH
Increase
Increase, %

7.47 	 6.70 7.10 	
7.54 	 7.60 7.60 	
0.07 	 0.10 0.50 	
00.93 	 01.49 07.00 	

6.75 7.20 7.35 7.10 6.70 6.94 7.10
7.23 8.60 8.50 8.80 7.96 7.45 7.70
0.48 1.40 1.15 1.70 1.26 1.51 0.61
07.11 19.44 15.65 23.94 18.80 21.76 7.77

TABLE A-4.  MONTHLY ANALYSIS OF BOD OF ANAEROBIC AND AEROBIC LAGOONS - 1976
Month
   Jan
Feb    Mar    Apr    May
                               June
                                July    Aug    Sept
                                               Oct
                                Nov
                 Dec
Analysis

  Anaerobic
  BOD, mg/1

  Aerobic
  BOD, mg/1

  Reduction, mg/1

  Reduction, %
                        195


                         30

                        165

                      84.61
                                180
                                 210
                                 240
                   330
   180
                                                                 335
   300
                                 10      50     60     130     60    215     50

                                170     160    180     200    120    120    250

                              94.44   79.19  75.00   60.60   66.67  35.82  83.33

-------
     TABLE A-5.  MONTHLY ANALYSIS OF SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE OF ANAEROBIC AND AEROBIC LAGOONS  -  1976
     Month
 Jan    Feb    Mar   Apr    May    June    July    Aug    Sept    Oct    Nov    Dec
oo
Analysis

  Anaerobic
    Spec. Cond.,
    ymhos/cm

  Aerobic
    Spec. Cond.,
    ymhos/cm

  Reduction

  Reduction, %
                        1000   	   1650  1500
                                   1880    1620   1660    1550   1650   1380   1350
 825

 275

27.5
 728   650

 922   750

56.1  50.0
                                                   ---- »
 640     900   1140     925   1100   1290   1240

 940     720    520     635    550     90    110

50.0    44.4   31.3    40.9   33.3    6.5    8.2
     TABLE A-6.  MONTHLY ANALYSIS OF COLIFORM BACTERIA OF ANAEROBIC AND AEROBIC LAGOONS  -  1976
     Month
 Jan    Feb    Mar    Apr    May    June    July    Aug    Sept    Oct    Nov    Dec
     Analysis

       Anaerobic
         Coliform, No.

       Aerobic
         Coliform, No.

       Change

       Change %
  NC     NC     NC     NC     NC
                                                         NC
                               NC     NC
                         NC     NC     NC     NC
  NC     NC     NC     NC     NC      NC      900     NC    1000   6900   1000  10,300

-------
TABLE A-7.  MONTHLY ANALYSIS OF CHLORIDE OF ANAEROBIC AND AEROBIC LAGOONS - 1976

Month
Analysis
Anaerobic
Chloride,
mg/1
Aerobic
Chloride,
mg/1
Change, mg/1.
Change, %
Jan Feb
40 45
45 30
5 -15
12.5 33.3
Mar Apr May
50 55 60
30 30 30
-20 -25 -30
40.0 45.5 50.0
June July
65 75
30 40
-35 -35
53.8 60.0
Aug
65
35
-30
46.7
Sept
55
45
-10
18.1
Oct Nov Dec
65 60 65
65 50 60
0 -10 - 5
	 16.6 7.69

TABLE A-8. MONTHLY ANALYSIS
OF NO,-N OF ANAEROBIC
AND AEROBIC LAGOONS -
1976


Month
Analysis
Anaerobic
N03-N, mg/1
Aerobic
N03-N, mg/1
Change, mg/1
Change, %
Jan Feb
5.28 	
1.76 	
-3.52 	
66.7 	
Mar Apr May
7.10 14.88 	
10.28 9.80 	
3.18 -5.08 	
44.8 34.8 	
June July
9.68 7.63
8.36 1.32
1.32 -6.31
13.6 82.7
Aug
5.18
2.52
-2.66
51.3
Sept
1.32
2.20
0.88
66.7
Oct Nov Dec
2.10 2.60 3.00
2.10 2.32 2.20
0 -0.28 -0.80
0 0.11 0.27

-------
TABLE A-9.  NITRATE NITROGEN CONCENTRATION OF SOIL AFTER SPRAYING- TRIAL 3

Replication

1


2


3


4


Depth
(cm)

6
12
18
6
12
18
6
12
18
6
12
18

A

10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
Treatment
B
ppm/acre
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10

C

10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10

All entries < 10 ppm*
TABLE A- 10. CHLORIDE

CONCENTRATION

OF SOIL

AFTER SPRAYING3- TRIAL

3


Replication

1


2


3


4


Depth
(cm)

6
12
18
6
12
18
6
12
18
6
12
18

A

25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25

B
PPM
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25

C

25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25

All entries  <  25 ppm.
                                    70

-------
                                    TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
                             (f lease read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
 1. REPORT NO.
   EPA-600/2-79-029
2.
                              3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION-NO.
 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
      OVERLAND RECYCLING SYSTEM FOR ANIMAL WASTE
      TREATMENT
                              5. REPORT DATE
                               January 1979 issuing  date
                                                            6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
 7. AUTHOR(S)
    Harold E. Grier and  Willie Burton
                              8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
 9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
    Alcorn State University
    P.  0.  Box 124
    Lorman, Mississippi   39096
                              10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
                                 IBB770
                              11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
                                 R-802336-03
 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
                  - Ada, OK
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
   Final (1/1/74  -  9/30/77)
                              14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
                                 EPA/600/15
 15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
 16. ABSTRACT                                                 ~	'	~—"	~~	
      Twelve 6x6 meter plots were designed to receive overland  spray or rainfall only
  and sloped to direct runoff via plastic lined runoff ditches  to one cone shaped plasti
  lined corner of each plot.  These plots were completely randomized over all treatments
  each treatment having four replications.  Treatments consisted  of tap water, tap water
  and aerobic effluent, and aerobic effluent applied so that all  plots received equal
  volumes of overland spray within each  of three periods.  Periods one, two and three
  provided Ix, 2x, and 3x as much of  the applications on all plots than before treat-
  ments.  Soil and soil water samples from all plots were analyzed for pH, chloride,
  NH--N, NO_-N, and  NO--N, conductance,  coliform, and BOD_.  These parameters were sta-
  tistically analyzed according to a  completely randomized block  design and the means
  separated for significance using DNMRT.  Reduction or increase  in principal parameters
  of concern were noted, as well as response of edible crops to various treatment.
                                KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
                  DESCRIPTORS
                                               b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
                                              COSATI Field/Group
  Utilization
  Reduction
  Runoff
  Soil water
  Swine
                  Animal waste, Land
                  application, Anaerobic
                  lagoon, Aerobic  effluent
                  Spray media, Spray
                  period, Preliminary
                  analysis
                                                                                68D
 8. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT

      RELEASE TO PUBLIC
                19. SECURITY CLASS (ThisReport)
                 UNCLASSIFIED
              21. NO. OF PAGES
                    82
                                               20. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
                                                UNCLASSIFIED
                                                                          22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
               71
                                                                     ft U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1979 -657-060/1589

-------