WATER POLLUTION CONTROL RESEARCH SERIES
13040 FXG 11/71
EVALUATION OF BEEF CATTLE
FEEDLOT WASTE MANAGEMENT
ALTERNATIVES
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
-------
WATER POLLUTION CONTROL RESEARCH SERIES
The Water Pollution Control Research Series describes the
results and progress in the control and abatement of
pollution in our Nation's waters. They provide a central
source of information on the research, development, and
demonstration activities in the water research program
of the Environmental Protection Agency, through inhouse
research and grants and contracts with Federal, State,
and local agencies, research institutions, and industrial
organizations.
Inquiries pertaining to Water Pollution Control Research
Reports should be directed to the Chief, Publications
Branch (Water), Research Information Division, RSM,
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, B.C. 20460.
-------
EVALUATION OF BEEF CATTLE FEEDLOT WASTE MANAGEMENT
ALTERNATIVES
by
A. F. Butchbaker, J. E. Carton, G. W. A. Mahoney
and M. D. Paine
Oklahoma Agricultural Experiment Station
Oklahoma State University
Stillwater, Oklahoma 74074
for the
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND MONITORING
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Grant #13040 FXG
November, 1971
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Washington, D.C., 20402 - Price $2.50
-------
EPA Review Notice
This report has been reviewed by the Environmental Protec-
tion Agency and approved for publication. Approval does
not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the
views and policies of the Environmental Protection Agency,
nor does mention of trade names or commercial products
constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
11
-------
ABSTRACT
Alternative beef waste management systems were examined to
determine minimum cost systems for effective waste disposal.
Design and cost information was obtained from feedlot
visits and the literature. A computer program was
developed for use with a Conversational Programming System
(CPS) for calculating the sizes of equipment and facilities
and for estimating the facility and machinery operating
and investment costs.
For open feedlots, two waste management systems, solid and
runoff-carried, were considered. The total system
investment cost for a 20,000 head unpaved feedlot with
pollution control was approximately $420,000 with an
operating cost of $0.133 per animal day (not including feed
mill and storage, office or land costs). The pen
facilities were about 65% of the total investment cost,
the runoff control system about 10% and the solids handling
about 25%
Confinement buildings with slotted floors using slurry
handling methods or with solid floors using solid handling
methods offer a high potential for completely controlling
the animal waste and abating pollution. A promising system
for near optimum pollution control is a cable scraper system
underneath a slotted floor for daily removal and disposal of
the wastes. A manure irrigation system costs about one-half
as much as mechanically conveying the slurry to the fields.
In semi-arid and arid areas, evaporation lagoons offer
another ultimate disposal alternative.
This report was submitted in fulfillment of Grant No.
130HO FXG under the partial sponsorship of the Environmental
Protection Agency.
111
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS v
LIST OF FIGURES x
LIST OF TABLES xiv
CONCLUSIONS 1
RECOMMENDATIONS 3
I INTRODUCTION 4
THE PROBLEM 4
Feedlot Laws and Regulations .... 8
Economic Considerations 12
Engineering Considerations 13
OBJECTIVES OF THE RESEARCH 13
PROCEDURE 14
Field Observations 14
Analysis of Alternatives 15
SECTION I: WASTE MANAGEMENT CONCEPTS 16
II WASTE HANDLING ALTERNATIVES 17
WASTE HANDLING SYSTEMS FOR OPEN FEEDLOTS . 17
Solid Handling Systems 18
Mechanical Removal 18
Characteristics of Solid
Waste Material 21
Equipment and Labor 25
Runoff-Carried Wastes 26
Handling Alternatives 26
Feedlot Hydrology 29
Detention Reservoir Design ... 31
Settling Basins 34
Systems 40
WASTE HANDLING SYSTEMS FOR CONFINEMENT
BUILDINGS 42
Confinement Building 43
Solid Handling Systems 47
Liquid Flush Systems 51
v
-------
Page
III TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES AND DESIGN 5H
LIQUID TREATMENT SYSTEMS 54
Aerobic Treatment 514.
Aerobic Lagoon 55
Oxidation Ditch 56
Spray-Runoff 61
Anaerobic Treatment 61
Anaerobic Lagoons 62
Waste Storage Tank Design 65
SOLID TREATMENT SYSTEMS 69
Solids Separation 69
Gravity Separation 69
Mechanical Methods 69
Drying 70
Composting 71
IV ULTIMATE DISPOSAL 74
LAND DISPOSAL 75
Value of Manure 75
Application Rates 75
IRRIGATION 79
Slurry System 81
Runoff Control System 81
EVAPORATION 90
INCINERATION 91
SECTION II: OPEN FEEDLOTS 95
V OPEN FEEDLOT DESIGN 96
FUNCTIONAL PLANNING 96
SITE SELECTION 101
Location with Respect to Water
Sources 105
Diversion of Runoff 105
Lot Topography and Drainage 105
Soil Type and Structure 106
Land Area 107
Wind Direction 107
Residential Areas 107
VI
-------
Page
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS 107
ENVIRONMENTAL MODIFICATIONS Ill
PEN DESIGN Ill
VI ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES FOR OPEN FEEDLOT WASTE
MANAGEMENT 114
FACILITIES COST 115
Unpaved Feedlots 115
Paved Feedlots 120
SOLID WASTE HANDLING 122
Days of Use per Year 122
Feedlot Capacity ..... 125
Hauling Distance 125
Paved Feedlots 128
RUNOFF CONTROL SYSTEMS 128
System Design 128
System Analysis 129
Rainfall Effects 129
Feedlot Capacity 129
Drag Line 138
Field Irrigation Systems 138
Systems Costs 140
Rainfall Effects 140
Evaporation Pond 147
Feedlot Capacity 147
TOTAL WASTE HANDLING COSTS 149
SECTION III: CONFINEMENT BUILDINGS 150
VII CONFINEMENT BUILDING DESIGN 151
ANIMAL PERFORMANCE 152
CLASSIFICATION OF CONFINEMENT BUILDINGS . 161
Flooring Type 163
FUNCTIONAL DESIGN 166
BUILDING DESIGN 167
SITE SELECTION 168
VII
-------
VIII ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES FOR CONFINEMENT
BUILDING WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS I75
BUILDING COSTS 175
Shell Costs 175
Comparison of Confinement Buildings . 181
Warm Buildings
Cold Buildings
WASTE HANDLING COSTS 183
Solid Waste Handling Systems .... 183
Slurry Handling Systems 189
WASTE TREATMENT COSTS 200
Oxidation Rotor 200
Lagoon 200
Vibrating Separator 204
EVAPORATION 20M-
MANURE IRRIGATION 209
WASTE MANAGEMENT COSTS FOR PARTIAL CONFINE-
MENT BUILDINGS 209
TOTAL SYSTEMS COST 213
SECTION IV: SYSTEM ANALYSIS 219
IX EVALUATION OF WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS .... 220
OPEN FEEDLOT WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS . . 220
Optimum Feedlot Design and Waste
Management Systems 221
Solids Handling 225
Paved Feedlot 225
Land Area Requirements 226
CONFINEMENT BUILDING WASTE MANAGEMENT
SYSTEMS 230
Optimum Systems 230
Economic Optimum 231
Pollution Control Optimum ... 235
Land Area Requirements ....... 236
EVALUATION OF OPEN FEEDLOT AND CONFINEMENT
BUILDING WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS ... 237
Effect of Climate 237
Vlll
-------
Page
Cost Comparison 243
Effect of Land Cost 246
SELECTION OF WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
BASED UPON POLLUTION CONTROL 246
NEEDED RESEARCH 250
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS -251
REFERENCES 252
PUBLICATIONS 261
APPENDICES 262
A. Summary of Feedlot Visits 267
B. Costs for Various Waste Handling
Systems 278
IX
-------
FIGURES
No. Page
1 NUMBER OF FED CATTLE MARKETED YEARLY IN MAJOR
BEEF FEEDING STATES FOR THE 1960-1970 PERIOD 5
2 ALTERNATIVES FOR HANDLING SOLID WASTES FROM
OPEN FEEDLOTS I9
3 THE EFFECT OF SLOPE ON THE REMOVAL OF SOLID'
WASTES FROM AN UNPAVED FEEDLOT IN EASTERN
NEBRASKA 24
4 ALTERNATIVES FOR THE HANDLING, TREATMENT AND
DISPOSAL OF RUNOFF-CARRIED WASTES 27
5 TWO-DAY PRECIPITATION FOR FIVE-YEAR RETURN
PERIOD IN THE UNITED STATES 32
6 FEEDLOT RUNOFF-STORM PRECIPITATION RELATIONSHIP 33
7 SCHEMATIC OF CONTINUOUS FLOW CONCEPT FOR REMOV-
ING SETTLEABLE SOLIDS IN RUNOFF 36
8 SCHEMATIC OF BATCH COLLECTION BASIN FOR REMOV-
ING SETTLEABLE SOLIDS IN RUNOFF 37
9 SCHEMATIC OF BROAD BASIN TERRACES FOR DETAIN-
ING RUNOFF FROM FEEDLOTS 39
10 SCHEMATIC OF PEN DRAINAGE SYSTEMS 41
11 ALTERNATIVES FOR HANDLING SOLID WASTES FROM 'SOLID
FLOOR CONFINEMENT BARNS 46
12 ALTERNATIVRS'FOR HANDLING SLURRY WASTES FROM
SLOTTED FLOOR BARNS WITH DEEP PITS 48
13 ALTERNATIVES FOR HANDLING SLURRY WASTES FROM
SLOTTED FLOOR BARNS WITH SHALLOW PITS AND
MECHANICAL SCRAPER 50
14 ALTERNATIVES FOR HANDLING FLUSHED WASTES FROM
PAVED FEEDLOTS 52
15 PUMPING CAPACITY AND OXYGENATION CAPACITY VERSUS
ROTOR BLADE IMMERSION DEPTH 59
16 THE EFFECT OF DEPTH AND SIDE SLOPE ON THE BOTTOM
LENGTH OF A 2 MILLION CUBIC FOOT LAGOON 64
x
-------
No. Page
17 SCHEMATIC SHOWING LAGOON DIMENSIONS 66
18 EFFECT OF DEPTH AND SIDE SLOPE ON THE SURFACE
AREA OF A 2 MILLION CUBIC FOOT LAGOON 67
19 AVERAGE ANNUAL LAKE EVAPORATION FOR 48 ADJAC-
ENT STATES 92
20 MEAN ANNUAL TOTAL PRECIPITATION IN THE UNITED
STATES 93
21 DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR OPEN FEEDLOTS 97
22 FEEDING DESIGN 98
23 PEN AND ENVIRONMENT CONTROL DESIGN 99
24 DRAINAGE DESIGN 100
25 NOMOGRAPH FOR DETERMINING PEN SIZE 112
26 SOLID WASTE HANDLING: TOTAL OPERATING COST
VERSUS DAYS OF USE PER YEAR 123
27 SOLID WASTE HANDLING: OPERATING COST VERSUS
FEEDLOT CAPACITY 124
28 SOLID WASTE HANDLING: OPERATING COST VERSUS
FEEDLOT CAPACITY 126
29 SOLID WASTE HANDLING: OPERATING COST VERSUS
HAULING DISTANCE . 127
30 RUNOFF CONTROL SYSTEM-DRAG LINE COSTS 139
31 IRRIGATION OPERATING COSTS VERSUS ANNUAL
AVERAGE PRECIPITATION 145
32 IRRIGATION LAND AREA VERSUS ANNUAL AVERAGE
PRECIPITATION 146
33 CONFINEMENT BUILDING CLASSIFICATION 162
34 FLOORING SYSTEMS FOR TOTAL CONFINEMENT BARNS 165
35 WARM CONFINEMENT BUILDING WITH DEEP PIT 169
36 COLD CONFINEMENT BUILDING WITH DEEP PIT 170
XI
-------
No. gage
37 COLD CONFINEMENT BUILDING WITH DIRT FLOOR AND
CANVAS SIDE CURTAINS
38 COLD CONFINEMENT BUILDING WITH SHALLOW PIT FOR
OXIDATION DITCH 172
39 COLD CONFINEMENT BUILDING WITH SHALLOW PIT FOR
CABLE SCRAPER 173
40 PARTIAL CONFINEMENT, SHELTER PLUS OPEN LOT WITH
MOUNDS
41 SOLID WASTE HANDLING: OPERATING COST VERSUS
FEEDLOT CAPACITY 185
42 SOLID WASTE HANDLING: OPERATING COST VERSUS
FEEDLOT CAPACITY 186
43 SOLID WASTE HANDLING: OPERATING COST VERSUS
DAYS OF USE PER YEAR 187
44 SOLID WASTE HANDLING: INVESTMENT COST VERSUS
DAYS OF USE PER YEAR 188
45 SOLID WASTE HANDLING: OPERATING COST VERSUS
HAULING DISTANCE 190
46 SOLID WASTE HANDLING: INVESTMENT COST VERSUS
HAULING DISTANCE 191
47 WASTE HANDLING: OPERATING COSTS VERSUS FEEDLOT
CAPACITY FOR SOLID AND SLURRY HANDLING SYSTEMS 192
48 WASTE HANDLING: INVESTMENT COSTS VERSUS FEEDLOT
CAPACITY FOR SOLID AND SLURRY HANDLING SYSTEMS 193
49 SLURRY HANDLING: OPERATING COSTS VERSUS DAYS OF
USE PER YEAR 195
50 SLURRY HANDLING: OPERATING COSTS VERSUS HAUL-
ING DISTANCE 196
51 SLURRY HANDLING: OPERATING COSTS VERSUS DAYS
OF USE PER YEAR FOR 20,000 HEAD 197
52 SLURRY HANDLING: INVESTMENT COST VERSUS DAYS
OF USE PER YEAR FOR 20,000 HEAD 198
XII
-------
No. Paee
53 EVAPORATION LAGOON: COST PER ANIMAL DAY VERSUS
MOISTURE CONTENT OF SLURRY 205
54 EVAPORATION LAGOON: COST PER ANIMAL DAY VERSUS
DEPTH OF LAGOON ' 206
55 EVAPORATION LAGOON: COST PER ANIMAL DAY AND
INVESTMENT COST VERSUS FEEDLOT CAPACITY 207
56 EVAPORATION LAGOON: COST PER ANIMAL DAY VERSUS
MOISTURE DEFICIT 208
57 AN OPEN FEEDLOT LAYOUT WITH RUNOFF CONTROL 222
58 BEEF CATTLE FEEDING AREAS BASED UPON CLIMATE 238
59 LINES OF MOISTURE DEFICIT FOR THE H8 ADJACENT
STATES 239
60 CLIMATIC ZONES FOR BEEF FEEDING AND WASTE MAN-
AGEMENT SYSTEM SELECTION
61 INVESTMENT COST VERSUS LAND COST FOR VARIOUS
FEEDING AND WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS 247
Kill
-------
TABLES
No. Page
.. —i.i %^^—-
1 Number of Fed Cattle Marketed in 22 Major
States, by Quarters, 1969 6
2 Summary of Feedlot Laws and Regulations for
Beef Feedlots in Various States 9
3 Solid Waste Removal from Feedlots 22
4 Effect of Character of Ration on Amount of
Manure Produced ^
5 Manure Obtained from Cattle Fed on Paved Floor
in Pen Shed and Adjoining Paved Lot 45
6 Effect of Steer Manures Applied at a 15 ton/acre
Rate on Average Yield and Recovery of N, P, and
K by One Crop of Corn Grown on a Miami Silt Loam
in Pots 77
7 Yield of Grain Sorghum with Fertilizer and Manure
Treatments with and without Incubation Before
Planting 80
8 Nutrient Needs of Crops in Kansas 83
9 Daily Water Use of Crops for Kansas 84
10 Total Consumptive Use of Water for Crops in
Kansas 84
11 Peak Moisture Use for Common Irrigated Crops
and Optimum Yields 85
12 Gross Amount of Water to Apply per Irrigation 87
13 Depth of Principal Moisture Extraction of Crops 88
14 Maximum Precipitation Rates to Use on Level
Ground 88
15 Slope Precipitation Rate Reduction 89
16 Estimates of Irrigation Efficiencies for Various
Climates 89
17 Summary of Design Requirements for Open Feedlots 102
xiv
-------
No.
18 Basic Requirements for Beef Cattle Housing
19 List of Machines and Their Cost, Wearout Life,
Capacity, and Fuel and Lubrication Requirements 116
20 Costs for Feedlot Construction 118
21 Investment Cost per Head and Operating Cost per
Animal Day for Various Combinations of Feed
Bunk Types and Fence Types for a 20,000 Head
Unpaved Open Feedlot with 200 square feet per
Animal, One foot per Head Feed Bunk. Space, and
200 Animals per Pen 119
22 Operating Costs per Animal Day and Investment
Cost per Head for 20,000 Head Open Feedlot with
Precast Concrete Feed Bunks and Cable Fence for
Various Animal Densities, Feed Bunk Space per 121
23 Costs and Sizes for Various Runoff Control
Systems for a 20,000 Head Open Feedlot with Dirt
Surface, 200 Animals per Pen, 200 sq ft per
Animal and One Foot of Bunk Space per Animal and
Three Inch Rainfall 130
2t* Costs and Sizes for Various Runoff Control
Systems for a 20,000 Head Open Feedlot with Paved
Surface, 200 Animals per Pen, 50 sq ft per
Animal, and One Foot of Bunk Space per Animal
and Three Inch Rainfall 131
25 Costs for Various Runoff Control Systems for
Unpaved Open Feedlots as Affected by a Five
Year, Two Day Design Rainfall, 20,000 Head 132
26 Costs for Various Runoff Control Systems for
Paved Open Feedlots as Affected by Design Rain-
fall of Five Year, Two Day Storm, 20,000 Head 13H
27 Costs for Runoff Control System Using Solids
Settling Area + Detention Reservoir, Dirt Lot,
500 to 50,000 Head, Three Inch Rainfall, 200
sq ft per Animal 136
28 Costs for Field Irrigation for Using Runoff from
a 10,000 Head Open Feedlot* as Affected by
Annual Rainfall and Storm Design Rainfall
xv
-------
No. Page,
29 Costs for Field Irrigation for Using Runoff
from a 20,000 Head Open Feedlot* as Affected
by Annual Rainfall and Storm Design Rainfall I43
30 Costs for an Evaporation Lagoon for 20,000
Head Dirt Surfaced Open Feedlot as Influenced
by Average Annual Lake Evaporation Minus
Annual Precipitation and Depth of Lagoon, 20
Inches of Annual Precipitation, 6,292,012 sq
ft Feedlot Area 148
31 Shelter Effects on the Performance of Steers
Fed in Different Housing Systems in Minnesota 153
32 A Comparison of Five Housing Systems for Feed-
lot Cattle in West Central Minnesota 155
33 Shelter Effects on Performance of Yearling
Steers in Northwestern Iowa 160
34 Costs of Various Warm Confinement Buildings
for 500 Head 176
35 Costs of Various Cold Confinement Buildings
for 500 Head 177
36 Costs of Solid Floor Cold Confinement Buildings
for 500 Head 179
37 Total Operating Costs for Various Slurry Hand-
ling Systems for 500 Head Confinement Building,
10 to 30 Days of Use per Year, 0.25 to 2.0 Mile
Hauling Distance 199
38 Total Operating Costs per Animal Day for Cable
Scraper, Pump and Tractor, and Various Liquid
Spreaders for 20,000 Head, 0.25 Mile Hauling
Distance, 200 to 350 Days per Year 201
39 Costs for Oxidation Rotor for Confinement
Buildings, 500 to 20,000 Head 202
40 Lagoon Costs for 500 to 50,000 Head 203
41 Facility and Waste Handling Costs for Partial
Confinement Facility with Outside Lot and
Shelter (321 x 473') for 500 Head 211
xvi
-------
No. Page
42 Total System Costs for Slurry Handling from
500 Head Capacity Confinement Buildings with
Deep Pit, 0.25 Mile Hauling Distance, 20 Days
of Machine Use per Year 214
43 Total System Costs for Slurry Handling from a
500 Head Confinement Facility with Shallow Pit
and Cable Scraper, 0.25 Mile Hauling Distance,
300 Days of Machine Use per Year 215
44 Total System Costs for Solid Waste Handling from
500 Head Capacity Building with Solid Floor,
0.25 Mile Hauling Distance, 20 Days of Machine
Use per Year 216
45 Summary of Costs for Unpaved Open Feedlot with
Pollution Control for 20,000 Head, 3 Inch Design
Rainfall, and 20 Inch Annual Precipitation 224
46 Land Area Requirement and Facility Costs for
Various Components of Beef Feeding and Waste
Management Facilities for 20,000 Head 227
47 Summary of Costs for Shallow Pit Cold Confine-
ment Building Waste Management System Using
a Cable Scraper for 500 Head 232
48 Summary of Costs for Deep Pit Cold Confine-
ment Building Waste Management System for 500
Head 233
49 Summary of Costs for Solid Floor Cold Confine-
ment Building Waste Management System for 500
Head 234
50 Land Area Requirements and Investment Costs
for Various Beef Feeding Facilities and Waste
Management Systems for 20,000 Head 244
51 Ranking of Waste Management Systems According
to Potential for Pollution Control and Least
Cost 249
xvii
-------
CONCLUSIONS
1. Uncontrolled wastes from beef cattle feedlots consti-
tute a serious threat to the quality of the surround-
ing environment. The most immediate concern is the
contamination of receiving waters by rainfall runoff
which comes in contact with cattle manure. Of great
importance and increasing concern are the odors
associated with the cattle feeding operation and the
storage and disposal of the wastes.
2. At this time, there have been no practical treatment
systems successfully demonstrated for liquid feedlot
wastes that will produce an effluent suitable for
discharge to a stream. Essentially all the current
waste management systems use the soil as the ultimate
disposal site for both liquid and solid wastes.
3. The most common open-feedlot waste management system
utilizes ditches and detention ponds to collect and
store runoff from the pens; manure is mechanically
removed from the pens from one to three times per year;
and both the stored runoff and manure are spread on
cropland. Diversion terraces may be used to divert
outside rainfall runoff around the feedlot.
H. Areas, principally in Western United States, where the
moisture deficit (evaporation minus precipitation) is
greater than 10 inches, have a high potential for using
evaporation for ultimate disposal of liquid wastes.
An evaporation pond area of approximately one-third the
size of the total feedlot will be needed in a region of
a 40-inch moisture deficit.
5. Paving open feedlots reduces the pen surface area and
runoff control structures sizes to about one-third of
the area and sizes required for unpaved feedlots.
6. Settling basins (debris basins) located before a deten-
tion pond should be a part of the runoff control system
as the basins prevent a high percentage of solids from
reaching a detention pond; the solids are easily cleaned
from the settling basins with conventional solids hand-
ling methods.
7. Confinement buildings offer a high potential for pollu-
tion control, especially in high rainfall and cold weather
regions. Capital costs are higher than for open feedlots,
but land areas are reduced, rainfall runoff structures
are unnecessary and wastes may be removed either as a
-------
semisolid or as a slurry. A slotted-floor building
with daily removal of waste or an oxidation ditch
system reduces the potential for odor problems.
8. A slurry hauling system utilizing soil injection for
handling liquid wastes from storage pits provides an
optimum system for abatement of odors and water pollu-
tion, but is more expensive and slower than surface
spreading.
,)
9. A manure irrigation system for pumping a slurry or
waste water for field application costs about one-
half as much as mechanically hauling and spreading^a
slurry within one-half mile of the feeding facilities.
10. The application of cattle wastes to the soil has
been based primarily on the nitrogen requirements of
the crop. In most cases, the feedlot operator would
prefer to load the soil as heavily as possible without
damaging the crop or causing long-term damage to the
soil. Little information is currently available con-
cerning the maximum or optimum loading rates or the
long-term effects of such loading.
11. Ultimate disposal of feedlot waste on agricultural
land should be encouraged. Under the most common
loading rates (approximately 200 Ib N per acre),
approximately three-eighths acre per head and one-
twelfth acre per head capacity are required for dis-
posal of slurry and solid wastes, respectively.
-------
RECOMMENDATIONS
To protect the quality of receiving waters waste management
should be an integral part of the design and operation of
all cattle feedlots. Obviously, the most effective and
economical waste management facilities are those incorpora-
ted during feedlot construction.
The main emphasis of this investigation was the assimilation
of design, efficiency and cost information on waste manage-
ment alternatives that are currently available to the cattle
feedlot operator. Most of these current waste handling,
treatment and disposal designs are based primarily upon
empirical relations. In many instances, precise design cri-
teria and basic information was lacking, especially on the
design of settling basins and on land required for ultimate
disposal. Nevertheless, information presented herein should
serve as guidelines to the feedlot operator and design engi-
neer in comparing pollution control alternatives.
Costs calculated in this analysis are based primarily upon
Oklahoma prices for materials and equipment and may not be
compatible with all areas of the United States. The costs
will change with time and estimates are obviously dependent
upon the accuracy of the field surveys and manufacturers'
quotes. Other factors that were difficult to determine
were the life of the machines, dead time of equipment during
waste handling operations, and maintenance requirements.
Some alternative handling, treatment and disposal methods,
such as composting, refeeding, and anaerobic-aerobic treat-
ment, were not included in the analysis primarily because
they were not observed under commercial conditions or design
and cost information was unavailable.
The key waste management problems currently facing the cattle
feedlot operator include the ultimate disposal of runoff-
carried wastes and solid wastes, and control of odors from
feedlots and waste disposal areas. Although the subject of
little research, odor control is probably the most technically
and economically difficult of these problems for open feedlots,
Additional research is needed in developing practical and
economical liquid waste treatment processes, especially for
high rainfall areas, that will produce an effluent suitable
for stream discharge. Since land is probably going to con-
tinue as the ultimate animal waste disposal point for the
foreseeable future, further information is needed on the
effects of high solid and liquid waste loading rates on soil
properties, ground waters, and rainfall runoff.
-------
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
During the decade of the 60's, the number of fed cattle mar-
keted increased from 13 million in 1960 to 25 million in
1970 as illustrated in Figure 1 (68). The^rate of increase
has been over one million per year. This increase is due
to increases in the United States population and also to an
increased preference for beef as a food item.
Accompanying this increase in numbers of fed cattle is a
proportional increase in waste produced. For 1970, the
annual production of waste probably exceeded 85 million
tons for the animals during the finishing period. The
trend in cattle feeding has been toward confining^the cat-
tle in smaller areas, either in open-feedlots or in confine-
ment buildings during the finishing period. This has
resulted in concentrating the waste in small areas produc-
ing a higher pollution potential than under the smaller
scale and less confined feeding before the early 60's.
The major beef feeding areas are the North Central region,
the southern Great Plains and desert Southwest. Table 1
lists the number of fed cattle marketed in 22 major beef
feeding states for 1969. Iowa marketed the most fed cattle
with over four million, followed by Nebraska, Texas, Cali-
fornia, Colorado, Kansas and Illinois with all marketing
over one million fed cattle during 1969.
THE PROBLEM
The disposal of wastes from a large beef feedlot is a
major problem. For a 10,000 head lot, the manure produc-
tion approaches 1/2 million pounds per day. Researchers
have found that beef manure production is about 6% of the
body weight per day (51). Thus, a 1,000 pound animal pro-
duces about 60 pounds per day of wet manure at 85% moisture
content. Some of the moisture is evaporated and some of the
organic material undergoes decomposition by bacterial action
on the feedlot.
It has been estimated that one ton of solid waste material
per animal has to be removed from an open feedlot at the end
of the feeding period. This represents a large amount of
waste that has to be removed annually. Thus, a 10,000 head
capacity lot with two and 1/2 turnovers per year would have
an annual solid waste handling load of approximately 25,000
tons.
-------
26
24
22
20
18
Numbers of fed cattle marketed in major beef
feeding states, yearly, for the 1960-1970 period.
I01—
I960
I
61
62
63
64
65
YEARS
66
67
68
69
70
Figure 1. Number of fed cattle marketed yearly in major beef feeding states for the
1960-1970 period (Crop Rep. Bd, SRS, USDA, 1971)
-------
Table 1. Number of Fed Cattle Marketed in 22 Major States,
by Quarters, 1969
- 1,000 Head -
State
Pennsylvania
Ohio
Indiana
Illinois
Michigan
Wisconsin
Minnesota
Iowa
Missouri
South Dakota
Nebraska
Kansas
Oklahoma
Texas
Montana
Idaho
Colorado
New Mexico
Arizona
Washington
Oregon
California
All States
Jan. -
March
27
93
96
282
52
52
208
1002
198
153
936
429
137
660
65
112
464
93
198
85
45
530
5917
April-
June
42
150
144
308
71
62
160
1086
161
123
846
427
110
651
37
116
463
97
222
85
42
417
5820
July-
Sept^
38
124
158
344
76
48
205
1177
193
105
785
418
113
673
41
114
425
97
209
104
46
527
6020
Oct.-
Dec._
24
67
113
282
45
50
230
1237
168
155
794
400
139
722
34
96
419
73
218
75
40
583
5964
TOTAL
131
434
511
1216
244
212
803
4502
720
536
3361
1674
499
2706
177
438
1771
360
847
349
173
2057
23,721
-------
In terms of BOD population equivalent, a 10,000 head, feed-
lot has a pollution potential of a city of approximately
150,000. Animal waste not controlled and permitted to enter
streams, such as from rainfall runoff or snowmelt, can cause
stream pollution, result in fish kills, upset the ecological
balances in the stream, and seriously degrade the water for
further domestic or recreational uses. A potential also
exists for pollution of underground water by percolation of
contaminants through the soil to the ground water. However,
as mentioned by Rademacher (76), the population equivalent
values are continually based on the total animal waste pro-
duction with little regard for the fact that only part,
perhaps 5 to 10%, of the waste actually enters surface and
ground waters. As the practice of confined feeding of
animals increases, the percent of the potential pollutants
getting into the stream could increase if pollution abate-
ment is not practiced.
Rainfall runoff from a feedlot may carry high concentrations
of oxygen-demanding materials, solids, nutrients, and disease
organisms into surface waters or the leachate may carry
pollutants into the ground water. Rainfall runoff may con-
tain pollutant concentrations 10 to 100 times those of ra.w
municipal sewage; and uncontrolled access to streams can
result in oxygen depletion, fish kills, and other long-term,
undesirable ecological conditions for many miles downstream.
Scalf, et al., (77) reported that direct runoff from an qpen
feedlot contained variable concentrations of organic matter,
solids and nutrients one order or magnitude higher than raw
municipal sewage. They also determined the chemical condi-
tions in a farm pond receiving feedlot runoff at the time .of
a fish kill in the pond. They found the pond to have a
higher conductivity and oxygen demand and greater concentra-
tion of solids, chlorides, nitrogen and phosphorus at the
time of the fish kill.
Finding solutions to abate pollution from feedlots presents
a tremendous challenge to engineers and feedlot designers.
The characteristics of the feedlot wastes are different
than most municipal wastes, therefore, it is difficult to
use traditional municipal waste treatment processes on ani-
mal waste. Animal waste has a higher solids concentration
and presents a higher pollutional strength than municipal
wastes. Also, there is a high lignin content in mps.t
cattle wastes, which decomposes very slowly. In addition,
shock loadings resulting from rainfall runoff from open feed-
lots cause severe strains on a waste treatment system. Most
of the conventional municipal type treatment systems are
expensive and require a high degree of sophistication in
facilities, equipment and trained personnel.
-------
Rademacher (76) has said that while investigations have
shown that animal wastes are amenable to municipal waste
treatment processes, the treatment results have usually
been unsuccessful because of a lack of understanding of
characteristics of the waste, the magnitude of the prob-
lem, and economic constraints currently imposed by society.
Animal waste may contain even after treatment higher pollu-
tional parameters than domestic sewage does before treat-
ment. Rademacher, therefore, suggests that a residual
concept of waste treatment be used. Residual treatment is
that degree of treatment which reduces pollution to a
prescribed level or residual. This residual would be^
determined for each situation and depend on the classifi-
cation of the stream, other waste sources discharging
into it, and other factors. No one treatment system will
be the ultimate solution for all animal production units.
A variety of management and treatment systems will have to
be developed.
Feedlot Laws and Regulations
With the advent of water quality standards for many of the
streams and because of observed fish kills downstream from
feedlots, several states have enacted feedlot laws and
regulations. Currently, there are differences between the
feedlot laws of the various states as indicated in Table 2.
As animal waste management technology progresses, there
will probably be few differences between the states' laws
and regulations. The major concern of the regulations will
be to prevent water pollution and to control dust and odors
within acceptable limits.
Currently, most of the states with feedlot laws and regu-
lations require that a feedlot be licensed or registered with
a state board whenever the capacity is above a set figure
for a confinement feeding operation. Most of the states make
attempts in their regulations to prevent pollution of streams
arising from feedlot runoff sources. Most of the states
suggest building diversions around the feedlot and channel-
ing the feedlot runoff into ponds or lagoons. There are dif-
ferences between the various states as to how to design the
capacity of the detention structure. Primarily these struc-
tures are based upon determining a design rainfall from
either a 5 year 48-hour storm 10 year 24-hour storm or
25 year 24-hour storm. The Texas Water Quality Board also
suggests that the total pond capacity can be determined by
using approximately 3/4 of the average monthly rainfall
occurring during the rainy part of the year-
Some of the states require that the retention pond be
-------
Table 2.
State
Arizona
Summary of Feedlot Laws and Regulations for Beef Feedlots in Various
States
Regulatory
Agency
The Livestock
Sanitary Board
Colorado
Water Pollu-
tion Commis-
sion, Colorado
Licensing
Requirement
Required for
over 500 head
No licensing,
but pollution
abatement must
Dept. of Health be practiced
Resume of Guidelines and Regulations
Feedlot Categories:
A - Feedlot near cities or residences
B - Rural areas, but affecting
streams and highways
C - Rural areas, not near streams or
highways
Performance Standards:
A - Clean pens 3 times per year, use
deodorants, control insects,
keep stacked manure to minimum
B - Clean pens once per year, prevent
contamination of water, control
dust
C - Clean pens once per year, prevent
contamination of water
Engineering report by professional
engineer required prior to construction
of runoff or treatment facilities
Retention pond--volume based on 10 yr
2H hr storm, must be pumped out within
15 days after storm
-------
Table 2. Continued
State
Regulatory
Agency
Kansas
Iowa
Kansas Board
of Health
Iowa State
Dept. of Health
o
Nebraska
Environmental
Health Servi-
ces, Dept. of
Health
Licensing
Requirement
Resume of Guidelines and Regulations
Evaporation pond—only where annual
evaporation exceeds annual precipi-
tation
Permit required Retention pond—volume to retain 10
for over 300 yr 24 hr storm, minimum 2 cells,
head capable of pumping ponds within 5 days
after storm
Permit required Retention pond—2 inches of runoff
storage when irrigation regularly
practiced or 3 inches of storage vol-
ume for settling basins and lagoons
for evaporation removal
when:
1. over 1,000
head con-
fined
2. distance be-
tween feed-
lot and
watercourse
is less than
2 ft per head
capacity
3. runoff can
enter prop-
erty of
others
Permit required Register 60 days before beginning con-
when: struction
1. over 300 Regulation based upon stream water
head
-------
Table 2. Continued
State
Regulatory
Agency
South
Dakota
Oklahoma
S.D. Commis-
sion on Water
Pollution
State Board of
Agriculture
Texas
Texas Water
Quality Board
Licensing
Requirement
Resume of Guidelines and Regulations
quality standards which feedlot runoff
cannot degrade further
2. feedlot Runoff control facilities designed by
within 500 Soil Conservation Service or consulting
feet of engineers, 10 yr 24 hr storm
watercourse
3. any opera-
tion with
water
pollution
potential
Permit re-
quired where
water quality
standards may be
lowered
License re- Water discharge must be in conformity
quired for over with stream water quality criteria
250 head
Retention pond--volume to retain 2
day 5 year storm, waste should be re-
moved periodically to insure adequate
capacity
Permit re-
quired when
wastes may
be discharged
into or adja-
cent to waters
of the state
Use "designed" retention structures,
suggest pond capacity by 3/4 of average
monthly rainfall occurring during
rainy part of year or 25 yr 24 hr
storm, suggest supplemental ponds for
cleaning periods
-------
pumped out within 10 days to 15 days after a -storm in order
to insure adequate volume for any subsequent storm events.
Also, the solid waste material has to be handled in such a
way as to prevent the streams from being polluted. Other^
waste material, such as dead animals, and general sanitation
also comes under the jurisdiction of most of these control
agencies.
Economic Considerations
In many of the Great Plains states and some of the Corn
Belt states, along with Arizona and California, the beef
feeding segment represents a major portion of the agricul-
tural economy of those states. When prices_are favorable,
good returns on the investment can be made in a beef feeding
enterprise. However, prices fluctuate considerably both for
price of beef and for grain prices. In general, the_beef
feeding industry is considered to be a very low margin indus-
try with only a few dollars profit being made on each animal.
Price fluctuations are the major cause of income variability
in cattle feeding, according to a study on cattle feeding in
the United States by the USDA (31). Net returns from cattle
feeding are largely dependent upon achieving two favorable
margins: (Da feeding margin, which is the difference
between the cost of beef and the price received for the
gain put on cattle, and (2) a price margin, which is the
difference between purchase and selling prices per hundred-
weight.
The price margin is a good indicator of variability in
income from cattle feeding over time. However, a negative
price margin does not necessarily indicate a loss nor does a
positive price margin necessarily reflect a profit if it is
offset by a poor feeding margin.
By comparing prices of choice slaughter steers at Chicago
with average prices of all feeder steers at Kansas City
5 months earlier, Gustafson and Van Arsdall (31) determined
the extent of variation. Negative price margins prevailed
in 26 months of the period 1960-1968. Positive price mar-
gins prevailed in 82 months of the period. The maximum pos-
itive and negative price margins were $8.08 and -$2.57.
Martin, et al., (33) examined the feeding costs and returns
from selected cattle feeding records in Illinois for the
period 1952-1967. They found returns per $100 of feed fed
were high enough to cover all costs of production in only
four years for the period. In four other years, the returns
above feed costs were not enough to cover cash non-feed costs,
12
-------
excluding labor. During the remaining eight years the
returns above feed costs were sufficient to cover cash non-
feed costs and to provide a partial payment for labor and
overhead.
Engineering Considerations
The design of a waste management system for beef feedlots
has both economic and engineering considerations. Economic
in the sense that the system should be constructed at min-
imum cost that will effectively abate pollution from a par-
ticular feedlot waste. Engineering in the sense that the
design of the waste management system should be done on the
basis of sound engineering design principles. Some of these
principles have been practiced for many years by agricul-
tural, civil, sanitary and hydraulic engineers. In some
cases, new concepts may have to be developed to fit a par-
ticular feedlot.
In the design of a feedlot, engineers have to consider many
aspects. They have to consider the feedlot layout from the
feed handling, cattle handling and waste handling viewpoint.
All of the various systems within a feedlot operation have
to be integrated in the final plan. Formerly, very little
attention was given to the waste handling design and the
most attention was given to the design of feed handling and
cattle handling systems.
It is the intent of this publication to review some of the
alternatives for the design of the waste management systems
for both beef confinement building feeding facilities and
open feedlot feeding facilities. It is realized that each
feedlot is unique and therefore, an engineer, or feedlot
designer, should have some waste management alternatives
available that he may recommend to the prospective feedlot
owner. This report contains information on the various
alternatives and their fixed and operating costs. It is
hoped that from the typical designs and general information
that the feedlot designer will be able to use this informa-
tion for selecting and designing a particular feedlot waste
management system.
OBJECTIVES OF THE RESEARCH
The objectives of the research reported in this publication
were:
1. To develop beef feedlot design criteria that will
minimize pollution from runoff wastes and to facil-
itate handling of solid and liquid animal waste.
13
-------
2. To examine alternative feedlot waste disposal sys-
tems to determine minimum cost systems for effective
waste disposal.
PROCEDURE
To achieve these objectives, the basic procedure was to:
1. Determine the feedlot design criteria.
2. Develop engineering design equations and program
them for the computer.
3. Evaluate the alternative systems to determine the
minimum cost systems for feedlot waste disposal.
Analysis of the engineering design requirements for feedlots
was made by examining the literature, observing feedlot
operations, performing operational analysis of waste handling
systems and from personal conversations. From these design
requirements, preliminary design of feedlots was made to
include various concepts aimed at enhancing the removal of
feedlot wastes. Equations and procedures were developed to
calculate the sizes of equipment and facilities needed for
the waste handling systems.
Field Observations
A considerable amount of time was spent in traveling to beef
feeding facilities in various Western and upper Midwest
areas where beef feeding operations are prevalent. The pur-
pose of these visits was to inspect existing waste manage-
ment systems that were in use in various parts of the United
States. A list of the feedlot visits and major points of
interest are noted in Appendix A. Visits to the upper Mid-
west concentrated primarily on viewing confinement beef
building facilities and waste management systems. The visits
in the Southern High Plains and Southwest plus the states of
California and Washington concentrated mainly on observing
waste handling and feedlot design for open feedlots.
On the feedlot visits, information was obtained on the sizes
of the facilities and nature of construction, waste hand-
ling, treatment and ultimate disposal methods, design cri-
teria used for the waste management system, performance of
the system, and cost information. Information was not
always available for all of the items on the questionnaire
but from all of the feedlots visited a composite was
acquired. Some of the information was related almost exclu-
sively to a particular geographic area, such as the desert
-------
Southwest, whereas other information was of a general
nature and could be applied at more than one geographic
location. From these feedlot visits, much information was
obtained about feedlot design and the operation of a feed-
lot as a production facility.
Analysis of Alternatives
Analysis of the various alternatives for handling the feed-
lot wastes was done by analyzing the field observations and
utilizing the computer to generate design information and
to perform calculations for comparing the costs of the var-
ious systems. The computer was especially useful in per-
forming the design calculations for some of the facilities,
such as detention structures. It was also helpful in
determining the sizes and numbers of the pieces of waste
handling equipment needed.
The computer program developed in this study was based upon
a procedure and computer program developed by Paine (71)
for estimating the facility, machinery, labor and capital
costs for a livestock operation. Paine's economic analysis
of livestock production systems did not include waste man-
agement systems. In this study, the program was converted
for use on a Conversational Programming System (CPS) so
that programming and data analysis could be done at a
terminal located in the Oklahoma State University's Agri-
cultural Engineering Department. The terminal was connected
to the IBM 360/65 digital computer located at the Univer-
sity's Computer Center.
Cost information was obtained from the field visits, from
manufacturers' literature and from engineering estimation
procedures. Where design information could not be obtained
easily, or relatively new technology was being developed,
the design and cost information sometimes had to be made by
estimates. Occasionally, some assumptions had to be made
in the design of the facilities. The sizes and numbers of
the pieces of equipment, sizes of facilities, land area for
ultimate disposal, and initial fixed and operating costs
were determined for the various alternative systems.
15
-------
CHAPTER II
WASTE HANDLING ALTERNATIVES
The selection of a waste management system is dependent
upon the type of production facility and upon the physical
form of the waste material. In handling beef animal wastes,
there are three physical forms encountered:
1. Slurry—where the feces and urine are combined
together with or without additional water
2. Solid Waste—where the solid fractions of the
waste material are collected on the feedlot surface
or on solid floors of confinement buildings
3. Runoff-carried Waste—where rainfall runoff carries
solid and liquid animal waste off the feedlots
For any of the forms of waste, there are three other consid-
erations that have to be made. First, the handling system
and its components have to be chosen. Second, the method
for treating the waste to reduce its pollutional strength
has to be considered as an integral part of the handling sys-
tem. Third, the ultimate disposal of the waste material
has to be considered and should be a prime concern.
The choice of a waste handling system is basically a choice
between a liquid oriented system and a solid system. Liquid
slurry handling systems have been quite popular for con-
finement barn facilities. Of course, runoff control systems
from open feedlots are a liquid handling systems. Solid
handling systems are used for both open feedlots and certain
types of confinement feeding facilities.
In this chapter, some of the choices available for waste_
handling systems will be explored. The various alternatives
will be presented for both open feedlots and confinement
buildings. Treatment and ultimate disposal of the waste will
also be considered but only in general terms.
WASTE HANDLING SYSTEMS FOR OPEN FEEDLOTS
Solid handling systems and runoff-control systems are the
two major systems used in open feedlot waste handling. Most
open feedlots are unpaved. However, paved feedlots offer
the possibility of a liquid flush system and slurry hand-
ling techniques. Slurry handling techniques will be dis-
cussed under confinement building systems.
17
-------
Solids Handling Systems
As illustrated in Figure 2, several alternatives for the
handling of solid wastes from an open feedlot are pre-
sented. The most prevalent method is by mechanically
removing the solid materials from the feedlot periodically,
such as once or twice per year. In addition, no removal
and plowing the manure deeply into the soil are two unique
alternatives that have been used.
Mechanical Removal—The type of equipment selected for re-
moving the material from the lot surface depends greatly
upon the physical nature of the solid waste material. Some
of the obvious factors affecting the removal of the material
from the lot surface are:
1. moisture content
2. animal density
3. length of time from previous cleaning
4. amount of rainfall and intensity
5. slope of the feedlot surface
6. size of the pens
7. feedlot capacity : , ;
8. hauling requirements and ultimate disposal
9. temperature
10. evaporation rate
11. wind
12. solar radiation
13. soil type
Some of the environmental factors listed above affect the
physical manner by which moisture is lost from the solid
material and also degradation of the material due to biolog-
ical action. Some of the factors are related to the feedlot
design which is primarily dictated by local climatic condi-
tions and capacity of the feedlot.
In removing the solid waste from^the feedlot surface, the
first step is scraping the material from the surface. Some
of the methods of scraping the feedlot surface are:
1. tractor with front-end loader
2. commercial loader with bucket
3. tractor with ripper and mounted blade
H. patrol scraper
5. rotary scraper
6. large earth moving scrapers
For some of the scrapers, particularly the first four, the
material is windrowed or piled in the center of the pen for
subsequent pickup with a commercial loader or front-end
18
-------
SOLID WASTE HANDLING
FOR
OPEN-CONFINEMENT FEEDLOTS
'
i
i WASTES
i
•1 SOLIDS'
1
NO
REMOVAL
TRACTOR
RIPPER
|
i
I
PLOW INTO
SOIL
MECHA
REM(
TRACTOR
SCRAPER
L_
r
PATROL
SCRAPER
i
TRACTOR
LOADER
j
1
SKIP
LOADER
f
\
TRACTOR
SPREADEF
TRUCK
? SPREADER
l_ i
r~
|_
(PROCESS
ILIQUIDSI
~\
i i
NICAL FLUSHING RAINFALL
)VAL RUNOFF
i
/^LIQUID^N
(HANDLING )
\ PV^TFWR '
\^I O 1 Cm^/
1
EARTH-MOVING
SCRAPER
• . i
DUMP MOUND
TRUCK IN PEN
i
STOCKPILE!
LOAD 8
HAUL
i
FIELD ILANDFILLI
DISPOSAL
Figure 2. Alternatives for handling solid wastes from
open feedlots
19
-------
loader with tractor. Stockpiling in the center of the pen
provides a temporary storage area and also in many cases a
mound for which the cattle will be able to rest and keep
dry. These mounds are sometimes formed in the fall of the
year for use during the winter months and then are removed
during the summer months. Other operators build a mound
from the first year's manure production and leave the mound
to serve as a permanent resting area for the cattle. When
manure is stockpiled in a separate location, more than one
handling is required. The most efficient hauling method
is immediately hauling the waste directly to the point of
ultimate disposal. However, most farmers prefer to have
the solid waste material stockpiled for several months so
there is less likelihood of viable weed seeds being trans-
mitted to the fields.
After the solid waste material is scraped and possibly
windrowed or temporarily stockpiled in the center of the
pen, it is ready for loading and transporting. Using a
tractor and front-end loader or commercial loader, the
material can be placed into one of the following:
1. dump truck
2. truck spreader
3. tractor and spreader
Most of the larger open feedlots use dump trucks or truck
spreaders. Trucks can transport the material to a stockpile
location, directly to a field location, or to a processing
or treatment point, such as a digestor. Feedlots, utilizing
the tractor and spreader system, generally haul directly to
the fields. Some operators prefer a truck spreader for
placing the material into a stockpile because it breaks up
the chunks and makes the material easier to remove. Bacter-
ial action occurs in the stockpile which helps decompose the
material.
Some feedlots use large earth moving equipment for pen clean-
ing. They are capable of performing several operations with
one piece of equipment. If the feedlot pen sizes are large
enough, these larger pieces of equipment can enter the pens,
scrape the pen surface and load in one operation. The
material is then hauled to a stockpile area or in some
instances, hauled directly to fields. However, hauling
directly to the fields may require considerable travel dis-
tance to and from the fields. Large earth moving pieces of
equipment represent large investments. Therefore, they
have to be used for the cleaning of large feedlots on an
almost continuous basis. Most of these pieces of equipment
are used by road building contractors or manure hauling firms
for manure hauling. These manure hauling firms can service
20
-------
several large feedlots and therefore make efficient time
use of their equipment.
Many feedlots contract to have the waste material scraped,
loaded, and hauled from the pen surfaces. In most cases,
the manure is given to the contractor. The contractor then
performs removal operation and sells the material to farmers
or orchard operators. The general rate of charge to the
farmers is about $2.50 per ton of material hauled within a
five mile radius of the feedlot. A few feedlots receive
$-25 per ton for the material. Some feedlots require that
farmers" with whom they contract feed grain, haul manure
back to their farms for ultimate disposal on the fields.
Characteristics ofSolid Waste Material—To design solid
waste handling equipment or processes and to determine the
costs for handling the material, the engineering properties
of the solid waste material must be known. Unfortunately
many of these properties are not known or are highly varia-
ble for solid waste coming from open feedlots.
There are many variables affecting the physical characteris-
tics of the solid waste. Rainfall runoff carries some of
the solid wastes off from the feedlot surfaces. Cattle may
trample the manure into the soil and cause a mixing action.
Therefore, some soil may be removed when the feedlots are
cleaned. Bio-degradation of the solid waste material will
take place under favorable temperature and moisture condi-
tions. Increasing the density of the cattle in the feedlot
causes an increased amount of manure to be deposited upon
the feedlots, and in most cases, makes the feedlot surfaces
damper. When feedlot surfaces become dry, they become
dusty. There is some odor associated with the dust carried
off by the wind from the feedlots. Odors are prevalent
when the feedlot surfaces are moist and temperatures are
high enough for bacterial action to occur.
Some typical amounts of solid wastes removed from feedlots
with about 6% slope located near Lincoln, Nebraska (20) and
Pratt, Kansas (50) are presented in Table 3. The dry matter
removed in tons per day per animal is presented in the
table. The moisture content is also given so that the total
weight of the material removed including the moisture, can
be calculated by the following expression:
21
-------
Table 3. Solid Waste Removal from Feedlots
Feedlot Days Date of
Location Accumulated Removal <
Eastern
Nebraska
South Central
Kansas
112
112
203
203
163
290
287
153
Nov.
Nov.
June
June
Feb.
Aug.
Oct.
Nov.
7
7
27
27
25
21
7
14
Animal
Density
1ft2 /animal)
100
200
100
200
250
261
238
208
Dry Matter
Removed
(tons /day /animal)
.00429
.00286
.00713*
.01005*
.00789
.00683*
.00794*
.00521
Moisture
Content
(% w.b. )
52
54
33
40
39
34
24
39
*Values based upon pen capacity rather than total number fed during two feeding
periods
-------
TW = QQ_MC where TW = total weight, tons/day/animal
MC = percent moisture content
D = dry matter removed,
tons/day/animal
The amounts for the longer time periods of 200 days or more
represent the accumulation from two pens of cattle before
cleaning. A comparison of the solids removed from an unpaved
feedlot in eastern Nebraska versus the slope of the lot is
shown in Figure 3.
A rule of thumb of approximately one ton of material per
animal per feedlot, has been commonly used as the amount of
solid waste material that has to be removed from an open
feedlot. Based upon the Pratt, Kansas feedlot data for a
150 day feeding period, the amount of dry material removed
per animal ranges from approximately 0.75 tons/animal to
about 1.2 tons/animal. If one considers that the moisture
content of the material is approximately 40% wet basis, then
the range in total weight of the solids removed per animal
is from 1.2 tons to 2.0 tons per animal. Some of the varia-
tion in the data was probably due to cattle being in the
pens for more than one feeding period before the material
was removed, permitting more mixing of the soil and feces.
Also, when lots are in very sloppy conditions, mixing of
soil and manure by cattle activity is increased. Soil
mixing is greater on steeper slopes, 6 to 10%, than on
lower slopes, such as the 3 to 6% slopes. The Nebraska
studies indicated that up to 95% of the dry material re-
moved from the lot was soil. Also, it has been shown by
McCalla, et al., (55) that 55% of the fecal organic matter
is biologically degraded on the lot itself.
Grub (26) found that if the accumulated waste is kept moist,
either as a result of maintaining a high density of animals
in the feedlot or due to weather conditions, biological
degradation of the waste proceeded at a rate proportional to
its temperature. As long as the moisture content of the
waste exceeded about 40% w.b., a 10°C rise in temperature
roughly doubled the rate of which degradation occurs. During
dry weather, when the organic mass contained as little as
2% w.b. moisture, very little biological or chemical activ-
ity occurred.
Mielke, et al., (58) found little evidence of pollution of
the ground water in the proximity of a level feedlot in the
Platte River Valley near Central City, Nebraska. The feed-
lot was located over a permeable silt loam soil with a
fluctuating high water table. The stocking rate was about
M-00 square feet per head during the winter months. About
23
-------
K)
0.02
0
LU
0 B
^ e—
DRY MATTER REG
(Tons/Day/Anin
0
o
n
w>v/i-iu• 100 S-F
"___ — -200 S-F
__±__ L^rrr_ es| feces production (.0025)
i 1 i 1 i 1 i 1
6 8
SLOPE,(%)
10
Figure 3. The effect of slope on the removal of solid wastes from an unpaved
feedlot in eastern Nebraska
-------
one foot of organic matter had accumulated on the lot
between 1950 and 1969 despite no cleaning of the feedlot
surface. Most of the water that reached the lot from
precipitation and animal waste was lost by evaporation
and very little surface runoff occurred from the feedlot.
The manure pack and the soil surface interface apparently
provided an effective barrier to water movement. A lab-
oratory study showed that 90% of the nitrogen initially
in the manure or added in urine was lost to the atmos-
phere during spring and summer climatic conditions.
Apparently, aerobic conditions exist on the air-surface
interface of the feedlot waste. However, anaerobic con-
ditions exist deeper in the manure pack. The increase in
oxygen demand in the manure pack then results in soil and
fecal organisms reducing nitrates. Stewart, et al., (81)
found that a beef feedlot infrequently cleaned showed low
nitrate concentration, whereas a frequently cleaned dairy
corral exhibited nitrate accumulations in the soil profile
Apparently, under the aerobic conditions, carbonaceous
materials are rapidly oxidized to carbon dioxide; micro-
bial cells are synthesized; and nitrates, sulphates, and
inorganic phosphate tend to accumulate. Under anaerobic
conditions, denitrification occurs with wet soil condi-
tions and a considerable amount of the nitrogen may be
lost to the atmosphere along with other anaerobic decompo-
sition products.
McCalla, et al., (56) investigated the manure decomposition
and fate of breakdown products in soil. In laboratory
tests they found that after three weeks of decomposition,
90% of the nitrogen added initially in the manure or subse-
quently in the urine was lost to the atmosphere with a
stocking rate of 50 square feet per animal. About 50% of
the volatile solids were lost in four months. Application
of animal waste to the surface or incorporation in the soil
is followed by further decomposition. Three-fourths or
more of the organic materials are decomposed in the first
year.
Equipment and Labor—There is a lack of useable data for
evaluating the economics of handling solid animal wastes.
Fairbank (18) reviewed the operation of a large commercial
feedlot cleaning operation that scrapes, hauls, and spreads
solid wastes from feedlots in southern California. They use
spreader trucks costing about $30,000 each and capable of
carrying 15 tons. Additional transports carry up to 56 ^
yards per load. They seldom haul the waste more than five
miles from the feedyard to a field. They clean, haul, and
spread for about $.75 per ton.
25
-------
In the Southern High Plains region, many of the large feed-
lots contract to clean the lots and haul the waste. The
feedlots generally give the waste material to the contractors
and the contractors then market the material to farmers.
The general rate is about $2.50 per ton for delivery within
a five mile radius of the feedlot.
Webb (91) reported on an economic analysis of feedlots of
1,000, 5,000, and 10,000 head capacity. He analyzed the
various operations around a feedlot including the waste
handling operation. He found that the annual costs per head
of capacity for the mounding operation only in the pen
cleaning operation was $.15, $.09, and $.09 per head for
1,000, 5,000, and 10,000 head capacity respectively. For
cleaning pens, he found approximately 800 feet, 1500 feet,
and 2500 feet travel distance were required respectively.
He also gave a breakdown of the ownership and operating
cost for the equipment used for mounding and cleaning pens
for the three sizes of lots.
An analysis of the cost and number of pieces of equipment
for solid waste handling operations determined by this
study will be presented in Chapter VI. Various systems
will also be compared for various feedlot sizes.
Runoff-Carried Waste
Runoff control from feedlots should be an integral part of
the feedlot design and operation. If uncontrolled, the
feedlot runoff proceeds to the adjacent water courses carry-
ing the waste material in solution or suspension. Analy-
ses of feedlot runoff by various investigators have shown
that runoff is characterized by high biochemical oxygen de-
mand (BOD), high chemical oxygen demand (COD) and high
contents of other pollution indicators. It is difficult to
apply domestic or municipal waste treatment techniques to
runoff wastes because of the intermittent nature of the flow
which is based upon rainfall or precipitation events and
also because of the extremely high solids content in the
waste material.
Handling Alternatives—Alternatives for the handling,
treatment and disposal of runoff-carried wastes are illus-
trated in Figure 4. The system consists of the pen drainage
system, collection and transport drains, solids settling
area for some systems, holding or treatment area, and ulti-
mate disposal, chiefly by irrigation or evaporation.
There are many variables which influence feedlot runoff.
Such factors include the size of the lot, the density of
26
-------
RUNOFF CONTROL
FOR
OPEN-CONFINEMENT FEEDLOTS
PRECIPITATION
WASTES
CONTINUOUS
FLOW
BATCH
BROAD
BASIN
TERRACES
EVAPORATION
POND
Figure 4. Alternatives for the handling, treatment and
disposal of runoff-carried waste
27
-------
livestock in the pens, the cleanliness of the lot, general
topography of the area, the location of the lot with
respect to receiving stream, the amount and intensity of
rainfall, and the nature of the drainage basin.
Pollution control, therefore, requires a system which pre-
vents feedlot runoff from entering the stream, treats the
runoff before releasing it to the stream, returns the waste
to the land, or some combination of these methods, accord-
ing to Crawford (15). The solution for runoff control
consists essentially of retaining the runoff and returning
the collected runoff to crop land by irrigation. The design
of a feedlot runoff control facility requires knowledge of
the hydrology of the geographical area and the application
of hydraulic principles to the specific lot.
Precipitation and evaporation are two climatic variables
that should be known for the particular site. The site
selection of the feedlot is a very major consideration
when designing the collection and runoff control facilities.
It is suggested that diversion terraces be constructed
around the feedlot to prevent runoff from adjacent land
traversing the feedlot and thus requiring greater collec-
tion and disposal facilities. The design and operation of
the individual pens in feedlots influence the design and
operation of runoff control facilities. Of particular
importance is the cleanliness of the pen. A regular pro-
gram of solids removal will lessen the amount of solids
flushed into internal drainage facilities and overall run-
off control facilities and reduce the amount of dissolved
organics in a liquid runoff. However, it should be pointed
out that according to some studies a thin layer of manure
should be left on the lot surface during cleaning operations
in order to reduce the possibility of movement of nitrates
and other pollutants into the ground water.
A number of considerations enter into the location and de-
sign of the retention facilities. Some of these considera-
tions are the availability of a suitable site, the terrain,
the feedlot runoff conveyance system, accessability and
allowance for expansion. The optimum capacity of the reten-
tion facility will be determined essentially by the size of
the feedlot, climatic conditions, and terrain. It is sugges-
ted that each set of retention facilities should include
two or more settling basins as the first stage of control
for the retention of solids flushed from the feedlot sur-
face. Properly designed basins make the removal of the solids
that have been flushed from the feedlot surface easier than
cleaning the bottom of a large volume pond. When the collect -
28
-------
ed runoff is stored for any appreciable length of time,
odors will arise from the decomposition. At present, the
most effective method of odor control is the rapid removal
of stored liquid.
Feedlot Hydrology--Due to the many variables affecting
runoff and their wide variations, particularly the
climatic variables such as precipitation intensity, it has
been difficult to predict the characteristics and quantity
of runoff from an open feedlot. Several researchers are
attempting to determine the runoff characteristics from
beef feedlots in various beef producing areas, principally
in Kansas, Nebraska, Colorado, and western Texas.
In Kansas, Lipper (48) found that cleaning lots reduced
runoff pollution for no more than two weeks following clean-
ing. Accumulating manure in packed mounds in the lots over
extended periods had little effect on the nature of the run-
off. Pollutant concentrations were approximately twice as
great from a concrete lot as for an unsurfaced lot. Factors
contributing to high concentrations were warm weather, lower
rainfall rates, and feedlot surfaces already wet before
rainfall began. For design purposes their hydrologic obser-
vations indicated that Soil Complex Numbers of 94 and 91
for the concrete lot and for soil surfaced lots using the
Soil Conservation Service Design Manual could be used to
relate runoff rates to rainfall amounts.
Grub et al., (25) studied the effect of feed, design, and
management on the control of pollution from beef cattle
feedlots located in west Texas. If the accumulated organic
mass on the feedlot floor is slightly damp when precipita-
tion begins, it can readily absorb a large quantity of
rainfall at a rapid rate. If it is dry and tightly compac-
ted, it provides a relatively impervious barrier to the
initial penetration of moisture. Thus, a high intensity
rain falling on a dry lot surface may result in rapid run-
off and consequent removal of large quantities of organic
matter from the feedlot surface, while the same intensity
of rain falling on a damp lot might cause little or no run-
off.
Another study in west Texas by Wells, et al., (92) found that
a concrete lot retained an average of .38 inches of rain-
fall for each precipitation event. This amounted to approx-
imately 0.5 inches of moisture retention for an_inch of
accumulated mass during the spring period. During the fall
period, concrete surface lots had approximately 0.45 inches
of rainfall retention per inch of precipitation in lots
when all-concentrate ration was fed and 0.57 inches of reten-
29
-------
tion per inch of precipitation in the lots when 12% roughage
was fed. The dirt lot retained approximately three times
as much rainfall during the spring as did the concrete
feedlot. However, during the fall period (a high rainfall
period) the concrete and soil lots had nearly the same
retention.
Norton and Hansen (67) investigated cattle feedlot water
quality hydrology in northeastern Colorado. They found
that for short term rainfall durations of from 2 to 8 hours
infiltration to the ground water was extremely small and'
could be neglected on determining the total runoff from
cattle feedlots. Additional support for this conclusion
was found when manure was observed to have a dry hard
crust 2 to 4 inches below the surface of the manure after
the runoff had ended.
Swanson, Mielke, and Lorimor (85) have reported on hydro-
logic studies for evaluation of the pollution potential
of feedlots in eastern Nebraska. They examined the annual
water balance of the feedlot surface and characterized the
water leaving the feedlot. They found that runoff in the
late summer and early fall may not be expected from rain-
falls of 0.5 inches or less unless earlier rainfall had
occurred within the previous 72 hours. From 15 rainfall
events totaling 12.40 inches of rain they found 5.45 inches
of runoff resulting over the four month summer-fall period.
They found that: (1) infiltration on an established beef
feedlot appears to be restricted to water storage in a man-
ure pack, (2) the runoff from a feedlot is a function of
the area of the lot, (3) annual runoff from a beef feedlot
may be 2 or 3 times that of adjacent crop land, (4) despite
increased runoff in comparison to adjacent crop land, the
protective mulch of the manure pack keeps erosion losses
below those of the crop land. Observations of other feed-
lots by these researchers indicated that long, steep slopes
in a feedlot create high velocity over-land flow causing
scouring just as on uncultivated field slopes.
Gilbertson, et al., (20) reported on the effect of animal
density and surface slope on characteristics of runoff,
solid waste, and nitrate movement on unpaved beef feedlots.
They found runoff from feedlots from rainfall and snow melts
was highly variable. Runoff appeared to be more dependent
on rainfall than on feedlot slope or cattle density. Run-
off from the eastern Nebraska feedlots resulted when there
were storms producing rainfall greater than 0.4 inches.
Feedlots with 100 square feet per head averaged a runoff of
81% of the precipitation (in the form of snow) resulting
from the winter thawing. Runoff from low density lots of
30
-------
200 square feet per head yielded an average of 54% of the
snowfall. For an individual storm, runoff was about 70%
of the rainfall, while the annual runoff was 40% of the
accumulative rainfalls, including snow.
Detention Reservoir Design—The amount of feedlot runoff
to^be retained in reservoirs' can be determined by using the
Soil Conservation Service method for estimating the amount
of direct runoff from rainfall (69). The procedure is
roughly, as follows:
1. Determine the drainage area (DA). Ideally this
drainage area should include just the feedlot area
and not include other outside drainage areas.
Thus, a diversion terrace should be installed
around the feedlot to divert outside waters.
2. Determine design storm rainfall (P). The design
storm rainfall depends upon the state laws and
regulations governing the design of the retention
structures as indicated in Chapter I. The most
common design storm rainfall is the 10-year
24-hour storm. However, Oklahoma uses the 5-year
48-hour storm as indicated in Figure 5. (88).
3. Determine the runoff (Q), in inches. The runoff
can be estimated by the following equation:
0 * (P-0.352)2
P+1.41
where Q = inches runoff
P = inches precipitation
This equation is based upon the SCS method of esti-
mating the amount of direct runoff from rainfall
for their classified conditions of antecedent con-
dition III, soil group D, land use farmstead, and
S = 1.76, where S is a dimensionless factor. This
equation closely matches experimental results
found at Nebraska, Kansas, and Colorado. It takes
into account some storage on the feedlot surface
by storing approximately .4 of an inch on the feed-
lot surface. This curve is shown in Figure 6.
For rainfalls over 1/2 inch, a quick rule of thumb,
based upon the Nebraska data is:
Q = P x 0.7
31
-------
CO
ro
5-YEAR 2-DAY PRECIPITATION (INCHES)
Figure 5. Two-day precipitation for five-year return period in the United States
(Tech. Paper ^9, Weather Bureau, 1965)
-------
CO
CO
V)
LD
X
o
6-
5-
u_
U_
o
o
UJ
oc
0
0
T
T
T
ESTIMATED RUNOFF FROM DIRT
FEEDLOTS vs. RAINFALL
I
I
4567
RAINFALL (P) IN INCHES
8
10
Figure 6. Feedlot runoff-storm precipitation relationship
-------
i*. The volume to be retained by the runoff deten-
tion structure can be calculated by the follow-
ing expression:
v - Q x DA
12
where V = acre feet
or,
V = 3,630 Q x DA
where V = cubic feet
5. Design the spillway. The spillway design is
based upon the peak discharge. An SCS design
manual for small structures can be used. The
spillway design depends upon the slope of the
drainage area, land use, soil group, drainage
area, and rainfall intensity.
Settling Basins—Based upon the Nebraska results, a set-
tling area can be designed for open dirt beef feedlots
using the following procedure (21). To determine the des-
ign volume for a settling area, one has to have knowledge
of the amount of settleable solids in the runoff. Also, a
certain volume of water or liquids in the,settling area
has to be contained to slow up or detain the runoff to per-
mit the solids to settle out. A suggested design criteria
is to add the volume of the settleable solids to the volume
of a one inch runoff for the feedlot area. The steps then
are as follows:
1. Determine the settleable solids accumulated.
A. Determine the drainage area, A.
B. Determine the design rainfall, DR, 10-year
one-day or 5-year two-day.
C. Determine the runoff from the drainage area, R.
R = A x DR x 0.70
where R = acre inches
(also the SCS method could be used for deter-
mining runoff as explained in the previous
section) '
D. Determine the solids (ST) in runoff.
ST = R x 1.3 tons/acre inch
where ST = tons
For winter conditions use 7.0 tons/acre inch.
-------
E. Determine the settleable solids, (SS).
SS = ST x 0.50
where SS = tons
(The Nebraska results found approximately 50%
of the settleable solids settled out in a basin.)
F. Determine the volume of the settleable solids,
-------
CROSS-SECTION OF CONTINUOUS FLOW
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS REMOVAL CONCEPT
FEEDLOT
CRUSHED
ROCK
BENTONITE SEAL
2" PLANKING
WOOD POST
LIQUID
HOLDING
POND
Figure 7. Schematic of continuous flow concept for removing settleable solids in
runoff (Gilbertson, et al., 1970)
-------
CROSS-SECTION OF BATCH SETTLEABLE
SOLIDS REMOVAL CONCEPT
FEEDLOT
CO
CLEANOUT APRON
SPILLWAY
SOIL
CEMENT
SEAL
SUMP
PRIMARY BASIN
6MIL
POLYETHYLENE SEAL
SECONDARY BASIN
Figure 8. Schematic of batch collection basin for removing settleable solids in
runoff (Gilbertson, et al., 1970)
-------
The batch system removes the settleable solids efficiently;
however, the system is difficult to maintain. The primary
settling basin must have sufficient capacity to prevent
direct overflow to the secondary basin. Also, removing
the accumulated solid, with the primary settling^basin
requires specialized equipment, such as a drag line bucket.
The continuous flow concept is a low maintenance method
of controlling the settleable solids content of the runoff
reaching the liquid detention ponds. A series of three
porous dams in the settling channel of the continuous flow
system remove about 50% of the total solids transported.
The first dam removes 80% of this total. Front end loaders
on tractors are utilized to clean the settling channel.
Odors are not detected as readily from the continuous^flow
system as from the batch system. The settling of solids
during the winter months present problems for both methods.
Swanson (84) developed a broad basin terrace concept of
runoff control for eastern Nebraska, Figure 9. One lot
with a 15% slope and a single basin was constructed where
the feedlot had been in existence for more than 20 years.
The basin was designed to have a capacity for the storage
of 12 inches of runoff from the lot plus one foot of free
board. This storage would be adequate for the total runoff
in a normal year. However, storage was not planned for a
long period since the effluent was to be pumped and distri-
buted on adjacent crop land. The base of the broad basin
terrace was approximately 70 feet across with a U to 1
slope going into the basin on the feedlot side. A six foot
height at the lower terrace was constructed for this basin.
These basins were constructed inside the lots and provided
areas to push snow if necessary. Also, there was no prob-
lem with weed growth around the basin. Experience has
shown that the basins dry out rapidly after drainage.
The side slopes of the basins and terraces have been of
value as a bedding area for the cattle and for protection
from the wind in cold weather. Some operators left the
runoff in the basins during hot weather to provide an area
where the cattle could stand and be comfortable. Apparently
this reduced death losses when temperatures were above
100°F. In some cases, however, the basins have all of the
moisture removed by evaporation during certain years. How-
ever, during other years the runoff may have to be pumped
to another holding pond or possibly used in irrigation. A
two inch accumulation of solids in the basin in one year
was observed.
Another runoff control system was observed under construc-
tion in the fall of 1970 at the Farr Feedlots, Greeley,
38
-------
SINGLE BROAD BASIN TERRACE
MULTIPLE BROAD BASIN TERRACE
Figure 9. Schematic of broad basin terraces for detain-
ing runoff from feedlots
39
-------
•
Colorado. This system was designed by a consultingfengi-
neering firm. Drainage occurs between the^mounds in the
pens with the material flowing to a collection ditch
located at the lower end of each of the pens. The collec-
tion ditch was designed with a 0.15% slope. This low
slope was designed to permit rather low velocities of the
runoff to occur and therefore to permit some of the solids
to be settled out in the ditch. This ditch then traveled
several hundred feet to retention structures. The ditch
and the retention structures were designed to have the
solids removed from the ditch within 10 to 14 days after
a rainfall event, depending upon weather conditions. The
runoff liquid in the detention structures was used on
corn crop land by irrigation.
Systems—The choice of the runoff control system will depend
upon local regulations, local climatic conditions, terrain,
soil structure, water table and nearness to streams or
bodies of water. Some of the alternatives are illustrated
in the flow diagram of Figure 4.
The first phase in the selection of the drainage system
is to determine the pen drainage design. There are various
alternatives available as illustrated in Figure 10. Some of
the methods have the runoff flow into a ditch that is
formed in the pen and then the ditch may carry the runoff
through not only that pen, but several pens in a row to a
main collection ditch. If this system is used, the two
choices that seem to work best are those that have the
drainage ditch located approximately 30 feet behind the
feedbunk and feeding slab or located at about the third
point from the rear of the pen. The drainage ditch per-
mits the pen to be well drained and also leaves some dry
areas as resting places for the cattle. Another method
permits the runoff to flow against the concrete feedbunks
and then follow the feedbunks downhill. With this method,
solids accumulate along the feedbunk. Thus, cleaning of
the slab near the feedbunks has to be accomplished after
the rainfall runoff events. Another system permits runoff
to go through the working alley at the rear of the pens.
Solids and liquids collect in the working alley, however,
and create more undesirable working conditions.
The next major consideration is the collection ditch.
Essentially, two choices are available here. One, design
the collection ditch with a low slope so that solids will
settle out, or two, design it with a higher slope so that
many of the solids will be carried along= In cases where
solids are carried along, a settling basin, a continuous
flow settling using porous dams, or a batch settling system
is desirable.
-------
Figure 10. Schematic of pen drainage systems
-------
After the collection system has been designed, one has a
choice of using a settling basin or having the runoff go
directly to a detention structure or possibly to a playa,
or to anaerobic lagoons. A playa is a wet weather lake
that has no outlet. These are located predominately in
the southern High Plains area of Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas,
and New Mexico. Playas usually contain some water during
rainy seasons but are dry during the dry seasons. Thus,
much of the liquid runoff evaporates from the playas.
Apparently, from studies done by Lehman, et al., (H8) in
west Texas, there is little movement of nitrates or other
possible pollutants through the soil surface of a playa
into the water table. Lagoons for runoff control systems
encounter operational problems because of slug loading
arising from infrequent rainfall events. This type of
loading upsets the biological balance within the micro-
bial population of the lagoons. Thus, serious odors may
arise from anaerobic lagoons. Anaerobic lagoons work best
when fed on a regular basis, such as daily loading.
Aerobic lagoons require considerable surface area and there-
fore generally have been unacceptable.
One of the suggested systems for controlling runoff from
the open feedlots is that of providing a settling area for
the solids and then having the liquids from the settling
area proceed on to a detention structure or reservoir-
Irrigation of crops with the liquids in the detention
reservoir can then be done. With this method a high per-
centage of the solids are removed before the runoff enters
the detention reservoir. The solids can be removed from
the settling basins with conventional solid waste handling
equipment. Evaporation and irrigation would remove the
liquid portions of the runoff. Some states suggest remov-
ing the contents of the detention reservoir within a
reasonable period of time, such as 10 to 15 days. This
also recuces odors. The aim is to keep all of the material
on the land and prevent any runoff from reaching public
waters.
WASTE HANDLING SYSTEMS FOR CONFINEMENT BUILDINGS
The waste management system for confinement buildings de-
pends greatly upon the floor type. The two general floor
types are slotted floor and solid floor. Within these two
categories, there may be minor modifications, such as par-
tially slotted floor or totally slotted floor or in the case
of a solid floor it may be a partially paved or a totally
paved floor-
There are essentially three different systems for handling
the waste material. The first is a solid handling system
-------
similar to the solid handling systems for the open confine-
ment feedlots. The second system is a slurry handling
system where both the feces and urine are combined to form
the slurry without the addition of water. Third, liquid-
flush systems may be used where water is used to remove and
transport the waste material to a storage pit. A liquid
flush system is used primarily with concrete solid floor
systems.
Solids Handling Systems
The traditional solid floor systems have the cattle housed
either on a dirt floor or a paved floor. Bedding is used
in the resting area. For dirt floors, a concrete slab is
generally located near the feedbunk, which is generally
scraped periodically to remove the waste material from the
area.
Schulz (78) presents some data from various sources on the
amount of manure produced for cattle fed in confined feed-
lots with bedded solid floors. With about a 50% hay diet
the average total excrement per day for an animal on full
feed is 69.1 pounds and for a 20% roughage diet is about
35 pounds (Tables "4 and 5). For yearlings fed over 140
days on a paved floor in an open shed and adjoining paved
lot, the average manure production was approximately 0.5
tons per head per month.
The alternatives for handling the solid waste material are
indicated in the flow chart of Figure 11. Essentially, the
steps involve scraping into a pile or loading directly into
a spreader. For confinement barn facilities, the tractors
and loaders are generally smaller than those used in open-
type feedlots. The most common method is to use a front-end
loader with a tractor and dump the material into a spreader
that is pulled by a tractor. It is also possible to use a
commercial type of loader in some of the confinement build-
ings where the loader is small enough to get around easily
within the building or small lot. Truck spreaders^or
dump trucks may also be used for hauling the material.
There are three possible ultimate disposal alternatives for
the material: processing, such as drying or composting,
field disposal, or stockpile. The most prevalent method of
disposal is to haul the material to the fields periodically.
Generally it is hauled and spread in the fields during the
spring of the year prior to tillage operations for planting
corn or other crops. The material may also be hauled in
the fall or throughout the summer if the hauling operation
does not interfere with cropping practices. Stockpiling is
-------
-p
-p-
Table 4. Effect of Character of Ration on Amount of Manure Produced
Schulz (78)
Ratio of hay Average feces Average urine Total
to corn to per day* per day* Excrement
linseed meal (Ib.) (Ib.) per day (Ib.)
1:1:0
1:3:0
1:5:0
1:4:1
57.1
44.2
26.7
22.3
12.0
13.1
8.0
14.3
69.1
57.3
34.7
36.6
*For animals on full feed.
Approximately 15% less manure will be recovered from dirt floors than
concrete floors.
-------
Table 5. Manure Obtained from Cattle Fed on Paved Floor in Pen Shed and
Adjoining Paved Lot Schulz (78)
-F
cn
Calves
Full fed with silage
Full fed with dry roughage
Full fed with ear corn silage
Wintered without grain
Yearlings
Fed over 140 days
Fed under 101 days
Average
Days Fed
229
235
231
132
150
91
Total Period
(tons)
1.82
2.18
2.16
1.59
2.24
1.52
Per Month
(tons)
0.23
0.30
0.28
0.36
0.45
0.51
-------
WASTE HANDLING
FOR
SOLID FLOOR SYSTEMS
-P
OT
1
NO
REMOVAL
SOLID MANURE!
I
ISCRAPERI FLl
I
S\
JSHING
loum^
FRONT END
LOADER + TRACTOR
I
COMMERCIAL
LOADER
I
HANDLING
DUMP
TRUCK
i
(
[PROCESSING!
TRUCK
SPREADER
i
FIELD
DISPOSAL
i
TRACTOR
SPREADER
i
[STOCKPILE!
Figure 11. Alternatives for handling solid wastes from solid floor confinement
barns
-------
another possibility, but generally is only for a short
term. During the warmer months, fly problems and other
health problems may arise from stockpiled manure.
Slurry Handling Systems
Slurry handling systems are used primarily where slotted
floor systems have been installed. The size of the pit
underneath the slotted floors depends primarily upon the
frequency of removal of the slurry, number of animals, and
whether it is a partial or totally slotted floor- In most
cases attempts are made to prevent extra water from entering
the pit. The two major types of storage pits are: 1. a
deep storage pit for storing the slurry for several months
at a time and 2. a shallow pit for storage of the material
for only a day, or at most a few days at a time. The latter
system is primarily where a cable scraper is used to remove
the slurry wastes on a daily basis.
Many of the pits for confinement buildings in the upper Mid-
west are designed for an 8 to 10 foot depth underneath a
totally slotted floor or a partially slotted floor. Farmers
estimate that the pits fill at the rate of about one foot
per month for a totally slotted floor. For beef animals it
can be assumed that approximately one cubic foot per day of
manure is produced at a density of about 60 pounds per cubic
foot and a moisture content of 85% wet basis for a 1,000
pound animal (32). This does not account for possible
evaporation from the manure pit. The slurry for this type
of confinement operation is generally removed two times per
year, March-April and October-November. These times coin-
cide with before and after the corn growing season in the
upper Midwest.
The various alternatives for handling the slurry wastes from
these deep storage pits are presented in Figure 12. The
two choices for removing the slurry from the pit are to use
a pump or to have a gravity flow system. Most use a chopper
pump that is driven by a tractor. This pump can agitate the
material in the deep storage pit which should not be over
40' by 40' dimension for good mixing. With the dimensions
greater than HO1 by 40' there have been problems associated
with not getting solids from the corners. Mixing should be
done for three-quarters of an hour to two hours prior to
pumping the material into tank wagons. This insures ade-_
quate mixing of the solids that have settled out in the pit.
Tank wagons are designed to haul the slurry to adjacent
fields and spread on the surface or bury the liquid mater-
ial into the soil by means of a plow device.
-------
WASTE HANDLING
FOR
SLOTTED FLOOR SYSTEM
WITH STORAGE PIT
1
IPUMPI
i
i
TANK WAGON
8 TRACTOR
1
I
IPROCESSINGI
LIQUID
(SLU
i
TANK
TRUCK
1
1
MANURE
RRY)
IGRA
1
IRRIGATION
1
I
FIELD
DISPOSAL
VITYI
i
LAGOON
OR PIT
1
EVAPORATION!
Figure 12. Alternatives for handling slurry wastes from slotted floor barns
with deep pits
-------
Filling the approximately 1500 gallon tank wagons is
accomplished in 60 to 70 seconds using the manure pumps.
Tank trucks could also be used to haul the material to
the point of ultimate disposal. Instead of removing the
material by tank trucks or tank wagons, the material
could be pumped to a lagoon or pit for subsequent removal
by an irrigation system or possibly by evaporation. Some
systems, particularly for dairy installations, have pumped
the slurry daily from a pit to grass land for distribution
with a big gun type of sprinkler irrigation nozzles. How-
ever, for the dairy installations extra water is mixed with
the slurry because of the washing operations around a
dairy. Therefore, the manure has been diluted considerably
from the normal slurry that would be found under a slotted
floor. A few attempts have been made to process the slurry
waste by drying or other means. Since the slurry contains
about 85% water, a dryer would have to remove a tremendous
amount of water to get the material into a form so that it
can be handled with solids handling equipment. Thus, other
means for de-watering the slurry and separating the solids
are more feasible and require less energy than drying with
heat.
A cable scraper system located in a pit from one to two feet
deep underneath the slotted floors appears to be an increas-
ingly popular method for manure removal. The cable scrapers
are similar to those used in poultry installations. They
scrape the material towards one end of the building where
it collects in a cross conveyor or pit. From a pit at the
end of the building or a central collecting pit for several
buildings, the slurry can be pumped into tank wagons for
field application or to other temporary storage locations.
The cable scrapers are operated daily, so there is no major
buildup of manure. Because of the daily removal, there
appear to be fewer odor problems and fly problems than
with some of the other handling systems, such as the solid
handling system for confinement buildings or even for the
deep pit storage system. When deep pits have their contents
removed, considerable odors develop.
The alternatives for handling of the material from a slotted
floor system using a mechanical scraper are illustrated in
the flow chart of Figure 13. After the scraper has moved
the material to the collection pit, there are several choices
for further handling. Again it can be pumped directly for
irrigation to a field or pumped to a lagoon for treatment
or possibly go through a solids separation system where the
liquids can then be pumped to a lagoon or a tank wagon for
removal. The solids can be spread onto a field or composted.
Another choice is to pump directly to the tank wagon and then
-------
WASTE HANDLING
FOR
SLOTTED FLOOR SYSTEM
WITH MECHANICAL SRAPER
LIQUID MANURE
(SLURRY)
ADDED WATER]
\ RECYCLED/
LIQUID/
CROSS
GUTTER CLEANER
MAIN CO
p
LLECTION
T
PIT AT END
OF BUILDING
•
[SOLID SEPARATION]
ITANK WAGON I
LAGOON I—\RECYCLE7
PUMP] [GRAVITY
I IRRIGATION I
[EVAPORATION!
IFIELD DISPOSAL
Figure 13. Alternatives for handling slurry wastes from
slotted floor barns with shallow pits and
mechanical scraper
50
-------
transport the material to the field.
It is also possible to use hydraulic flushing systems in-
stead of mechanical scrapers. With an hydraulic system,
water has to be added, or possibly some of the liquids can
be recycled for flushing. Recycled liquids could come
from a lagoon or after solid separation has occurred.
Pratt et al., (74) reported on a water reuse system for
flushing down the floors of an experimental beef confine-
ment building. The liquids could effectively be used to
flush the waste material; however, the water remained
rather dark in color after several different methods
were attempted to upgrade the quality of the effluent.
Also, odors were still prevalent. It appeared that re-
cycled water would have to have some additional water
added to it to keep the odors down and to recover some of
the losses due to evaporation.
Liquid Flush Systems
Liquid flush systems for beef confinement buildings with
solid floors are not prevalent in the upper Midwest or the
colder climates, but offer possibilities for warmer cli-
mates. Liquids may have a tendency to freeze in some of
the more open buildings. Also, when weather gets cool,
conditions would be created where livestock may remain
damp, particularly for solid floor systems.
Some of the alternatives available for a liquid flushing
system for paved feedlots are illustrated in the flow dia-
gram of Figure 14. A flushing system requires the addition
of fresh water, reuse or low grade water. In areas where
water use may be critical, a reuse system could be used.
Disadvantages of liquid flush systems are: 1. additional
water has to be added to make the waste material more fluid
and easier to handle by pumps and 2. the additional water
has to be handled, treated and disposed.
Liquid flushing methods around dairies sometimes consist of
a low level dam which contains the wash water. When the
dam is dropped or lowered, the water flushes down an alley
picking up the solid waste material. This method has been
used for some dairies where the cattle remain in the free
stalls and deposit the manure in an alley. Another method
utilizes pumps with high pressure spray nozzles permanently
installed or with an operator directing the flow of the
spray to flush the waste.
A feedlot near Devine, Texas, with an estimated capacity of
12,000 cattle, uses a flushing type of cleaning system (3).
The feeding pens are 260' by 100' with a 2% slope. The
51
-------
FLUSHING SYSTEM
FOR
PAVED FEEDLOTS
ISOLIDSI [LIQUID
AEROBIC
LAGOON
i
ANAEROBIC
LAGOON
i
r i
EVAPORATION!
IRRIGATION!
LIQUID
HAULING
FIELD
DISPOSAL
Figure 14. Alternatives for handling flushed wastes
from paved feedlots
52
-------
waste is flushed into a 12 inch underground sewer line at
the lower end of each pen and through a 36 inch main to a
half million cubic feet capacity concrete reservoir. A
crushing device and pumps convert all of it into a slurry
which is pumped to the fields through eight inch mains
with an outlet station every 400 feet. The waste is
sprayed on the coastal bermuda grass fields immediately
after each cutting and is followed by six to seven hours
of sprinkling with good quality irrigation water to drive
the waste down to the root zone.
53
-------
CHAPTER III
TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES AND DESIGN
Treatment is considered as any operation which improves the
quality of the material either in a physical, chemical, or
biological manner. In Chapter II, treatment of the waste
was considered as an integral part of the waste management
system. This chapter considers treatment alternatives and
the design of treatment facilities in greater depth.
LIQUID TREATMENT SYSTEMS
The two basic biological treatment methods are aerobic
treatment and anaerobic treatment. Aerobic bacteria break
down the organic material when there is a sufficient supply
of oxygen available. Anaerobic bacteria utilize the oxygen
in the organic matter without the presence of dissolved oxy-
gen.
Aerobic Treatment
Miner (61) discusses the aerobic metabolism process. Under
endogenous metabolism, cell maintenance exists at all times
but becomes predominate when there is just enough food to
keep the microorganisms alive. Under these conditions,
ammonia is converted to nitrate, the oxygen consumption
rate levels off, and mineralization is increased due to the
destruction of volatile solids. The resulting accumulation
of solids are fixed solids and nonbiodegradable volatile
solids.
The maintenance of from one to two milligrams per liter of
dissolved oxygen in the waste liquid is sufficient to main-
tain aerobic conditions. Experiments with municipal wastes
have shown that the air requirements for oxidation are sat-
isfied when sufficient air is supplied to keep the solids
in suspension. Nitrogen and phosphorous are required for
bacterial growth and these two nutrients are normally pre-
sent in animal waste.
Aerobic treatment for the removal of biodegradable organic
matter from liquid waste is an odorless process and consists
of two phases operating simultaneously. One phase is bio-
logical oxidation resulting in emissions of carbon dioxide,
water and energy. The second phase utilizes the energy
from the oxidation phase for synthesis of new cells, as
shown by the following simplified equation:
microbial cells + organic matter + 02
C02 + H20 + NH3 + more cells
-------
With long detention times there will be a solids residue
buildup (sludge) that ultimately must be disposed of. The
sludge accumulation rate in municipal activated sludge sys-
tems is about 11% of the BOD removed per day. If nutrients
are supplied continuously, the cycle is in a continuous
process with all phases (acclimatization, exponential
growth, and endogenous metabolism) occurring simultaneously.
Aerobic Lagoon--Aerobic lagoons may be divided into two
classifications, dependent upon the method of aeration:
oxidation ponds (naturally aerated lagoons), and aerated
lagoons (mechanically aerated lagoons). In an aerobic
lagoon, the biodegradable portion of the organic wastes
is stabilized and the sludge is mineralized to such an ex-
tent that objectionable odors are eliminated. An oxidation
pond is usually a shallow basin three to five feet deep for
the purpose of treating sewage or other waste water by stor-
age under climatic conditions that promote introduction of
atmospheric oxygen and that favor the growth of algae. If
oxidation ponds are properly constructed and hold the waste
for sufficient time, then destruction of coliform organisms
and a satisfactory reduction of BOD5 occur. An oxidation
pond should have considerably larger surface area than
either the oxidation ditch or the aerated lagoon.
Loading of oxidation ponds of about 45 pounds BODg per
acre is a commonly used design figure for municipal wastes.
The pond volume recommended for beef animal raw wastes is
six cubic feet per pound of livestock (43). The size re-
quirement can be reduced up to one-half by removing the
settleable solids. Because of the extremely large surface
area required for animal wastes, oxidation ponds have not
found favor with livestock producers.
In aerated lagoons, oxygen is furnished by some type of
mechanism that beats or blows air into the water. Satisfac-
tory aerobic treatment of dairy and swine wastes has been
obtained in aerated lagoons that have a volume of approxi-
mately 50 times the daily manure production. However, if
the aerated lagoon is considered as a final or longtime
storage of the waste residues, a much larger size is needed.
For beef cattle the recommended size is 0.76 cubic feet per
pound of animal for an aerated lagoon receiving the raw
waste with 800 day detention time. For continous operation
a mechanical aerator that will provide an oxygenation capac-
ity of 1.5 times the total daily BOD5 loading is the mini-
mum recommended size. If the operation is to be intermittent
(off in the extremely cold months), the aerator should have
an oxygenation capacity of at least twice the daily BODg
loading. The rate of decomposition is slowed as the tempera-
ture decreases. Below 45°F, bacterial action is greatly
55
-------
reduced and below 35°F there is little activity.
For the aerobic lagoons, daily flushing is recommended to
prevent odor production and shock loading in the system.
The actual layout of the lagoon will depend upon the
available area, however, a round or oblong shape is
recommended. Lagoons should be located in a rather tight
preferably clay soil to prevent leakage and sub-surface
water contamination. The oxidation ponds may require
solids removal after several years and weeds should always
be kept under control to prevent mosquito breeding and
other nuisances. Aerobic lagoons have been used princi-
pally to further treat wastes from anaerobic lagoons.
Oxidation Ditch—The oxidation ditch was developed during
the 1950's in the Netherlands as a low-cost method of
treating untreated sewage emanating from communities and
industries. The oxidation ditch is a modified form of the
activated sludge process and may be classified as an
extended aeration type of treatment. During the last few
years, this system has been adopted by many livestock
producers, primarily swine operators, for treating animal
waste water.
The oxidation ditch is made up of two principle parts—a
continuous open-channel ditch, usually shaped like a race
track, and an aeration rotor that supplies the oxygen and
circulates the ditch contents. The oxidation ditch offers
the following advantages over some of the other possible
treatment methods:
1. Being an aerobic process, it is nearly odorless,
with only a slight ammonia or earthy smell emitted.
2. It has some ability to handle shock loads.
3. It requires little attention and maintenance.
4. The process may be combined with a labor saving
slotted floor system requiring no extra pumping
or hydraulic systems to move wastes from the
collection pit to the treatment plant.
Research is currently being conducted on oxidation ditch
treatment of beef animal waste in various climatic locations
at Illinois, Minnesota, and Oklahoma (43, 63, 46). Foaming
appears to be a problem at times during startup and during
cold weather operation. Foaming usually results from
insufficient aerobic bacterial action. Once the aerobic
bacteria population is established, foaming subsides.
56
-------
Because of the high humidity and corrosive gases in the
air surrounding the rotor, problems with rotor bearings
have been prevalent. Evaporation of the liquids is a
problem that should be considered during hot weather.
Oxidation ditches designed for approximately 30 cubic
feet of liquid per pound of daily BODg added operate
satisfactorily if the suspended solids in the ditch are
kept below 25,000 to 30,000 milligrams per liter by
periodic or continuous sludge removal. Adequate velocity
must be maintained in the ditch to keep the solids
suspended. Normally this is considered to be a minimum
of one foot per second. Generally, the liquid depth in
the ditch is limited to about 18 inches and the total
channel length is limited to about 300 feet. Most rotor
designs can transfer about 1.5 pounds of oxygen per hour
per foot of rotor in the water at standard conditions
and at 100 rpm and six inches immersion. The cost of
the rotor itself, is about $250.00 per foot of rotor for
the nominal six to eight foot length. The major operating
cost is the power required to operate the motors , usually
two to five horsepower motors. Daily operating cost is
approximately $.02 per pound of BODc added if the rotor
supplies 1.9 pounds of oxygen per kilowatt hour and the
power cost is $.02 per kilowatt hour-
The design procedure for an oxidation ditch, based upon
Jones, Day and Dales1 publication (H3) is:
1. Determine the number of animals (N) and their
maximum size to be housed in the building.
2. Determine the minimum liquid volume (V) in the
oxidation ditch.
Minimum volume = number of animals times 1.5
pounds per day per 1,000 pounds of animal times
30 cubic feet per BOD5 per day.
V=Nxl.5x30=U5xN cubic feet
(assuming the animals weigh l.,000 Ibs.)
3. Determine the oxidation ditch liquid depth (D).
Surface area (S):
S = NxA=Nx25
(assuming A = 25 ft^ /animal)
D = V (ft)
S
57
-------
•>•
where N = number of animals
4. Determine the daily oxygenation demand, X (pounds
per day).
X = 2 x daily BOD5 loading =2xl.5xN=3xN
pounds per day.
5. Determine rotor length (L) required for oxygena-
tion.
a. Immersion depth (d) of rotor should be,
A - D * D
d - H to -3
b. The oxygenation capacity (XC) can be deter-
mined in pounds of oxygen per day per foot of
rotor length, Figure 15.
Rotor Length (L) = daily oxygenation demand, X
rotor oxygenation capacity, XC
c. The maximum immersion depth can be determined
from,
"•* * I
6. Determine the blade immersion depth (dp) required
for pumping. Assume the minimum velocity equals
1.25 feet per second. The flow rate, Q, in cubic
feet per second per foot of rotor can be determined
as follows:
Q = ditch width, W x ditch depth, D x 1.25 ft/second
rotor length, L
Q = 1.25 x W x D
L
d = 1.82 (Q - .1) , inches
Blade immersion, d' , should be the largest of d or d
7. Determine the number of rotors needed by assuming
the maximum distance between rotors equals 180 feet.
58
-------
4.0
cr
o
H-
o
a:
3.0
I 2.0
O
o
PUMPING AND OXYGENATION
CAPACITY FOR TYPICAL
CAGE ROTOR
PUMPING CAPACITY
OXYGENATION CAPACITY
40.0
30.0
CSI
O
CO
o
20.0 |
o
z
o
X
o
10.0
Figure 15,
34567
BLADE IMMERSION , IN
Pumping capacity and oxygenation capacity
versus rotor blade immersion depth
59
-------
a. Number of rotors, NR = length of rotors, L,
divided by rotor width, RW,
NR = —
" RW
For eight foot slats, a rotor width of seven
feet would normally be used.
b. Number of rotors, NRL = ditch length, PL
350
NRT - DL
NRL -
Use the larger of the numbers of NR or NRL.
8. Determine the power requirements and operating
costs.
a. For a selected blade immersion depth, one can
find the rotor power, RP, in kilowatt hours per
foot per day. Using the information for Fig-
ure 20 of Jones, Day, and Dale (43), an equation
dependent upon the blade immersion depth, d1 ,
can be expressed as follows:
RP = 5.4H. + l.56d'
b. The total power, TP, can be determined by the
following expression where total length of the
rotors is TL.
TL = (NR or NRL) x individual rotor length
TP = TL x RP
c. The cost can then be determined, assuming $.02
per kilowatt hour, by the following expression,
C = 0.02 x TP
Newtson (66) states that three factors are necessary to con-
struct an oxidation ditch system to minimize foam. These
factors are ditch design, aerator design, and operating
techniques. Moore, et al. , (63) found the dissolved oxygen
level in a batch type oxidation ditch was maintained above
zero during the winter operation for a completely confined
warm building operation. No odors were evident from the
liquid and the pollutional strength was reduced but the
effluent was still not suitable for discharge into a water
course. Solids loading averaged 5.1 pounds per day per
animal for 36 animals. They found a solid reduction of
60
-------
achieved for a 148 day period.
Spray-Runoff
Spray-runoff soil treatment is an adaptation of spray irriga-
tion where the grass covered treatment area is leveled and
sloped so that runoff flows evenly over the surface at a pre-
determined, rate. Biological reduction of the waste is
accomplished by a high population of microbes that colonize
the wet surface of the grass and soil particles. Spray-runoff
systems have been used to treat cannery wastes (47, 88} and
havefremoved about 90% of the volatile solids, oxygen de-
manding organics, and total nitrogen with once per day spray-
ing at Paris, Texas. Changing the spraying schedule from
once per day to three times per week improved the phosphorus
removal from about 50% to 88%. Operating costs for cannery
wastes have been about $0.05/1000 gallons of waste water
treated.
A spray-runoff system shows promise as an economical method
to treat animal wastes. Such a system has been installed
to treat runoff wastes from a feedlot at McKinney, Texas.
Anaerobic Treatment
Anaerobic processes are those that take place in an environ-
ment devoid of molecular oxygen (61). Chemically bound
oxygen is commonly used for energy production in these pro-
cesses. The oxygen may be bound with sulfur in sulphate ions,
with nitrogen in nitrate ions, with carbon and hydrogen in
various organic compounds, or with carbon alone in carbon
dioxide. A heterogeneous population of bacteria is present
which hydrolizes organic matter and metabolizes the products
to organic acids, alcohols, sulphides, amines, and carbon
dioxide, in the acid forming phase. The basic attraction of
the anaerobic process is its ability to decompose more organ-
ic matter per unit volume than its aerobic counterpart. For
this reason alone, the anaerobic process deserves considera-
tion for the initial stabilization of strong organic wastes.
A characteristic of anaerobic digestion is the production of
methane as a principle end product. Other gases are also
emitted, including carbon dioxide and hydrogen sulfide^and
intermediate products evolved as gases which may be toxic
and odorous. Depending upon the nature of the waste constit-
uents, organic solids may be liquified by 40 to nearly 100%.
Inorganic solids may not be reduced by anaerobic digestion.
An anaerobic system is a good method for pretreatment ahead
of an aerobic system. The combined anaerobic-aerogic system
offers a high degree of treatment in a. more economical manner
than the exclusive use of an aerobic system.
61
-------
Anaerobic Lagoons—Anaerobic lagoons have found widespread
application in the treatment of animal waste because of
their low initial cost, ease of operation, and perhaps more
importantly, a lack of alternatives. Anaerobic lagoons
have developed by a trial and error process from municipal
aerobic waste-stabilization ponds. Anaerobic lagoons have
proved to be useful for manure storage in northern climates
during winter months when spreading is not feasible and in
the central and southern United States has provided signif-
icant organic decomposition as well as manure storage.
Loading rates may vary from 0.001 to 0.01 pounds of^volatile
solids per cubic foot daily. This range in values is pri-
marily because of variability of the climates. In the
design of a lagoon, one should be guided by the climatic
conditions in which it will operate. For moderate Midwestern
climates, a lagoon loading rate of five pounds of volatile
solids per 1,000 cubic feet appears reasonable. For central
United States, Miner (61) suggests a lagoon capacity of
1,500 cubic feet per head for cattle weighing 1,000 pounds.
He also suggests that the required capacity be increased up
to 50% in areas of severe winters or when infrequent removal
is important. Warm winter climates may justify decreases
of 25%. The Midwest Plan Service (7) recommends a lagoon
size of approximately one cubic foot for each pound of live-
stock.
Some of the design features for an anaerobic lagoon are:
^-' Depth. Depth of 12 to 14 feet or more appears to
be satisfactory as long as it does not permit perco-
lation of contaminants into the ground water.
Deeper lagoons provide greater temperature stability
and minimal surface area for evaporation and the
escape of odors.
2. Sealing. To perform satisfactorily, lagoons must
not show appreciable seepage. In certain locations,
soil additives such as bentonite clay and various
polyphosphates should be used to create an imper-
vious seal to prevent contamination of the ground
water.
3. Shape. Circular or rectangular lagoons appear to
work satisfactorily. For a rectangular lagoon a
length to width ratio of 3:1 or less should be used.
4. Dike slope. Dike slopes of 3:1 should be used,
with at least a two foot freeboard. Dikes may also
be constructed so that machinery, such as tractors
and mowers may be able to operate on them.
62
-------
The width of a lagoon should be limited to about 50
feet if a drag line is to be used for cleaning the
lagoon.
5. Inlets and outlets. Raw manure should enter away
from the edge of the unit and preferrably near the
center. A submerged inlet is desirable to aid mix-
ing and to avoid the winter freezing problems. To
avoid pollution, all overflow from an anaerobic
lagoon should go into an aerobic lagoon or other
secondary waste treatment system for further decom-
position. A trickle tube will handle normal over-
flows. An emergency spillway should be constructed.
6. Surface grading. The area around a lagoon should
be shaped to prevent surface runoff from entering
the lagoon. Diversion terraces should be construc-
ted to achieve this purpose.
7. Fencing. Lagoons should be fenced for the protec-
tion of children or .livestock.
Many lagoons are operated so that no discharge is necessary.
Thus, water is lost by evaporation and seepage which must
equal the average raw waste inflow. Miner (61) presents an
equation, taking into consideration minimal seepage:
A (E-R) = PQ
where R = annual rainfall rate, inches per year
E = evaporation rate, inches per year
Q = daily waste flow, gallons
P = conversion factor, 0.0134
A = surface area of lagoon, acres
This expression is useful in predicting the size of a lagoon
required for evaporation of incoming water during an average
year. In areas of high rainfall, it is not feasible to
design a lagoon for evaporation of all incoming water- In
such instances, outlets must be provided and plans made for
proper disposal of the effluent. Effluent may be spread on
nearby land as enriched irrigation water-
Information on the bottom width and length of a lagoon as
influenced by side slopes and depth of the lagoon is presen-
ted in Figure 16. This information is useful in determining
the surface area of a lagoon for possible evaporation design.
Also, the amount of material that has to be removed can be
calculated for lagoons located on rather flat land. The equa-
tion for determining the volume of the lagoon is:
V = b 1 h + (si + sb) h2 + 4/3s2h3
63
-------
LENGTH OF BOTTOM OF A
2-MILLION CUBIC FOOT LAGOON
VERSUS DEPTH FOR VARIOUS SIDE
SLOPES FOR LENGTH EQUAL WIDTH
800
700
600
o 500F
CD
o
LU
400
300
200
100
0
10 15 20 25
DEPTH OF LAGOON, FT.
30
Figure 16.
The effect of depth and side slope on the
bottom length of a 2 million cubic foot
lagoon
-------
where V = volume, ft
b = width of base, ft
1 = length of base, ft
h = depth of lagoon, ft
s = side slope, horizontal distance/vertical
distance
A schematic drawing, illustrating the various dimensions,
is presented in Figure 17. In Figure 18, the relationship
between surface area and depth for a two million cubic foot
lagoon is displayed.
Another formula, used by the SCS for estimating pond volumes,
is:
V = g- (area top + area bottom + 4(area of midsection))
where V = volume
D = depth
The areas are assumed to be parallel.
Waste Storage Tank Design
A waste storage facility may be a separate tank or it may
be a part of the livestock building. The confinement build-
ings with a slotted floor could have deep storage pits under-
neath the slotted floor. Also, flushing systems for solid
floors could use a storage tank facility.
The size of the container will depend on the way a livestock
operation is managed, the length of time between emptyings,
and the kind, number, and the size of the animals (82). The
tank storage capacity can be determined as follows:
Storage Capacity = (number of animals x daily manure
production x storage period in days)
dilution or transport water
The approximate daily manure production for a 1,000 pound
steer is 1.0 cubic feet, or 7.5 gallons, at 80-90% water on
a wet basis. This value does not include any dilution water
but it is suggested that extra water be added to bring the
percent water to about 90% for easier handling. Storage capac
ity of up to 180 days is recommended for colder climates to
avoid application on frozen ground. Cropping practices, dis-
tribution methods, and climate affect the storage period.
65
-------
Figure 17. Schematic showing lagoon dimensions
66
-------
400,000 -
300,000
CO
200,000
100,000
0
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
SURFACE AREA AND DEPTH
FOR A 2-MILLION CUBIC FOOT
LAGOON WITH VARIOUS SIDE
SLOPES
0
10 15 20 25
DEPTH OF LAGOON, FT.
30
Figure 18.
Effect of depth and side slope on the surface
area of a 2 million cubic foot lagoon
67
-------
To a/old pollution of water supplies, the storage tank
should be located at least 100 ft downhill from the water
supply. Fractured limestone, shale, and other bedrock
sites should be avoided because of possible direct ground
water pollution. To prevent tank flotation and flooding,
tanks should not be constructed below the high water table
or in flood plains. The tank should be located for con-
venient filling, emptying and controlled addition of dilu-
tion water.
The tank should be designed for protection against acci-
dents, asphyxiation, and possible over exposure to toxic
gases. Openings should have grills or covers to prevent
children, animals-, equipment, and other objects from
accidentally falling into the storage tanks. For emergency
escape, ladder or steps should be provided below all
openings having least dimensions of 15 inches or larger.
Necessary ventilation should be provided where gases may
discharge into a building.
Plans for farm waste storage tanks are available from
state extension agricultural engineers, generally located
at the state's land grant college, at county agents'
offices, lumber yards or equipment dealers where manure
pumps are sold.
In emptying the storage tank, it is usually necessary to
agitate the stored contents just prior to emptying as some
solid material settles. Effective agitation is possible
with recirculating pumps operating at about 2,000 gallons
per minute in storages with ports about 30 feet apart. The
compartments should be designed for not more than M-0 feet
in any width or length. Circular storages also work well
for agitating the material and emptying.
There are several types and sizes of pumps available for
removing liquid manure. Some systems have a wagon mounted
pump which creates a vacuum for loading and a pressure for
unloading. Centrifugal pumps without choppers can be used.
These range in size from 1 1/2 to 5 horsepower and deliver
up to 2,000 gallons per minute, but are subject to clogging.
Diaphragm pumps can handle some solids with a three inch
size, two-horsepower pump able to pump from 50-70 gallons
per minute. Chopper-impeller pumps are designed to pump
manure that contains chopped hay, feathers, and other
solids. These typically range in size from 5 to 30 horse-
power and are capable of delivering from 300 to 2500
gallons per minute. Some are capable of providing a high
output pressure suitable for manure irrigation systems.
68
-------
SOLID TREATMENT SYSTEMS
One of the difficulties of using municipal waste treatment
techniques on animal wastes is that animal waste contains
a higher percentage of solid material. As noted earlier,
solids are encountered in slurry waste, liquid runoff
wastes, and of course, the solid wastes from feedlot sur-
faces. Thus, regardless of the method used for handling
and treatment of the beef animal waste, solids are encoun-
tered.
Solids Separation—Many researchers and feedlot designers
are suggesting that the solids be separated from the liquid
wastes for easier handling of the liquid with centrifugal
pumps and pipe. Less solid material in the liquid portion
requires less oxygen for the biological degradation processes,
The solids that are separated can be handled with normal
solid handling equipment and treated like other solid waste
materials.
Gravity ^ Separation—Whenever the flow velocity of the liquid
wastes is low enough, solids will settle to the bottom of the
vessel or channel. Two systems have been discussed pre-
viously that were developed in Nebraska: 1. continuous
flow separation and 2. batch type separation (22). The con-
tinuous flow system permits runoff-carried wastes to slow
down behind a porous dam long enough for some of the solids
to settle out. By having a series of porous dams, an esti-
mated 50% of the solids can be removed by this method.
The batch separation method at Nebraska had two retention
structures. In one the material was retained for a period
of .time to settle out solids and the liquid overflowed into
the second retention structure. Most of the liquid was
pumped into the second structure, leaving a high percentage
of solids in the first structure which could be removed
later. Batch systems have more difficulties in terms of
the mechanical removal of the settled solids than the con-
tinuous flow settling system where conventional front-end
loaders can be used.
It may be possible to utilize some of the techniques for
solid separation in municipal or industrial waste treatment
processes. ,No solids separation systems of this nature were
observed for beef waste treatment systems during the field
observational phase of this project. Some settling tanks
have been used for dairy and swine installations; however,
these tanks have to be cleaned rather frequently.
Mechanical Methods—One of the disadvantages of the gravity
69
-------
separation method is the slowness with which the material
can be settled out. A retention time of several hours must
be built into the system in order to produce velocities low
enough for the solids to settle. By using mechanical
screens or other mechanical devices it may be possible to
speed up this separation process.
Fairbank and Bramhall (17) describe a manure liquid-solids
separation system for dairy wastes in California. Raw
liquid manure is pumped from a holding tank to a rotating
or vibrating screen separator with screens of stainless
steel. Mesh sizes range between 12, 16, and 20 mesh for
the dairy installations. Fibers, undigested feed, and coarse
sediment are separated from the liquid waste and the solids
emerge relatively clean and are not objectionable to handle.
In fact, the dried washed solids may be usable for free-
stall bedding. The washed manure has approximately 20%
total solids or dry matter as compared to approximately
O.H% solids for the liquified waste from the flushing sys-
tem.
Solids from the separator discharge chute fall directly
into a spreader or truck for hauling. The solids can be
spread directly on crop land or orchards, or can be stock-
piled in high windrows of 10 feet or more for spreading and
soil incorporation at the time of plowing. Slow composting
will occur in the stockpile. Also, there is insufficient
food in the material for fly larvae and the odor is very
low.
The total effluent volume will not be noticeably reduced by
solids separation and although free of most debris, it
retains a high pollution strength and should not be released
to public waters.
Other possible separation devices are centrifuges and sta-
tionary screens which have been tried experimentally but not
under field conditions. Likewise, flocculation and other
municipal techniques have not been demonstrated under field
conditions although Cassell and Anthonisen (12) used vacuum
filtration to reduce the volume of poultry manure.
Drying
Incineration and drying have been suggested as ways in which
the total volume of waste can be reduced to minimize the
water pollution problems. Most of the research on drying
animal wastes has been limited to poultry manure.
Surbrook, Boyd, and Zindel (83) discuss the performance of
an experimental dryer used primarily for poultry wastes but
70
-------
also tried a limited amount of dairy, beef, and swine waste.
They found an odor given off in the vicinity of the machine
during drying, but it was less intense and unlike that of
fresh excreta from poultry. Bovine excreta was reduced from
an initial moisture content of 82.4% to 12.0% The bulk
density of the dried dairy and beef wastes was 12 pounds per
cubic foot. The production rate was about 243 pounds per
hour for which 2.6 gallons per hour of fuel and 4.2 kilowatt
hours of electricity was used in one hour. For one ton of
dried dairy or beef excreta, the total cost was estimated
to be $63.65 for a forty-hour week and $48.70 for an eighty-
hour week.
A dryer was designed to handle the slurry waste from 9,600
dairy-beef steers housed on slotted floors in the Los
Angeles area (39). The slurry was pumped into a dehy-
drator that was capable of producing 25 tons of dry material
daily. In the summer of 1970, when this installation was
observed, it was no longer in operation due primarily to
two reasons:
1. The operation was under attack by local residents
because of odor problems.
2. The dryer began to have mechanical problems after
a couple of years of operation.
Composting
Gotaas (28) discusses some of the fundamentals of composting.
Segregation of the noncombustibles and combustibles or re-
moval of noncompostible materials is desirable. Shredding
or grinding the raw materials for composting can render
the material more susceptible to bacterial invasion by expos-
ing a greater surface area. Golueke (27) observed that
when composting pig manure, anaerobic conditions developed
in the large pig droppings when they were not shredded. The
most desirable size of particles for composting is less
than two inches in the largest dimension.
The course of decomposition of organic matter is affected
by the relative availability of carbon and nitrogen as
measured by the C/N ratio. A C/N ratio of 20 is suggested
as the upper limit for a compost material at which there is
no danger of robbing the soil of nitrogen. Since living
organisms utilize about 30 parts of carbon for each part of
nitrogen, the optimum C/N ratio for composting is around 30.
A moisture content in the range of 40-60% is the most satis-
factory range for aerobic composting. If a moisture content
is too high, the water displaces air in the interstices
71
-------
between the particles and thereby gives rise to anaerobxc
conditions. When the moisture content is too low the
organisms are deprived of the water needed for their
metabolism.
Proper temperature is a very important factor in the
aerobic composting process. High temperatures are essen-
tial for the destruction of pathogenic organisms and un-
desirable weed seed. Decomposition also proceeds much more
rapidly in the thermophilic temperature range between 50
and 70°C with around 60°C usually being the most satisfac-
tory.
Aeration is necessary for thermophilic aerobic composting
in order to obtain rapid nuisance-free decomposition.
Aeration is also useful in reducing a high initial moisture
content in composting materials. Turning the compost pile
at frequent intervals during the first 10 to 15 days of
composting is required.
The compost pile can be windrowed and turned frequently to
provide aeration; however, this promotes a loss of moisture
by evaporation so that moisture may have to be added
periodically. For a moisture content of 40 to 60%, turning
at at three day intervals appears to be satisfactory.
Piles should be from approximately four feet to six feet
in height to insure that they do not lose heat too rapidly.
Optimum temperatures must be provided for destruction of
pathogenic organisms and decomposition by thermophiles.
Also, if the piles are too small the loss of moisture may
be excessive. Initial width of a windrow should usually
be 8 to 12 feet at the bottom for convenience for heat
insulation and in turning. The volume of composting refuse
may decrease to between 20 and 60% of the original volume
and weight to 50 to 80% of the original weight. The
actual figures depend upon the character of the materials,
moisture loss and amount of compaction.
The time required for composting cow and pig manure and
straw was found to be 10 to 16 days under field production
conditions. Approximate time required for composting is
9 to 12 days for an initial C/N ratio of 20 and 10 to 16
days for an initial C/N ratio of 30-50.
The Fairfield Engineering Company has designed a digester
for processing of organic waste material (14) and made
feasibility studies for 100 to 400 ton per day capacity
digester plants processing cattle manure containing 30%
moisture and producing a marketable organic product contain-
ing approximately 5% moisture. For a 100 ton per day plant,
72
-------
the total annual operating cost is estimated to be
$167,410.00 with capital investment excluding land of
$650,000.00. They estimate an income of $195,000.00
based upon a $15.00 per ton market price of the organic
product.
Any profits from composting material are contingent upon
successful marketing of the material. It is readily
apparent that one large feedlot can saturate the compost
market in most localities.
73
-------
CHAPTER IV
ULTIMATE DISPOSAL
Ultimately the animal waste material has to come to a
final resting place and the nature of this resting place
or ultimate disposal is of vital concern. The ultimate
disposal of the waste material should be accomplished
in a manner that will not endanger the health and well-
being of people, animals, or plants. In this context,
ultimate disposal is considered as the receiving media
for the material. The material may be subjected to some
of nature's own cycles, where it may be chemically or
physically altered and possibly transported elsewhere in
a different chemical or physical form.
An alternative to disposing of all of the waste material
is to recycle the material in whole or in part back to
the animal production system. There are attempts being
made to recycle the waste as a media for flushing, bedding,
or as a feeding material rich in nutrients. Also, the
waste may be recycled by application to crops which are
grown for animal consumption.
Disregarding the recycling aspects, there are three
potential recipients of the waste material: air, land, or
water. All three may be involved at one time or another
in the disposal of the waste material. For animal waste
management systems, the initial discharge or deposition
is generally to water or land sources.
In this chapter the methods and effects of disposing of
the waste onto the land will be discussed, primarily for
the following two reasons:
1. Land disposal techniques are most frequently
used for animal waste disposal.
2. By placing the material on the land the probabil-
ity of pollution of streams and lakes is lessened.
There are other possibilities considered in this chapter
for the final treatment and disposal of the material. In
most cases operators have decided to use disposal methods
that reduce labor costs and dissipate major fractions of
the waste material to the atmosphere. In addition to
economics, the ultimate disposal may be determined by the
physical form of the material and whether it has had prior
treatment.
-------
LAND DISPOSAL
The disposal of animal wastes onto the land has been the
traditional practice but sometimes presents problems when
large quantities of waste are generated in concentrated
areas such as large beef feedlots. Animal waste may be
treated as an unwanted commodity to be reduced and disposed
of by any available means that is publicly acceptable,
trouble-free, and economically feasible. Otherwise, it
may be treated as a resource, and its use developed for
optimum benefit.
Value of Manure
According to Taiganides and Hazen (86), cattle produce
approximately 0.4 pounds per day of nitrogen, 0.12 pounds
per day of Po05 and 0.3 pounds per day of K20 per 1,000
pounds of body weight. For fattening cattle, Benne (8)
found the following amounts of ingredients in one ton of
manure at 80% moisture:
Ingredients Pounds
N H.2
P 2.0
K 10.0
S 1.0
Ca 5.6
Fe 0.80
Mg 2.2
Volatile solids 322
Fat 7
Tests conducted by the Beef Cattle Division of Pioner Hi-
Bred Corn Company indicate that each ton of slurry contains
6.4 pounds of N, 4.6 pounds of P20s> and 7.2 pounds of K20
(75). In high roughage rations, there is a higher amount
of K in the manure. With an application rate of 20 tons per
acre, the material would supply 128 pounds of N, 92 pounds
of P205, and 144 pounds of K20 per acre. Each ton of slurry
manure had a plant nutrient value of $1.43 when figuring
N at $.11 per pound, P205 at $.09 per pound, and K20 at
4-5$ per pound.
These prices approximated the delivery and spread prices
of the bulk blended dry fertilizers in central Iowa. When
spreading costs of $.23 per ton were considered, the net
value of the slurry was $1.20 per ton. Application of 20
tons per acre approximates the nitrogen needs for a 130
75
-------
bushel per acre corn yield.
James Willrett, a. feeder located near De Kalb, Illinois,
considers the value of the N, P, and K produced from each
animal as about $9.00 over the feeding period using the
price of $.05, $.08, and $.04 respectively (93). In
addition to the N, P, and K, there are other benefits
provided by the manure, such as trace elements and the
energy material for stimulating the activity of soil
microorganisms.
Application Rates
Miner (61) has reviewed research pertaining to the applica-
tion of animal wastes to crop land and found that most
researchers reported farmyard manure increased crop yields
over a wide range of soils. Most workers found that high
application rates of manure resulted in higher crop yields
but lower application rates gave higher returns per ton of
applied manure. Recovery values from manure by various
crops ranged from about 10 to 30% for N, 10 to 20% for P,
and 30 to 100% for K. These values are quite comparable
to those reported in the literature for crop recovery from
applications of commercial fertilizers.
Hensler (38) found that fresh, fermented (piled) and
anaerobic liquid dairy cow and steer manures gave similar
increases in corn yield in Wisconsin and were superior to
those for aerobic liquid manure for application to Miami
silt loam in the greenhouse. The 30 ton per acre rate of
application resulted in up to 30% greater yields but 5 to
10% lower percentage recovery of N, and P as compared with
the 15 ton per acre rate. The average recovery of N and P
by the crop was 52.5% and 29% for anaerobic, liquid dairy
cattle manures and was greater for steer manure. Allowing
the manure to dry for one week before incorporation into
the soil usually gave 10% lower yields and 5 to 40% lower
recovery values for N, P, and K. Table 6 presents informa-
tion on the average yield and recovery of N, P, and K by
one crop of corn grown in pots in a Miami silt loam when
manure was applied at a rate of 15 tons per acre.
Research plots of corn have been reported as tolerating 100
tons per acre, but increase in corn yields for manure rates
higher than 10 tons per acre were quite small (61). Uneven
development of corn plants was observed in Kansas, where
beef cattle manure was applied to land at about 50 tons per
acre a few weeks before planting. Usually, a salt effect is
sited as the cause of the inhibition.
76
-------
Table 6. Effect of Steer Manures Applied at a 15 ton/acre
Rate on Average Yield and Recovery of N, P, and
K by One Crop of Corn Grown on a Miami Silt Loam
in Pots (38) (Hensler, 1970)
Type of
Manure
Fresh
Fermented
Aerobic liquid
Anaerobic liquid
Yield
(g/pot)
32.0
32.5
20.5
33.0
Recovery by crop
_ _*-
53.0 23.5 73.5
54.5 23.5 74.0
13.0 14.5 34.5
65.5 27.5 83.0
77
-------
Some results in Wisconsin indicated that where excessively
high rates of manure are added to quite acid soil for corn,
application should be six to eight weeks prior to. planting.
Fresh manure, incorporated into the soil immediately after
application, generally is the most effective in increasing
crop yields. Fermented manure usually has a higher per-
centage content of plant nutrients due to the loss of dry
weight by organic matter decomposition, but generally
shows no advantage over fresh manure for crops. However,
in some Wisconsin studies, corn yields on a Withee silt
loam soil were significantly lower for fresh manure than
for comparable treatments with fermented or anaerobic
liquid manures (38).
The injection of manure slurries below the soil surface
appears to have considerable promise according to Miner (60).
With this method, the immediate covering of the waste
greatly reduces the possibility of pollution caused by
storm water runoff and also reduces volatilization losses
of nitrogen, reduces odor, and reduces fly breeding problems.
In arid and semi-arid regions, thin spreading by sprinklers
may also be a disposal method for fluidized manure. How-
ever, in more humid areas there would be the possibility
of fly breeding, creation of undesirable odors, and the
possibility of pollution of surface waters. Manure slurries
mixed into irrigation waters can be used in some cases but
attention must be given to recovery of tail water from, such
irrigation systems if pollution of water courses is a
possibility.
Miner concluded that the aerobic treatment of dairy cow
and steer manures would likely be the least desirable treat-
ment because of the relatively high cost, reduced value
of the manure as a fertilizer for corn, and low recovery of
plant nutrients. Also, any method of handling that allows
the manure to dry on the surface before soil incorporation
favors gaseous losses of N and possible pollution of runoff
water.
McCoy (57) found that bacteria from fresh bovine manure was
removed within the top 1H inches of silt loam soil with
manure applications of 5 to 80 tons per acre. The coliform
and enterococcus types of bacteria were efficiently removed
by adsorption during percolation through soil and by natural
die-off from inability to compete against the established
soil or manure water microflora. Thus, there is little
concern that bacteria will move any great distance from the
point of application of manure to agricultural soil.
78
-------
In the Panhandle area of Texas, Mathers and Stewart (55)
examined the nitrogen transformations and plant growth as
affected by applying large amounts of cattle feedlot wastes
to soil. Laboratory studies examined the decomposition
rates and (nitrogen transformations of the animal wastes
when applied to soil at varying rates. They also studied
the effects on plant growth of varying application rates.
When the feedlot waste, primarily solid waste, was mixed
with the soil, evolution of C and transformation of N was
rapid. In 90 days, about 50% of the C was evolved as CO-
and an equivalent amount of N was recovered at NH~ or
NH4+ and N03~ in the soil. In a greenhouse study, they
found that one unit of N from ammonium nitrate was equiva-
lent to 2.4 units of N supplied in feedlot waste.
High concentrate beef rations easily contain 1% or more
sodium chloride to enhance water intake and possibly limit
the formation of urinary caluculi. Mathers and Stewart
stressed that the high salt content in feedlot manure must
be seriously considered before high application be used.
They found growth inhibition on plots receiving a 5% rate
manure treatment in the first sorghum crop when seeded
immediately after application of manure. Most of the
growth inhibition was probably due to salinity, but the
first crop apparently removed enough salt to allow normal
growth in the second crop. Yield results for grain sorghum
with fertilizer and manure treatments with and without incu-
bation before planting for two crops are presented in Table 7.
The second crop was planted immediately after the first
crop was harvested without any further manure applications.
Yields were generally higher on the second crop for the
manure application rate of 5% whereas the higher applica-
tion rates took longer to recover. Crops with lower rates
and commercial fertilizers utilized most of the available
nitrogen during the first crop.
There are still many unknown factors regarding the heavy
application of manure to the soil such as the long-term
effects salt buildup. Much long-term research is needed to
establish these limits and possible effects of various other
trace elements on the soil.
IRRIGATION
In the case of hydraulic handling methods, irrigation offers
the possibility for the final step of ultimately disposing
of the animal waste material on the land. The equipment
and techniques for irrigating with manure laden waters are
slightly different than for regular irrigation techniques and
79
-------
Table 7. Yield of Grain Sorghum with Fertilizer and Manure Treatments with
and without Incubation Before Planting (55) (Mathers, 8 Stewart, 1970)
Treatment
CO
o
check
NPK
Manure-%**
1
2.5
5
10
20
Incubated and
dried prior
to planting
Crop 1
6.3*
12.8
10.4
14.0
9.7
0.8
0.2
Crop 2
1.4
3.7
4.2
11.2
13.6
2.9
1.9
Incubated
prior to
planting
Crop 1
5.5
12.8
10.9
13.8
9.6
1.0
0
Crop 2
2.0
2.7
4.1
11.7
11.9
3.1
2.7
No incubation
prior to
planting
Crop 1
8.7
13.3
11.3
13.9
5.6
0.1
0
Crop 2
1.6
4.0
4.7
9.5
12.2
0.8
1.4
*Yield, g/pot
**g of dry manure/g dry soil; for trials soil watered to 25% moisture content
-------
systems. Liquid animal wastes contain more solids.
Slurries, of course, may contain as much as 15% solid mater-
ial whereas flushing systems and water arising from runoff-
carried wastes generally contain lesser but also highly
variable amounts of solid material. Solids, if in large
quantity, affect the performance and operation of most con-
ventional irrigation pumps and nozzles. Therefore, special
equipment, particularly pumps and nozzles, has been devel-
oped for manure irrigation systems.
Slurry System
The slurry or flushing systems frequently use a chopper
type of pump that has the ability to chop up particles, such
as straw or hay. One manufacturer sells a pump that re-
quires a 30 horsepower electric motor and is capable of
providing an output pressure of 100 psi and a 200 gallon
per minute flow rate. This system has sufficient pressure
to pump a 90% moisture content slurry through several
hundred feet of irrigation pipe and effectively operate a
large diameter nozzle sprinkler. The pump also has a quick
closing selector valve to permit the operator to change
from hydraulic tank agitation to field discharge. Hauen-
stein (33) mentions that the friction losses are only
slightly higher than conventional irrigation systems and
are not an important factor since the pumping time is
small and the power cost is quite low. The large sprinkler
will wet an area in excess of 2 acres and give a precipi-
tation rate of approximately 1/3 of an inch per hour as
long as the proper pressure is maintained. Many farms
using this system also pump fresh water following the appli-
cation of liquid manure so that the manure is washed off
the plants and into the soil. The fresh water application
also flushes out the system and helps reduce odors.
Runoff Control Systems
Shuyler (79) discusses the design of an irrigation system
to utilize the liquid runoff from feedlots. Once the opera-
tor and designer of a feedlot has decided to dispose of the
liquid waste material from the lot by applying it to agri-
cultural land, there are several items that should be
investigated before deciding on a final design system for
liquid wastes.
The most important factor is the amount of land needed and
type of crops to be grown. A high volume crop, such as a
forage or pasture crop, will remove large amounts of
nutrients from the soil and be less subject to^seasonal
limitations from cropping and harvesting practices than
81
-------
some row crops. Fertility needs of various crops, pre-
sented in Table 8, must be kept in mind when applying
animal wastes to a crop because an excess of any one nutri-
ent may have a toxic effect on plants. A system may be
necessary that supplies the fertility needs of the plant
with a balanced combination of commercial fertilizer.
Irrigation needs of the various crops must be considered
for land disposal of waste water. Irrigation engineers
and agronomists working with irrigated crops have maps
indicating the amount of irrigation water needed to produce
a crop in most years. The most important factor in ••>-ater
use is the daily or monthly use of the crop. Tables 9 and
10 indicate the daily water use and the total consumptive
use of crops grown in Kansas. By subtracting rainfall from
the total water used each month, it is possible to predict
the amount of waste water that can be disposed of in any
month. The peak use of most crops is about 0.3 inches per
day (Table 11.).
The water holding capacity of the soil is very important
in designing an irrigation system or disposal field and
Table 12 shows the amount of water per foot that a soil
might hold. A plant uses only about 50% of this water with-
out causing damage to the plant, therefore, only enough
water should be applied to replace what the plant has used.
If more is added, water will be driven below the root zone
to a position where it may eventually cause pollution of
the ground water. The root zones of the various crops are
also indicated in Table 13.
Some tables adapted from the sprinkler irrigation handbook
written by Fry and Gray (19), are useful in determining
application rates under various climatic and soil conditions
(Tables 14, 15, and 16).
The first step in designing an irrigation disposal system is
to estimate the amount of liquid runoff expected from the
feedlot as discussed in Chapter II. This runoff may be
stored for a long or short term, but some local regulations
suggest that the storage reservoirs be emptied within 10 to
15 days after a runoff event. The land area needed for
irrigation should be based upon the decision for long term
or short term storage. Results at Nebraska and west Texas
indicate that approximately one-half of the annual rainfall
may runoff the feedlot surface (85) (92). Shuyler suggests
that, for Kansas conditions, six inches of runoff liquids
could be used in an average year on crop land. For long
term storage, the total land area needed may be determined
by the following expression:
82
-------
Table 8. Nutrient Needs of Crops in Kansas (79)
(Shuyler, 1969), Ibs/acre
Crop N P205 K20
Corn, 120 bu. 180# 70# 1HO#
Corn, forage 180 70 180
Sorghum, forage 160 70 180
Sorghum, grain 145 50 110
Wheat 70 20 25
Grass 160 70 120
83
-------
Table 9. Daily Water Use of Crops for Kansas (79)
(Shuyler, 1969)
Inches per day
Crops
Alfalfa
Corn
Sorghums
Pasture
Wheat
June July Aug.
.30 .32
.07 .31
.07 .24
.26 .29
.26 .00
Table 10. Total Consumptive Use of
in Kansas (79) (Shuyler,
Crops
Alfalfa
Corn
Sorghums
Pasture
Wheat (winter
Consumptive
29
2H
20
25
use) 13
.30
.33
.29
.27
.00
Sept.
.2.
.15
.10
.21
.00
Water for Crops
1969)
Use (
- 37
- 27
- 23
- 32
- 17
inches/year)
-------
Table 11. Peak Moisture Use for Common Irrigated Crops and Optimum Yields (19)
(Fry 8 Gray, 1969)
Cool Climate
Moderate Climate
CO
en
Crop
Alfalfa
Cotton
Pasture
Grain
Potatoes
Beets
Inches
per day-*-
.20
.20
.20
.15
.14
.20
GPM per
acre*
3.8
3.8
3.8
2.8
2.8
3.8
Inches
per day
.25
.25
.25
.20
.20
.25
GPM per
acre
4.7
4.7
4.7
3.8
3.8
4.7
Orchards
and Groves
Orchards
and Groves
w/cover
20
.25
3.8
4.7
.25
.28
4.7
5.2
1-Acre inches per acre per day
^Continuous flow required per acre at 100% irrigation efficiency
value by estimated irrigation efficiency
Divide this
-------
Table 11. Continued
Hot Climate
Desert Climate
Crop
Alfalfa
Cotton
Pasture
Grain
Potatoes
Beets
Inches -,
per day
.30
.30
.30
.22
.25
.30
GPM per
acre^
5
5
5
4
4
5
.7
.7
.7
.2
.7
.7
Inches
per day
.35
.35
.35
.30
.30
.35
GPM per
acre
6
6
6
5
5
6
.6
.6
.6
.7
.7
.6
Orchards
and Groves
Orchards
and Groves
w/cover
.30
.35
5.7
6.6
.35
.38
6.6
7.2
Acre inches per acre per day
"Continuous flow required per acre at 100% irrigation efficiency
value by estimated irrigation efficiency
Divide this
-------
Table 12. Gross Amount of Water to Apply per Irrigation (19) (Fry 6 Gray, 1969)
Gross amount of moisture to apply* ac in./ac
Soil Profile
Coarse sandy soils, uniform
Coarse sandy soils over more
Fine sandy loams uniform in
Fine sandy loams over more
compact sub~ soils. .....
Silt loams uniform to 6 ft. .
Silt loams over more compact
Heavy clay or clay loam soils
For various depths of
principal moisture extraction
12
n
u .
n
u .
T
JL *
1.
1.
i
J. •
1.
IT
en
D U
R n
i n
J- \J
10
45
45
~ V
20
18"
n an
u . o u
n Rn
u . o u
i ?n
X * / U
2.00
2.25
O O C
£. • £* O
1.85
24"
i in
_L « J. U
9 nn
£. . U U
9 9 R
£. * £- w
2.65
3.00
•j o />
2.65
30"
i 7n
J_ • / U
9 9 R
Z. * .t. O
9 Q n
£. » J \J
3.20
3.65
u nn
^ • \j \j
3.20
36"
i ?n
_l_ * / w
27 n
* / u
q r rt
3.70
4.00
4.30
3.80
48
0
£, *
9
*c *
ti
T^ •
4.
5.
c
o •
5.
* *
9 *i
£.
-------
Table 13. Depth of Principal Moisture Extraction of
Crops (19) (Fry & Gray, 1969)
Depths of Principal
Crops Moisture Extraction (feet)
Alfalfa 4
Corn 3
Cotton 3
Small grain 2 1/2
Grain sorghum 2 1/2
Forage sorghum 2 1/2
Grass pasture 2
Table m. Maximum Precipitation Rates to Use on Level
Ground (19) (Fry S Gray, 1969)
Light sandy soils 0.75" - 0.5" per hr
Medium textured soils 0.5" - 0.25" per hr
Heavy textured soils 0.25" - 0.10" per hr
Allowable rates, increase with adequate cover, and decrease
with land slopes and time
88
-------
Table 15. Slope Precipitation Rate Reduction (19)
(Fry g Gray, 1969)
Slope Precipitation Rate Reduction
0-5 per cent grade 0 per cent
6-8 per cent grade 20 per cent
9-12 per cent grade HO per cent
13-20 per cent grade 60 per cent
over 20 per cent 75 per cent
Grade = drop in feet per 100 lineal feet
2
Applied to proper soil type precipitation rate
Table 16. Estimates of Irrigation Efficiencies for
Various Climates (19) (Fry 8 Gray, 1969)
Desert climate 65 per cent
Hot dry climate 70 per cent
Moderate climate 75 per cent
Humid or cool climate 80 per cent
Example: Required to apply two inches in hot-dry climate
Thus 2 = 2.85 acre inches per acre must be applied per
7TO" irrigation
89
-------
Land area needed, acres =
1/2 x annual rainfall, inches x feedlot drainage area, acres
6 inches of runoff liquid per year
Obviously, in dry years, less land area would be required
than determined by this expression. It would possibly be
better to irrigate small areas in a dry year and to rotate
the irrigated areas in a succession of dry years. Runoff
wastes should be supplemented by a supply of good quality
irrigation water-
If a short term storage reservoir is utilized in the waste
management scheme (where the runoff is pumped out within a
few days after the rainfall event), then the crop land area
can be determined from the following expression:
Land area (acres) = acre-inches of runoff stored
inches of water applied/application
Minimum application rates comparable to the rate for heavy
textured soils of 0.10 and 0.25 inches per hour could be
used for this calculation. During cool weather and periods
of high rainfall, the soil may be unable to accept the liquid
waste as easily as during warmer, dryer periods.
For a system designed for the Pratt, Kansas area, Shuyler
(79) suggests about one acre of crop land be available per
acre of feedlot. For that area the amount of NPK for corn
production can be supplied by about six inches of runoff
waste per acre of crop land.
EVAPORATION
Evaporation occurs from the surfaces of the feedlot, ponds,
lagoons, and storage pits. This mechanism causes considerable
amounts of moisture to be lost from feedlot surfaces as indi-
cated by studies of a flat feedlot located in the Platte
River Valley of Nebraska (58). Very little runoff occurs
from this feedlot, so most of the moisture is lost by evapo-
ration.
In some areas evaporation may occur very rapidly during hot,
dry weather and create a dust problem. In these cases it is
desirable to inhibit evaporation or at least create a more
moist surface by increasing cattle density or by sprinkling
with water.
Evaporation from a feedlot surface is affected by several
factors, such as:
90
-------
Temperature
Relative humidity
Moisture content of the feedlot surface
Solar radiation intensity
Wind velocity
Animal density
Slope and drainage
Soil type
The western portion of the country has more potential for
using evaporation as a means of animal waste disposal than
the eastern portions of the United States. A map showing
the annual evaporation for the adjacent H8 states of the
United States is presented in Figure 19 (45). Annual pre-
cipitation for these states is presented in Figure 20 (13).
Areas where annual evaporation exceeds the annual rainfall
rate are generally favorable areas for evaporating excess
liquid wastes. In the higher rainfall areas, evaporation
may be used during certain dry periods of the year.
Evaporation is one of the alternatives to disposing of liquid
runoff wastes by irrigation. Using this concept, the major
concern is getting rid of the liquids as economically as
possible. Thus, an evaporation pond should be designed
with a fairly large area and a shallow depth so that no
runoff will go beyond the pond and enter public streams or
waterways. Precautions should also be taken to prevent the
pollution of underground water sources by infiltration
through the soil beneath the pond. The fundamentals of
evaporation pond design are similar to the design of a
lagoon as discussed in Chapters II and III.
INCINERATION
Incineration of the solid waste material is a potential
alternative to land disposal. Feedlot manures are a low
grade energy source material. Pratt (72) found the heat of
combustion of dried beef animal waste was approximately
6,300 BTU's per pound of dry matter and Ludington (52) found
the heat of combustion of poultry manure to be about 5,400
to 5,800 BTU's per pound of dry matter. This compares with
the values for anthracite coal, 13,000; lignite coal,
6,900; and wood products, 8,500 BTU/lb.
There are indications that manure with a moisture content
higher than 30% cannot be fed directly into the combustion
chamber of an incinerator. In this case, predrying, possi-
bly using waste heat from the incinerator, is necessary.
Obviously, dry waste collection systems are necessary if
incineration is to be used. An inherent liability of the
91
-------
to
AVERAGE ANNUAL LAKE EVAPORATION IN INCHES
(PERIOD 1946-1955)
OHOLOGIC INVESTIGATIONS SECTION
HYDROIOG1C SEBVlCtS DIVISION
WEATHER BUREAU
Figure 19. Average annual lake evaporation for 48 adjacent states
-------
Figure 20. Mean annual total precipitation in the United States (Chow, 1964)
-------
process is air pollution. Experiences in California, as
related by Fairbank (18), indicate that several operations
have been closed because of complaints by area residents
about odors arising from incineration or drying animal
wastes.
Another promising method for disposing of feedlot wastes is
the use of the manure as a fuel to generate the power to
run the feedlot (2).
-------
SECTION II
OPEN FEEDLOTS
-------
CHAPTER V
OPEN FEEDLOT DESIGN
Open feedlots for feeding beef cattle are prevalent in the
southern High Plains and Desert Southwest. These feedlots
range in size from a few hundred to 100,000 animal capacity.
Smaller open feedlots, ranging in size from^OO to 2,000
animal capacity, are found in the colder climates, such
as the upper Midwest and Pacific Northwest. The larger open
feedlots, with a typical size of 20,000tto 30,000 head
capacity, increased in numbers rapidly in the southern High
Plains during the late 1960's primarily because of a dry,
warm climate. The area is also close to an abundant supply
of feed grains and feeder cattle. Many of the southwestern
feedlots are located in close proximity to irrigation areas.
The design of open feedlots in this chapter will refer
mainly to large commercial feedlots with over 1,000 head
capacities. These feedlots typically are dirt-surfaced and
afford little protection from the environment. There are
no major buildings for housing although in some instances
sunshades and windbreaks may be provided. There are few
paved feedlots for capacities above 1,000 head.
Classification of these open feedlots is difficult because
of the many alternatives that are possible for feedlot con-
struction. The major classification would be between dirt
and paved feedlots. Other areas of differences may be in pen
construction, drainage, type of feed processing facilities,
and type of waste handling facilities. These design options
are illustrated in Figures 21 through 24.
FUNCTIONAL PLANNING
In designing an open feedlot for beef feeding, there are
several areas that must be planned. These areas serve a
particular function in the overall operation of a beef feed-
ing facility. The basic functional areas are:
Pens
Feeding and watering
Feed processing and storage
Receiving and shipping area for cattle
Cattle handling
Sick pens
Office
Drainage and runoff control
Solid waste handling, stockpiling and disposal
Horse stables and feeding area
Equipment maintenance and storage area
96
-------
DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR
OPEN FEEDLOTS
FEEDING
FACILITIES
PENS AND
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONTROL
SURFACE
AND
DRAINAGE
Figure 21. Design considerations for open feedlots
97
-------
FEEDING FACILITIES
i
Roads
Concrete
Sand
Gravel Crushed Rock Caliche
1
Times Per Day Feeding
1 2
I 3
More Derr
Than
3
i
i
Feedbunk
i
Mechanical
i
Concrete
i
r
Slip Prec(
Form
i
i
V
jst Poured-ln-
Place
i
Fencelir
i
Vood Me
ie Se
Fee
tal
and
If
der
Center RearFenceline Adjoining Pen
Waterer Waterer Waterer
Figure 22. Feeding design
98
-------
PENS 8 ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL
Steel Pipe
Posts
Wood
Posts
Wood Fence Cable Wire Mesh Welded Pipe
Shades
i
Mounds
Sprinklers
Windbreak
No Shades
No Mounds
No Sprinklers
No Windbreak
Figure 23. Pen and environment control design
99
-------
SURFACE AND DRAINAGE
DIRT
PAVED
Sand Loam Gypsum Silty Clay Concrete
Clay
Soil
Cement
Asphalt
Feedbunk Working Mid-Lot Natural Multiple
Slab Alley Drain Draw Slope
am Drain
i
Dr
0-3%
Slope
3-6%
6-10%
Over
10%
Concrete-Lined
Collection
Ditches
Dirt
Ditches
No
Ditches
Concrete
Box
Culvert
Metal
Culverts
Over Road
Concrete
Surface
Drain
Dirt Or
Gravel
Drain
Figure 24. Drainage design
100
-------
A summary of some of the design requirements for planning
are presented in Tables 17 and 18. These design require-
ments are essentially those formulated by the Midwest Plan
Service (7) and Van Fossen and Myer (94) and may have to
be adjusted to meet local conditions.
SITE SELECTION
Many factors must be considered in selecting a site for
a beef feedlot. Some of the factors relate to socio-
economic and some to engineering design decisions. Mar-
keting and transportation considerations have to be
analyzed prior to the selection of an area for a feedlot.
Feeder cattle supply, feed grain supply, and marketing
of the finished cattle affect the site selection. Land
prices and agricultural practices in the area may also
influence the choice of a feedlot location.
Feedlots should be located in socially acceptable areas,
away from major residential areas and highways if possi-
ble, to avoid complaints from odors or dust. In essence,
the community or area should want the feedlot. State and
local laws and regulations may affect the general, as well
as the specific, location of a feedlot.
Much can be done to reduce the water and air pollution
potential from a feedlot by properly planning its location
and design. In most cases, this can be done more econom-
ically through planning prior to construction than by hav-
ing to later install pollution abatement structures.
Miner states that site selection is the decision of greatest
importance in determining the acceptability of feedlot oper-
ations (60).
Basically, selecting a feedlot site consists of examining
features of the local terrain and micro-climate which pro-
vide some environmental protection and an opportunity to
minimize air and water pollution while providing good
features for carrying out the operations of the feedlot.
Many of the factors affecting feedlot site selection are
related to the control of surface water flowing across the
feedlot, while others are related to the control of odors
and the handling of the runoff and solid wastes. The
following points should be considered in feedlot site selec-
tion:
1. Location with respect to water sources.^
2. Diversion of precipitation falling outside lot.
3. Lot topography and drainage.
4. Soil type and structure.
101
-------
Table 17. Summary of Design Requirements for Open
Feedlots
Design Factor
Space
Lot Area
unsurfaced
partially surfaced
surfaced, no shelter
surfaced, open housing
concrete
Resting Area in Sheds or
under Shade
mature cows
600 Ib. to market
calves to 600 Ib.
bedded barn
Corrals
holding pens
crowding pen
working chute
sorting alleys
loading chute
working alleys
Feeding Space
once per day feeding
calves to 600 Ib.
600 Ib. to market
mature cows
feed always available
hay or silage
grain or supplement
grain and silage
feeding 3 or more times/day
600 Ib. to market
600 Ib.
Watering
drylot
Recommendation
400 ft /animal
150
55
30 "
3 ft /100 Ib animal
2 to 3 ft2/100 Ib animal
25-30 ft2/animal
20-25 "
15-20 "
2 ft2/100 Ib animal
20 ft2/animal
150 ft2 or one truck load
18 to 30 ft2
10 to 12 ft wide
30 to 42" wide
m ft
18 to 22 in/animal
22 to 26 "
26 to 30 "
4 to 6 in/animal
3 to 4 "
6 "
6 to 12 in/animal
12
M-0 head per waterer
15 gal/head/day
5500 gal/year
102
-------
Table 17. Continued
Design Factor
Bunk Dimensions
Throat Height
calves
yearlings and cows
Width
fed both sides
fed one side
mechanical feeder
Height of Bunk Floor Above
Apron or Step
where apron scraped
where snow, mud can
accumulate
Step Along Bunk
(Needed when apron is
sloped less than one
inch/ft or bunk is
higher than needed)
Concrete Apron Along Bunk
Slope
self-cleaning
minimum
Length
for tractor scraping
(If area below will be
muddy and lot slopes
away from bunk)
Recommendation
18 inches
22 inches
48 inches
18 inches
514 to 60 inches
H to 6 inches
8 to 12 inches
4 to 6 inches high
12 to 16 inches high
1 inch/ft
1/2 inch/ft
6 to 8 ft
8 to 12 ft
103
-------
Table 18. Basic Requirements for Beef Cattle Housing (78)
Feedlot Area
dirt, medium
textured soil
dirt, poor drainage
on heavy soil
paved, l/i* to 1/2
inch/ft slope
200-300 ft2/animal
300-400 ft2/animal
50-70 ft2/animal
100-125 cattle/pen normally
200 cattle/pen large operation
Shed Space
15-25 ft /animal below 600 Ibs
20-35 ft2/animal above 600 Ibs
30-50 ft2/animal mature cows
Shade
r\
30-40 ft /animal covered area
10-12 ft high
Daily Feed Consumption
2.5-3.0% of body weight for fatten-
ing cattle (air dry basis)
Daily Water Consumption 0.5 gal/lb dry matter consumed at
60°F
0.9 gal/lb dry matter consumed at
90°F
10U
-------
5. Land area.
6. Wind direction.
7. Location with respect to residential areas.
Location with Respect to Water Sources
Feedlots should be located so that water pollution is pre-
vented. Thus, untreated runoff water from feedlots should
be prevented from entering streams, rivers, lakes, irriga-
tion supply canals, and underground water supplies. In
the Pacific Northwest, it has been suggested that feedlots
be located outside of a 10 year flood plain of all river or
stream systems or at least 100 yards outside of the streams
apparent high water marks (89). It is also suggested that
feedlots be located at least 100 yards away from any inter-
mittent dry storm drainage gulley or irrigation canals.
The Iowa Pollution Control Commission requires that beef
feedlots be registered if a feedlot is less than two feet
per animal from a watercourse that drains five sections or
more of land (40).
To avoid ground water pollution, attempts should be made to
prevent seepage or percolation of contaminated surface
waters through the soil to the water table. Unpaved feed-
lots should have at least a 30 foot soil mantle between the
surface and the water table and 10 feet for paved feedlots
(89). Avoid locations where polluted water may enter the
underground aquifer directly through fractured rock,
abandoned wells, well casings, or tile drains.
Diversion of Runoff
A feedlot site must be carefully chosen in order to control
runoff from the feedlot and prevent runoff from adjacent
land from entering the feedlot. A feedlot should be loca-
ted away from a stream or watercourse (60). Terraces or
road ditches can be used to intercept uphill water and
divert it around the feedlot, thereby minimizing the amount
of waste water to be handled or treated by runoff control
structures.
Lot Topography and Drainage
Drainage within the feedlot area should be controlled from
the feedlot pen surfaces until it later discharges the run-
off into a collection basin for treatment or ultimate dis-
posal. Sufficient land area should be allowed for the
drainage system and collection facilities. The aim should^
be to keep the runoff on the feedlot property and not permit
it to run on the neighbor's. A topographic map is invaluable
105
-------
in planning the drainage system for the feedlot.
Sites for open, unpaved feedlots should be uniformly
sloped from 3 to 6 per cent to provide adequate surface
drainage. Unpaved lots having slopes over 10 per cent
may erode. In the upper Midwest, the Midwest Plan Service's
Beef Housing and Equipment Handbook (7) recommends that the
outdoor lots should slope away from the prevailing winter
wind which is usually a south or east slope. Mounds may
also be constructed to provide dry locations for cattle
resting areas in the pens. Avoid drainage from one lot to
another, if possible.
Feeding lines should be oriented to provide the best drain-
age either at the high side of the lot or up and down the
slope. In northern climates, a north-south or north-west-
southeast orientation is generally preferred because the
sun can melt the ice and dry the pavement along both sides
of the bank. Roads should be slightly crowned and lots
should be sloped away from buildings and feeding lines.
Soil Type and Structure
The soil type and structure beneath a feedlot site should
be considered to avoid ground water pollution. For example,
fractured limestone can allow polluted water to rapidly
enter a ground water aquifer. Guidelines developed for
Pacific Northwest cattle feedlot waste management (89)
suggest that unpaved feedlots not be located on gravelly
soils. In Kansas, it has been recommended that the soil
type underneath the feedlots and waste retention facilities
should have a tight subsoil rather than a porous one (15).
There is some indication that manure may serve as a sealant
on feedlot surfaces and at lagoon bottoms. McCalla, et al.,
(56) found no movement of nitrates and other possible pollu-
tants through the soil to the water table for a flat'feed-
lot in eastern Nebraska. Apparently, there is an essentially
impermeable barrier formed at the soil-manure interface.
Lehman, et al., (48) also found that nitrates did not pene-
trate the bottom of a playa lake which served as a storage
and evaporation facility for runoff-carried wastes from a
feedlot near Amarillo, Texas. In view of the above informa-
tion, some feedlot operators do not completely remove the
solid waste material on the feedlot surface. Instead,
they leave approximately an inch of manure so as not to dis-
turb the soil-manure interface. Again, local conditions
may dictate whether this practice can be used at a particular
site.
106
-------
Land Area
Adequate land area, not only for the feeding facilities but
also to_accomodate runoff control facilities and manure dis-
posal, is a necessary consideration. Productive agricul-
tural land, or land that can be developed into productive
land, should be provided adjacent to the feedlot operations.
It is advantageous for a feedlot to be surrounded by a
buffer zone of feedlot controlled land to provide an area
for manure disposal as well as some space separation for
odor dilution.
Wind Direction
Wind directions fluctuate considerably so it is difficult
to establish firm guidelines as to location of a feedlot
with respect to wind direction. Also, local terrain and
micrometeorological conditions affect wind directions.
Generally, feedlots should be located downwind from a resi-
dential area for the prevailing wind conditions. For the
summer, most areas in the Midwest or Great Plains have
southerly or southwesterly prevailing winds. Therefore,
feedlots should be located east or northeast of a residential
area.
Residential Areas
Feedlots should be located so that they will not interfere
with residential areas or enterprises where concentrations
of people may be found who are not able to appreciate the
odors arising from a feedlot. Miner (60) states that
"although no maximum distances have been established beyond
which complaints are not valid, it would seem logical to
stay three miles away from an urban area; at least one
mile from a housing development and one-half mile from
the nearest residence."
Most court cases between neighbors and a feedlot have
arisen because of odors coming from a feedlot during certain
periods. One way of reducing the chance for such litigation
against the feedlot is to locate in agricultural and deso-
late places away from residential areas.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
Several environmental factors may affect the performance
of beef animals during the finishing period. Esmay (16)
divides the environmental factors into physical, social, and
thermal. The physical factors are space, light, sound,
107
-------
pressure, and equipment. The social factors are the num-
bers of animals per pen and behavior. The thermal factors
are air temperature, relative humidity, air movement, and
radiation.
Nelson (65), reviewed the literature published on the
effects of climate and environment of beef cattle with
emphasis on hot weather effects. Several investigators
found significant differences in physiological response and
performance of beef cattle due to ambient temperature
effects. With increasing outside air temperature from
50 to 100°F, body temperature tends to increase, although
there are differences between breeds. The Brahman cattle
maintain body temperature at a more uniform level than the
European breeds. Also, calves do not withstand as high air
temperatures as cows. For nearly all breeds the energy
cost per pound of gain was less at 50°F than at 80°F.
Solar radiation also affects the performance of beef cattle.
Increased thermal radiation increases the radiation heat
load on the animals and is quite critical when air tempera-
tures are above 100°. Brahman cattle withstand more solar
radiation than European cattle. Relative humidity also
influences the production of cattle particularly when
combined with high ambient temperatures.
Kelly (44) discusses the effects of thermal environment on
beef cattle. The European breed of calves held at 50°F
grew much more rapidly than those held at 80°. Indian
cattle withstand about 20° higher temperature with a comfort
zone from 50° to 80°F compared with 20° to 60°F comfort
zone for most European breeds.
Schulz (78) presents some basic requirements for beef cattle
housing, feeding, and handling and published data on
recommended feedlot areas per animal, dairy feed and water
requirements, daily water intake, amount of manure produced,
manure obtained from cattle fed on paved floors in open
sheds and man-hours per ton for handling manure for beef
cattle.
Hinkle (36) reviewed environmental research with beef
cattle for both low and high temperature effects and found
that feeder calves with shelter had a higher average daily
gain than calves with no shelter and also had a lower cost
of feed per pound of gain. Results from research conduc-
ted in Saskatchewan indicated that board fences had a
significant advantage over no shelter with higher rates of
gain and a better feed efficiency during the winter months.
There were no significant differences between the perfor-
mances of sheltered animals and those protected by windbreaks,
108
-------
Morrison, et al., (64) found that slopes up to 7° did not
depress weight gains or feed efficiencies. A slope of about
5° was sufficient for removal of most of the manure, whereas
floors with only 1.25° slope were covered with sloppy manure.
They found the 4.75° sloped floor to have the least manure
accumulation and the highest daily gains.
Givens, et al., (24) found that satisfactory winter gains at
Davis, California were obtained with beef cattle in either
concrete or dirt corrals when allowed 212 to 255 square feet
of space per animal. Animals housed in shelters and on slot-
ted floors gained as well in only 58 square feet of space
per animal as did unsheltered animals in a dirt corral
with 255 square feet per animal.
Bond, et al., (10), found that mud depressed cattle pro-
duction more than either wind or rain during the winter
months at Davis, California where winter temperatures range
between 40 and 60°F. Mud reduced daily gains by approxi-
mately 30% per pound of gain in comparison with the con-
crete pens. When the cattle in the muddy pen had a dry
place to rest, their production loss was considerably
less. Exposure to artificial rain equivalent to 0.19
inches during a 10 minute period each hour decreased daily
gain 15% and reduced feed conversion efficiency 20%.
Considerable research has been conducted in the Imperial
Valley of California on determining the shade requirements
for beef feedlots and methods for increasing beef produc-
tion in a hot climate. Ittner, Bond, and Kelly have summar-
ized some of the research that has been conducted at the El
Centre Field Station (41). They suggest five factors that
affect animal comfort and production in hot weather: shade,
water, air movement, radiation, and feed.
Shades should be from 15-20 feet wide, 10 to 12 feet high
and could be several hundred feet long and be oriented
north and south so that the sun covers the entire parts of
the feedlot which improves sanitary conditions. Shade
space of 60 square feet per animal is adequate. Hay is the
coolest of all materials tested although it provides prob-
lems of replacement and protection from wind and rain_
damage. Also, tests indicate that painting the top side of
the metal white and the bottom side of the metal roof black
reduces the radiant heat load under the shade received by
the animals. Reducing the solar radiation is a complex
problem but improvements can be made by constructing corrals
from wire or cable rather than wood. The fences in^a
wooden corral absorb a great amount of heat and radiate.
109
-------
it directly back onto the penned cattle. Also, other
buildings, machinery, and obstacles radiate heat back to
the cattle. Cattle located in pens near growing crops
gain much better than when subjected to radiation from the
bare earth. Cooling of drinking water to about 65° resul-
ted in noticeable weight gains from the animals.
Increased air movement is beneficial to the^cattle when
provided by mechanical 6r natural means. Wire or cable
corrals offer little resistance to natural air movement.
Also, large fans operating part of the time increase the air
movement over penned cattle. The increased air movement
speeds up the evaporation of moisture from the skin and
brings about more rapid cooling.
In feeding beef animals during the summer months, care
should be taken to not supply a high fiber diet. Such^
feeds produce a high heat increment which must be dissipa-
ted by the body, a difficult task during hot weather.
Cooling the drinking water to about 65°F produces noticea-
ble weight gains in beef animals.
Givens (23) found that the radiant heat load on the animals
in southeast United States is greater under high shades
than low ones as shades over six feet high had no advantages
in reducing the heat load. Apparently, the increase in
cloud cover in southeastern United States causes a different
radiation effect than under clear sky conditions.
A feeding trial in Tulara County, California conducted by
Miller (59), indicated that dust from feedlots in the summer
can be controlled by reducing allotted space to as low as
50 square feet per head without adversely affecting perfor-
mance of cattle. The corral surfaces in the 100 and 150
square feet per head pens were dry enough to cause a dust
problem whereas the surface of the 50 square feet per head
pens were wetter than desirable. Spacing for 5.5 square
feet per hundred-weight produced a surface which was wetter
than desirable whereas a spacing of 8.5 square feet per
hundred-weight failed to settle the dust. Spacing somewhere
between these figures would be optimum.
Mahoney, Nelson, and Ewing conducted research in Oklahoma
to determine the performance of experimental close-confine-
ment cattle feeding systems (53). They ran tests with
animals housed at 15 square feet per animal on a slotted
floor and shelter, 25 square feet per animal on a slotted
floor and shelter, and 100 square feet per animal in a dirt
lot with no shelter. Cattle limited to 15 square feet of
slotted floor space required 20% more feed per pound of gain
110
-------
than cattle allowed 25 square feet of slotted floor space
or cattle on dirt lots with 100 square feet of space per
animal. There were essentially no differences between the
25 square feet per animal spacing on a slotted floor and
the 100 square foot per animal on the dirt lot.
ENVIRONMENTAL MODIFICATION
Modification of the environment of open feedlots is more
difficult than for confinement shelters. However, there
are at least three major modifications that can be under-
taken in open feedlots:
1. Shades can be constructed to reduce the amount of
solar radiation on the animals. Also, shades can
be installed over feedbunks to intercept rainfall.
2. Windbreaks can be used to reduce the wind veloci-
ties particularly for wintertime conditions. Some
recommendations for windbreaks are given in the
Midwest Plan Service Booklet on Beef Housing (7).
3. Mounds can also be provided in the feedlots. This
permits the cattle to find a higher and dryer
spot during wet weather and also provides a certain
amount of shelter from the wind during the winter.
During the summer, animals can get on top of the
mound and will come into contact with an increased
amount of air movement.
PEN DESIGN
Andrews (1), developed a nomograph to determine the pen
size, Figure 25. For feedlots in the Desert Southwest, he
suggests the following steps in laying out the plan for a pen
1. Orientate the shades north-south and, if possible,
the pens also.
2. Decide how many square feet to allow per head.
3. Decide how much bunk space to allow per head.
4. Determine how many animals the pen is to hold.
5. Find the pen length by multiplying the number of
head by the length of bunk space per head.
6. Find pen depth by dividing the square feet allowed
per head by the bunk length per head.
Ill
-------
.
200-
I80:
I60:
T9 -
g 140-
o:
w 120^
CD
Q.
» 100-
£ 90-
2 80-
o
S- 70-
CO
60-
50-
\
-400
-350
-300
-250
-200
— -
-150 S
i i
c
V
Q_
\IOO^_
-90 o
8/vX.c
U Z:
-70 S-N^
-60 Q \
\
-50 >
-40
-30
-25
-.5
-.6 10-
-.7 20-
30-
"•8 _ 40-
1 50-
u.
-9 — ^r 60i
•5 -o
o U_ __
or — 80-
w = 90-
-1.0 * ^ 100-
Q- "-
•= 0 x^
*- ^ .. -
-II ^ ^£ 150-
I.I QJ ^S--+— '~v _
3^ = r
.x ^ •" 200-
<<2 = -1
OQ
-..3 3o°:
400-
-1.4
500-
-15 6001
700-
-1.6 800-^
900 :
. 7 1000-
— \ , f
L8 1500^
1.9 :
2000-
2.0
^
-10
-15
-20
-30
-40
-50
-60 c=
-70 Q-
D f\ fi\.
lo £
:3° -o
<00 o
<»
M—
r o
-150 w
o>
^3
"200 ^
*^L
-300
-400
-500
:600
~700
"800
900
1000
Figure 25. Nomograph for determining pen size (Andrews,
1970)
112
-------
The two major considerations in determining pen dimensions
are the bunk capacity and the .space per animal. The bunk
capacity is determined primarily by the method and fre-
quency of feedings. The area per head affects the moisture
conditions of the pens, and is further complicated by the
weather and drainage. The area per head will be determined
primarily by local rainfall and land costs.
113
-------
CHAPTER VI
ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES FOR OPEN FEEDLOT WASTE MANAGEMENT
In analyzing open feedlot waste management systems, the
system was separated into facility and handling segments.
The facility segment of the system was either an unpaved
feedlot or a paved feedlot. The waste handling segment was
separated into a solid waste handling system and a runoff
control system.
The analysis used in this investigation was based upon pro-
cedures developed by Paine (71) for determining the economic
analysis of livestock systems as a function of the magni-
tude of the operation. This procedure provided for an esti-
mation of facility, machinery, labor and capital costs for
a livestock operation. Seven different expense categories
contributed to the expense of the total system:
1. land
2. animal
3. storage
4. cattle facilities
5. field machines
6. farmstead machines
7. power or tractors
The operating expenses for machinery and tractors were
based upon computer programs written by Bowers (11). This
included depreciation, interest, maintenance and fuel costs.
In this investigation the procedures developed by Paine
were re-written and adapted for use on a conversational pro-
gramming system (CPS) to enable quick interaction with the
IBM/360/65 digital computer located at the Oklahoma State
University Computer Center. Paine*s procedures did not
include waste management systems, therefore, new procedures
and programming had to be made to include the waste handling
aspects. Prior to programming, much information had to be
obtained on the costs and design of the facilities and waste
management systems. After this information was obtained,
the procedures were written and cost factors included in the
calculations. Input to the programs consisted essentially
of physical factors needed for design, e.g., number of
animals in the feedlot. Output consisted of sizes of facil-
ities or number of pieces of equipment and their associated
operating and investment costs. Some of the design pro-
cedures discussed in Chapters II, III and IV were included
in the calculations. The investment cost, capacities
and estimated life of the various machines used in this
-------
analysis are presented in Table 19. Some of the capacities
were estimated from a_field observation whereas others
were^estimated using information provided by manufacturers.
The investment costs are those listed as the sales cost
by selected manufacturers. The CPS programs are available
from the authors of this report.
FACILITIES COST
The cost of construction and materials for open feedlots
were obtained primarily from field observations and per-
sonal communications with commercial firms constructing
feedlots. These costs are summarized in Table 20.
A computer program was written to calculate the feedlot
costs for -the entire facility using the various construction
costs from Table 20. It also included the procedures for
designing a feedlot utilizing various alternatives of con-
struction. The program was designed to calculate the num-
ber of pens and placed a limit of ten pens per row (or
twenty pens in a group) with a road in front of each set of
ten pens and a work alley between each set of ten pens.
Roads and cattle alleys were included in the pen design and
their sizes were based upon the design criteria found from
the field observations and in the literature. As the feed-
lot capacity increased and a second group of pens was
necessary it was assumed that the road would be constructed
around the entire feedlot area as if there were two full
groups of pens (or HO pens in total). This permitted space
for future expansion of pens but momentarily increased the
surface area for runoff.
Unpaved Feedlots
Unpaved feedlots are used almost exclusively in the Great
Plains, Desert Southwest and. Western states. Investment
costs per animal and.operating costs per animal day for var-
ious combinations of feedbunk types and fence types for
20,000 head unpaved open feedlot are presented in Table 21.
The following assumptions were made: 200 sq ft per ani-
mal, 1 linear foot per head of feedbunk space, and 200
animals per pen. These values were typically encountered
in the Southern High Plains region. For the operating costs
it was assumed that the facilities would be depreciated in
10 years and that feedlots would operate at full capacity.
Of the feedbunk and fence types analyzed, the wood bunk
with a wire fence had the least initial cost and^had the
lowest operating cost. The systems using the slip form con-
crete bunk had the highest investment and operating costs.
115
-------
Table 19. List of Machines and Their Cost, Wearout Life, Capacity, and Fuel and
Lubrication Requirements
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Machine
Caterpillar 950 loader
Int. 656 tractor w/ft
end loader
Chev. 80 dump truck
Spreader truck, Int. F1800,
Oswalt MB 17.5
Pull-type spreader, AC 299
Liquid manure spreader,
Badger BN 212a
Vacuum spreader, Badger
BN 215
Liquid spreader truck,
Int F1800
Liquid manure pump ,
Sahlstronr
Liquid spreader w/injector,
Sahlstromc
Blade on tractor, AC6 '
Grader, cat. 112F
Cost
($)
31,100
8,900
9,700
12,800
1,434
1,740
1,899
9,300
1,433
2,894
245
22,325
Wearout
Life
(hrs)
12,000
12,000
2 ,000
2 ,000
2,500
2 ,000
2,000
2,000
2,000
2,000
2,500
12 ,000
Capacity
(yd/hr)
168
37.2
39.6
67.5
38
42
28
55.7
250
37
350
1,210
Fuel g Lub
Cost
($/hr)
1.87
0.66
1.91
2.08
2.08
1.35
-------
Table 19. Continued
No. Machine
13 Elevating scraper, Cat. 613
14 Rotary scraper, BeBe
RS-8565-4
15 Cable scraper, Big
Dutchman
16 Oxidation rotor, Honeybee
#75
17 Fans, Acme Engr., DC 4BH
18 Electric motor, 40 HP
Reliance 324T
19 Tractor, Int. 656
20 Dragline
a. 1500 gal. capacity
b. 1400 gal. per min.
c. 1400 gal. capacity
Cost
($)
37,226
5,895
2,280
2,228
339
882
7,770
R 7 . R n n
Wearout
Life
(hrs)
12,000
5,000
2,500
8,000
12,000
12,000
12 ,000
Capacity
(yd/hr)
105
56
--
--
17,000 CFM
--
65 HP
i C;K
Fuel & Lub
Cost
($/hr)
2.14
-------
Table 20. Costs for Feedlot Construction
Cost,
Feedbunk Costs per Linear Foot Dollars
Wood 2-00
Precast concrete 4.50
Slipform concrete 6.25
Mechanical 7.50
Feedbunk Apron Cost per Square Foot 0.45
Fence Costs per Linear Foot (Including Labor)
Wire 1.04
Cable 1.95
Pipe 1.65
Wood 1.25
Windbreak 3.13
Road Costs per Square Foot
Hard surface 0.45
Gravel 0.10
Waterers with Slab Cost per Pen 300.00
Paved Lots Cost per Square Foot 0.45
Land Forming for Lot Drainage
Cost per Head 1.00
Shade Costs per Square Foot 0.32
(for 27 sq ft per animal)
118
-------
Table 21. Investment Cost per Head and Operating Cost per
Animal Day for Various Combinations of Feed Bunk
Types and Fence Types for a 20,000 Head Unpaved
Open Feedlot with 200 square feet per Animal, One
foot per Head Feed Bunk Space, and 200 Animals per
Pen
Feed Bunk Type
Fence Type
Wire
Cable
Wood
Pipe
Wood
11. 361
(.0062)2
13.27
(.0073)
11.80
(.0065)
12.64
(.0069)
Precast
Concrete
13.86
(.0076)
15.77
(.0086)
14.30
(.0078)
15.14
(.0083)
Slipform
Concrete
15.61
(.0085)
17.52
(.0096)
16.05
(.0088)
16.89
(.0092)
"''Investment cost per head capacity, dollars
f\
Operating cost per animal day, dollars
119
-------
Many feedlots that were visited had precast concrete feed-
bunks with a cable and steel post frame. This type had an
investment cost of $15.77 per head and an operating cost^
of $0.0086 per animal day. This included all of the facil-
ities needed for the pens and roads, including waterers,
feedbunk aprons, landforming costs and the necessary fenc-
ing and feedbunks. This assumes a gravel road but does not
include windbreaks or shades. This cost compares quite
closely with the rule-of-thumb cost of $15 per head for
feedlots that have been constructed in western Oklahoma and
the panhandle area of Texas.
Various combinations of animal densities, feedbunk space
and number of animals in a pen were analyzed to determine
the effect of these parameters on the total lot area,
investment cost per animal, and cost per animal day (Table
22). A 20,000 head unpaved open feedlot with precast con-
crete feedbunk and a cable fence was assumed. The minimum
facility costs were for 250 animals in a pen. As the ani-
mal density increased and the feedbunk space increased, the
investment and operating costs increased linearly. An
optimum combination appeared to be for 150 sq ft per
animal, 0.75 linear feet per animal per feedbunk space, and
250 head of animals per pen, giving a total lot area of
372,700 sq ft an investment cost of $13.17 per animal,
and an operating cost of $0.0072 per animal day. This
reduced the investment cost per animal by about $2.50 per
head over the cost for space allowance of 200 sq ft per
animal, 1 linear foot of bunk space per animal and 200 ani-
mals per pen.
Paved Feedlots
With paved feedlots the space allowance per animal can be
reduced. The cost for a paved feedlot using precast con-
crete bunks and a cable and steel post fence was made for
50 sq ft per animal and 75 sq ft per animal space allow-
ance. For 50 sq ft per animal the paved feedlot area was
reduced by 1/3 to 1,623,600 sq ft from over 1,700,000 sq ft
for an unpaved feedlot with 200 sq ft per animal. However,
the investment cost and operating cost for the paved feedlot
were about double the unpaved feedlot. The investment
cost per head was $32.11 and the cost per animal day was
$0.0176, not including the value of the land.
Increasing the space allowance for a paved feedlot to 75
sq ft per animal increased the feedlot area to 2,140,000
sq ft and increased the investment cost about $11 from
$32.11 to $43.64. The operating cost increased from $0.176
per animal day to $.0239 per animal day.
120
-------
Table 22. Operating Costs per Animal Day and Investment
Cost per Head for 20,000 Head Open Feedlot with
Precast Concrete Feed Bunks and Cable Fence for
Various Animal Densities, Feed Bunk Space per
Animal, and Number of Animals in Pen
Animal
Density*
(sq ft/head)
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
Total Lot
Area
(sq ft)
2,653,600
3,683,600
4,713,600
5,743,600
6,773,600
7,803,600
8,833,600
Investment
Cost per Head
($)
14,
15,
15,
16,
16,
17,
67
22
77
32
87
42
17.97
Cost per
Animal Day
($)
.0080
.0083
.0086
.0089
.0092
.0095
.0098
Feed Bunk
Space**
(ft/head)
0.5
0.75
1.0
1.25
1.5
4,553,600
4,613,600
4,713,600
4,829,600
4,953,600
12.45
13.74
15.77
18.09
20.56
.0068
.0075
.0086
.0099
.0113
Number in
pen***
(head)
100
150
200
250
300
4,867,200
5,003,040
4,713,600
4,682,880
5,594,880
19.41
17,08
15.77
13.72
14.65
.0106
.0094
.0086
.0075
.0080
* Feed bunk space is 1.0 ft/head and number of animals per
pen is 200
** Animal density is 200 sq ft per animal and number of ani-
mals per pen is 200
*** Animal density is 200 sq ft per animal and feed bunk space
is 1.0 ft per head
121
-------
As feedlot size or capacity increases the investment cost
per head decreases slightly but less than $1 per head
between 5,000 animals and 20,000 animals. Likewise, the
operating cost decreases only slightly from $.0180 for
1,000 head to $.0179 per animal day for 20,000 head at
50 sq ft per animal capacity for the paved feedlots.
SOLID WASTE HANDLING
For handling wastes in large commercial feedlots, three
major systems are used:
1. A commercial loader and spreader truck.
2. A rotary scraper attached to a tractor.
3. An elevating scraper.
The last two systems remove the waste from the feedlot and
carry it in the same vehicle to the stockpile or point of
distribution. The first system is the most prevalent sys-
tem. It permits the material to be hauled considerable
distance to fields. Other systems using smaller tractors
with front-end loaders and either spreader truck or a pull-
type spreader are not used extensively in the large commer-
cial feedlots. Discussion of their use is presented in
Chapter VIII on waste handling methods for confinement
buildings.
Days of Use per Year
The total operating costs per animal day and the total invest-
ment cost for six solid waste handling systems are presented
in Figures 26 and 27 respectively. For 20,000 head, 1/4
mile hauling distance, and over 50 days of use per year, the
elevating scraper had the lowest operating cost. A commer-
cial loader plus spreader truck had the highest cost, because
of the low capacities in the dump truck compared with other
systems.
The system with the least total investment cost for 20,000
head was the rotary scraper with tractor. The other sys-
tems had approximately the same investment cost until 100
days of use per year was reached. Then the elevating scraper
had a low cost which remained steady with higher days of
use per year, primarily because of the one machine doing
several jobs. The tractor loader plus dump truck and trac-
tor loader plus pull spreader continued to decline in
investment cost as the days of use increased. This was due
primarily to fewer pieces of equipment needed as the days
of use increased. A more detailed breakdown of the operating
and investment costs for these systems are included in the
122
-------
SOLID WASTE HANDLING
.008
.007
.006
o
o
5 .005
o
E
Q_
-------
SOLID WASTE HANDLING
200
150
o
O
•o
c
o
3
O
in
O
O
0>
o>
5»
C
O
•*—
o
100
50
0
Rotary
Scraper
0
20,000 Head .
0.25 Mile Hauling Distance
Commercial Loader + Dump Truck
Tractor Loader + Pull Spreader
Commercial Loader +• Spreader Truck
Elevating Scraper—y
\ A
Tractor Loaders Dump Truck
100 200
Days Of Use Per Year
300
Figure 27. Solid waste handling: total investment cost
vs. days of use per year
-------
tables _ in the Appendix, which present the number of pieces
of equipment and the hours of use per day. For this
analysis it was assumed that the machines would operate
to a maximum of 10 hours per day before another piece of
equipment was added to that particular system.
Feedlot Capacity
The effect of size of feedlot on the operating costs was
compared for the three major handling systems in use in
commercial sized feedlots (Figure 28). In this analysis a
1/4 mile hauling distance and 100 days of use per year
for the machinery was assumed. Above 10,000 head capacity
lots the elevating scraper had the lowest operating cost
per animal day. Below 10,000 head capacity lots the rotary
scraper with tractor had the lowest operating cost per
animal day.
The rotary scraper with tractor had the lowest investment
cost for all capacities because the tractor could be used
for other operations on the feedlot. The elevating scraper
had a constant investment cost of approximately $37,000 up
to 20,000 head capacity lots because only one machine is
required. At 30,000 to 4-0,000 head capacity lots two ele-
vating scrapers are required to remove the waste in 100
days. For 20,000 head lots the investment costs are approx-
imately $27,000 for a rotary scraper with tractor, $37,000
for an elevating scraper, and $57,000 for commercial loaders
plus spreader trucks.
Hauling Distance
The effect of hauling distance on the operating costs for
the three different solid waste handling systems are pre-
sented in Figure 29. Below a two mile hauling distance
the elevating scraper had the lowest operating cost. The
commercial loader plus spreader truck had the next lowest_
operating cost over approximately one-half mile hauling dis-
tance. The operating cost for a rotary scraper with tractor
increased very rapidly as hauling distance increased. In
this analysis, 100 days per year of machinery use and a
20,000 head feedlot was assumed. At a two mile hauling dis-
tance , five rotary scrapers and tractors were required
having a total investment cost of $68,000; two elevating
scrapers were required having a total investment cost of
approximately $74,000 and one commercial loader with two
spreader trucks were required having a total investment cost
of approximately $57,000. Thus, the commercial loader plus
spreader truck had the lowest investment cost as distance
increased. Although the calculations were not made, it was
125
-------
SOLID WASTE HANDLING
o
0
o
Q
.008-
.007-
.006
.005
I .004
o>
t .003
v>
o
o
0>
~ .002
o
w
<0
Q.
O
.001
0
0
Open Feedlot
0.25 Mile Hauling Distance
100 Days Per Year
Commercial Loader + Spreader Truck
Elevating Scraper
Rotary Scraper With Tractor
1
10,000 20,000 30,000
Feedlot Capacity, Number Of Animals
Figure 28. Solid waste handling: operating cost vs. feedlot
capacity
126
-------
SOLID WASTE HANDLING
.007
- .006
o
Q
-------
apparent that the commercial loader plus spreader truck
was the optimum system when hauling distances were three
miles or greater-
Paved Feedlots
For paved feedlots, the mechanical removal costs are simi-
lar to the unpaved feedlots. The exception is that a
scraper mounted on a tractor is prevalently used. The
cost for operating a tractor scraper for a 20,000 head lot
is $0.00018 per animal day. For 20 days of use per year it
requires two tractors and scrapers having an investment cost
of $3,866.
Paved feedlots could be cleaned by an alternative system:
a flushing system. Flushing systems are more conventionally
used for confinement or partial confinement structures but
their system costs were not analyzed.
RUNOFF CONTROL SYSTEMS
As discussed in Chapter II the runoff control system begins
on the feedlot with the drainage and collection system. In
this analysis the costs of the pen and feedlot drainage
collection system is included in the open feedlot construc-
tion cost as presented in the previous section in this chap-
ter. The internal drainage system costs are about $0.50 and
$1.00 per animal of capacity.
System Design
Several factors affect the runoff from the feedlot as dis-
cussed in Chapter II. In this analysis, the design storm
rainfall was assumed to be a five year, two day storm
which is comparable to the ten year, one day storm used in
many states. The runoff-precipitation relationship devel-
oped by the SCS and presented in Chapter II was used in
this analysis. Essentially, the first one-half inch of
precipitation is stored on the feedlot surface which closely
approximates results found in Kansas and Nebraska. Also,
a drainage area for the feedlot 20% larger than the pen and
alley surface area was assumed. The feedlot surface area
was one of the items of input information used in this sub-
program to calculate the cost of the runoff control system.
In the computer sub-program, choices for alternatives in
the system were presented. The first choice was a settling
basin based upon the Nebraska continuous flow concept (por-
ous dams).
Choices of detention structure types were a large detention
128
-------
reservoir only, a batch detention reservoir with a long,
narrow reservoir constructed so that it could be easily
cleaned with the aid of a drag line. The third choice
in detention structures was the broad basin terrace based
upon research conducted in Nebraska. This broad basin
terrace could be constructed either in the feedlot or
adjacent to the feedlot to collect the runoff and permit
settling of the solids. For all of the detention reser-
voirs, the runoff wastes were assumed to be pumped out
rather frequently, such as within a 14 day period from the
time of runoff. The fourth choice in this sub-program
was a lagoon based upon a design value of 1500 cubic feet
per animal according to design recommendations by Miner (61).
Of course, combinations of these systems could be utilized
in the total runoff control system.
System Analysis
The costs and sizes for various runoff control systems for
20,000 open feedlots, with dirt surfaces and with paved
surfaces are presented in Tables 23 and 24. For this
analysis, a three-inch design rainfall was assumed.
Runoff control systems costs for paved feedlots averaged
about one-third as much as the unpaved feedlots for the
detention reservoirs. Whenever lagoons were used the
operating costs were approximately the same as for both
paved and unpaved surfaced lots.
Rainfall Effects
The influence of a five year, two day design storm rain-
fall on various runoff control systems is presented in Tables
25 and 26 for 20,000 head paved and unpaved open feedlots.
The total design volume for the svstem, investment cost,
feedlot plus runoff control area, and runoff control costs
per animal day are presented in the table for all of the
systems except for lagoon only. The lagoon costs remain
constant on a per animal day basis because the total volume
was based upon 1500 cubic feet per animal.
Feedlot Capacity
Costs, as affected by capacity of feedlot, for runoff con-
trol systems using a solid settling area plus a detention
reservoir for a dirt lot are presented in Table 27. A
three inch design rainfall for a five year, two day storm,
and 200 sq ft per animal was assumed. The total feedlot
plus runoff control systems cost per animal day declined
from $.0135 per animal day at 500 head to $-0092 per animal
129
-------
Table 23. Costs and Sizes for Various Runoff Control Systems for a 20,000 Head
Open Feedlot with Dirt Surface, 200 Animals per Pen, 200 sq ft per
Animal and One Foot of Bunk Space per Animal and Three Inch Rainfall
GO
o
Runoff
Control
System
Settling Basin
+ detention reservoir
+ lagoon
Settling Basin
+ detention reservoir
Settling Basin
+ lagoon
Detention Reservoir
+ lagoon
Detention Reservoir
only
Lagoon only
Broad Basin Terrace Only
Batch Detention Reservoir
only
Total
Volume
of Runoff
Control
Structures
(mill ft3)
Investment
Cost for
Runoff
Control
Structures
($)
Total Area*
of Feedlot
and Runoff
Control
Structures
(mill ft2)
Cost per
Animal Day
for
Runoff
Control
23.
1.
22.
23.
0.
30.
0.
537
037
976
249
749
000
799
266,798
16,798
260,557
258,321
8,321
333,333
8,880
7
6
7
7
5
7
6
.623
.292
.578
.045
.714
.414
.023
.00676
.00043
.00660
.00654
.00021
.00844
.00022
0.749
8,321
9.628
.00021
*Feedlot pen area is 4,713,600 sq ft. Total feedlot area is assumed to be 20
percent higher than pen area
-------
Table 24. Costs and Sizes for Various Runoff Control Systems for a 20,000 Head
Open Feedlot with Paved Surface, 200 Animals per Pen, 50 sq ft per
Animal, and One Foot of Bunk Space per Animal and Three Inch Rainfall
Runoff Total Investment
Control Volume Cost for
System of Runoff Runoff
Control Control
Structures Structures
(mill ft3) ($)
Settling Basin
+ detention reservoir
+ lagoon 22.861 255,870
Settling Basin
+ detention reservoir 0.361 5,871
Settling Basin
+ lagoon 22.668 253,721
Detention Reservoir
+ lagoon 22.758 252,866
Detention Reservoir
only 0.258 2,866
Lagoon only 30.000 333,333
Broad Basin Terrace
only 0.259 2,880
Batch Detention
Reservoir only 0.258 2,866
Total Area*
of Feedlot
and Runoff
Control
Structures
(mill ft2)
3.506
2.175
3.487
3.303
1.972
3.706
2.067
3.316
Cost per
Animal Day
for
Runoff
Control
.00648
.00015
.00643
.00640
.00007
.00844
.00007
.00007
*Feedlot pen area is 1,623,600 sq ft. Total feedlot area is assumed to be
20 percent higher than pen area
-------
Table 25. Costs for Various Runoff Control Systems for
Unpaved Open Feedlots as Affected by a Five
Year, Two Day Design Rainfall, 20,000 Head
Solids Solids
Settling Settling
2 inch rainfall + detention + lagoon
Total Volume (ft3 x 106) 0.757 22.976
Investment Cost (dollars) 13,680 260,560
Feedlot + Runoff control
area (ft2 x 106) 6.272 7.578
Runoff Control cost/an. day
(dollars) 0.00035 . 0.0066
Detention
+ lagoon
22.875
254,170
7.019
0.0064
4 inch rainfall
Total Volume (ft3 x 106)
Investment Cost (dollars)
Feedlot + Runoff control
area (ft2 x 106)
Runoff Control cost/an. day
(dollars)
1.349 22.980
20,300 260,640
6.317 7.582
0.00051
0.0066
23.659
262 ,870
7.072
0.0066
6 inch rainfall
Total Volume (ft3 x 106)
Investment Cost (dollars)
Feedlot + Runoff control
area (ft2 x 106)
Runoff Control cost/an. day
(dollars)
2.005 22.984
27,630 260,700
6.364
7.587
0.00070 0.0066
24.528
272,540
7.126
.0069
132
-------
Table 25. Continued
2 inch rainfall
Total Volume (ft3 x Id6)
Investment Cost (dollars)
Feedlot + Runoff control
area (ft2 x 106)
Runoff Control cost/an, day
(dollars)
Detention
Pond Only
0.375
4,170
5.688
0.00011
Broad-basin
Detention
0.533
5,920
5.901
0.00015
Batch
Detention
0.375
4,170
7.645
0.00011
4 inch rainfall
Total Volume (ft3 x 106)
Investment Cost (dollars)
Feedlot + Runoff control
area (ft2 x 106)
1.159
12,880
1.332
14,800
1.159
12,880
5.741
Runoff Control cost/an. day
(dollars) 0.00033
6.267
0.00037
11.802
0.00032
6 inch rainfall
Total Volume (ft3 x 106) 2.028
Investment Cost (dollars) 22,540
Feedlot + Runoff control
area (ft2 x 106) 5.796
Runoff Control cost/an. day
(dollars) .00057
2.131
23,680
6.633
.00060
2.028
22,540
16.414
.00057
133
-------
Table 26. Costs for Various Runoff Control Systems for_
Paved Open Feedlots as Affected by Design Rain-
fall of Five Year, Two Day Storm, 20,000 Head
2 inch rainfall
Total Volume (ft3 x 10 6)
Investment Cost (dollars)
Feedlot + Runoff control
area (ft2 x 10 6)
Runoff Control cost /an. day
(dollars)
Solids
Settling
+ detention
0.261
4,700
2.162
.0001
Solids
Settling
+ lagoon
22.660
253,600
3.292
.0064
Deten-
tion
+ lagoon
22.629
251,400
3.292
.0064
4 inch rainfall
Total Volume (ft3 x 106)
Investment Cost (dollars)
Feedlot + Runoff control
area (ft2 x 106)
Runoff Control cost/an, day
(dollars)
0.467
7,050
2.183
.00018
22.668 22.899
253,700 254,400
3.487
.0064
3.313
.0064
6 inch rainfall
Total Volume (ft3 x 106)
Investment Cost (dollars)
Feedlot + Runoff control
area (ft3 x 10b)
Runoff Control cost/an, day
(dollars)
0.692
9,540
2.199
.00024
22.668 23.199
253,700 257,800
3.487
.0064
3.334
.0065
134
-------
Table 26. Continued
2 inch rainfall
Total Volume (ft3 x 106)
Investment Cost (dollars)
Feedlot + Runoff control
area (ft2 x 106)
Runoff Control cost/an. day
(dollars)
Detention
Pond Only
0.129
1,435
1.962
.00004
Broad-basin
Detention
0.173
1,920
2.028
.00005
Batch
Detention
0.129
1,435
2.633
.OOOQi
4 inch rainfall
Total Volume (ft3 x 106)
Investment Cost (dollars)
Feedlot + Runoff control
area (ft2 x 106)
Runoff Control cost/an. day
(dollars)
0.399
4,435
1.982
.00011
0.432
4,800
2.146
.00012
0.399
4,435
4.065
.00011
6 inch rainfall
Total Volume (ft3 x 106)
Investment Cost (dollars)
Feedlot + Runoff control
area (ft2 x 106)
Runoff Control cost/an, day
(dollars)
0.699
7,760
2.003
.0002
0.778
8,640
2.305
.0002
0.699
7,760
5.654
.0002
135
-------
Table 27. Costs for Runoff Control System Using Solids
Settling Area + Detention Reservoir, Dirt Lot,
500 to 50,000 Head, Three Inch Rainfall, 200
sq ft per Animal
No. Head
Feedlot Area
(ft*)
No. of 3900 ft3
Settling Basins
Total Feedlot
+ Runoff Con-
trol Area (ft2)
500
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
213,120
304,320
486,720
760,320
942,720
1,885,440
2,828,160
4,713,600
7,541,760
9,427,200
12,255,360
6
8
13
20
25
49
74
122
196
244
318
289,184
409,839
655,745
1,018,930
1,264,019
2,520,682
3,781,354
6,292,012
10,066,497
12,575,940
16,349,388
136
-------
Table 27. Continued
No. Head
500
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
Volume
(ft3)
48,795
67,463
108,698
168,600
209,835
415,769
625,604
1,037,472
1,663,076
2,074,945
2,700,549
Invest-
ment
Cost
801
1095
1769
2737
3411
6736
10,148
16,798
26,946
33,596
43,744
Cost per
An. Day
.0008
.0005
.0004
.0005
.0004
.0007
.0005
.0004
.0004
.0004
.0004
Total Lot £
Runoff Cost
per Animal Day
.0135
.0103
.0095
.0093
.0092
.0095
.0092
.0091
.0091
.0090
.0091
137
-------
day at 4,000 head. The anomaly that occurs at 5,000 head
is due to additional pen area being added by the computer
for that particular increment in size of feedlot. The
extra pen rows are not filled with cattle but the surface
area does contribute to the drainage that has to be con-
trolled by the runoff control system. Otherwise the runoff
control cost remains essentially constant after 4,000 head
capacity feedlot is reached.
Drag Line
Settleable solids, in runoff-carried wastes, settle out of
the liquid wastes under low velocity conditions collecting
in ditches, settling basins, and detention reservoirs.
One method of removing the wastes is to use a drag line.
The drag line throw distance limits the width of reservoir
to about 50 feet. Thus some existing detention reservoirs
with wider dimensions can not be cleaned with this method.
The annual operating costs for a drag line as affected by
runoff is presented in Figure 30. The initial investment
for a drag line used in this analysis was $67,500. In this
analysis the amount of solids settled was assumed to be
0.65 tons per acre-inch of runoff. This value was deter-
mined for eastern Nebraska, but may vary under other
geographic and feedlot terrain conditions. These operating
costs may be lower than actual costs because of difficulty
in determining the amount of inactive operation due to
moving of the drag line machinery and time delays between
hauling vehicles.
The total hauling operating costs for cleaning of settling
basins would have to include dump truck or spreader truck
costs plus drag line costs. Settled wastes in 5,000 acre-
inches of annual runoff represent approximately the same
amount of solid waste that has to be removed from a 1,000
head feedlot by mechanical means. It would cost about
$2300 annually to remove this amount of waste.
Field Irrigation Systems
Whenever a detention structure was used, it was assumed
that the runoff carried wastes would be pumped onto fields
within 14 days after a runoff event. In this analysis, it
was assumed that the liquid waste would be pumped within
the last seven days of the period as the soil may not be
in a condition to adequately receive the wastes during the
first seven days following a rainfall event. Also, the
irrigation system was designed for a 10,000 head feedlot.
Feedlots larger than 10,000 head would use two or more irri-
138
-------
9h
0
RUNOFF CONTROL SYSTEM
DRAG LINE COSTS
10,000 20,000 30,000
Annual Runoff, Acre-Inches
Figure 30. Runoff control system-drag line costs
139
-------
gation systems based upon the 10,000 head size; for instance,
a 20,000 head feedlot would use two irrigation systems.
Other irrigation design considerations were discussed in
Chapter IV on ultimate waste disposal. No more than six^
inches of runoff waste was applied on a particular area in
one year. It was also assumed that the runoff carried waste
would be one-half of the total annual rainfall.
System Costs
The total acres needed for the field irrigation system, num-
ber of days required for pumping and the cost per animal
day of the systems are presented in Tables 28 and 29 for
10,000 head and 20,000 open feedlot respectively. The
investment cost for a 10,000 head capacity lot was $11,630.
This included the cost of the pump, mains, and gated pipe
for distances to one-half mile from the feedlot.
Rainfall Effects
The annual average precipitation affects the cost per ani-
mal day and the land area required for irrigation as illus-
trated in Figures 31 and 32. The cost per animal day
increases rapidly as annual average precipitation increases.
The differences between the 10,000 head and 20,000 head lots
are due to proportionately less total feedlot surface
area per animal needed for the 20,000 head lot (propor-
tionally less feedlot area taken by roads and cattle handling
areas).
The storm design rainfall affects the number of days required
for pumping which varies between less than one-half day
for a one inch rainfall to about five or six days for a
five inch rainfall. This assumes 200 animals per pen, 200
sq ft per animal and one foot of bunk space per animal with
a three inch design rainfall for a five year, two day storm.
The costs in this analysis were based upon a charge of
$0.30 per cubic yard of material that had to be removed.
This value was one that was commonly used by the SCS for
estimating costs in Oklahoma. On this basis, the lagoons
or systems using a lagoon had the highest volume to be re-
moved and therefore had the highest investment and operating
cost. Systems using a detention structure only had the
least investment cost and cost per animal day.
Whenever a settling basin or detention reservoir was used
with one of these systems, it was assumed that 25% of the
total solids were settled out for each settling basin or
detention reservoir. The settling basin plus detention
reservoir may offer the greatest protection in regard to
140
-------
Table 28. Costs for Field Irrigation for Using Runoff from a 10,000 Head Open Feed-
lot* as Affected by Annual Rainfall and Storm Design Rainfall
10 inch annual rainfall
1
72.3
Storm Design Rainfall, Inches
234
72.3 72.3 72.3
1.4U 2.87 4.45
.00047 .00047 .00047
5
72.3
6.09
.00047
Total acres needed
Number days required for pump .31
Cost per animal day .00047
20 inchannual rainfall
Total acres needed 144.7 144.7 144.7 144.77 144.77
Number days required for pump .31 1.44 2.87 4.45 6.09
Cost per animal day .00051 .00051 .00051 .00051 .00051
30 inch annual rainfall
Total acres needed 217.0
Number dats required for pump . 31
Cost per animal day .00060
217.0 217.0 217.0 217.0
1.44 2.87 4.45 6.09
.00060 .00060 .00060 .00060
-------
Table 28. Continued
40 inch annual rainfall
Total acres needed
Number days required for pump
Cost per animal day
1
289.4
.31
.00075
2
289.4
1.44
.00075
3
289.4
2.87
.00075
4
289.4
4.45
.00075
5
289.4
6.09
.00
"Feedlot area is 3,781,000 sq ft
-------
-P
CO
Table 29. Costs for Field Irrigation for Using Runoff from a 20,000 Head Open
Feedlot* as Affected by Annual Rainfall and Storm Design Rainfall
10 inch annual rainfall 1
Total acres needed 120.14
Number days required for pump .26
Cost per animal day .00044 .00044
20inch annual rainfall
Total acres needed 240.7 240.7
Number days required for pump .26 1.20
Cost per animal day .00050 .00050
30 inch annual rainfall
Total acres needed 361.1 361.1
Number days required for pump .26 1.20
Cost per animal day .00054 .00054
Storm Design Rainfall Inches
234
120.4 120.4 120.4
1.20 2.39 3.70
.00044
240.7
2.39
.00050
361.1
2.39
.00054
5
120.4
5.06
.00044
.00044
240.7 240.7
3.70 5.06
.00050 .00050
361.1 361.1
3.70 5.06
.00054 .00054
-------
Table 29. Continued
40 inch annual rainfall
Total acres needed
Number days required for pump
Cost per animal day
1
481.5
.26
.00064
2
481.5
1.20
.00064
3
481.5
2.39
.00054
481
3
Storm Design Rainfall Inches
4
.5
3.70
5
481.5
5.06
.00064
.00054
-------
RUNOFF CONTROL SYSTEM
FIELD IRRIGATION
.0008
.0007
o
Q
o
E
OJ
Q_
O
O
.0006
.0005
.0004
10,000 Head
20,000 Head
I
J_
0 10 20 30 40 50
Annual Average Precipitation, Inches
Figure 31. Irrigation operating costs vs. annual
average precipitation
145
-------
RUNOFF CONTROL SYSTEM
FIELD IRRIGATION
CO
a?
TO
O>
CT
O>
cr
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
20,000 Head
10,000 Head
1
1
1
0 10 20 30 40
Annual Average Precipitation, Inches
Figure 32. Irrigation land area vs. annual average
precipitation
146
-------
control of pollution, However, it costs about twice as much
as the broad basin terrace or the two types of detention
reservoirs, primarily because of the cost of construction
of porous dams from planking, posts and crushed rock. Each
of these porous dams was assumed to contain 3900 cubic feet
of runoff wastes. It is possible that porous dams could
be constructed cheaper and also to contain higher volume
of runoff. This is an area of current research and other
methods may be developed which will reduce the solid load-
ing in detention structures.
E vapor at ion ..Pond
In areas where the annual lake evaporation exceeds the
annual average precipitation, the runoff-carried wastes
may have the liquids evaporated as a means of ultimate
disposal. The costs for an evaporation lagoon, for a
20,000 head dirt surfaced open feedlot with 6,292,000
sq ft area, as influenced by annual precipitation and mois-
ture deficit are presented in Table 30. For this analysis,
the evaporation -lagoon was assumed to be three feet deep.
For many feedlot areas in Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas the
annual precipitation is approximately 20 inches and the
annual lake evaporation is approximately 60 inches. Thus,
a moisture deficit of approximately 40 inches per year
is prevalent in many of the major feedlot areas in the
Southwest. From this analysis, areas with low annual preci-
pitation and a high moisture deficit have a good potential
for using evaporation lagoons for disposing of the liquid
wastes. The investment costs are relatively' low for a
10 inch annual precipitation, and even the 20 inch annual
precipitation, when the moisture-.deficit is^high. However,
by using evaporation ponds there is no possibility of gain-
ing further benefits from the,water and nutrients by re-
cycling the water and nutrients through crops.
Feedlot Capacity
The effect of number of animals in the feedlot on the feed-
lot and lagoon area, investment cost and cost per animal
day are presented in tables in the Appendices. For this
analysis, a 20 inch average annual precipitation and a 60
inch average annual evaporation was assumed, TA* cost per
animal day was reduced about one-half by increasing the
number of animals from 500 head to 2,000 head. The incon-
sistencies in the cost per animal day was due primarily to
fluctuations in the feedlot area because of changes in the
design of the pens and number of rows in the feedlot. In
the computer programming, these changes occurred at inter-
vals and thus included excess area which is included in the
147
-------
Table 30. Costs for an Evaporation Lagoon for 20,000 Head Dirt Surfaced Open
Feedlot as Influenced by Average Annual Lake Evaporation Minus Annual
Precipitation and Depth of Lagoon, 20 Inches of Annual Precipitation,
6,292,012 sq ft Feedlot Area
-P
oo
3 ft depth
Lagoon area, ft
Investment cost,
dollars
Cost per animal
day, dollars
5 ft depth
Lagoon area, ft
Investment cost,
dollars
Cost per animal
day, dollars
Evaporation - precipitation, inches
ZTT
TUT
50
60
7,550,414 3,775,207 2,516,805 1,887,604 1,510,083 1,258,402
211,244 105,936 70,786 53,191 42,625 35,575
.00535
.00268
.00179
.00135
.00108
.00090
7,550,414 3,775,207 2,516,805 1,887,604 1,510,083 1,258,402
353,762 177,759 118,957 89,504 71,806 59,991
.00896
.00450
.00301
.00226
.00182
.00152
-------
drainage. The evaporation lagoon area is approximately
1/3 of the total feedlot area for a HO inch moisture
deficit.
TOTAL WASTE HANDLING COSTS
For a 20,000 head open feedlot, the total system costs
(feedlot construction + waste management systems) are
approximately $0.01319 per animal day and with an invest-
ment cost of approximately $416,000. This assumes that
the feedlot is located in a vicinity where a three inch
design storm rainfall, 20 inch annual average precipita-
tion, and 60 inches of annual lake evaporation exist.
It also assumes that the system consists of a commercial
loader and spreader truck for hauling the solid waste
50 days per year. A detention reservoir only is assumed
for this system and designed for a three inch rainfall
with an irrigation system for handling the runoff-carried
wastes. The wastes that settle in the detention structure
are cleaned with the drag line. The investment cost of
the drag line is not included in the total investment
cost as the $67,500 for a drag line was considered an
unreasonable investment for 20 days of use per year and
most feedlot operators would contract for the use of the
drag line.
The waste management cost for the above system is $.0046
per animal day with an investment cost of $101,000. The
waste handling costs are approximately one-third of the
daily operating cost and one-fourth of the total invest-
ment cost (minus drag line investment cost).
149
-------
SECTION III
CONFINEMENT
BUILDINGS
-------
CHAPTER VII
CONFINEMENT BUILDING DESIGN
The feeding of beef in totally confined buildings has
become increasingly popular in some areas of the United
States, particularly in the upper Midwest where the
animals can be housed to protect them from severe winter
weather and muddy spring weather conditions that exist in
open feedlots. They are also popular in areas where land
prices are high. Confinement buildings show promise of
providing the initial collection step for a pollution free
waste management system.
Confinement housing is subject to a variety of definitions.
Pratt (72) considers it to be a building in which beef ani-
mals are confined under a roof. Moore, et al., (63) have
defined a beef confinement system which provides animals
with an area of 50 sq ft or less per animal. A beef con-
finement system has to provide an adequate feeding system,
a shelter which controls or modifies the air temperature,
humidity and external effects of the weather, and a waste
handling system.
Most beef confinement buildings are located in areas where
family farms predominate. Thus, the capacity of the facil-
ities are generally less than 1,000 head, with most beef
confinement barns between 200 and 500 head of animals.
Most of these are located in the upper Midwest states rang-
ing from Michigan and Ohio across to North and South Dakota
and Nebraska. There are a few facilities that contain
between 10,000 and 20,000 head capacity. However, these
larger facilities generally have more than one housing unit.
The weather conditions in the areas where confinement beef
buildings are popular are such that there is an abundance
of rainy weather during certain periods of the year or
extremely cold weather with considerable snow depth possible
during the winter. Thus, feeding in outside lots during the
winter and early spring months seriously affects the ani-
mals' performance and health. With adequate ventilation
in the confinement buildings, animals do quite well during
the summer months also.
Some economic considerations are involved in the selection
of beef confinement building facilities. Most of the facil-
ities are adaptable to labor saving equipment for both
feeding and waste handling. Thus, a farm operator has been
able to feed and care for the beef animals and still have
time for the necessary field work. In some areas, land
prices are high, and therefore, the farmers desire to have
151
-------
as much land into crop production as possible. By housing
the animals in a confinement building, the space require-
ment is reduced to 1/10 to 1/20 of the open feedlot space
requirement per animal.
The main advantages suggested for confinement cattle feeding
buildings are:
1, Less labor in feeding and manure disposal.
2. No bedding if slotted floor systems are used.
3. Better feeding performance as indicated by gen-
erally higher rates of gain and better feed
efficiencies.
4. Animals are more comfortable as evidenced by the
cattle being quieter and more docile in confine-
ment buildings and the animals are not subjected
to severe weather conditions.
5. Cattle stay cleaner and healthier as evidenced by
fewer parasites and insect problems and freedom
from hoof rot and other diseases caused by muddy
feedlots, if housed on a slotted floor-
6. Eliminates need for pasture and a large outside
lot requiring perhaps expensive land.
ANIMAL PERFORMANCE
Most confinement beef feedlot operators consider that the
animals gain from 0.3 pounds to 0.6 pounds per day per
animal better than animals in outside feedlots.
Grussing (30) reported on some research conducted by Mieske
in Minnesota on beef feeding trials with animals housed
under an open shed with dirt floor, an insulated confinement
building with slotted concrete floor, and an insulated con-
finement building with a solid concrete floor with gutter
(Table 31). Cattle confined in the insulated buildings had
a better feed efficiency than those housed in the other two
systems. The cattle housed in the insulated buildings with
slotted floors had a slightly higher average daily gain
(2.88 compared to 2.67 for the open shed with dirt floor and
the concrete floor insulated building).
Bates, et al., (6) and Smith, et al., (80) reported on the
influence of housing on the performance of beef cattle housed
in five different structures and found that warm housing
produced the highest daily gains with the lowest amount of
152
-------
Table 31. Shelter Effects on the Performance of Steers Fed in Different Housing
Systems in Minnesota (30)
Insulated
Insulated Confinement
Open Shed Confinement with with Solid
with Dirt Slotted Concrete Concrete Floor
Floor Floor with Gutter
Average daily
gain, Ib 2.67 2.88 2.67
Average daily feed
consumption, Ib 23.60 22.80 21.60
Feed efficiency,
Ib feed per Ib gain 8.8H 7.92 8.09
-------
feed per pound of gain (Table 32). The greatest relative
advantage of shelter occurred during the period from Feb-
ruary 17 to May 11 in southwestern Minnesota. The perfor-
mance and carcass characteristics were not greatly affected
by different animal densities in any of the units. Their
housing units consisted of a slotted floor cold confine-
ment building, a manure scrape barn (solid dirt floor^with
the manure pack with an outside lot for feeding), outside
lot with mound, and a slotted floor warm confinement
building. In their warm building, the fresh air was drawn
through a plenum chamber in the attic and hence through a
ceiling duct. Exhaust fans were located in the walls and
in the manure pit. In addition, a heating unit was installed
at the north end of the duct for permitting the outside air
to be warmed to combat any fogging effect during extremely
cold weather. The pit fans operated continuously and the
wall fans operated in response to thermostats.
Hellickson, et al., (34) compared selected environmental
conditions and beef cattle performance for a pole-type
building and a totally enclosed environment and found
higher average daily gains and better feed conversion for
cattle housed in a cold confinement pole barn than in a
totally enclosed building during the summer period. They,
however, admit to having some ventilation distribution
problems during the summer months in the totally enclosed
environment.
Johnson (42) reported on a survey of beef cattle feeding
facilities in North Dakota. Some of the facilities were
open covered buildings but with access to outside yards.
In that area, feeders preferred an enclosed feeding facil-
ity to keep the cattle and feed out of the severe weather.
A 12 foot wide concrete slab along the bunk for the cattle
to stand on plus a 5 inch by 14 inch step to prevent
cattle from backing up to the bunk was preferred. Scraping
of the manure accumulation along the feeding slab depended
upon the animal density and weather conditions, but a fre-
quency of at least once per week appeared to be preferred.
Hoffman and Self (37) found that shelter significantly in-
creased rate of gain in both summer and winter. Feed
efficiency was not significantly different between the summer
and winter trials. Floor surface did not significantly
affect rate of gain, feed intake or feed efficiency, although
paving did greatly expedite the removal of manure and feed-
lot maintenance. A summary of the six years results of the
performance of yearling steers as influenced by shelter is
presented in Table 33.
Henderson and Geasler (35) conducted an extensive
154
-------
Table 32. A Comparison of Five Housing Systems for Feedlot Cattle in West Central
Minnesota (6, 80)
Sq ft/head
Av Ib bedding
per day/head
Av daily gain,
Ib
Av daily dry
feed intake,
,_, Ib
en
01 Av dry matter re-
quired/100 Ib
gain, Ib
No. head
Cost of housing
unit, $ 21,000 21,000 24,000 24,000 34,500 34,500
No. days feed-
ing to put on
560 Ib gaina 260 273 259 248 253 262
Housing cost
per head, $ 6.75 4.70 7.66 4.90 10.56 7.45
Conventional
30
2.16
2.15
13.22
616
200
20
1.98
2.05
13.54
660
300
Manure
30
2.70
2.16
13.76
638
200
Scrape
20
2.49
2.26
13.78
610
300
Cold Slat
25 17
2.21 2.14
14.16 13.90
641 650
204 300
-------
Table 32. Continued
Warm Slat Open Lot
Sq ft/head 25 17 250
Av Ib bedding
per day/head
Av daily gain,
lb 2.23 2.33 2.04
Av daily dry
feed intake,
lb 1H.78 14.16 13.35
Av dry matter re-
quired/100 lb
gain, lb 634 608 654
No. head 204 300
300
Cost of housing
unit, $ 51,000 51,000 7500
No. days feed-
ing to put on
560 lb gain3 240 240 275
Housing cost
per head, $b 14.81 10.07 2.01
-------
en
-j
Table 32. Continued
Conventional Manure Scrape Cold Slat
Non-feed cost
per head, $
Heat £ vent.
cost/head $
Bedding cost ,
per head, $
Manure handling
cost, $/head
Manure credit,
$/head
Feed cost per
100 Ib gain, $
Profit, head, $e
22.60 23.80
4.21 4.05
2.28 2.28
3.78 3.78
13.43 14.36
18.57 14.16
22.54 22.18 22.18 22.72
5.24 4.63
1.82 1.82 1.39 1.39
3.41 3.41 5.01 5.01
13.84 13.23 13.88 14.09
13.23 19.48 17.99 19.70
-------
Table 32. Continued
Warm Slat Open Lot
Non-feed cost
per head, $c 21.40 21.40 23.50
Heat £ vent.
cost/head $ 4.46 4.46
Bedding cost
per head, $ 2.25
Manure handling
cost, $/head 1.39 1.39 0.80
^ Manure credit,
QO $/head 5.01 5.01 1.70
Feed cost per
100 Ib gain, $ 13.73 13.19 14.17
Profit, head, $e 10.39 16.34 18.37
-------
en
ID
Table 32. Continued
a Days of feeding to produce 560 Ib of gain from an initial weight of 436 Ib to a
final weight of 996 Ib
Housing cost/head/year is the depreciation/year plus interest/year divided by the
number of cattle fed per year
c Fixed cost considered to be $7/head and;time related costs (interest on cattle and
feed, labor, power and depreciation on equipment)
Straw and corn cobs charged at $15/ton
e Market value/head plus manure credit/head minus initial cost, feed cost for 560 Ib
gain, non-feed costs, bedding costs,, manure handling cost and housing cost.
(Initial cost was $39/100 Ib and carcass value between $46.51 and 47.04/100 Ib
for average carcass weight of 629 Ib)
-------
Table 33. Shelter Effects on Performance of Yearling Steers in Northwestern
Iowa (37)
Winter Summer
Shelter No Shelter Shelter No Shelter
Average daily gain, Kg 1.32 1.15 1.36 1.29*
Daily feed consumption, Kg 12.08 12.12 11.69 11.51
Feed effxciency, Kg feed
per Kg of gain 4.15 4.77** 3.97 4.13
* p. .05
** p. .01
-------
review of the effect of the environment and housing on the
performance of feedlot cattle under upper Midwest condi-
tions. They found from a total of 68 feeding trials
reviewed that average daily gain for the no housing group
during the winter was consistently depressed from 2 to 22%
(12% average), feed cost was consistently increased from
4% to 28% (14% average), and carcass grade was slightly
depressed but not consistently. For summer feeding trials
the average daily gain for the no housing group was con-
sistently depressed from 2 to 7% (5% average), feed cost
was increased and average carcass grade was not affected.
Feed costs favored the enclosed and insulated group. No
difference was found attributable to floor surface.
The major disadvantage of confinement buildings is the
high initial investment. The facility costs may, however,
pay for themselves in terms of reduced labor requirements
and increased performance of the animals. Also, the pollu-
tion potential is less for confinement buildings because the
waste is entirely contained and the possibility exists for
controlled treatment, handling, and disposal of the waste.
CLASSIFICATION OF CONFINEMENT BUILDINGS
A confinement building can either provide for total confine-
ment or partial confinement of the animals. In a total
confinement building, the animals are totally enclosed in
the space of the building. The feedbunk location for a
totally confined building may be down the center of the
building or along the outside walls or outside of the pens
with a drive for feed trucks. For the smaller totally con-
fined buildings, mechanical bunk feeders are usually used.
In a partial confinement facility, the animals are free to
roam in an outside lot and seek shelter when they desire it.
Feeding is generally done with an outside feedbunk located
either in the center of the lot, where mechanical feeders
are used, or along the outside of the pens where feed
trucks or wagons are used. The lots and building floors
may be paved or unpaved-
A classification of the various types of confinement build-
ings is presented in Figure 33. In addition to the total
versus partial confinement building classification, there
are some other subclassifications which are related chiefly
to the totally confined facilities.
A total confinement facility may be either a cold or a warm
facility. Cold confinement barns usually have open fronts
towards the south or east. The barns are usually enclosed
on the north and west sides during the winter, but have a
161
-------
OT
CONFINEMENT BUILDINGS
Total
Partial
(Shelter a Lot)
Warm
Cold
Concrete
Floor Bldg.
Dirt Floor
Bldg.
Slotted Solid Slotted Solid
Floor Floor Floor Floor
Dirt
Lot
Concrete Dirt Concrete
Lot Lot Lot
1
Partial Total
I
Partial To'tal
Total Partial Di
Concrete Concrete
Trtt/il Dnrlinl Hirt 1
I 1
Partial Total Partial
rt
Total
Concrete Concrete
Loose Compacted
Loose Compacted
Figure 33. Confinement building classification
-------
provision for removing panels for free air flow during the
summer months. For winter operation, the panels are put in
place to reduce the effects of cold winds flowing through
the building. The temperatures within the building are
generally^10 to 20 degrees above outside temperatures dur-
ing the^winter months. Cold confinement buildings provide
protection from_intense solar radiation during the summer
months and provide a dry relatively draft free environment
during the winter months.
Warm confinement buildings are well insulated and have a
mechanical ventilation system. The amount of insulation
varies with the climatic areas, however, two to three inches
of standard insulation (k = .27 to .30) are used in the
side walls and four to six inches of insulation in the
ceiling. Exhaust fans are used to exhaust the warm moist
air out of the building during the winter months. Some
buildings have the fans located on the sidewalls, however,
many buildings have fans installed so that the air is
sucked through the slats in order to remove any noxious
gases that may evolve from the manure in the storage pit
underneath the slotted floor. Inlet areas are provided
at strategic locations to insure a uniform distribution
of the air. In extremely cold climates where subzero
temperatures may be reached, cold air may cause fogging
and condensation near the inlets. Some barns have heat
exchangers for the outgoing air to partially warm the
incoming air. Also^'some buildings have heaters to provide
"for additional control of the temperature and moisture.
During the summer months most of the warm confinement barns
use extremely high air flow rates to move air through the
building. This causes evaporation of moisture within the
building which takes some of the sensible heat from the air
for the latent heat of evaporation. Thus, most of the
totally insulated buildings have an inside temperature lower
than the outside temperature during the warm part of_the
day. Also, the effects of solar radiation on the animals
are reduced by the shade and by the time lag between the
maximum solar radiation and the transmission of the thermal
energy to the interior of the building. Buildings observed
during the summer of 1970 had inside temperatures of
around 85°F when outside temperatures were approximately
95°F under clear sky conditions. Evaporative coolers or
mechanical refrigeration systems could also be used for
cooling the incoming air during the summer months.
Flooring Type
Another variation in confinement facilities is_the type of
flooring with basically a choice between a solid floor or
163
-------
a slotted floor (Figure 34). A solid floor may be par-
tially or totally dirt or may be a totally paved floor.
Partially dirt floors may permit some of the moisture
to percolate through the soil. One confinement barn
located in Ohio had the dirt floor compacted so that
very little moisture would penetrate into the soil in
order to reduce the potential for the flow pollutants
into the water table. Some facilities have a concrete
slab located beside the feed bunk with the remainder of
the floor being dirt, while other facilities have the
entire building floor paved. With either concrete or
dirt floors, the method for removing the animal waste^is
primarily by a solids handling system with the exception
that a totally paved floor could potentially have a
flushing system.
Besides a solid floor, the other possibility is to have a
slotted floor. A slotted floor may be either totally
slotted or partially slotted. A partially slotted floor
has the slots located in the center of the pens with con-
crete slabs along the outside walls and the feed bunks.
The concrete slabs slope towards the slotted floor section
at about one inch per foot. The waste material then falls
into a deep pit underneath the slotted floor section. Some
facilities have the entire floor slotted with a pit located
under the entire building pen area. Liquid handling methods
are used to remove the waste from the pit.
Slat materials may be either_concrete, steel or aluminum.
Generally, concrete slats are used with the most common
being 5 1/2 inch width at the top and 8 feet long with
reinforcing steel. The slot width for beef cattle is
generally 1 3/4 inches. Slats may be designed individually
or in a grid design as discussed by Pratt and Nelson (73).
The grid design has the possibility of distributing the
load over the entire grid. Mahoney, Nelson, and Ewing (53)
found that a 5 inch slat with a 1 3/4 inch slot was the most
economical grid to construct.
A unique housing system was observed at Olivia, Minnesota,
where a "solar confinement building" was constructed (29).
This southwestern Minnesota building was constructed with
a glass front to the south which permitted the winter solar
radiation to heat the cold incoming air- At the same time
the outgoing warm air heated the incoming air in a heat
exchanger. In addition, some heating units were installed
in the building to heat the air. The intent was to have
warm, dry air move through the building and remove the
moisture coming from the animals and from the manure. No
cleaning of the dirt floor building had been accomplished
over a two-year period. Mo bedding was used in the build-
164
-------
FLOORING SYSTEMS
FOR
TOTAL CONFINEMENT BARNS
CD
cn
1
FULLY
CONCRETE
I
SOLID
FLOORS
1
1
PARTIALLY
CONCRETE
1
LOOSE
FLOORING
MO!
D
I
1
3TLY
RT
ICOMPACTED
r
]
SLOTTED
FLOORS
FULLY
SLOTTED
l
1
WRTIALLY
SLOTTED
1
Figure 34. Flooring systems for total confinement barns
-------
ing, so the animals used their own waste as a bedding
material. The animals were quite clean and the manure
pack was approximately 6 to 10 inches in depth during the
summer period when this barn was observed in July, 1970.
FUNCTIONAL DESIGN
Some of the functional design requirements discussed_in
Chapter V for open feedlot design also apply to confine-
ment building design. The basic functional requirements
for a confinement building system are:
1. feeding and watering facilities
2. feed processing and storage
3. cattle handling
4. space requirements
5. environmental control
6. waste handling
The first three functional requirements for confinement
buildings are approximately the same as for the open feed-
lots with the exception that cattle handling and feed
handling facilities may be slightly different for confine-
ment buildings.
The space requirement is the major difference between con-
finement building design and open feedlot design. Space
requirements for confinement buildings are approximately
two square feet of floor space per 100 pounds of body
weight for winter time conditions and three square feet
per 100 pounds of body weight for hot weather conditions.
Thus, floor space for confinement feeding facilities, par-
ticularly on slotted floors, are approximately 18 to 25
sq ft per head of capacity. Feed bunk space depends upon
the frequency of feeding, with feeding of three or more
times per day requiring six inches of capacity per head.
Environmental control to modify the extremes in the outside
environment is a major consideration for confinement feed-
ing facilities. One of the major considerations is to keep
the animals dry by having a roof. Other factors needing
control are: air temperature, humidity, wind or draft,'and
solar radiation.
Another environmental consideration is to provide for ade-
quate ventilation of the manure storage pit, particularly
during times when the slurry is removed from the deep pit.
Many noxious gases are prevalent during this time and
extreme care should be exercised to prevent loss of human
life or of animals. Thus, with deep storage pits, a pit
166
-------
ventilation system should be installed. Also, animals
should be removed from the facility during times when
the waste is removed.
The National Safety Council (4) recommends the following
precautions for work around manure pits:
1. Never work alone.
2. Use a lifeline and make sure there is power
enough to lift a victim clear of the tank.
3. If you must go inside a tank, ventilate the
tank before entering it and during the work.
4. Test for combustible gases and oxygen level with
a miner's lamp or testing device.
5. Use self-contained air breathing apparatus (such
as a scuba diving outfit) if in doubt.
Taiganides (87) mentions that several noxious gases may be
harmful to the occupants of an enclosed building with a
manure pit with the primary gases being: ammonia, carbon
dioxide, methane, and hydrogen sulfide. There are also
other gases in the air, including carbon monoxide.
The waste handling method will be dictated primarily by the
type of facility and flooring selected. Where a solid floor
system has been selected the waste handling choice is pri-
marily limited to mechanical means for scraping, loading,
and hauling the waste. In some cases, liquid flushing sys-
tems may be used. Where storage pits are located under-
neath slotted floors, a liquid slurry system is needed for
handling of the waste by using pumps, piping, tank wagons,
etc.
BUILDING DESIGN
In examining the confinement building design, the total
structure has to be considered. This includes the building
components from the foundation and flooring to the super-
structure and roofing. Most of the flooring systems have
already been discussed.
There are many possible main frame and building styles.
Pole-type buildings with interior poles may be used, par-
ticularly for solid floor type of systems. However,_clear
span buildings are most prevalent, which permits easier
access for cleaning with mechanical equipment. Most of the
167
-------
slotted floor buildings have clear spans over the slotted
floor areas. These spans may be from 2M- feet up to 50 or
60 feet. Roof shapes may vary from gable to quonset type
to half-monitor type of roofing styles. Some typical styles
are illustrated in the various figures in this chapter.
Typical building designs are illustrated for some of the
confinement beef feeding buildings observed during 1970
in Figures 35 through HO.
SITE SELECTION
The type of confinement feeding facility and associated
waste handling system may be dictated by the nature of the
site that is selected. Obviously, drainage around the site
should be adequate to carry rainfall and snow melt runoff
away from the facilities.
Another major factor to consider is the depth to the water
table. In areas of rather shallow water tables a deep pit
underneath the slotted floor system may not be feasible.
Likewise, lagoons or other similar treatment facilities
may not be appropriate.
Other considerations regarding site selection are those
essentially related to farmstead planning. This includes
locating the feed processing and handling center for best
labor efficiency and movement of materials. Also, shelter
belts and protection from the wind and weather elements
should be considered. Location in relation to housing
developments and highways are other factors to be con-
sidered. Some of the principles for site selection dis-
cussed in Chapter V for open feedlots are applicable to
beef confinement buildings.
168
-------
*
000
Figure 35. Warm confinement building with deep pit
169
-------
O D O DUO
D O
O D
o o o o
Q Q Q
I
I
I
I
I
A
o o o o o
Q Q Q O C
Figure 36. Cold confinement building with deep pit
170
-------
I
Figure 37. Cold confinement building with dirt floor and
canvas side curtains
171
-------
Figure 38.
Cold confinement building with shallow pit
for oxidation ditch
172
-------
_Q C „
II
Figure 39.
Cold confinement building with shallow pit
for cable scraper
173
-------
Figure 40.
Partial confinement, shelter plus open lot
with mounds
174
-------
CHAPTER VIII
AN ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES FOR CONFINEMENT BUILDING
WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
The analysis of the alternative waste management systems
for confinement beef buildings was based in part upon a
computer program developed by Paine (71). The program was
expanded to include a section on the design and cost of
confinement beef buildings, the costs of handling the waste
material by various methods, and the design and costs of
treatment and ultimate disposal systems. In this chapter,
the initial investment costs and daily operating costs per
animal will be presented for facilities, waste handling
machinery, waste treatment and the total system cost.
Most of the cost figures are based upon prices of facil-
ities or equipment in central Oklahoma. Some prices are
the suggested list price of the manufacturers. The basic
hourly wage used in the analysis was $2.50 per hour.
BUILDING COSTS
As mentioned in Chapter VII, there are many possible types
of buildings. Buildings differ in type of structural com-
ponents, as well as shape and arrangement of facilities.
Because of the infinite variety of facilities, only a few
basic structures were subjected to analysis in this study.
The structure can be divided into two segments: shell, and
floor and foundation. Further subdivision of building types
was made to include both warm confinement and cold confine-
ment buildings and the solid and slotted floors.
Shell Costs
The shell costs for various warm confinement buildings for
500 head are presented in Table 34 and for cold confinement
buildings for 500 head in Tables 35 and 36. The 500 head
capacity building was selected because it was a frequently
encountered size observed during the field observations,
primarily in the Corn Belt states. The cost of the buildings
was based upon 20 sq ft per animal for slotted floor build-
ings and 30 sq ft per animal for solid floor buildings.
The animal resting area was assumed to remain constant at
a width of 32 feet for all of the buildings. The 32 foot
width was consistent with the width of some of the buildings
observed, was dimensionally suited to the width for some of
the waste treatment facilities, particularly the oxidation
ditch, and to the span of most concrete floor slats. The
length of the buildings were 315 feet for a slotted floor
175
-------
Table 34. Costs of Various Warm Confinement Buildings for 500 Head
CT)
Shell, $/lin. ft
Floor, $/lin. ft
Waterers, $/lin. ft
Lighting, $/lin. ft
Materials cost, $/ft
Total materials cost, $
Total cost, (including
30% labor cost)
Cost per animal day
Concrete Floor,
Steel Shell,
Mechanical
Feed Bunk,
30 ft2/an.,
32' x 473'
41,071<
Slotted Floor,
Deep Pit, Steel
Shell, Mechanical
Feed Bunk,
20 ft2/an.,
32' x 315'
48,961'
Slotted Floor,
Shallow Pit, Steel
Shell, Mechanical
Feed Bunk,
20 ft2/an.,
32' x 315'
20.99
34. 39
1.57
0.30
57.25
27,081
19
82
1
0
103
32,602
.11
.36
.70
. 34
.50
19.
54.
1.
0.
76.
23,939
11
86
70
34
00
36,583'
.0435'
.05211
.0387b
Includes ventilation fan costs of $2373 for 7 fans
Ventilation costs of $.0015 per animal day included
-------
Table 35. Costs of Various Cold Confinement Buildings for 500 Head
Shell, $/lin. ft
Floor, $/lin. ft
Waterers, $/lin. ft
Lighting, $/lin. ft
Total materials,
$/lin. ft
Total materials cost, $
Total cost, $ (including
30% labor cost)
Cost per animal day
Steel Shell,
Shed Roof,
Slotted
Floor,
Shallow Pit,
Fenceline
Feed Bunk
(32' x 315')
38,474
- 0.0418
Wood Frame,
Gable Roof,
Slotted
Floor,
Shallow Pit,
Fenceline
Feed Bunk
(20' x 600')
37,060
0.0305
Wood Frame
Shed Roof,
Slotted
Floor,
Deep Pit,
Fenceline
Feed Bunk
(48' x 208')
12.
70.
1.
0.
85.
26,924
60
84
70
34
47
7.
34.
1.
0.
43.
25,944
72
02
29
21
24
13.
56.
2.
0.
72.
15,135
84
16
26
51
76
21,627
0.0237
-------
Table 35. Continued
i-1
~j
CO
Shell, $/lin. ft
Floor, $/lin. ft
Waterers, $/lin. ft
Lighting, $/lin. ft
Total materials,
$/lin. ft
Total materials cost, $
Total cost, $ (including
30% labor cost)
Cost per animal day
Wood Frame,
Gable Roof,
Slotted
Floor,
Shallow Pit,
Fenceline
Feed Bunk
(48f x 315')
43,149
0.0469
Wood Frame,
Gable Roof,
Partial Slotted
Floor, Deep
Pit, Center
Mechanical
Feed Bunk,
(541 x 185')
22.54
71.29
1.70
0.34
95.86
30,195
43.
91.
2.
0.
138.
25,597
58
75
46
57
36
36,579
0.0401
-------
Table 36. Costs of Solid Floor Cold Confinement Buildings for 500 Head
CD
Shell, $/ lin. ft
Floor, $/lin. ft
Waterers, $/lin. ft
Lighting, $/lin. ft
Total materials,
$/lin. ft
Total materials cost, $
Total cost, $ (including
30% labor cost)
Cost per animal day
Wood Frame, Shed
Roof, Dirt Floor,
Canvas and Screen
Sides, Fenceline
Feed Bunk
(66' x 300')
19,137
0.0210
Steel Shell,
Open Front,
Dirt Floor,
Wood Bunk,
(32f x 473')
28.
13.
2.
0.
44.
13,392
66
37
13
48
64
13.
3.
1.
0.
19.
9,050
73
53
57
30
13
12,932
0.0140
-------
building and 473 feet for a solid floor building due to the
differences in space allowance per animal.
The computer output for the shell cost was in terms of
dollars per linear foot so only those buildings with the
same lengths can be compared easily using the data in the
tables. The total costs for each of the buildings is pre-
sented, however, and can be compared easily.
In the computer program, there was a choice of siding mater-
ial that could be used. The siding materials and respective
cost per square foot are: steel, IlC; wood, 15£, screen, 9C
and canvas, 11C. Insulation, used for warm confinement
buildings, was estimated at $.0175 per sq ft per inch thick-
ness for fiber glass and $.08 per sq ft per inch thickness
for plastic foam insulation. Footing costs for poles were
estimated at $1.50 per footing and the cost for digging the
holes was estimated to be $1.00. Steel columns were esti-
mated at $1.72 per foot of length. Wood pole costs were ob-
tained from local suppliers. An equation was determined to
estimate pole costs based upon length and diameter of the
pole. Splash boards were estimated to cost $.1175 per board
foot. An equation was developed to estimate the costs of
various types of trusses and roof materials.
Other facilities included in the analysis were: feed bunk,
waterers, lighting, and electrical service. Feed bunk costs
were estimated as follows: $2 per linear foot for wood,
$6.25 per linear foot for concrete, and $7.50 per linear
foot for mechanical feed bunks. Waterers were estimated
as follows: $115 per 200 animals plus 60<: per foot of barn
length. Lighting was estimated at 15<: per 20 square feet
of barn surface or floor area. The service entrance costs
were estimated at $30.34 for the building for lighting and
general purpose, but not for large electric motors.
The two major types of flooring used in this analysis were
solid concrete floors and concrete slats of approximately
8 foot length with costs of $0.45 per sq ft and $1.00 per
sq ft respectively. No cost was attributed to dirt floors.
Deep pit costs were estimated to be $1.00 per sq ft and
shallow pit costs were $.50 per sq ft.
The total cost of the building was assumed to include a
30% labor cost. Construction costs for residential and
commercial buildings frequently have over a 50% labor cost.
However, agricultural structures do not require as much
finish type of construction and therefore a 30% labor
cost was used. This is consistent with reports of simi-
lar construction.
180
-------
Comparison of Confinement Buildings
Warm Buildings--The costs of three types of warm confine-
ment buildings for 500 head are compared in Table 34.
One building has a concrete floor with a steel shell and
mechanical feed bunk, a space allowance of 30 square feet
per animal, and building dimensions of 32 feet by 473 feet.
The total cost of this building was estimated to be
$41,000 with an operating cost of $0.0435 per animal day.
The second building has a slotted floor with a deep pit,
steel shell, mechanical feed bunk and a space allowance
of 20 square feet per animal, and building dimensions of
32 feet by 315 feet. The total cost for this building
was estimated to be $36,580 with an operating cost of
$0.0387 per animal day.
The costs for the three buildings included ventilation fan
costs of $2,373 for seven fans with an operating cost of
$0.0015 per animal day. The ventilation system was designed
on the basis of Mid-West Plan Service recommendations and
manufacturers' literature. The number of fans was deter-
mined on the basis of 215 cfm per animal and the use of
17,000 cfm rated fans. For operating cost calculations, it
was assumed that the fans operated 80% of the time through-
out the year.
The investment costs per animal for the three buildings
were approximately $82, $98, and $73 for the solid con-
crete floor, slotted floor with deep pit, and slotted floor
with shallow pit. Of these three buildings, the slotted
floor building with the shallow pit was the least expen-
sive. This building was designed to include a cable
scraper system or an oxidation rotor in a 24 inch deep
ditch.
Cold Buildings—The costs for 500 head cold confinement
buildings are compared in Tables 35 and 36. These build-
ings were described in Chapter VII. Essentially, the
buildings have open sides, either open to the south or in
some cases open on both sides of the building with_pro-
vision for enclosing all but one side during the_winter.
Five of the buildings have slotted floors with either
shallow or deep pits and one has only a partially slotted
floor with deep pit. Two of the buildings have dirt_floors.
There are also differences in the building construction
and the type of feed bunk. Some of the fenceline feed
bunks are located along the outside of the building,
whereas other buildings have a drive 16 feet wide inside
the building for feeding. When shallow pits are used, it
is assumed that a cable scraper system is installed to
181
-------
remove the waste materials or an oxidation rotor is used.
For deep pits, the slurry is removed periodically, usually
two times per year.
The buildings with the least cost were the dirt floor build-
ings with a total cost of about $12,900 for a dirt floor
open-front building with a steel shell and wood fenceline
feed bunk with outside drive. The wood frame building with
dirt floor and canvas and screen sides with fenceline feed
bunk inside the building had a total cost of $19,000. Thus,
the total investment cost for these buildings was about
$26 per animal and $38 per animal, respectively.
The least expensive slotted floor cold confinement building
was one having a shed roof, wood frame, interior wood poles,
partially slotted floor with deep pit, and fenceline feed
bunk with an inside drive. The cost of this building was
approximately $21,600 or about $43 per animal. The next
least expensive building was a building designed specifically
for a cable scraper system. The building had a width of 20
feet with a shallow pit over 12 feet of this width. Thus,
the penned area was 20 feet by 500 feet. The building had
a wood frame with a gable roof and a fenceline feed bunk
with exterior drive. No siding was used on this building.
The cost of the building was estimated to be approximately
$25,800 for 500 head or approximately $51 per animal.
Buildings with narrow widths are cheaper to construct than
wider ones. This is primarily true for buildings requiring
truss rafters. Buildings having interior wood poles spaced
according to pole building construction practices are less
expensive than clear span buildings. Also, buildings that
use wood for framing and feed bunks have lower costs.
In a comparison of beef cattle feedlot production alterna-
tives, Gilbertson (21) used a $1.25 per sq ft value for the
cost of the basic structure of a confinement housed feeding
facility. For a solid floor system with 30 sq ft per ani-
mal, the cost of the basic structure was $25,000. For 20
sq ft per animal, the cost of a slotted floor system was
$16,500. In addition to the basic structure cost, the cost
for a six inch concrete floor for 500 animals was $4,290 and
for a slotted floor system with an eight foot deep pit the
cost for 500 animals was $9,290. Thus, the material costs
for confinement buildings for 500 head were $29,290 for a
solid concrete floor building and $25,780 for a slotted floor
building with an eight foot deep pit. These figures inclu-
ded land cost, fencing, gates, roads, and feed bunks. The
material costs that he found for the partially slotted floor
building compared closely with the data obtained in this
study for a wood frame gable roof, partially slotted floor
182
-------
building with a deep pit.
Other comparisons of the costs of beef feeding buildings
have been conducted in Iowa (5). One comparison was for
a wood frame, gable roof, slotted floor building with
shallow pit and fenceline feed bunks. This building cost
$44,500 compared with this investigation's calculated
value of $43,150, but did not include pen material costs.
Another building using a cable scraper system located
underneath a slotted floor and shallow pit was examined in
Iowa. This building was 20 feet wide and 600 feet long
with a wood frame, gable roof and fenceline feed bunk. The
basic cost for this building in Iowa was approximately
$41,000 minus the heating system and the cable scraper sys-
tem. The computed cost in this analysis was $37,060, or
slightly lower than actual costs in Iowa. v
WASTE HANDLING COSTS
The buildings described in the above section served as the
initial collection facility for the animal waste. The type
of building dictates the type of waste management system
that is used. For instance, a slotted floor building with
a deep pit has to have an associated slurry handling system.
On the other hand, a solid floor building where bedding is
used has to have a solid waste handling system. After re-
moval from the building the waste can be either treated or
transported to an ultimate disposal location.
Solid Waste Handling Systems
Solid floor systems require solid waste handling methods.
The four basic methods used in this analysis were a tractor
loader plus dump truck, commercial loader plus dump truck,
tractor front-end loader plus pull spreader, and commercial
loader plus spreader truck. The operating costs of these
pieces of equipment were determined by using a computer pro-
gram developed by Paine (71).
The initial costs of the equipment are presented in Table 19
in Chapter VI. The tractor with a front-end loader had an
estimated initial cost of $8,900 and had an estimated capac-
ity of 37.2 yards per hour- The dump truck had an estimated
initial cost of $9,700 with an estimated capacity of 39.6
yards per hour- The spreader truck had an estimated cost of
$12,800 with an estimated capacity of 67.5 yards per hour-
The pull-type spreader had an estimated cost of $1,434 with
an estimated capacity of 38 yards per hour. The commercial
loader had an initial cost of $31,100 with a capacity of
168 yards per hour.
183
-------
The operating cost per animal and the investment costs are
illustrated in Figures 41 and 42 for various feedlot capac-
ities. In this particular analysis, the machinery was
assumed to be used 20 days per year and the hauling dis-
tance was one-quarter mile. The 20 days per year of
machinery use coincided with the desire of many feedlot
operators to have the material removed in a short period
of time.
The tractor front-end loader with a pull-type spreader was
the best combination for removing animal waste from solid
floor confinement buildings below 2,000 head of animals.
Above 2,000 head, a commercial loader with spreader truck
had a lower operating cost. However, the investment cost
for a commercial loader and spreader truck is several times
higher than a tractor front-end loader plus pull-type
spreader. The tractors for both the loader and the spreader
are assumed to operate on the waste handling activities for
only 20 days per year and are free for other operations the
remainder of the year. Therefore, the total investment
cost for the tractors was partitioned into that associated
with the waste handling activity and that due to other
activities. It was assumed that the tractors would oper-
ate 500 hours per year. Other waste handling equipment
such as a commercial loader, dump truck, and spreader truck
are specialized pieces of equipment and were assumed not to
be used for other enterprises during the year. The handling
systems utilizing dump trucks had both a higher operating
cost and a higher initial investment cost than the other two
systems. This was primarily due to the low capacity of the
dump truck. Waste handling times and quantities were taken
from data observed under field operations and from data
obtained from manufacturers' literature.
Some of the larger feedlots using solid floor confinement
have to remove the waste on a year-round basis. The operating
costs and investment costs for the four solid waste handling
systems as affected by days of use per year are presented
in Figures 43 and 44 for a 20,000 head lot and assuming a
one-quarter mile hauling distance. For 20,000 head the
commercial loader with a spreader truck had the lowest operat-
ing cost, however, it had the highest initial investment
cost. The operating cost became a minimum between 100 and
200 days of use per year for all of the systems. For fewer
days of use per year more machines are required causing the
costs to increase. As the days of use per year increase,
the maintenance cost for the machinery becomes high and the
operating costs therefore start rising. The systems util-
izing the dump truck had the highest operating costs with the
tractor loader and a pull-type spreader having the second
lowest operating cost and also a lower investment cost than
184
-------
SOLID WASTE HANDLING
.01 -
.009
o
o
^ .008
.007
oo
en
o
o
o
E
-------
SOLID WASTE HANDLING
CD
CD
140
i 120
o
Q
o
in
in
o
o>
E
o
"o
100
80
60
40
20-
0
20 Days Of Use Per Year
0.25 Mile Hauling Distance
Solid Floor Confinement Buildings
Commercial Loader + Dump Truck
Tractor Loader + Dump Truck
Commercial Loader + Spreader Truck
Tractor Loader + Pull Spreader
_L
2000
4000 6000 8000
Feedlot Capacity, Number Of Animals
10,000
Figure 42. Solid waste handling: operating cost vs. feedlot capacity
-------
SOLID WASTE HANDLING
.007
.006
«,
o
o
o
Q
.§ .005
c
-------
200-
180
160
S 140
o
o
o
v>
120
100
5-
£
« 60
o>
>
1 40
20
SOLID WASTE HANDLING
20,000 Head
0.25 Mile Hauling Distance
Confinement Buildings
With Solid Floor
Commercial Loadert Dump Truck
Commercial Loader +
SpreaderTruck
-Tractor + Pull Spreader
Tractor
Dump Truck
l i
J_
100 200
Days Of Use Per Year
300
Figure 44. Solid waste handling: investment cost vs
days of use per year
188
-------
the commercial loader and spreader truck after 100 days of
use per year.
Hauling distances for the solid waste had an effect on the
cost of operation for 20,000 head as indicated in Figures
45 and 46. "the commercial loader and spreader truck'had
the lowest operating cost as distance increased for both 20
days and 100 days of use per year. It had a nearly con-
stant investment cost as distance increased. The commer-
cial loader with dump truck was second best for distances
of 2 miles or greater for operating costs and had the
lowest investment cost as distance increased.
Tractor scrapers have an operating cost of approximately
$0.00018 per day per animal and an investment cost of
approximately $245. The total machine investment cost,
including tractor, varies from $279 for a 200 head lot
to $3,866 for a 20,000 head lot. This is based upon the
scraper being utilized for other operations and used mainly
for a 20 to 50 day period per year for waste handling.
A summary of the operating and investment costs for various
solid handling and slurry handling systems are presented
in Figures 47 and 48 for feedlot capacities between 200
and 1,000 animals. This assumes one-quarter mile hauling
distance and 20 days of use per year- Of the solid handling
systems, the tractor front-end loader and pull-type spreader
is most economical. The tractor front-end loader plus
spreader truck had the second lowest operating cost but had
the highest initial investment.
>,
Slurry Handling Systems
Housing systems utilizing a slotted floor with a deep stor-
age pit require a slurry handling system. The system con-
sists of a pump driven by a tractor or electric_motor and
a liquid spreader to convey the slurry to the field. The
pump and tractor operating (and also electric motor) cost
remains relatively constant at $0.0005 per animal day regard-
less of feedlot capacity.
The basic systems used in this analysis were the pull-type
liquid spreader with an injector to discharge the material
into the soil, a pull-type liquid vacuum spreader requiring
no external pumps, a liquid truck spreader and a pull-type
liquid spreader without a soil injector.
The four slurry handling methods are compared in Figures
47 and 48 as affected by feedlot capacity between 200 and
1,000 animals. The pull-type liquid spreaders without
189
-------
SOLID WASTE HANDLING
(A
w
JO
"o
O
.010
.009
.008
.003
20,000 Head
Confinement Building
With Solid Floor
A Commercial Loader t Spreader Truck
o Tractor Loader + Pull Spreader
A Tractor Loader + Dump Truck
• Commercial Loader +Dump Truck
-20 Days
-100 Days
I 2
Hauling Distance, Miles
Figure 45. Solid waste handling: operating cost vs
hauling distance
190
-------
to
I 200
o
o
O
Ut
V)
E
CO
o>
150
^ 50
o
o
SOLID WASTE HANDLING
20,000 Head
Solid Floor Confinement Buildings
* Commercial Loader + Spreader Truck
o Tractor Loader + Pull Spreader
* Tractor Loader + Dump Truck
• Commercial Loader* Dump Truck
(20 DAYS)
(100 DAYS)
2
Hauling Distance, Miles
Figure 46. Solid waste handling: investment cost
vs. hauling distance
191
-------
WASTE HANDLING
.010-
.009
o
o
o
E
£ .008
10
.s
"o
o
o
o
g\007
0>
Q.
O
O
o
.006
Confinement Buildings
0.25 Mile Hauling Distance
20 Days Of Use Per Year
Liquid Truck Spreader
•Liquid Spreader With Injector
Tractor Loader*
Dump Truck
Liquid Vacuum
Spreader
Tractor Loader
+ Spreader Truck
Liquid Spreader
Without Injector
Tractor Loader
+ Pull Spreader
I
1
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Feedlot Capacity, Number Of Animals
Figure 47.
Waste handling: operating costs vs. feed-
lot capacity for solid and slurry handling
systems
192
-------
WASTE HANDLING
Confinement Buildings
0.25 Mile Hauling Distance
20 Days Of Use Per Year
20,000
15,000
o
Q
V)
o
o
c
OJ
E
o
o
10,000
5,000
0
Tractor Loader + Spreader Truck
Tractor Loader
+ Dump Truck
Liquid Spreader
With Injector
Liquid Truck
Spreader
Liquid Spreader
Without Injector
Liquid Vacuum Spreader
Tractor Loader + Pull Spreader
J_
J_
J_
200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Feedlot Capacity, Number Of Animals
Figure 48.
Waste handling: investment costs vs. feed-
lot capacity for solid and slurry handling
systems
193
-------
inje.:±or had the lowest operating cost and second lowest
investment cost. The liquid vacuum spreader had the
lowest investment cost but next to the highest operating
cost. The liquid spreader with the injector had the
highest operating cost and also highest investment cost.
However, this method does incorporate the material onto
the soil so that odors and pollution problems are reduced
considerably, but it is much slower in putting waste onto
the fields. This particular analysis assumes_20 days of
use per year and a one-quarter mile hauling distance.
The effect of number of days of use per year on the oper-
ating cost for a 500 head unit for one-quarter mile haul-
ing distance is presented in Figure U9. The liquid
spreader without an injector had a considerably lower
operating cost than the other three methods. The costs
generally decreased as days of use per year increased.
Truck spreader costs remained approximately constant
between 10 and 30 days of use per year for 500 head. The
costs fluctuate as more or less machinery is used to meet
the waste hauling demands.
The effect of hauling distance on the operating cost of
four liquid slurry handling systems are presented in Fig-
ure 50. The hauling costs for all four systems increase
linearly with distance. The pull-type spreader without
injector is the lowest among the pull-type spreaders and
is lower than the truck spreaders for less than one mile
hauling distance.
The operating costs for a 20,000 head unit having con-
finement buildings with deep pits are presented in Figure
51 for the four different slurry handling systems as
affected by days of use per year. The total investment
costs are presented in Figure 52. As the days of use per
year increases, the spreader operating costs decrease up to
about 100 days of use per year. Then the spreader with
injector and the vacuum spreader costs remain relatively
constant or increase slightly due to increased maintenance
and wearout. A tank truck and spreader without injector
remain as those systems having the lowest operating cost.
After about 30 days of use per year, the tank truck has
the lowest total investment cost with the spreader without
injector being the second lowest investment cost. This
remains true until the days of use exceeds 200 days per
year; at this point tank truck investment cost remains rela-
tively constant while the spreader costs continue to decline.
The operating costs for various slurry handling systems
are presented in Table 37. A complete breakdown of the
operating and investment costs and the hours of use and
-------
SLURRY HANDLING
.010
o
O
E
c
-------
SLURRY HANDLING
.020
O
E
a.
£ .015
o
Q
*.
V)
o
o
'•5 .010
w
a>
Q.
O
o
o
.005
0
500 Head
20 Days Of Use Per Year
Confinement Building
With Deep Pit
Spreader With
Injector
Spreader Without
Injector
I , i
I 2
Hauling Distance, Miles
Figure 50. Slurry handling: operating costs vs. haul-
ing distance
196
-------
SLURRY HANDLING
.012
-2 .010
.008
o
Q
O
o
o
E
CD
Q_
O
o
£ .006
CL
O
.004
20,000 Head
0.25 Mile Hauling Distance
Confinement Building
With Deep Pit
Spreader With Injector
Vacuum Spreader
Spreader Without
Injector
0
100 200
Days Of Use Per Year
300
Figure 51. Slurry handling: operating costs vs. days
of use per year for 20,000 head
197
-------
SLURRY HANDLING
200
o
O
•o
c=
o
150
tn
o
O
o>
E
100
o
o
50
0
20,000 Head
0.25 Mile Hauling Distance
Confinement Building
With Deep Pit
-Vacuum Spreader
-Spreader With injector
Spreader Without Injector
Tank Truck
I
I
100 200
Days Of Use Per Year
300
Figure 52. Slurry handling: investment cost vs. days
of use per year for 20,000 head
198
-------
Table 37. Total Operating Costs for Various Slurry Handling Systems for 500 Head
Confinement Building, 10 to 30 Days of Use per Year, 0.25 to 2.0 Mile
Hauling Distance
CO
10
Days Hauling
per Year Distance
10 0.25
1.0
2.0
20 0.25
1.0
2.0
30 0.25
1.0
2.0
Pull-Type
Vacuum
Spreader
.0085
.0108
.0140
.0083
.0105
.0134
.0079
.0099
.0134
Pull-Type
Spreader
without
Injector
.0067
.0089
.0120
.0065
.0085
.0118
.0065
.0085
.0111
Pull-Type
Spreader
with
Injector
.0092
.0126
.0171
.0089
.0124
.0164
.0089
.0117
.0164
Tank
Truck
with
Spreader
.0079
.0096
.0107
.0079
.0086
.0113
.0079
.0086
.0113
-------
numbers of machines for the various systems are presented
in tables in the Appendix.
Confinement buildings with a shallow pit from 18 to 24
inches deep can use either a cable scraper system to remove
the waste or use an oxidation rotor to stir oxygen into the
waste and convey it around the pit. The costs for operating
a cable scraper system for 500 head are presented in
Table 38 as affected by days of use per year. In this
analysis, it is assumed that the hauling distance is one-
quarter mile for the liquid spreader. One of the assests
of this system is the daily scraping which reduces the odor
and fly problem. The system consists of a cable scraper,
a pump and tractor or electric motor, and a pull-type
liquid spreader without injector. The total operating and
investment costs remain relatively constant regardless of
the days of use per year- The operating costs for the
system are $0.0102 per animal day and the total investment
cost is $12,074. The total operating costs for a 20,000
head unit utilizing a cable scraper, pump and tractor, and
various liquid spreaders are presented in Table 41. The
cable scraper alone costs $2,280. A pull-type spreader
without injector had the least operating costs of the four
different hauling systems. The truck spreader had the
second lowest operating costs as a system.
WASTE TREATMENT COSTS
Oxidation Rotor
Some confinement buildings with shallow pits contain an
oxidation rotor for treating the animal wastes. The costs
for operation of a rotor were based upon the design pre-
sented in Chapter III on Waste Treatment Alternatives. The
basic cost of the oxidation rotor was $2,228. As indicated
in Table 39, the operating cost declined slightly as the
number of animals in the feedlot increased from 500 to
20,000 from $0.0568 per animal day to $0.0488 per animal
day.
Lagoon
Another treatment for animal waste is to provide a lagoon.
In Table 40 some anaerobic lagoon costs for 500 to 50,000
head capacity are presented. The total volume in cubic
feet, total area in square feet, investment cost in dollars,
and the operating cost in dollars per animal day are pre-
sented. The investment costs increase linearly and, of
course, are dependent upon the construction costs and the
volume of earth that has to be removed or transported to
create the lagoon. The operating costs remain constant at
200
-------
Table 38. Total Operating Costs per Animal Day for Cable Scraper, Pump and Trac-
tor, and Various Liquid Spreaders for 20,000 Head, 0.25 Mile Hauling
Distance, 200 to 350 Days per Year
Total Cost
K>
O
M
Days
per
Year
200
250
300
350
Cable Scra-
per Costs
per Animal
Day
.0037
.0037
.0037
.0037
Pump Cost*
per Animal
Day
.0004
.0004
.0004
.0004
Total Cost
Pull-Type
Spreader
.0082
.0081
.0081**
.0081**
Total Cost
Pull-Type
Vacuum
Spreader
.0098
.0090
.0090**
.0090**
*** Pull -Type
Spreader
with
Injector
.0094
.0098
.0098
.0100
Total
Cost
Truck
Spreader
.0090
.0090
.0090
.0090
* Total pump costs are approximately the same for tractor driven or electric
driven pump
** Spreaders need replacing before 300 days of use at 10 hours per day
*** External pump and power source not needed
-------
Table 39. Costs for Oxidation Rotor for Confinement
Buildings, 500 to 20,000 Head
Number
of
Animals
500
1,000
2,000
5,000
10,000
20,000
Number
of
Rotors
3
6
11
26
52
103
Cost per
Animal Day
.0568
.0568
.0521
.0493
.0493
. 0488
Total
Investment Cost
6,684
13,368
24,508
57,928
115,856
229,484
202
-------
Table 40. Lagoon Costs for 500 to 50,000 Head
Number
of
Animals
500
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
Total
Volume
ft3
750,000
1,500,000
3,000,000
4,500,000
6,000,000
7,500,000
15,000,000
30,000,000
45,000,000
60,000,000
75,000,000
Total
Area
ft 2
57,900
106,300
198,900
289,000
378,000
466,300
901,100
1,757,700
2,607,000
3,452,400
4,295,400
Invest-
ment
Cost , $
8,300
16,700
33,300
50,000
66,700
83,300
166,700
333,300
500,000
666,700
833,300
Opera-
ting
Cost per
Animal
Day, $
.0084
.0084
.0084
.0084
.0084
.0084
.0084
.0084
.0084
.0084
.0084
203
-------
$0.0084 per animal day for a lagoon depth between 12 and
20 feet.
Vibrating Separator
A vibrating separator can be used to remove solids from
slurries or flushed wastes. According to results in Cali-
fornia for dairy waste flushing systems, solids are
reduced from 40% for the liquified waste to 36% for the
effluent. This indicates about a 10% reduction in total
solids for a 20 mesh screen. It is possible that more
solids may be taken out with a higher mesh screen, how-
ever, the flow of the liquids through the screen may not
be as satisfactory. The washed manure or solids contain
considerable fiber content and can be used for bedding pur-
poses, This system would be particularly useful where hay
is included in the ration.
The daily operating cost for a vibrating separator for a
slurry with 90%.moisture content is approximately $0.0011
per animal day for 1,000 head lot and $0.00015 per animal
day for a 10,000, head lot. For a 20,000 head feedlot,
two separators, costing about $2,700 each, would have to
be used eight hours per day. These costs assume 365 days
per year operation.
EVAPORATION
An evaporation lagoon can permit moisture from the animal
waste to evaporate as rapidly as possible. Major factors
affecting the size and costs of evaporation lagoons are
the annual average precipitation for the area, the
annual average lake evaporation, the moisture content of
the slurry, the depth of the, lagoon, and the number of
animals that the lagoon serves. The effect of these var-
ious factors on the lagoon operating and investment costs
are illustrated in Figures 53 through 56. The data for
these curves are in the Appendix. The shallower depths
offer the possibility of having the most water evaporate,
leaving fairly solid residue for possible cleaning out dur-
ing dry periods of the year. However, the lagoon should
be deep enough to contain the runoff from large .storms or
provide for a storage period during times of year when the
evaporation rate is low. Areas of the country where there
is a large moisture deficit (annual average evaporation
minus average precipitation) have the greatest potential
for using this method for ultimate disposal of the waste.
As the moisture content of the slurry rises, the operating
and investment costs rise. The increase in cost is par-
ticularly sharp as the moisture content goes above 95%,
wet basis.
204
-------
EVAPORATION LAGOON
.040
.030
CO
_o
o
o
o
o
o
E
o>
Q_
.020
.010
Slurry
500 Head
30 In. Precipitation
50 In. Evaporation
5 Ft
3 Ft. Depth
40
30 I
O
O
«*—
o
to
c
o
CO
20 I
O
O
o>
E
10 1
.85
.90 .95
Moisture Content, Fraction H20
0
1.0
Figure 53. Evaporation lagoon: cost per animal day vs,
moisture content of slurry
205
-------
EVAPORATION LAGOON
.016
.014
.012
.010
o
o
; .DOS
o
o
1 .006
c
o- .004
V)
o
o
.002
0
Slurry
500 Head
30 In. Precipitation
50 In. Evaporation
90% Moisture Content
246
Depth Of Lagoon, Ft.
8
16
14
12
o
O
a
O
6 «o
o
o
A *°
4 e
w>
0
10
Figure 54. Evaporation lagoon: cost per animal day
vs. depth of lagoon
206
-------
EVAPORATION LAGOON
.009-
o .008 -
O
o
o
o
o
o
E
a>
Q_
o
o
.007
.006
-300
-200
Slurry
5 Ft. Depth
30 In. Annual Precipitation
50 In. Annual Evaporation
90% Moisture Content
Investment Cost
Cost Per Animal Day
o
o
«•—
o
in
o
v>
in
o
O
a>
en
5,000 10,000 15,000
Feedlot Capacity, Number Of Animals
20,000
Figure 5 5
Evaporation lagoon: cost per animal day and investment cost vs
feedlot capacity
-------
EVAPORATION LAGOON
.014
10
500 Head
Slurry
90% Moisture Content
20 30 40 50 60
(Evaporation - Precipitation), Inches
14
12 J2
JO
"o
a
10 o
8
en
TO
O
.C
(A
O
O
a
o>
E
4 «>
' 0>
70
Figure 56. Evaporation lagoon: cost per animal day vs.
moisture deficit
208
-------
MANURE IRRIGATION
One possible means of transporting the slurries to the
field^for ultimate disposal is to use a chopper pump,
four inch aluminum irrigation pipe, and a big gun type
of sprinkler. The cost of such a system is $4,666,
assuming one-quarter mile distance to convey the
material. The system has the advantage of low labor
requirements and also slightly increased evaporation
because the slurry is sprayed into the air.
The operating cost of the system is approximately $0.0033
per animal day for a 500 head capacity lot and approx-
imately $0.0010 per animal day for above 5,000 head capac-
ity lot. Only one system is required below a 5,000 head
lot. At 10,000 head, a second system will have tojbe
used if manure irrigation is practiced for 300 days per
year or less. If manure irrigation is practiced 350
days per year, a second system is not needed until 20,000
head capacity is reached.
The moisture content of the slurry also affects the cost
of the system. Assuming an 85% slurry can be pumped sat-
isfactorily, the operating cost was $0.0025-per animal
day. At a 90% moisture content slurry, the operating cost
was $0.0033 per animal day, and by the time the slurry
reached a moisture content of 98% the operating cost had
increased to $0.0056 per animal day. To make a slurry
having 90% moisture content, 215 pound's of water have to
be added to an 85% slurry initially weighing 100 pounds.
Thus, about three times the volume has to be'pumped for
98% moisture content slurry as for 85% content slurry. A
moisture content of around'90% is suggested for easy pump-
ing. This represents an additional 50 pounds of water
from the initial 100 pounds of 85% moisture content slurry.
This represents an increase, in'.volume to be pumped of
about 35%. " ' 1
WASTE MANAGEMENT COSTS
FOR PARTIAL CONFINEMENT BUILDINGS
Partial confinement buildings are those in which shelter is
provided and the animals have access, to, an outside lot where
the feeding'is usually done. The building floors and outside
lot may be either dirt or paved. However, for this analysis
it is assumed that the outside lot is paved, thus providing
better conditions for the animals during inclement weather.
A space allowance of 30 square feet per:animal and 75 square
feet per animal are commonly used for the shelter and out-
side lot respectively.
209
-------
The facility and waste handling costs for the partial con-
finement housing system are presented in Table 41. ^Two
types of shelters are used in this analysis: one with a
concrete floor, gable truss roof, and one open side con-
structed of wood framing; and the other building with a
dirt floor, gable truss roof, and open front with wood
frame construction. The calculated costs for these^
buildings were $23,700 for the concrete floor building
and $13,900 for the dirt floor building. The operating
cost for these buildings was $0.0257 and $0.0151 per ani-
mal day.
Three types of lots were compared:
1. Paved lot with 75 square feet per animal and a
mechanical feed bunk.
2. Paved feedlot with 75 square feet per animal with
a fenceline feed bunk.
3. Paved feedlot with 50 square feet per animal with
a mechanical feed bunk.
The respective costs were $23,300, $21,820, and $17,400.
The operating costs for the respective lots were $0.0255,
$0.0239, and $0.0191.
In determining the handling costs for cleaning the building,
the waste removal operation was assumed to use 20 days per
year with a one-quarter mile hauling distance for a tractor
with front-end loader plus a pull-type spreader. Handling
costs for the outside lot were determined by assuming that
the lot was cleaned daily, one-quarter mile hauling dis-
tance, and using a tractor scraper with front-end loader
plus a pull-type spreader. The operating cost for removing
the wastes from the 500 head lot was $0.0014 per animal day
for the shelter and $0.0048 per animal day for the outside
lot. The total investment cost for the equipment needed
to clean the building was $10,570 and to clean the lot was
$11,247. The total cleaning costs including both the lot
and the shelter was $0.0062 per animal day.
For a typical 500 head system utilizing a concrete floor
building, paved feedlot for 75 square feet per animal with
mechanical feed bunk, the total investment cost for facili-
ties and machinery is approximately $58,300 and the operat-
ing cost is $0.0643 per animal day.
This did not include the daily bedding cost. A study of
bedding costs for a manure scrape building in west central
Minnesota by Bates (6) indicated that bedding cost was
210
-------
Table HI. Facility and Waste Handling Costs for Partial
Confinement Facility with Outside Lot and
Shelter (32' x 473') for 500 Head
Facility Costs
Cost/lin. ft
Floor cost/ft
Waterers cost/ft
Lighting cost/ft
Material cost/ft
Total material cost
Total cost (30% labor)
Cost per animal day
Lot Costs
Lot area (ft2)
Pen costs
Cost per head
Cost per animal day
Concrete Floor,
Gable Trussed
Roof, One Open
Front, Wood
15.15
18.08
1.57
0.30
35.10
16,601
23,723
0.0257
Paved Feedlot
for 75 ft2/
Animal with
Mechanical
Feed Bunk
67,220
23,321
46.64
0.0255
Dirt Floor,
Gable Trussed
Roof, One Open
Front, Wood
15.08
3.68
1.57
0.30
20.63
9,757
13,943
0.0151
Paved Feedlot
for 75 ft2/
Animal with
Fenceline
Feed Bunk
67,220
21,821
43.64
0.0239
211
-------
Table 41. Continued
Lot Costs
2
Lot area (ft )
Pen costs
Cost per head
Cost per animal day
Paved Feedlot
for 50 ft2/
Animal with
Mechanical
Feed Bunk
51,720
17,442
34.88
0.0191
Handling Costs
Scraper
no.
cost/an. day
Front-end loader
no.
cost/an. day
Spreader
no.
cost/an, day
Total cost/an, day
Total investment
cost
Handling Costs
for Cleaning
Building, 20
Days per Year,
0.25 Miles Haul-
ing Distance,
Tractor with
Front-End Loader
plus Pull-
Spreader
.0011
.0003
.0014
10,570
Handling Costs
for Daily Clean-
ing of Outside
Lot, 0.25 Miles
Hauling Distance,
Scraper Tractor,
with Front-End
Loader plus
Spreader
.00007
1
.0031
1
.0010
.0048
11,247
212
-------
approximately $4 per head for a conventional housing system
and $5^per head for a manure scrape building. This is for
a housing system with the animals housed between 250 and
270 days. Thus, the cost of bedding is approximately $.02
per animal day. Therefore, the total operating cost is
approximately $0.115 per animal day for the facility, waste
handling, and bedding costs.
TOTAL SYSTEMS COSTS
The total systems cost for slurry handling from 500 head
capacity confinement buildings with deep pits are summar-
ized in Table 42. Based upon this analysis, the cold con-
finement building with a wood frame, interior poles and a
fenceline feed bunk using a spreader without injector
was the minimum cost system. It had a total handling and
facility operating cost of $0.0302 per animal day and an
investment cost of $30,773. The daily waste handling cost
per animal represented about 1/5 of the daily total system
operating cost. The waste handling investment was about
1/3 of the total system investment cost.
The total system cost for slurry handling from a 500 head
confinement facility with shallow pit and cable scraper,
assuming 300 days of machine use per year, was minimum
for the cold confinement building with the wood frame and
outside fenceline feed bunk, Table 43. The spreader
without injector was the lowest cost waste handling system
with an operating cost of $0.0142 per animal day and an
investment cost of $47,773.
For all confinement building waste management systems, the
waste handling costs were approximately 1/4 of the total
system operating cost and the waste handling investment
cost was approximately 1/5 of the total investment for
the system. Thus, facility costs are the major costs for
slurry handling systems.
The waste handling cost could be further reduced by Busing
a manure irrigation system. For the deep pit buildings,
the operating cost could be reduced from $0.0065 per ani-
mal day for the spreader without injector to approximately
$0.0033 per animal day for the manure irrigation system or
approximately one-half. The investment costs are reduced
about one-half from $9,100 to approximately $4,700.
The total system costs for solid waste handling for a 500
head confinement building with a solid floor are summarized
in Table 44. The cold confinement, steel shell building
with a dirt floor and wood fenceline feed bunk and using a
handling system consisting of a tractor loader and pull
213
-------
Table 42. Total System Costs for Slurry Handling from 500 Head Capacity Confine-
ment Buildings with Deep Pit, 0.25 Mile Hauling Distance, 20 Days of
Machine Use per Year
Facility Costs
Cost/an. day
Investment cost
Total Handling £
Facility Costs
Vacuum spreader
w/o injector
Cost/an, day
Investment cost
Spreader w/o injector
Cost/an, day
Investment cost
Spreader with injector
Cost/an. day
Investment cost
Truck spreader
Cost/an. day
Investment cost
Warm, Steel
Shell, Mechan-
ical Feed Bunk
.0521
48,961
.0604
56,616
.0586
58,107
.0610
60,709
.0609
60,009
Cold, Wood
Frame, Fenceline
Feed Bunk Inside
.0237
21,627
.0320
29,282
.0302
30,773
.0326
33,375
.0325
32,675
Cold, Wood
Frame, Partial
Slotted Floor,
Mechanical
Feed Bunk
.0401
35,579
.0484
44,234
.0466
45,725
.0490
47,627
.0489
46,627
-------
Table 43. Total System Costs for Slurry Handling from a 500 Plead Confinement
Facility with Shallow Pit and Cable Scraper, 0.25 Mile Hauling Dis-
tance, 300 Days of Machine Use per Year
ts>
i-1
en
Facility Costs
Costs/an, day
Investment cost
Total Handling g
Facility Costs
Vacuum spreader
w/o injector
Cost/an. day
Investment cost
Spreader w/o injector
Cost/an. day
Investment cost
Spreader with injector
Cost/an. day
Investment cost
Truck spreader
Cost/an. day
Investment cost
Warm, Steel
Shell, Mechan-
ical Feed Bunk
.0387
36,583
.0542
47,455
.0494
47 ,296
.0519
48,450
.0513
53,366
Cold, Wood,
Frame, Fenceline
Feed Bunk Inside
.0305
37,060
.0460
47,932
.0412
47,773
.0437
48,927
.0431
53,843
Cold, Wood
Frame, Inside
Fenceline
Feed Bunk
.0469
43,149
.0624
54,021
.0576
53,862
.0601
55,016
.0595
59,932
-------
Table 44. Total System Costs for Solid Waste Handling from 500 Head Capacity
Building with Solid Floor, 0.25 Mile Hauling Distance, 20 Days of
Machine Use per Year*
K>
H1
CT>
Facility Costs
Cost/an. day
Investment cost
Total System Cost
Tractor loader + pull
spreader
Cost/an. day
Investment cost
Tractor loader + dump
truck
Cost/an, day
Investment cost
Tractor loader + spreader
truck
Cost/an. day
Investment cost
Warm, Concrete
Floor, Steel
Shell, Mechan-
ical Feed Bunk
.0435
41,071
.0497
45,291
.0521
52,681
.0510
55,781
Cold, Wood
Frame, Dirt
Floor, Canvas
and Screen Sides,
Concrete Fence-
line Feed Bunk
.0210
19,137
.0272
23,357
.0296
30,747
.0285
33,847
*Bedding costs of $.02/animal day could be added to the total systems costs if
bedding cost $15/ton
-------
Table 44. Continued
Facility Costs
Cost/an. day
Investment cost
Total System Cost
Tractor loader + pull
spreader
Cost/an. day
Investment cost
Tractor loader + dump
truck
Cost/an, day
Investment cost
Tractor loader + spreader
truck
Cost/an, day
Investment cost
Cold, Steel
Shell, Dirt
Floor, Wood
Fenceline
Feed Bunk
.0140
12,932
.0202
17,152
.0226
24,542
.0215
27,642
Cold Shelter
(30 ft2/animal),
Concrete Floor, „
Paved Lot (75 ft1/
an ima1, Me chan-
ical Feed Bunk
.0512
47,044
.0574
51,264
.0598
58,654
.0587
61,754
'"'Bedding costs of $.02/animal day could be added to the total system costs if
bedding cost $15/ton
-------
spreader had the minimum cost. The total system operating
costs were $0.0202 per animal day and the total system
investment costs were $17,152. This solids handling sys-
tem was the least cost system of all the systems analyzed
in the study. The building had the lowest operating and
initial investment costs which, combined with relatively
low waste handling costs, made it an attractive system.
The major problem with this system is the high labor require-
ment and ultimate disposal of the solid waste collected.
The analysis assumes that the wastes are placed on adjacent
fields. The cost of bedding should be added to the solid
waste handling costs, approximately $0.02 per animal day.
With bedding costs added, the solid waste handling costs
were approximately the same as the slurry systems using
the shallow pit and cable scraper. The slurry handling
system using the deep pit and spreader without injector is
approximately $0.01 per animal day cheaper than the solid
waste handling system or the cable scraper system.
Instead of a field disposal system for the slurry, an
evaporation lagoon could be used in areas where the annual
lake evaporation exceeds the annual average precipitation.
For a 500 head feedlot and a 90% moisture content slurry,
the operating costs of an evaporation lagoon are between
$0.0080 per animal day and $0.0020 per animal day, depending
upon the evaporation-precipitation difference. The pumping
and conveyance or transporting costs are approximately
$0.0030 per animal day with an investment cost of $4,000 for
500 head. Thus, an evaporation lagoon for slurry disposal
costs less than $0.01 per animal day with an investment of
approximately $8,000 for a 500 head unit. There may, how-
ever, be some odors arising from this system because of the
high solids content and bacterial action.
218
-------
SECTION IV
SYSTEM ANALYSIS
-------
CHAPTER IX
EVALUATION OF WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
In evaluating a waste management system, many factors have
to be considered. The systems have to be analyzed on
the basis of economic considerations, engineering feasi-
bility, and pollution control. The engineering design as-
pects were discussed in Chapters V and VII on open feedlots
and confinement buildings and were based upon current
research and the state of the art. In Chapters VI and VIII,
.--n economic analysis was made of the various waste handling,
treatment, and ultimate disposal components. Operating
costs and investment costs were calculated as affected by
various factors, such as size of feedlot, hauling distance,
days of use per year, and rainfall.
In this chapter, the systems will be viewed as to their
potential for controlling air and water pollution. Systems
that appear workable will be emphasized. Some systems are
still in the research stage and some may have odor problems
or low pollution control potential and therefore will not be
emphasized. This does not mean that systems that have been
excluded will not be satisfactory. They may work under a
particular set of circumstances or may not have been ob-
served by the authors. This evaluation is intended mainly
as a guideline. !
In this investigation, waste management systems were
divided into two broad classifications: open feedlot waste
management systems and confinement building waste management
systems. In this evaluation, both systems will be consid-
ered separately and then the two systems will be compared.
Some factors that may affect the design of feedlot and
waste management systems or a choice of the systems will be
discussed.
• OPEN FEEDLOT WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
Open feedlots are used in the western sections of the United
States for year-round feeding of beef animals. Generally
they have no environmental control to improve environmental
conditions for animal production, except some have shades,
wind breaks, or mounds. Open feedlots are generally unpaved,
although paved feedlots permit the animal density to be
increased. Through proper design and management, water
pollution arising from open feedlots can be abated.
For open feedlots, two waste management systems, solid waste
and runoff, have to be considered. The solid wastes have
to be removed from the feedlot surfaces periodically,
220
-------
usually at the end of each feeding period. The runoff-
carried wastes have to be controlled in such a manner as
not to pollute streams or water supplies. For paved
feedlots, flushing and slurry handling systems offer
anottier_possibility. Flushing during warm weather or in
warm climates can be done every few days to remove the
waste accumulated.in the lot. The flushed wastes can
then be handled by slurry hauling methods or pumped to
fields..
The ultimate disposal of the waste is of prime concern for
both the solids handling system and the runoff or flushing
system. It should be ultimately placed in a location where
it will not contribute to the pollution of surface or
ground waters. At the present time, there are two princi-
ple choices as to the fate of the waste material:
1. The material can be utilized for crop production
and the nutrients re-cycled in the form of ani-
mal feed.
2. The wastes can be disposed in the most economical
manner without consideration for economic return
from the waste.
Optimum Feedlot Design and Waste Management Systems
The layout of an unpaved open feedlot is illustrated in
Figure 57. This feedlot is designed for pollution control
with recycling of the waste materials through crop produc-
tion. Other systems may work equally as well. However,
this illustration points out some of the main features
that are desirable for pollution control of the runoff-
carried waste. Several of the areas of the feedlot are not
given in detail, e.g., feed mill and grain storage_area,
receiving and shipping area, maintenance area, office,
cattle handling and corral facilities, and pen and feed
road locations. The main features on this layout are the
drainage paths and treatment and ultimate disposal of the
runoff-carried wastes. This feedlot was assumed to be
located on a quarter section of land with one-half section
available for crop production and irrigation. This feedlot
would be capable of handling between 20,000 and 30,000 head
at one time.
The firsticonsideration in controlling the runoff from^an
open feedlot is to divert all outside water from entering
the feedlot and becoming polluted. This is done by diver-
sion ditches. Next, an adequate pen drainage system is
needed (Chapter II). Collection drains then have to be
designed to receive the runoff from the pens and convey it
221
-------
DEEP WELL
FOR IRRIGATION
DETENTION
>=
SOLIDS SETTLING
EVAPORATION
LAGOON
DETENTION
DIVERSION
DITCH
SOLIDS SETTLING I
CATTLE
HANDLING
AREA
SICK
PENS
MILL
STORASE,
RECEIVING,
SHIPPING, 8
MAINTENANCE
AREA
GRAIN
STORAGE
SOLID
WASTE
STOCKPILE
ROAD
Figure 57. An open feedlot layout with runoff control
222
-------
to a solids settling basin where the settleable solids are
separated from the liquid waste. The collection ditch may
also serve as a solids settling basin. The solids settling
basins need to be cleaned periodically after the liquids
have had a chance to drain away and evaporate. The liquids
then go on to the storage reservoirs where the waste can be
pumped within_a few days for irrigation purposes or, in case
of extreme rainfall conditions, go to evaporation lagoons.
Evaporation lagoons can be used primarily in the Great
Plains states (North Dakota to Texas) and some other
western states. East of the Great Plains states, storage
structures will have to be designed large enough to contain '
the runoff-carried wastes during wet periods of the year
and then dispose of the wastes by irrigation during more
optimum periods of the year.
Two types of irrigation systems can be used for disposing
of the runoff-carried wastes:
1. Sprinkler irrigation system, primarily using the
big gun type sprinkler head.
2. Gated pipe irrigation system.
The irrigation systems should have access to fresh water
from a deep well, a lake or detention pond that contains
unpolluted runoff water. Fresh water will be needed for
irrigation during dry seasons, to dilute the slurry or run-
off-waste water, and to clean irrigation equipment. Tail
water would have to be collected and recycled if it con-
tained cattle waste or lagoon effluent.
A summary of the costs for this unpaved open feedlot with
pollution control is presented in Table 45. The total sys-
tem investment cost is approximately $420,000 and the opera-
ting cost is $0.133 per animal day. This does^not include
land costs or costs associated with the feed mill, feed
storage, office, maintenance area, or specialized cattle
handling facilities. The feeding facilities amount to about
65% of the investment cost, the runoff control system about
10%, and the solids handling about 25% of the total system
costs. This assumes that the waste will be applied to the
fields for crop production. It does not assume an economic
return from the nutrients in the waste material. It
assumes a three inch design rainfall, a 20 inch annual pre-
cipitation and approximately 60 inches of annual lake evapo-
ration which approaches conditions found in the southern
High Plains beef feeding areas.
Areas with low annual precipitation and high evaporation
have a good potential for using evaporation lagoons for
223
-------
Table 45. Summary of Costs for Unpaved Open Feedlot with
Pollution Control for 20,000 Head, 3 Inch"Design
Rainfall, and 20 Inch Annual Precipitation
Feeding Facilities
Pen, bunk, waterers, roads
Investment
Cost
315 ,400
Operating Cost,
$/animal Day
.0086
Runoff Control Systems
Pen drainage and collection
Settling basin
+ detention reservoir
Settling basin cleaning
(drag line leased)
Irrigation (241 acres)
Total runoff control costs
Solids Handling
For cleaning and stockpiling
only
Elevating scraper
(100 days/yr)
For cleaning, hauling and
field application
Commercial loader
+ spreader truck
20,000
16,800
23,260
6Q,060
37,000
.00016
.00043
.00030
.00050
.00139
.0014
45,000
.0033
Total System Costs
For field application of all
wastes
420,460
.0133
*This does not include land costs or costs associated with
feed mill, feed storage, office, or specialized cattle
handling facilities
224
-------
disposing of liquid runoff wastes. The operating costs
are below $0.0018 per animal day for areas that have
greater than 30 inch moisture deficit annually. The costs
are_50% higher for areas that have a 20 inch moisture
deficit and approximately three times as great for areas
with 10 inch moisture deficit. With evaporation ponds,
there is no possibility of gaining further benefits from
the water and nutrients and there may also be some odor
problems at times. For a 40 inch moisture deficit area,
the evaporation lagoon area is approximately one-third of
the total feedlot area.
Solids Handling
For 20,000 head and one-quarter mile hauling distance, the
elevating scraper had the lowest operating cost of the
systems examined for over 50 days of use per year. Below
50 days of use per year, the rotary scraper with the tractor
had the lowest operating cost.
The size of feedlot also affected the operating costs of the
solid waste handling systems. Above a 10,000 head capacity
lot, the elevating scraper had the lowest operating cost
per animal day for one-quarter mile hauling distance and
100 days of use per year. Below 10,000 head, the rotary
scraper with tractor had the lowest operating cost per ani-
mal day.
For distances below two miles, an elevating scraper had the
lowest operating cost. Over two miles, the commercial
loader plus spreader truck has the lowest cost for hauling
wastes to fields for a 20,000 head feedlot.
The optimum choice of equipment for removing, hauling and
depositing solid waste at the ultimate disposal site
depends upon the size of the feedlot, days of operation
per year, and hauling distance. For feedlots over 10,000
head capacity, the rotary scraper and elevating scraper
have cost advantages for short hauls and stockpiling. For
distances over two miles, the commercial loader plus
spreader truck has the lowest operating cost.
Paved Feedlots
While praved feedlots may have higher facility costs, they
do offer some potential for pollution control. With paved
feedlots, ground water pollution underneath the feedlot
surface is abated. Also, there is reduced area for runoff
and therefore any runoff control structure is smaller^and
less costly than those for unpaved feedlots. The solid
waste handling costs are similar to the costs for unpaved
225
-------
feedlozs.
Paved feedlots allowing 50 sq ft per animal reduce the
total pen area by one-third compared to the unpaved feed-
lots with 200 sq ft per animal. However, the investment
cost of $32.11 per animal for paved lots, pen and feed-
ing facilities is about double that of the unpaved feed-
lots. Likewise, runoff control systems costs for paved
feedlots average about one-third as much as for the
unpaved feedlots because one-third the amount of runoff
has to be handled.
Paved feedlots also offer the possibility for using the
liquid flushing system. These can be used in climatic
areas where freezing conditions are seldom encountered
for more than a day or two at a time. This system would
have a relatively low labor requirement as flushing
would be done periodically, such as every week to 10 days.
By flushing different pens each day, there would be an
almost continuous flow of the waste into a treatment sys-
tem. This system also offers the possibility of re-using
some of the waste water for flushing purposes. Excess
water can be utilized by irrigating crop or pasture land
on a nearly year-round basis. Despite some of the
apparent pollution control advantages, this system has not
been use prevalently. Many of the northern or high rainfall
areas of the country could not use this system on a year-
round basis.
Land Area Requirements
For an unpaved 20,000 head feedlot with 200 sq ft per ani-
mal, the pen area is approximately 108 acres. With the
total drainage area plus pollution control area included,
the feedlot area becomes 144 acres. The land area required
for irrigation from the runoff will be 290 acres for an
area with a 20 inch annual precipitation. The total land
area required for this unpaved feedlot with a pollution
control system is approximately 434 acres. This does not
include a solids disposal area. A summary of the land
area requirements and facility costs for various compo-
nents cf beef feeding and waste management facilities for
20,000 head are presented in Table 46.
A comparable paved feedlot for 20,000 head and 50 sq ft
per animal would require 37.3 acres for the pens only.
With the total feedlot area and pollution control struc-
tures area added, the total runoff area becomes 50 acres.
The number of acres required for irrigation for 20 inch
annual precipitation for this system is 101 acres and the
total acreage is 151 acres. Thus, the total land area for
226
-------
Table 46. Land Area Requirement and Facility Costs for Various Components of Beef
Feeding and Waste Management Facilities for 20,000 Head
N)
Feedlot Component
Feeding S Housing Facilities:
Open feedlot unpaved
100 ft2/head
150 ft2/head
200 ft2/head
400 ft2/head
Open feedlot paved
50 ft2/head
Partial confinement building
(30 ft2/head) and outside lot
(50 ft2/head)
Cold confinement buildings
dirt floor, 30 ft2/head
slotted floor, deep pit, 20 ft /head
slotted floor, shallow pit, cable
scraper, 20 ft2/head
2
Warm confinement building, 20 ft /head
Runoff Control Structures:
Detention pond only
2 inch rain
4 inch rain
6 inch rain
Land Area,
Acres
Investment
Cost, Dollars
60.9
84.5
108.2
202.7
37.2
79.1
37.2
20.9
28.4
29. 3
22. 3
23.3
24. 8
293,400
304,400
315,400
359,400
642,300
1,255,400
766,480
865 ,080
1,504,000
1,960,000
4,170
12 ,880
22 ,540
-------
Table 46. Continued
N>
K>
CO
Feedlot Component
Batch detention, Colorado
2 inch rain
4 inch rain
Settling basins & detention pond
2 inch rain
4 inch rain
6 inch rain
Broad basin terraces
2 inch rain
4 inch rain
6 inch rain
Evaporation lagoon
10 inch annual rainfall
20 inch moisture deficit
40 inch moisture deficit
60 inch moisture deficit
20 inch annual rainfall
20 inch moisture deficit
40 inch moisture deficit
30 inch annual rainfall
20 inch moisture deficit
40 inch moisture deficit
Land Area,
Acres
67.2
162.7
35.7
36.7
37.8
27.2
35.6
44.0
43.3
21.6
14.4
86.6
43. 3
130.0
65.0
Investment
Cost, Dollars
4,170
12 ,880
13,680
20,300
27,630
5,920
14,800
23,680
53,191
26,754
17,918
105,936
53,191
158,609
79,577
Treatment:
•j
Lagoon, 1500 ft /animal
170.2
333,333
-------
Table 46. Continued
K>
N>
ID
Feedlot Component
Ultimate Disposal:
Field irrigation runoff
10 inch annual rainfall
20 inch annual rainfall
30 inch annual rainfall
40 inch annual rainfall
Field disposal of solid wastes
open lot
15 tons/acre
30 tons/acre
solid floor confinement building
15 tons/acre
30 tons/acre
Field disposal of slurry wastes
slurry from deep pit
20 tons/acre
40 tons/acre
Land Area,
Acres
Investment
Cost, Dollars
120.4
240.7
361.7
481.5
3334
1667
3334
1667
7500
3750
23,260
23,260
23,260
23,260
-------
the comparable paved feedlot is about one-third that of
the unpaved feedlot.
The solids disposal area for the two 20,000 head capacity
feedlots should be comparable. For mechanically removing
the solid wastes after each pen of cattle have been fed,
1,666 acres of cropland are needed for a 30 tons per acre
application rate.
CONFINEMENT BUILDING WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
Confinement buildings offer a high potential for com-
pletely controlling the animal waste and abating pollu-
tion. Most confinement buildings are located in the
upper Midwest where they may be located on family farms
ranging from 500 head to commercial facilities with 20,000
head. Confinement buildings not only serve as a means of
protecting the animals from the weather but also serve as
the initial collection point of the waste material. With
the animals confined in the building at all times, runoff-
carried wastes are eliminated. Confinement buildings may
be classified as warm or cold. Warm confinement buildings
are totally enclosed, insulated, and mechanically venti-
lated for complete environmental control. Cold confine-
ment buildings generally have one or more sides open and
make no attempt to control the temperature inside the
building. Some beef animals are fed in partial confine-
ment facilities where the animals have access to a cold
confinement building and to an outside lot where feeding
is usually done.
The waste management system selected is dependent upon the
flooring type; either solid floor or slotted floor construc-
ted with concrete slats. The waste management system then
resolves itself into either a slurry handling system or a
solid handling system. Slurry handling systems are used
with slotted floor buildings and solid handling systems are
utilized for the solid concrete or dirt floor buildings.
Partial confinement buildings use mainly the same waste
handling concepts as open feedlots: solid waste handling
and runoff-control systems.
Optimum Systems
In determining the optimum waste management system for con-
finement buildings, there is a choice between economic
optimum and pollution control optimum. The two are not com-
patible in terms of cost. Obviously, optimum pollution con-
trol costs more. In this examination, waste management
systems are considered that have some degree of pollution
control and some that offer a high degree of pollution con-
230
-------
trol. By_pollution control it is meant that a maximum
attempt will be made to prevent air and water pollution.
Thus,^some value judgements are made as to the system's
capability for reducing odors and water pollution. Most
confinement barns have an advantage over open feedlots
regarding pollution control because of the ^nitial con-
tainment or collection of the wastes. '
The type of feeding facility not only dictates the nature
of the waste management system but also is a major cost
of the total system. If the,effect of environmental tem-
perature is not considered as influencing the animal per-
formance appreciably, then cold confinement buildings are
the most economical. Cold confinement buildings can be
used in many areas of the United States where severe winter
weather is not encountered. By having the roofs over the
feeding facilities, rainfall runoff will not be contaminated
by the animal wastes. The shelters also provide protection
for the animals during wet and cold weather and reduce the
effects of solar radiation during summer months. The least
cost building is one that has a dirt floor and is a pole
frame building. As concrete floors and concrete slats are
added, the costs increase appreciably. Some cold confine-
ment buildings costs are presented in Tables 47 through
49. These are costs of buildings that gave the least cost
based upon Oklahoma prices and wages and were similar to
existing production facilities.
Economic Optimum
In examining various waste handling methods for confinement
buildings, it was found that the solids handling system
combined with a solid' floor cold confinement building had
the least total system cost if bedding costs are not
included. This was partially true because of the lower
investment costs for the dirt floor building and also be-
cause the tractor loader and the tractor for the pull
spreader was assumed to be used for other jobs around the
farmstead and therefore the costs were prorated.
The next least cost waste management system consisted of
a cold confinement barn with a deep pit and utilized a
liquid spreader without soil injection. These total sys-^
terns costs were approximately 50% higher than for the solid
floor and solid waste handling system costs. Both of
these systems assumed that the waste would be removed
within a 20 day period each year and that the waste would
be hauled no more than one-quarter mile.
A disadvantage for both the solids and slurry handling sys-
tems are odor problems arising during hauling and field
231
-------
Table 47. Summary of Costs for Shallow Pit Cold Confine-
ment Building Waste Management System Using
a Cable Scraper for 500 Head
Facility
Cold confinement building,
shallow pit, cable scraper
Investment
Cost
37,100
Operating Cost,
$/animal Day
.0305
Waste Handling
Spreader without soil
injection
Manure irrigation system
10,700
if,700
.0107
.0033
Total System Costs
For slurry hauling
For manure irrigation
47,800
m,800
.0412
.0338
232
-------
Table 48. Summary of Costs for Deep Pit C6ld Confinement
Building Waste Management System for 500 Head
Investment Operating Cost,
Cost $/animal Day
Facility
Cold confinement building,
wood frame, interior
poles, fenceline feed bunk,
deep pit 21,600'' .0237
Waste Handling
Spreader without soil
injection 9,200 .0065
Total System Costs
30,800 .0302
233
-------
Table 49. Summary of Costs for Solid Floor Cold Confinement
Building Waste Management System for 500 Head
Facility
Cold confinement building,
dirt floor, steel siding
and roof, wood feed bunk
Investment
Cost
12,900
Operating Cost,
$/animal Day
.omo
Waste Handling
Tractor loader + pull-
spreader
4,300
.0062
Total System Costs
17,200
.0202*
^Bedding costs of up to $0.02 per animal day should be added
234
-------
spreading. Fly problems may also be a problem during warm
weather months. It was assumed that both of these systems
haul waste to the fields and plow or disk it into the soil
soon after application. If the bedding costs of $0.02 per
animal day are added to the solid waste handling system
for solid floor buildings, then its cost will be greater
than the costs for the slurry handling system for the deep
pit. In addition, bedding may be difficult to obtain in
some localities and the costs of handling the bedding
would have to be considered.
Pollution Control Optimum
A promising system for near optimum pollution control for
cold confinement buildings is the system that utilizes the
shallow pit underneath a slotted floor and a cable scraper.
The cable scraper systems scrape the pit daily, thus remov-
ing the waste and the potential for odor and fly problems.
Currently this system costs 30 to 50% more than a comparable
system using a deep pit and slurry hauling. This system
does, however, offer the potential for a completely mechan-
ized waste handling operation. Currently, the slurry is
hauled nearly every day of the year to fields using some of
the same hauling methods as for deep pit slurry systems.
A slurry conveying system that appears to be compatible
with the cable scraper system is a manure irrigation sys-
tem. By using this system, the waste handling costs are
reduced to about one-third of the cost of hauling and
spreading with a spreader without soil injection. This
would also permit the entire waste handling operation to be
mechanized. Using this type of system the total investment
cost for a 500 head unit facility and waste management sys-
tem would be approximately $42,000 and the operating cost
approximately $0.03 per animal day. There may be problems
with this system during cold weather periods when the slurry
may freeze in the shallow pits or cannot be conveyed to the
fields because of snow and/or potential runoff from the
fields because of snow melting or rainfall. This system
offers a high potential for areas of the country where the
waste can be utilized by crops or pasture on a nearly year-
round basis.
The cable scraper system offers the potential for utiliza-
tion of continuous flow treatment processes. Also, the
shallow pit offers the possibility of using a flushing
system instead of the cable scraper. Some re-use_of waste
water from lagoons could be utilized in the flushing process.
It is assumed that solids would be separated and that the
waste water would have undergone some treatment and possibly
dilution with fresh water.
235
-------
Confinement buildings with shallow pits also offer the
potential for using an oxidation rotor for treating the
animal waste and thus reduce odors arising from the .feed-
ing facility. The operating costs for oxidation rotors
are approximately $0.05 per animal day. This is consid-
erably higher than some of the other treatment and waste
handling methods, for instance anaerobic lagoon, costs are
approximately $0.008 per animal day.
Land Area Requirements^
The land area required for confinement feeding facilities
is reduced considerably from that for the open feedlot.
Cold confinement buildings with slotted floors allow
20 sq ft per animal and buildings with solid floors allow
30 sq ft per animal compared with 150 sq ft to 400 sq ft
per animal for unpaved open feedlots. The spacing between
buildings is a major factor controlling the surface area
requirements for a group of confinement beef feeding facil-
ities. Facilities utilizing a feed bunk located along one
outside wall for fenceline feeding and having only the
width of an outside drive between the buildings is the
system requiring the least land area. For a cold confine-
ment ibuilding with shallow pit and cable scraper and min-
imum spacing between buildings, the land area requirement
for the feeding facilities is approximately 28 acres for a
20,000 head unit.
Land area requirements for waste management system are
minimal for most confinement buildings because all of the
wastes are collected within the building and there is no
runoff. Exceptions to this are where lagoons or detention
structures are used for partial confinement facilities with
outside lots. For 20,000 animals in partial confinement, an
anaerobic lagoon of approximately 170 acres is required.
This completely dwarfs the feeding facilities area. Reduc-
tions in size of this lagoon can be made for warmer climatic
areas, and where the slurry wastes are treated prior to
entering the lagoon or where solids are separated from the
slurry wastes.
Land disposal area requirements for a 20,000 head feeding
facility for solid wastes are approximately 1,667 acres
using an application rate of 30 tons per acre. Similarly,
the acreage required for placing slurry upon the land is
7,500 acres using the 20 tons per acre rate that is
commonly used in the upper Midwest for slurry applications.
Obviously, the slurry and the solid wastes will have to be
placed upon the soil at heavier rates to reduce the land
area requirements. However, this increases the potential
236
-------
for pollution of surface and underground water. It
exceeds the nutrient requirements of many of the crops
that are grown. Also, there are problems associated
with application of the wastes during non-growing periods
of the year.
EVALUATION OF OPEN FEEDLOT AND CONFINEMENT BUILDING
WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
Designing a beef feeding facility for a particular loca-
tion is a unique problem. The design has to be indi-
vidualized based upon many local factors such as terrain,
soil and climate. Some of the factors affecting the de-
sign of the feeding facilities and waste management sys-
tems have been mentioned .in previous sections of this
report. In this section,' a comparison of the two general
feeding systems, open feedlots and confinement building,
will be made. Factors affecting the type'of facilities
and waste management systems will be discussed. It is
assumed that the facilities are located under comparable
climatic and geographic conditions.
Effect of Climate
Climate affects the selection of the type of beef feeding
facility and waste management system. Major climatic
factors affecting beef cattle performance and waste manage-
ment systems are air temperature, relative humidity, rain-
fall, evaporation, solar radiation, and wind. Different
climatic zones were developed by using,three of these
variables, as illustrated in Figures 58 and 59. The zones
are based upon an 80°F average July temperature line, a
32°F average January temperature line, a 20°F average Jan-
uary temperature line and moisture deficit lines of 30 inches
and 10 inches.1 The 80°F average July temperature was
selected because 80°F appeared to be an upper limit for beef
cattle performance. Above this temperature, beef animal
production declined for most breeds. The 32°F average Jan-
uary temperature line was selected because of the desira-
bility to keep certain waste management systems above
freezing conditions as much as possible. The 20°F average
January temperature line was selected because it_appears
to be the lower temperature limit before beef animal per-
formance begins to decline. Between 20°F and 80°F the ani-
mal should be in a comfort zone. The 30 inch moisture
!The average monthly temperatures are based upon curves pre-
sented in the book by Blair (9).
237
-------
32° Jon. Av.
00
CD
30"
Moisture
Deficit
80°
July Av.
iH Optimum
fH Hot Or Cold
^ Wet And Hot Or Cold
^ Wet
20° Jon. Av.
32° Jon. Av.
10" Moisture
Surplus
80° July Av.
30" Moisture
Deficit
Figure 58. Beef cattle feeding areas based upon climate
-------
to
CO
CD
-10" (Excess
Moisture)
50
Figure 59. Lines of moisture deficit for the 48 adjacent states
-------
deficit line was determined by subtracting the annual_pre-
cipitation from the annual lake evaporation. The 30 inch
moisture deficit line was selected primarily on the basis
of decided advantages for evaporation of liquids from evap-
oration ponds, other waste management systems, and feedlot
surfaces. With less than 10 inches of moisture deficit,
the required surface area for evaporation ponds increases
very rapidly and it becomes more difficult to dispose of
the excess waste water. Some of the other climatic factors
are integrated in these basic parameters, for instance,
solar radiation and wind influence evaporation rate. Solar
radiation also affects the average air temperatures. Pre-
cipitation and evaporation are included in the moisture
deficit lines.
According to this climatic analysis, the optimum area for
year-round beef feeding in outside open lots is in the
region defined on its southern boundary by an 80°F average
July temperature line, its northern boundary by the 32°F
January average temperature line, its eastern boundary by
the 30 inch moisture deficit line and its western boundary
by the 80°F average July temperature line. This area includes
a portion of Kansas, western Oklahoma, northwestern Texas,
a sizeable portion of New Mexico, and the northeastern two-
thirds of Arizona. It is realized that there may be local
conditions within this region that may not be conducive to
open beef feedlot feeding facilities. It should also be
pointed out that one possible detrimental factor affecting
feedlots in this region would be that of dust produced dur-
ing the dry season.
Other areas of the country may also be good production
areas but do not have perhaps as optimum conditions for year-
round production. For instance, dry areas in Texas west
of the 30 inch moisture deficit line and dry areas in Cali-
fornia, Arizona, and Nevada have higher than the 80°F
average July temperature. These areas would have to make
some modifications to provide more environmental protection
from solar radiation and the high temperatures than some of
the other areas. Another near optimum area lies in Kansas,
Nebraska and Colorado west of the 30 inch moisture deficit
line. This area is below the 32°F average January tempera-
ture line. Thus, for short periods during the winter this
area may not be optimum and modifications may have to be
made to provide protection from the wind such as windbreaks,
mounds or shelters. This area would have more freezing prob-
lems which would affect the performance of the waste manage-
ment system and the performance of the livestock. Also,
evaporation would be reduced during these periods of the
year and wet_sloppy_conditions may exist at times. Another
small area with optimum temperatures, but higher rainfall
240
-------
and less moisture deficit is a small area in southeast
Kansas and northeast Oklahoma.
A secondary area that is between /the 30 inch and 10 inch
moisture deficit lines also provides good potential for
open feedlot beef production at certain times of the year.
One of these areas is north of the 32°F average January
temperature line but south of the 20°F January temperature
line. This area includes northeast Kansas, most of
Nebraska, and portions of South Dakota, Wyoming, Colorado,
and Iowa.• Another secondary area is located in a warmer
area of south central Oklahoma and eastern Texas. This
could be classified as a hot and moderately wet area.
There is good potential during certain periods of the
year for evaporation of moisture from feedlot surfaces and
evaporation lagoons in these areas.
As we go east^of the 10 inch moisture deficit line, the
disposal of liquid waste becomes more difficult. Also,
higher humidities and rainfall affect the performance of
animals in outside feedlots. Thus, confinement buildings
begin to have some advantages in terms of animal perfor-
mance east of the 10 inch moisture deficit line. For !
waste management systems in this area, the liquids essen-
tially have to be filtered through the soil in order to
dispose of the excess liquids.
The zones of various climatic conditions are illustrated
in Figure 60. The area consisting of most of the Corn Belt
region can be classified as a cool, wet area. This would
indicate that possibly cold confinement buildings that have
open fronts could be used. This would protect the animals
from the higher rainfall and the animals would still be
within the temperature comfort zone.
A zone consisting of northern 'Iowa, Minnesota_and Wisconsin
can be classified as a cold, wet zone. In this zone,
totally enclosed, insulated, and environmental controlled
confinement buildings may have the best advantage for pro-
viding optimum environmental conditions for beef animal per-
formance. Also, more storage capacity for the waste has
to be provided during the winter months in this zone before
field application.
Another zone that has a high evaporation is the zone con-
sisting of the Dakotas, Montana and a considerable portion
of Wyoming which can be classified as a cold, dry zone.^
This area would have some advantages in terms of disposing
of excess liquid waste by means of evaporation. However,,
during certain periods of the year the temperatures are,'
below 20°F average January temperature (which is approxi-
241
-------
-P
N)
Temperate, Dry
Hot, Dry
Hot, Damp
Figure 60. Climatic zones for beef feeding and waste management system
selection
-------
mately the lower limit for comfort zone of beef animals).
Thus, some protection during the winter months should be
made so that the animals would be protected from the wind
and cold temperatures. During other times of the year,
beef animal production in outside lots would be favorable.
Beef animal feeding facilities in the southeastern portion
of the United States would have more difficulties to over-
come because of hot, humid conditions. These hot humid
conditions affect the performance of the beef animals.
The higher rainfall area would cause more problems regard-
ing pollution control from feeding facilities.
Other areas of the country, such as the Intermountain
regions of Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Nevada, Utah and
Colorado, may have some potential for beef feeding facili-
ties. These areas have a high moisture deficit and there-
fore waste management would have fewer problems than in more
humid and higher rainfall areas. However, most of the region
is between the 32°F average January temperature line and
the 20°F average January temperature line. Thus, for a por-
tion of the year freezing conditions would exist which >,
would affect the performance of lagoons and surfac^ condi-
tions of the feedlot.
Cost Comparison
For comparing costs between confinement building and open
feedlot systems, a 20,000 head capacity lot was considered.
This was considered to be a common size which is being
attempted in the upper Midwest. The costs for 20,000 head
confinement building operation cannot be extrapolated from1
a 500 head unit because roads and alleys have to be constijuc-
ted between buildings and around the feedyard. This analysis
considered the additional area needed. The area required i
for feed mill and feed handling operation was assumed to be
the same for both open feedlots and confinement building ,
facilities.
Land area requirements and investment costs for various
beef feeding facilities and waste management systems for
20,000 head are presented in Table 50. The dirt-surfaced
open feedlot had the lowest total system cost of the systems
examined. The warm confinement beef feeding and waste man-
agement system for 20,000 head had the highest cost (approx-
imately five times higher than the open feedlots). This
analysis did not include the cost for the land area required
for ultimate disposal of waste on crop land. The land area
for ultimate disposal was determined from the amount of waste
produced by 20,000 head and using the application rates that
243
-------
Table 50. Land Area Requirements and Investment Costs for Various Beef Feeding
Facilities and Waste Management Systems for 20,000 Head
-P
-P
Open Feedlot
Lot, 200 ft2/animal
Detention reservoir, 4 in. rain
Irrigation system, 20 in. annual
rain
Solid waste handling, 1.0 mile,
50 days/year
Cold Confinement Building
Slotted floor, deep pit
Slurry handling, tank truck
Land Area,
Acres
108.2
23.3
240.7
1667.
2,039.2
37.2
7500
Investment Cost,
Dollars
315,400
12 ,880
23,260
70,000
421,540
865 ,080
115,000
980,080
Cold Confinement Building
Dirt floor, 30 ft2/animal
Solids handling, spreader truck
37.2
1667
766,480
70,OQj3
836,480
Cold Confinement Building
Shallow pit, slotted floor
Cable scraper
Slurry handling
28.4
7500
1,504,000
217,970
1,721,970
-------
Table 50. Continued
Warm Confinement Building
Deep pit, slotted floor
Slurry handling
jr
cn
Partial Confinement
Building and lot
Waste handling
Land Area,
Acres
Investment Cost,
Dollars
29.3
7500
1,960,000
115,000
2,075,000
79.1
1667
1,255,1*00
Ht+9,880
1,705,280
-------
approximately satisfy the nitrogen requirement of the
field crops. Neglecting the bedding costs, the cold con-
finement building with dirt floor had the next lowest
cost, approximately twice the cost of an open feedlot.
A system that was considered to have near optimum pollu-
tion control was the cold confinement building with^a
shallow pit and cable scraper. This system had an invest-
ment cost approximately four times higher than the open
feedlot cost.
Manure irrigation systems for confinement buildings reduce
the waste handling cost to approximately one-third of the
cost of hauling slurry or solid wastes. However, the waste
handling costs represent only about 25 percent of the
total costs for confinement buildings with facility costs
as the remaining portion.
Effect of Land Cost
A plot of investment cost versus land cost is made in Fig-
ure 61. The investment cost in this analysis does not
include the cost of the ultimate disposal area for field
application of the solid, slurry or runoff-carried wastes.
The intercept values indicate the facility costs when the
land cost is zero. As land cost increases, the cost for
open feedlot systems increases rapidly. The cost for the
confinement systems rises slowly. At approximately $800
per acre, the cold confinement barn with the dirt floor
becomes economical in comparison with a dirt open surfaced
feedlot with 400 sq ft of space per animal. The open feed-
lots were assumed not to have environmental control struc-
tures, such as shades or windbreaks. With the addition of
these structures, the cost of the open feedlots would be
higher.
i
SELECTION OF WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
BASED UPON POLLUTION CONTROL
The selection of feeding facility design and waste manage-
ment system should be made with regard to the effect on
the environment and the ultimate disposal of the waste
material. Ideally, the system should not pollute the air
or water. Thus, an ideal system collects the wastes soon
after they are received by the feeding floor. These wastes
would then be properly treated and disposed in a satisfactory
manner. This may also mean recycling some of the nutrients
that may be in the waste to crops or by processing the waste
for animal feed.
246
-------
BEEF FACILITIES
AND
WASTE MANAGEMENT
INVESTMENT COSTS
fWorm Confinement, Deep Pit
partial Confinement
rCold Confinement, Deep Pit
500 1000
Land Cost, Dollars/Acre
1500
Figure 61. Investment cost vs. land cost for various
feeding and waste management systems
247
-------
In view of the above ideals, a ranking of waste management
systems in regard to pollution control can be made as
follows:
1. Cable scraper, with shallow holding pit and treat-
ment by means of lagoon, manure irrigation on^
pasture or crop land, or spray-runoff irrigation
system.
2. Oxidation ditch treatment of the waste underneath
a slotted floor building, with overflow going to
a lagoon, and then manure irrigation.
3. A deep pit underneath a slotted floor feeding
facility for cold or warm confinement building,
slurry hauling with a soil injection system.
"4. Solid floor confinement, solid waste handling,
composting or field application.
5. Paved feedlot with a flushing system and manure
irrigation.
6. Unpaved feedlot with settling basins and storage
reservoirs and irrigation of the runoff waste
water onto crop land.
7. Unpaved feedlot with detention reservoirs or
lagoons only and dependent upon evaporation for
removal of excess liquid waste.
A comparison of the suggested rankings of selected waste man-
agement systems is presented in Table 51 regarding their
potential for pollution control and least cost.
The first four systems mentioned above are associated with
confinement beef feeding barns. These total systems are
more costly than the open feedlot systems, however, they
offer a higher potential for pollution control. The cable
scraper, oxidation ditch, and flushing systems reduce odors
over systems that do not treat or remove the waste promptly.
Also, they provide the opportunity for using a nearly con-
tinuous flow treatment system. The uhpaved feedlots with
storage reservoirs only have the least degree of control of
pollutants. Storage reservoirs are subject to overflows
when storm rainfalls are above the design rainfalls. Also,
odors may arise and settleable solids may fill the reser-
voir.
These systems have been suggested mainly on the basis of
their potential for pollution control. There may be other
248
-------
Table 51. Ranking of Waste Management Systems According to Potential for Pollu-
tion Control and Least Cost
Rank
1
-P
CD
Pollution Control
Cable scraper, with shallow pit
and lagoon or irrigation
Oxidation ditch, lagoon and
irrigation or evaporation
Deep storage pit under slotted
floor, slurry hauling with soil
injection
Solid floor building, solid
waste handling only, compost-
ing or field application
Paved open feedlot with flush-
ing system and irrigation
Unpaved open feedlot with set-
tling basins, detention reser-
voir, irrigation
Unpaved open feedlot with deten-
tion reservoirs or lagoons only,
evaporation
Economic
Unpaved open feedlot with detention
reservoirs or lagoons only, evaporation
Unpaved open feedlot with settling basins,
detention reservoirs, irrigation
Solid floor building, solid waste hand-
ling only, composting or field applica-
tion
Deep storage pit under slotted floor,
slurry hauling
Paved open feedlot with flushing system
and irrigation
Cable scraper with shallow pit and
lagoon or irrigation
Oxidation ditch, lagoon and irrigation
or evaporation
-------
systems that could do equally well or better. However,
many of the other systems not mentioned here are either
more costly, do not provide satisfactory control for
water pollution abatement, or may be subject to the devel-
opment of odors.
NEEDED RESEARCH
This investigation has found many areas needing further
research to improve beef waste management to reduce pollu-
tion potential and odors. Research is needed to determine
how weather related variables affect animal performance on
open feedlots or confinement buildings and also how the
weather affects the waste management systems. While there
have been a few studies on feedlot hydrology, there is still
much more that needs to be known. Currently it is diffi-
cult to predict exactly the amount or quality of the runoff
coming from an open feedlot.
Much of the research to date has been rather piece-meal
and has looked at mainly one or two components in the
total feeding facility-waste management system. The entire
system needs to be examined from the collection on through
to the ultimate disposal. This current investigation was
mainly a beginning, to evaluate the entire system based
upon the state of the art. More needs to be known on how
one portion or component of that system reacts with other
components. This needs to be done on a research basis,
possibly pilot-size, to examine the effects of different
parameters on the performance of each of the components
and the total system. It may be possible that some compo-
nents may be reduced in size if used with some other key
components. For instance, the separation of the settleable
solids from runoff-carried or slurry wastes would reduce
the size of an anaerobic lagoon.
Another potential research area is that of re-using or
recycling the solid or liquid waste. Currently, the land
offers the best method for the application of the waste
material. The nutrients in the waste material can then be
utilized by crops and the crops recycled back through the
livestock. Much more needs to be known about optimum appli-
cation rates for crop production. Also, it may be possible
to maximize the disposal of the waste on the soil. Infor-
mation is needed on maximum disposal rates on the soil
without considering optimum crop yields, but rather
determining the minimum land area and still preventing
pollution of underground or surface waters. Another pos-
sibility is to use the land as a filter. Locations where
the soil types and climatic conditions are favorable for
soil filtering need to be determined.
250
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This study was conducted by staff members in the Depart-
ment of Agricultural Engineering, Oklahoma State Univer-
sity, Stillwater, Oklahoma, under Grant No. 13040 FXG,
Environmental Protection Agency. Allen F. Butchbaker was
the principal investigator and was assisted by James E.
Garton, George W. A. Mahoney and Myron D. Paine. Grad-
uate Assistants Alan Wetmore and Robert Houkom developed
some of the design equations and programmed the design and
cost information for use on the Conversational Programming
System. The assistance of Charles R. Kelly, East Central'
State College, Ada, Oklahoma, for the initial development
of the geographical aspects related to feedlot site loca-
tion is hereby acknowledged.
The assistance of the Oklahoma Agricultural Experiment
Station and its administrative staff, Dr. James Whatley,
Director; Dr. Jay Murray and Dr. George Waller, is grate-
fully acknowledged. The guidance of Professor E. W.
Schroeder, Head of the Agricultural Engineering Depart-
ment, was valuable during many phases of the project.
The investigators are especially thankful for the courtesy
and information obtained from the commercial feedlots
that were visited and from the various researchers working
on beef waste management problems. Many state Extension
Agricultural Engineers provided valuable assistance in
locating feedlots with special waste management features
and in personally guiding the investigators on the feedlot
visits.
This report was prepared in close cooperation with Mr.
Marion R. Scalf, Project Officer and Sanitary Engineer,
Robert S. Kerr Water Research Center, Environmental Pro-
tection Agency, Ada, Oklahoma. His assistance is grate-
fully acknowledged.
251
-------
REFERENCES
1. Andrews, M. , "Pens That Fit," Beef, p 12, May, (1970).
2. Anonymous, "Imagine Your Feedlot Manure Can Power
Your Mill and Bring Extra Cash from Sale of Excess
Power!" Calf News, No. 8, pp 42, 45, November,
(1970).
3. Anonymous, "Morales Feedlots Build Huge Slab to .Elimi-
nate Pollution Problems," West Texas Livestock Weekly,
p 11, May 14, (1970).
4. Anonymous, "Confinement Feeders: Check Your Scuba
Gear," Feedlot, No. 12, p 32, February, (1970).
5. Anonymous, "$20 per Head - or $100? You Can Build a
Feedlot for Either Investment," Beef, pp 54-55,
October, (1970).
6. Bates, D. W. , and L. K. Lindor, "The Influence of
Housing on Gains of Beef Cattle in Five Different
Structures," A.S.A.E. Paper No. 70-902, American
Society of Agricultural Engineers, December, (1970).
7. Beef ^Handbook, Housing and Equipment. Midwest Plan
Service, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa, (1968).
8. Benne , E. J. , C. R. Hogland, E. D. Longnecker, and
R. L. Cook, "Animal Manures — What are They Worth Today?"
Agricultural Experiment Station, Michigan State Uni-
versity, Bulletin No. 231, (1961).
9. Blair, T. A., Climatology, Prentice-Hall, Inc., N. Y. ,
(1942).
10. Bond, T. E., R. L. Givens , and S. R. Morrison, "Compar-
ative Effects of Mud, Wind and Rain on Beef Cattle
Performance," A.S.A.E. Paper No. 70-406, American
Society of Agricultural Engineers, July, (1970).
11. Bowers, W. , Modern Concepts of Farm Machinery Manage-
ment , Stipes Publishing Co., Champaign, Illinois,
"
12. Cassell, E. A., and A. Anthonisen. "Studies on Chicken
Manure Disposal: Part I, Laboratory Studies," Research
Report No. 12, New York State Department of Health,
(1966).
252
-------
13. Chow, V. T., Handbook of Applied Hydrology, McGraw-
Hill, N. Y., (1964). &i
14. Coulson, J. S., The Fairfield Engineering Co., Marion,
Ohio, Personal Correspondence, August 11, (1970).
15. Crawford, R. E., "Design for Feedlot Waste Management-
Facility Design," presented at the Continuing Educa-
tion Seminar, Kansas Engineering Society, Topeka,
Kansas, January 23, (1969).
16. Esmay, M. L. , Principles of Animal Environment, The
AVI Publishing Co., Inc., Westport, Connecticut,
(1969).
17. Fairbank, W. C., and E. L. Bramhall, "Dairy Manure
Liquid-Solids Separation," Agricultural Sanitation
Series, Agricultural Extension Service, University
of California, Davis, California, June, (1968).
18. Fairbank, W. C. , "Waste Disposal Problems in Highly
Populated Areas," paper, Extension Agricultural
Engineering, University of California, Riverside,
California, (1970).
19. Fry, A. W., and Alfred S. Gray, Sprinkler Irrigation
Handbook, Rainbird Sprinkler Manufacturing Corpora-
tion, Glendora, California, (1969).
20. Gilbertson, C. B., T. M. McCalla, J. R. Ellis, 0. E.
Cross, and W. R. Woods, "The Effect of Animal Density
and Surface Slope on Characteristics of Runoff, Solid
Wastes and Nitrate Movement on Unpaved Beef Feedlots,"
Bulletin SB 508, Agricultural Experiment Station,
University of Nebraska, Lincoln, (1970).
21. Gilbertson, C. B. , Personal Communication Department of
Agricultural Engineering, ARS, USDA, University of
Nebraska, Lincoln, July,.(1970).
22. Gilbertson, C. B., T. M. McCalla, J. R. Ellis, and
W. R. Woods, "Methods of Removing Settleable Solids
from Outdoor Beef Cattle Feedlot Runoff," A.S.A.E.
Paper No- 70-420, American Society of Agricultural
Engineers, July, (1970).
23. Givens, R. L. , "Height of Artificial Shades for Cattle
in the Southeast," Transactions of the A.S.A.E., No. 8
pp 312-313, '(1965).
253
-------
24. Givens, R. L., S. R. Morrison, W. N. Garrett, and
W. B. Hight, "Influence of Feedlot Pen Design and
Winter Shelter of Beef Cattle Performance," Cali-
fornia Agriculture, No. 22, pp 6-7, February, (1968).
25. Grub, W, R. C. Albin, D. M. Wells, and R. Z. Wheaton,
"The Effect of Feed, Design, and Management on the
Control of Pollution from Beef Cattle Feedlots,"
Animal Waste Management, Cornell University Confer-
ence, pp 217-224, Syracuse, New York, January 13-15,
(1969).
26. Grub, E. W., R. C. Albin, P. M. Wells, and R. Z.
Wheaton, "Engineering Analysis of Cattle Feedlots
To Reduce Water Pollution," Transactions of the
A.S.A.E., No. 12, pp 490-492, 495, (1969).
27. Golueke, C. G. , "Investigations of Manure Composting
at San Quentin," Unpublished report of Sanitary
Engineering Laboratory, University of California and
the Division of Sanitation, California State Board
of Health, (1954).
28. Gotaas, H. B., Composting: Sanitary Disposal and Re-
clamation of Organic Wastes, World Health Organiza-
tion, Palais des Nations, Geneva, (1956).
29. Grussing, Don, "Confinement Feeding Barn Has Thermal
Heat Exchanger," Feedlot.
30. Grussing, Don, "Shelter Pay ?" Feedlot, No. 12,
pp 30-32, 34, 35, February, (1970).
31. Gustafson, R. A., and Roy N. Vanarsdall, "Cattle
Feeding in the United States," Agricultural Economic
Report No. 186, Economic Research Service, USDA,
October, (1970).
32. Hart, S. A., "The Management of Livestock Manure,"
Transactions of the A.S.A.E., No. 3, pp 78-80, (1960),
33. Hauenstein, John, "The Use of Large Electric Motors
for Liquid Manure Pumping Systems," paper presented
at Pacific Northwest Section of American Society of
Agricultural Engineers, Vancouver, British Columbia,
October 1-3, (1969).
34. Hellickson, M. A., W. B. Witmer, and R. Barringer,
"Comparison of Selected Environmental Conditions and
Beef Cattle Performance in Pole Type and Closed
254
-------
Environments," A.S.A.E. Paper No. 70-901, American
Society of American Scientists, Chicago, Illinois,
November 29, (1968).
35. Henderson, H. E. and M. R. Geasler, "Effect of
Environment and Housing on the Performance of Feedlot
Cattle Under Midwest Conditions," paper presented
at Midwestern Sectional Meeting, American Society of
Animal Science, Chicago, Illinois, November 29, (1968).
36. Hinkle, C. N., "Summaries of Recent Environmental
Research with Beef Cattle," A.S.A.E. Paper No. 63-938,
American Society of Agricultural Engineers, December,
(1963).
37. Hoffman, M. P., and H. L. Self, "Shelter and Feedlot
Surface Effects on Performance of Yearling Steers,"
Journal of Animal Science, No. 31, pp 967-972, Novem-
ber, (1970).
38. Hensler, R. F. , "Cattle Manure: I. Effect on Crops
and Soils: II. Retention Properties of Cu, Mn, and
An," Ph.D. Thesis, University of Wisconsin, Madison,
(1970).
39. "Here's a Manure Disposal System that Makes Money,"
Feedlot, No. 10, p 30, December, (1968).
40. Iowa Water Pollution Control Commission, Section 1.3(2)
of Code of Iowa, October 14, (1969).
HI. Ittner, N. R., T. E. Bond, and C. F. Kelly, "Methods
of Increasing Beef Production in Hot Climates,"
California Agricultural Experiment Station, Bulletin
761, April, (1958).
42. Johnson, D. W. , "Survey of Feeding Beef Cattle Inside
Sheds," A.S.A.E. Paper No. 70-905, American Society
of Agricultural Engineers, December, (1970).
43. Jones, D. D., D. L. Day, and A. C. Dale, "AerobiC>
Treatment of Livestock Wastes," Bulletin 737, Agri-
cultural Experiment Station, University of Illinois,
Urbana-Champaign, in cooperation with Purdue Uni-
versity, May, (1970).
44. Kelly, C. F. , "Effects of Thermal Environment on Beef
Cattle, Agricultural Engineering, No. 41, pp 613-614,
September, (1960).
255
-------
45. Kohler, M. A., T. J. Nordenson, and D. R. Baker,
"Evaporation Maps for the United States," Technical
Paper No. 37, Weather Bureau, U. S. Department of
Commerce, Washington, D. C., (1959).
46. Kolega, J. J., G. L. Nelson, and Quintin B. Graves,
"Analysis for Oxygen Transfer Coefficients in Rotor
Aeration Systems," Cornell University, Conference on
Animal Waste Management, Syracuse, New York, January
13-15, pp 63-75, (1969).
47. Law, J. P., Jr., R. E. Thomas, and L. H. Myers,
"Cannery Wastewater Treatment by High-Rate Spray on
Grassland," Journal of Water Pollution Control Feder-
ation, 42:1621-1631, (Sept., 1970).
48. Lehman, 0. R., B. A. Stewart, and A. C. Mathers,
"Seepage of Feedyard Runoff Water Impounded in Playas,"
Bulletin MP-944, Texas Agricultural Experiment Station,
Texas ASM University, College Station, Texas, Febru-
ary, (1970).
49. Lipper, R. I., "Design for Feedlot Waste Management,"
History and Characteristics presented at the Continuing
Education Seminar, Kansas Engineering Society, Topeka,
Kansas, January 23, (1969).
50. Lipper, R. I., Agricultural Engineering Department,
Kansas State University, Manhattan, Kansas, Personal
communication, July, (1970).
51. Loehr, Raymond C., Pollution Implications of Animal
Wastes—A Forward Oriented Review.Robert S. Kerr
Water Research Center, FWPCA, USDI, Ada, Oklahoma,
(1968).
52. Ludington, D. C., "Dehydration and Incineration of
Poultry Manure," National Symposium on Poultry
Industry Waste Management, Lincoln, Nebraska, (1963).
53. Mahoney, G. W. A., G. L. Nelson, and S. A. Ewing,
"Performance of Experimental Close-Confinement (Caged)
Cattle Feeding Systems," Transactions of the A.S.A.E.,
No. 12, pp 631-633, 637, (1969).
54. Martin, Neil R. , Jr., D. C. Petritz, and Roy N.' Van
Arsdall, "The Illinois Beef Industry Characteristics,
Trends, and Inventories, HERR-101," Department of Agri-
cultural Economics, Agricultural Experiment Station,
University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana, Illinois,
October, (1969).
256
-------
55. Mathers, A. C. , and B. A. Stewart, "Nitrogen Transfer-
notation and Plant Growth as Affected by Applying Large
Amounts of Cattle Feedlot Wastes to Soil," Paper,
Southern Plains Branch, SWCRD, ARS, USDA, Bushland,
Texas, (1970).
56. McCalla, T. M., L. R. Frederick, and G. L. Palmer,
Manure Decomposition and Fate of Breakdown in Soil,
published as Paper No. 2742, Journal Series, Nebraska
Agricultural Experiment Station, University of
Nebraska, Lincoln, (1970).
57. McCoy, Elizabeth, "Removal of Pollution Bacteria from
Animal Waste by Soil Percolation," A.S.A.E. Paper No.
69-430, American Society of Agricultural Engineers,
June, (1969).
58. Mielke, L. N., J. R. Ellis, N. P. Swanson, J. C. Lorimor,
and T. M. McCalla, "Groundwater Quality and Fluctuation
in a Shallow Unconfined Aquifer Under a Level Feedlot,"
Paper presented at the Cornell Agricultural Waste Man-
agement Conference, Rochester, N. Y., January 19, (1970).
59. Miller, Robert F., "Space Requirements and Dust Control
for Feedlot Cattle," California Agriculture, No. 16,
pp 14-15, December, (1962).
60. Miner, J. R., "Environment's Challange: Acceptance as
>: a Neighbor or Rejection as a Nuisance," Feedlot,
No. 13, pp 14-15, 34, May, (1970).
61. Miner, J. R., ed., Farm Animal Waste Management, Pub-
lication being prepared by North Central Regional
Technical Committee, NC-69, Iowa State University
Press, Ames, Iowa, (1971).
62. Montgomery, G. A., "Runoff Control, Kansas Style,"
Feedlot, No. 11, pp 24, 26, May, (1969).
63. Moore, J. A., R. E. Larson,, R. 0. Hegg, and E. R.
Allred, "Beef Confinement Systems—Oxidation Ditch,"
A.S.A.E. Paper No. 70-418, American Society of
Agricultural Engineers, July, (1970).
64. Morrison, S. R., V. E. Mendel, and T. E. Bond, "Slop-
ing Floors for Beef Cattle Feedlots," Management of
Farm Animal Wastes Proceedings of National Symposium,
May 5-7, (1966), pp 41-43, published by American^
Society of Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph, Michi-
gan.
257
-------
65. telson, G. L. , "Effects of Climate and Environment
on Beef Cattle, Agricultural Engineering, No. 40,
pp 540-544, September, (1959).
66. Newtson, Keith, "Use of the Oxidation Ditch in Prac-
tice," A.S.A.E. Paper No. 69-937, American Society
of Agricultural Engineers, December, (1969).
67. Norton, T. E., and R. W. Hansen, "Cattle Feedlot
Water Quality Hydrology," Animal Waste Management,
Cornell University Conference, Syracuse, New York,
January 13-15, pp 203-216, (1969).
68. Number of Fed Cattle Marketed in Major Feeding States,
Quarterly report prepared by Crop Reporting Board,
Statistical Reporting Service, USDA, 1960 through
1970.
69. Oklahoma Design Manual for Small Structures, SCS,
USDA, Stillwater, Oklahoma, (1969).
70. Olson, E. A., Supplemental Notes on Feedlot Waste
Management for EC 63-716,Agricultural Engineering
Department, University of Nebraska, June, (1969).
71. Paine, M. D., "Economic Analysis of Livestock Sys-
tems as a Function of the Magnitude of the Operation,"
A.S.A.E. Paper No. 69-406, presented at the 1969 Amer-
ican Society o;f Agricultural Engineers meeting,
Lafayette, Indiana, June 23-25, (1969).
72. Pratt, G. L.,"Confinement Beef Housing for Air and
Water Pollution Control in Cold Climates," Paper
presented at the Conference of General Collaborators
from North Central Agricultural Experiment Stations
at the Northern Utilization Research and Development
Division, Peoria, Illinois, March 23-24, (1970).
73. Pratt, G. L., and G. L. Nelson, "Structural Analysis
of Floor Grids for Confinement Cattle Feeding Systems,"
Transactions of the A.S.A.E., No. 11, pp 50-53, (1968).
74. Pratt, G. L., R. E. Harkness, R. G. Butler, J. L.
Parsons, and M. L. Buchanon, "Treatment of Beef-Cattle
Waste Water for Possible Re-use," Transactions of the
A.S.A.E., No. 12, pp 471-473, (196977
75. Preliminary Estimates of Fertilizer Value of Slurry
Manure, Pioneer Hi-Bred Corn, Co., Beef Cattle Divi-
sion, Johnston, Iowa, September 21, (1967).
258
-------
76. Rademacher, John M., "Federal Water Quality Guide-
lines," Talk presented at Midwestern Animal Waste
Management Conference, Des Moines, Iowa, November
10, (1970).
77. Scalf, M. R. , W. R. Duffer, and R. D. Kreis,
"Characteristics and Effects of Cattle Feedlot Run-
off," Paper presented at the 25th Annual Purdue
Industrial Waste Conference, Layfayette, Indiana,
May, (1970).
78. Schulz, A. H. , "Basic Requirements for Beef Cattle
Housing, Feeding, and Handling," Agricultural Engi-
neering, No. 41, pp 615-617, September, (1960).
79. Shuyler, Lynn R. , "Design for Feedlot Waste Manage-
ment—Using Feedlot Waste," Presented at Continuing
Education Seminar, Kansas Engineering Society,
Topeka, Kansas, January 23, (1969).
80. Smith, R. E., H. E. Hanke, L. K. Lindor, R. D.
Goodrich, J. L. Meiske, and D. W. Bates, "A Com-
parison of Five Housing Systems for Feedlot Cattle,"
Research Report B-136, West Central Experiment Sta-
tion, University qf Minnesota, Morris, Minnesota,
(1970).
81. Stewart, B. A., F. G. Viets, Jr., G. L. Hutchinson,
and W. D. Kemper, "Nitrate and Other Water Pollutants
Under Fields and Feedlots," Journal Environmental
Science and Technology, No. 1, pp 7S6--739, (1967).
82. Structures and Environment Handbook, Midwest Plan
Service, Ames, Iowa, September, (1970).
83. Surbrook, T. C., J. S. Boyd, and H. C. Zindell,
"Drying Animal Wastes," Farm Science Research^Report
117, Agricultural Engineering Experiment Station,
Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan,
pp 16-20, July, (1970).
84. Swanson, N. P., "Broad Basin Terrace Concept of Runoff
Control," Paper presented at Midwestern Animal Waste
Management Conference, National Livestock Feeders
Association, November 10-11, (1970).
85. Swanson, N. P., L. N. Mielke and J. C. Lorimor, _
"Hydrologic Studies for Evaluation of the Pollution
Potential of Feedlots in Eastern Nebraska," Paper
presented at Cornell Agricultural Waste Management
Conference, Rochester, New York, January 19-21,
(1970).
259
-------
86. Taiganides, E. P., and T. E. Hazen, "Properties of
Farm Animal Excreta," Transactions of the A.S.A.E.,
No. 9, pp 374-376, (1966).
87. Taiganides, E. P., and R. K. White, "The Menace of
Noxious Gases in Animal Units," Transactions of the
A.S.A.E., No. 12, pp 359-362, 367, C1969).
88. Thomas, R. E., J. P. Law, Jr., and C. C. Harlin, Jr.,
"Hydrology of Spray-Runoff Wastewater Treatment,"
Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Division, Pro-
ceedings of American Society of CiviTl Engineers,
96:289-298, (Sept.,'1970).
89. Thompson, Harold, "Guidelines for Pacific Northwest
Cattle Feedlot Waste Management," Publication in
progress, FWQA, Northwest Region, Portland, Oregon,
September, (1970).
90. Two to Ten Day Precipitation for Return Periods of
2 to 100 Years in the Contiguous United States,
Technical Paper No. 49, Weather Bureau, Department of
Commerce, Washington, D. C., (1965).
91. Webb, Tarvin F., "Improved Methods and Facilities
for Commercial Cattle Feedlots Marketing," Research
Report No. 517, ARS, USDA, October, (1970).
92. Wells, D. M., W. Grub, R. C. Albin, G. F. Meenagham,
and E. Coleman, "Control of Water Pollution from
Southwestern Cattle Feedlots," Paper presented at
International Water Pollution Research Conference,
July-August, (1970), to be published by Pergamon
Press, Ltd., Spring, (1971).
93. Willrett, James, Talk presented at Midwestern Animal
Waste Management Conference, sponsored by National
Livestock Feeders Association, Des Moines, Iowa
November 10-11, (1970).
94. Van Fossen, Larry D., and Vernon M. Myer, "Feeding
Systems are Long-Term Investments—Choose Wisely,"
(one of a series of Feedlot Engineering articles),
Beef, pp 24-26, June, (1969).
260
-------
PUBLICATIONS AND PATENTS
Butchbaker, A. F., J. E. Carton, G. W. A. Mahoney,
and M. D. Paine. Evaluation of Beef Waste Manage-
ment Alternatives. Paper presented at International
Symposium on Livestock Wastes, Center for Tomorrow,
Columbus, Ohio, April 19-22, 1971.
Butchbaker, A. F. , J. E. Carton, G. W. A. Mahoney,
M. D. Paine, and A. Wetmore. Alternatives for
Waste Management for Open Beef Feedlots. Paper No.
SWR 71-403. Presented at the 1971 Annual Meeting
of Southwest Region of American Society of Agricul-
tural Engineers, Western Hills Lodge, Sequoyah State
Park, Wagoner, Oklahoma, April 1-2, 1971.
261
-------
APPENDICES
A. Summary of Feedlot Visits
B. Costs for Various Waste Handling Systems ....
Table 1: Costs for Commercial Loader and
Spreader Truck for Removing Wastes
from an Open-Lot Feedlot, .25 Mile
Hauling Distance, 1,000-20,000
Head, 20 Days per Year 278
Table 2: Costs for Commercial Loader and
Spreader Truck for Removing Wastes
from an Open-Lot Feedlot, .25 Mile
Hauling Distance, 20,000 Head,
20 to 300 Days per Year 279
Table 3: Costs for Commercial Loader and
Spreader Truck for Removing Wastes
from an Open-Lot Feedlot, 1.0 Mile
Hauling Distance, 20,000 Head, 20
to 300 Days per Year 280
Table 4: Costs for Commercial Loader and
Spreader Truck for Removing Wastes
from an Open-Lot Feedlot, 2.0 Mile
Hauling Distance, 20,000 Head,
20 to 300 Days per Year 281
Table 5: Costs for Operating a Rotary
Scraper with Tractor for Removing
Solid Wastes from Open Feedlots,
1,000 to 50,000 Head, 100 Days per
Year, .25 Mile Hauling Distance ... 282
Table 6: Costs for Operating a Rotary
Scraper with Tractor for Removing
Solid Wastes from a 20,000 Head
Open Feedlot, .25 Mile Hauling Dis-
tance, 20 to 200 Days per Year .... 283
Table 7: Costs for Operating a Rotary
Scraper with Tractor for Removing
Solid Wastes from a 20,000 Head
Open Feedlot, 1.0 Mile Hauling
Distance, 20 to 200 Days per Year . . 28H
Table 8: Costs for Operating a Rotary
Scraper with Tractor for Removing
Solid Wastes from a 20,000 Head
Open Feedlot, 2.0 Mile Hauling
Distance, 20 to 200 Days per Year . . 285
262
-------
Page
Table 9: Costs for Using Elevating
Scraper for Removing Wastes from
an Open Feedlot, 1,000 to 50,000
Head, .25 Mile Hauling Distance,
100 Days per Year ,
Table 10: Costs for Using Elevating
Scraper for Removing Wastes from
an Open Feedlot, 20,000 Head, .25
Mile Hauling Distance, 20 to 200
Days per Year
Table 11: Costs for Using Elevating Scraper
for Removing Wastes from an Open
Feedlot, 20,000 Head, 1.0 Mile
Hauling Distance, 20 to 200 Days
per Year
Table 12: Costs for Using Elevating Scraper
for Removing Wastes from an Open
Feedlot, 20,000 Head, 2.0 Mile
Hauling Distance, 20 to 200 Days
per Year • ,
Table 13: Costs of Manure Pump Driven by
Tractor for Confinement Buildings
with Deep Pit
Table 14: Costs for Pull-Type Vacuum Liquid
Spreader without Injector for Con-
finement Barns with Deep Pit . . . . ,
Table 15: Cost for Pull-Type Liquid Spreader
without Injector for Confinement
Barns with Deep Pit, Pump and
Tractor .
Table 16: Costs for Pull-Type Liquid Spreader
with Injector for Confinement Barns
with Deep Pit, Pump and Tractor . . .
Table 17: Costs for Transporting Slurry
Waste with Tank Truck, .25 to 2.0
Miles, 10, 20, 30 Days per Year . .
Table 18: Total Operating Cost per Animal
Day for Various Systems for
Removing and Hauling Wastes from
200 to 1,000 Head Confinement
Buildings, .25 Mile Hauling Distance,
20 Days per Year
Table 19: Total Investment Costs for Various
Systems for Removing and Hauling
Wastes from 200 to 1,000 Head Con-
finement Buildings, .25 Mile Hauling
Distance, 20 Days of Use per Year .
286
287
288
289
290
291
293
295
297
301
302
263
-------
Table 20: Total Operating Cost per Animal
Day for Various Systems of Removing
and Hauling Wastes from a 20,000
Head Confinement Building, .25 Mile
Hauling Distance, 20 to 300 Days
per Year
Table 21: Total Investment Cost for Various
Waste Handling Systems for 20,000
Head Confinement Building, .25 Mile
Hauling Distance, 20 to 300 Days
per Year
Table 22: Effect of Moisture Content of Slurry
on Costs of Evaporation Lagoon, 500
Head, 30 Inches of Annual Precipita-
tion, 50 Inches of Annual Evapora-
tion
Table 23: Effect of Depth on Cost of Evapora-
tion Lagoon for 500 Head, 30 Inches
of Precipitation, 50 Inches of Evapo-
ration, 90% Moisture Content
Slurry
Table 24: Effect of Feedlot Capacity on Cost
of Evaporation Lagoon, 5 Foot Depth,
30 Inch Precipitation, 50 Inch Evap-
oration, 90% Moisture Content Slurry .
Table 25: Costs for Evaporation Lagoon, 500
Head, 90% Moisture Content Slurry . .
Table 26: Costs for Cable Scraper, Pump and
Tractor, and Pull-Type Liquid
Spreader for Removing and Hauling
Wastes from 500 Head Confinement
Building, .25 Mile Hauling Distance,
200 to 350 Days per Year '.
Table 27: Costs for Tractor Front-End Loader
and Pull-Type Spreader for Removing
Wastes from Solid Floor Confinement
Buildings, .25 Mile Hauling Distance,
20 Days of Use per Year, 200 to
20,000 Head
Table 28: Costs for Tractor Front-End Loader
and Pull-Type Spreader for Removing
Wastes from Solid Floor Confinement
Buildings, .25 Mile Hauling Distance,
20,000 Head, 20 to 300 Days per Year .
Table 29: Costs for Tractor Front-End Loader
and Pull-Type Spreader for Removing
Wastes from Solid Floor Confinement
Buildings, 1.0 Mile Hauling Distance,
303
304
305
306
307
308
310
311
312
264
-------
20,000 Head, 20 to 300 Days per
Year
Table 30: Costs for Tractor Front-End Loader
and Pull-Type Spreader for Remov-
ing Wastes from Open-Lot Solid Manure
Handling Systems, 2.0 Mile Hauling
Distance, 20,000 Head, 20 to 300
Days per Year
Table 31: Costs for Tractor Front-End Loader +
Dump Truck for Removing Wastes from
Solid Floor Confinement Building,
.25 Mile Hauling Distance, 20 Days
per Year, 200 to 20,000 Head
Table 32: Costs for Tractor Front-End Loader
+ Dump Truck for Removing Wastes
from Solid Floor Confinement Build-
ing, .25 Mile Hauling Distance, 20,000
Head, 20 to 300 Days per Year . . . .
Table 33: Costs for Tractor Front-End Loader +
Dump Truck for Removing Wastes from
Solid Floor (Open Lot) Waste Systems,
1.0 Mile Hauling Distance, 20,000
Head, 20 to 300 Days per Year . . . .
Table 34: Costs for Tractor Front-End Loader +
Dump Truck for Removing Wastes from
Solid Floor (Open Lot) Waste Systems,
2.0 Mile Hauling Distance, 20 to 300
Days per Year
Table 35: Costs for Commercial Loader and
Dump Truck for Removing Wastes from
Open-Lot Solid Manure Handling Sys-
tems, .25 Mile Hauling Distance,
1,000 to 20,000 Head, 20 Days per
Year
Table 36: Costs for Commercial Loader and
Dump Truck for Removing Waste from
Open-Lot Solid Manure Handling Sys-
tems, .25 Mile Hauling Distance,
20,000 Head, 20 to 300 Days per
Year
Table 37: Costs for Commercial Loader and
Dump Truck for Removing Waste from
Open-Lot Solid Manure Handling Sys-
tems, 1.0 Mile Hauling Distance,
20,000 Head, 20 to 300 Days per
Year
Page
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
265
-------
Table 38: Costs for Commercial Loader and
Dump Truck for Removing Wastes
from Open-Lot Solid Manure Hand-
ling Systems, 2.0 Mile Hauling
Distance, 20,000 Head, 20 to 300
Days per Year 322
266
-------
Appendix A. Summary of Feedlot Visits
State Feedlot
Arizona Arizona Feed Co.
P. 0. Box 70
Casa Grande
ro
en
Benedict Feeding Co. 8-13-70
T S C Cattle Co.
4851 E. Washington
Pheonix
Cowdon Cattle Co.
Tolleson
8-13-70
8-14-70
E. S. Erwin S Assoc.
102 S. 94th Dr.
Tolleson
Spur Feeding Co.
P. 0. Box 837
Glendale
8-14-70
8-14-70
Capacity; Major Points of Interest
56 Experimental confinement barn,
steel slats, pit, liquid-haul
20,000 Open feedlot, shades, sprink-
lers, for dust control, solids
waste removed by contractors
10,000 Open feedlot over 15 years
old, slotted shades, sprinklers,
sell composted manure, "Gro-
Green", $4.50/yard in bulk
Some experimental slotted
floor confinement buildings
with aeration lines located in
pit, aeration didn't work well
with 1 inch line with 1/8 inch
holes 14 feet apart and lines
about 6 feet apart
Research and consulting busi-
ness for feedlots in nutrition
facility design
25,000 Open feedlot, shades, truck
sprinkler, located near Sun
City, lawsuit against feedlot
for odors, attempts at odor
control with deodrizer injec-
ted into air from duct around
feedlot perimeter
-------
State
Feedlot
Date
Capacity Major Points of Interest
CD
CO
Call- Imperial Valley Field 8-15-70
fornia Experiment Station,
University of
California,
El Centre
Far Western Agri- 8-15-70
cultural Industries, :
Inc.
Holtville
Alamo Cattle Feeders 8-15-70
Inc., Division
Western Beef, Inc.
Calipatria
Beefeeders 8-15-70
Division of Coman-
che Feeding Corp.
P. 0. Box 98
Thermal
Haflinger1s Dairy 8-17-70
Warren Road
San Jacinto
Research on shades and re-
ducing hot weather effects
on cattle, some waste man-
agement research
6,000 Open feedlot with shades,
wind machine + sprinkler,
wood construction, solid
wastes cleaned and hauled by
contractor, charge to feed-
lot $0.25 per ton
Open feedlot with shades,
truck sprinkler, steel post
and cable fence, concrete
precast feedbunks, solid
wastes contracted for clean-
ing and hauling
HO,000 Open feedlot with shades-
many innovations in feedlot
design and facilities, con-
tracto~r cleans, hauls and sells
composted solids at $U/ton
to citrus orchards
2HO Dairy facility with use of
rinse and wash water for flush-
ing alley in free stall barns,
solids separated from liquids
by a vibrating screen separator,
solids in compost pile, liquids
to lagoon and irrigation
-------
State
Feedlot
Altadena Dairy
Altadena
Western Consumers
Industries
Ontario
Capacity Major Points of Interest
1,700
8-17-70
8,600
Colo-
rado
Farr Feedlots
Freeley
11-16-70
35,000
on
CD
Monfort of
Colorado
11-16-70 120,000
Monfort of
Colorado
11-16-70 105,000
Experimental composting of
waste, mix 11/2 dry com-
post with 1 part wet manure
for bedding and foot cushion-
ing material
Confinement barn with slotted
floor, scraper removes slurry
daily from pit, slurry pumped
to holding tank, then hauled
to 2,000 acre farm, manure
dryer no longer in operation
Open 'feedlot, double-swale
drainage in pens, collection
ditch at low slope to settle
solids in runoff, runoff into
long, narrow lagoons, irriga-
tion from lagoons within 10
days after runoff, solids
removed from ditches and
lagoon with dragline
Open feedlot, slight slope,
drainage collection and lagoon,
solid wastes hauled back to
farms by silage farmers (in
contract), 300,000 tons of
waste in 1969 from 270,000 head
feedlot
Open feedlot, similar to old
lot, drainage to lagoon
-------
State
Feedlot
Date
Capacity Major Points of Interest
Illinois
Iowa
SWRD, ARS,
Ft. Collins
James McGrew
R #2
Avon
Jim Willrett
Malta
Iowa Beef
Processors
Dennison
Laverne Gustafson
Holstein
Pioneer Beef Cattle
Johnston
11-17-70 Research on runoff and
water balance from small
feedlots, lysimeters, sam-
ple runoff quality
6-25-70 425 Cold confinement barn with
slotted floor, concrete and
steel slats, deep pit, slurry
hauled twice per year in
1500 gallon tank wagon
7-06-70 1,100 Two warm confinement barns
with slotted floor, 6.5 foot
deep pit, hauls most twice
per year in 2,000 gallon
tank to corn field
9-24-70 510 Cold confinement barn, totally
slotted floor, oxidation
ditch, four rotors, inside
fenceline feed bunks, water
added continuously, sump pump
pumps to lagoon
Cold confinement barn with
partially slotted floor,
shallow pit, manure scraper,
scraped daily, 40,000 gallon
holding pit, slurry moved to
fields daily, newly construc-
ted, some under construction
9-25-70 400 Cold confinement barn with
total slotted floor and deep
pit, slurry hauled to corn land
9-24-70 30,000
-------
State
Kansas
Michi-
gan
Feedlot
Pratt Feedlot
Pratt
Winter Feed Yards
Box 115
Dodge City
Brookover Feed Yards
Garden City
7-22-70
7-22-70
Cy Claflin
Liberty Stables
Marcellus
12-23-70
Lyle Cunningham
R #1
Concord
6-30-70
Capacity Major Points of Interest
35,000 Open feedlot on old air-
field site, Kansas State
University conducting re-
search on runoff, solid
waste handling, solid and
runoff waste application to
corn, irrigation good drain-
age and runoff control
21,000 Open feedlot with series of
detention structures, re-
cently constructed evapora-
tion ponds for runoff control
35,000 Open feedlot with shallow
settling basin and final
evaporation pond with H3
acre-feet total capacity,
for manure cleaning and
hauling $1.25 per ton under
5 miles
600 Partial confinement, shelter
with concrete floor and out-
side concrete lot, manure
scrape from outside lot and
hauled to fields, runoff con-
trol facilities designed by
SCS with drop structure to
lagoon, irrigation
2,200 Three total confinement barns
with dirt floor bedding,
tractor and spreader hauling
of waste, some open feedlot
-------
State Feedlot
Paul Bishop
R #1
Grand Ledge
-0
N>
Capacity Major Points of Interest
600 Partial confinement barns
with concrete floor and con-
crete outside lot, with little
slope, lot scraped weekly,
waste hauled to nearby fields
Great Markwestern
Packing Co.
Qunicy
6-30-70 20,000
Jack Raymond
6-30-70
Sonny Center Farms
R #1
Vermontville
6-30-70
Eight cold confinement barns
with slotted floors and shal-
low pit, scraper removal of
slurry, haul to fields daily,
Reed canary grain, about half
of cattle in open feedlot with
runoff control facilities
and two lagoons, irrigation
from lagoons
400 Warm confinement barn with
partially slotted floor, deep
pit, slurry hauled in tank
wagon to corn fields, some
additional inside-outside
feeding
650 Partial confinement, shelter
with concrete floor plus con-
crete lot, runoff collected
in pit and hauled to corn
field, solid waste scraped and
hauled to field
Minnes- George Rauenhorst
ota Troy Farms
Olivia
7-10-70
700 Solar confinement barn for 120
animals, heat exchanger to
warm outside incoming air to
assist in drying out manure
pack, solid dirt floor, no
-------
State
Feedlot
Date
Capacity Major Points of Interest
to
~-l
CO
Miss-
ouri
West Central
Experiment"
Station, Univer-
sity of Minnes-
ota,
Morris
Flint McRoberts
Monticello
Nebras-
ka
Meade
New
Mexico
Gretna
Matt Irwin
Clayton
manure removal in 2 years,
supplemental heat in winter,
also cold confinement barn
with solid concrete floor
7-10-70 Research with different
types of housing for beef
feeding, warm and cold con-
finement with slotted floor,
partial confinement with out-
side lot, total confinement
solid floor manure scrape,
open feedlot
6-25-70 400 Cold confinement barn with
partially slotted floor with
8 foot deep pit, twice per
year cleaning and hauling of
slurry
7-16-70 Research conducted by USDA
and University of - Nebraska of
beef animal waste management
for open feedlots, runoff con-
trol, solids separation with
continuous flow and batch
concepts
7-16-70 Research by USDA on monitoring
water balance and runoff from
one acre feedlot with cooper-
ating farmer
8-10-70 2,000 Open feedlot, cattle in irri-
gated bermuda grass, 160 acre
Valley Irrigation System with
-------
State
Feedlot
Date
Capacity Major Points of Interest
Union County Feedlot 8-10-70 25,000
Clayton
North
Dakota
Ohio
7A Feedlot, Inc.
Tucumcari
Pecos Valley Feed
Yard, Division of
Diamond A
Roswell
Fargo
Ohio Feedlots
Box 386
S. Charleston
8-11-70 20,000
8-12-70 40,000
7-13-70
7-2-70
20,000
Okla-
homa
Roy Schoeb and Sons
Cherokee
7-21-70
8,000
Open feedlot, runoff into
evaporation pond, solids
temporarily stockpiled
Open feedlot, some new pens
being developed with drainage
control, old lot had runoff
control problems, solid
manure sold at $0.25 per ton
Open feedlot, low rainfall
area, low slopes in pens, run-
off into collection ditch
Research facilities at N. D.
State University on warm con-
finement barns, pit scraper
system and deep storage pit
Eight total confinement build-
ings with compacted dirt floor,
shredded wood bark bedding,
canvas drape ventilation con-
trol to permit maximum drying
of bedding, total containment
of animal waste; no runoff and
no percolation, expect to com-
post with digester and market
compost
Open feedlots, mounds, pens
well drained, runoff into evap-
oration ponds, some irrigation,
solid waste removed by rotary
scraper and carried directly
-------
State
Feedlot
Date
Capacity Major Points of Interest
Ni
-J
cn
Texas
Sooner Beef
Producers
RR #2
Guymon
7-23-70 30,000
Comanche Feedyard
Boise City
Cimarron Feedlots,
Ltd.
Boise City
Randall County Feed
Yards
Farm Road 2219E
Umbargar
Fletcher Sims
RR #2
Canyon
7-23-70 15,000
7-23-70 14,000
7-2H-70 70,000
7-24-70
to nearby bermuda grass pas-
ture for young stock
Open feedlot, drainage collec-
tion system, drain to playa,
farmer irrigates corn with
runoff wastes, solid wastes:
patrol scraper or paddle
scraper then loaded into
trucks, contracts for cleaning,
give manure to contractor
Open feedlot, extensive land-
forming for drainage control,
borrow pit used for lagoon,
culverts under roads, new
feedlot
Open feedlot, some landform-
ing on draws, low water paved
or concrete dams across roads
instead of culverts, retention
dam under construction, new
feedlot
Open feedlot, runoff from
feedlot into playa lake, some
solids stockpiled near playa,
some solids composted on a
pilot plant operation
Operates pilot composting
operation, expects to sell
at $20 per ton with special
soil bacteria
-------
State
Feedlot
Date
Capacity Major Points of Interest
USDA Southwestern 7-2H-70
Great Plains Research
Center
Bushland
Stratford Feedlot
Stratford
Morales Feedlot
Divine
7-23-70 70,000
1-13-70 12,000
Cox Feedlot
Divine
Meat Producers
McKinney
1-13-70
1-1U-70
8,000
12,000
Washing- Wineberg Farms
ton Hwy 99 N R #6
Vancouver
8-19-70
200
Research on manure applica-
tion rates effect on soil and
crop response, nitrate move-
ment studies on playas re-
ceiving runoff wastes
Open feedlot, detention
lagoon near draw, large stock-
pile of solid waste
Open feedlot, completely
paved, sun shades wastes
flushed every 10 days, drains
to collection pit, wastes
pumped onto coastal bermuda
grass nearby, highly permeable
soil
Open feedlot, dirt lot, run-
off to lagoon, sandy soil
Open feedlot, runoff into
evaporation lagoons, litiga-
tion because of fish kills,
some experimental spray appli-
cation of runoff wastes from
lagoon at end of long winding
low-slope ditch
Dairy farm with flushing sys-
tem for waste cleaning, 200
cows, 27,000 gallon.- manure
pit, manure irrigation daily
using Mitchell chopper pump
and big gun irrigation, 3
acres of grass covered in one
-------
State
Feedlot
Date
Capacity Major Points of Interest
Tomlinson Dairy
Pas co
8-20-70
1,200
Golob and Sons
Rt. 2, Box 52
Sunnyside
Needham Yards
Sunnyside
8-20-70
5,000
8-20-70 10,000
McGregor Feedlot
Box 607
Pasco
8-20-70 30,000
location, 10 gallons per
cow wash water
Dairy for milking 700 head
per side, under construction,
flush down behind free stalls,
grooves, 2 1/2% slope, over
$370 per cow investment in
entire facilities
Open feedlot, dirt surface,
mound for winter, clean mound
and remove in spring, solid
waste placed in irrigated
wheat, alfalfa, and mint
Open feedlot, dirt surface,
mound in winter, bed with
shavings and sawdust at
$.50/ton, plow the very lar-
gest pens, 1 foot deep into
sand during winter, solid
waste onto hops, corn, aspar-
agus at 10 to 25 tons per acre
Open feedlot, dirt surface,
sand, deep plow in winter, a
strip (3 bottoms) plowed each
day in each lot, deep lots
400 feet by 400 feet with
400 to 450 cattle per pen,
contracts for solid removal
in summer, one month to clean
all pens (74) with Hancock 292
scraper, stockpile solid wastes
now, relatively new lot, lagoon
-------
Appendix B. Tables of Results
00
Table 1. Costs for Commercial Loader and Spreader Truck for Removing Wastes from
an Open-Lot Feedlot, .25 Mile Hauling Distance, 1,000-20,000 Head, 20
Days per Year
Total Investment
Cost
43,900
43,900
43,900
56,700
56,700
100,600
170,100
Commercial
No. of
Head
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
10,000
20,000
Hrs
per
day
1.13
2.26
3.39
4.53
5.66
5.66
7.54
No.
1
1
1
1
1
2
3
Loader
Cost
per
An.
Day
.0028
.0027
.0026
.0024
.0023
.0023
.0021
Spreader
Hrs
per
day
2.89
5.79
8.68
5.79
7.24
9.64
9.64
No.
1
1
1
2
2
3
6
Truck
Cost
per
An.
Day
.0033
.0030
.0027
.0030
.0028
.0026
.0026
Total Cost
per An. Day
.0062
.0057
.0052
.0054
.0051
.0049
.0047
-------
K>
Table 2. Costs for Commercial Loader and Spreader Truck for Removing Wastes from
an Open-Lot Feedlot, .25 Mile Hauling Distance, 20,000 Head, 20 to 300
Days per Year
Commercial
Days
per
Year
20
30
40
50
100
200
300
Hrs
per
Day
7.54
7.54
5.66
9.05
4.53
2.26
1.51
No.
3
2
2
1
1
1
1
Loader
Cost
per
An.
Day
.0021
.0018
.0018
.0012
.0012
.0012
.0012
Spreader
Hrs No .
per
Day
9.65
9.65
9.65
7.72
5.79
5.79
3.86
6
4
3
3
2
1
1
Truck
Cost
per
An.
Day
.0026
.0022
.0020
.0020
.0017
.0016
.0016
Total Cost
per An. Day
.0047
.0040
.0038
.0032
.0030
.0028
.0028
Total Investment
Cost
170,100
113,400
100,600
69,500
56,700
43,900
43,900
-------
Table 3. Costs for Commercial Loader and Spreader Truck for Removing Wastes from
an Open-Lot Feedlot, 1.0 Mile Hauling Distance, 20,000 Head, 20 to 300
Days per Year
Total Investment
Cost
182,900
126,200
113,400
69,500
56,700
43,900
43,900
Commercial
Days
per
Year
20
30
S 40
o
50
100
200
300
Hrs
per
Day
7.54
7.54
5.66
9.05
4.53
2.26
1.51
No.
3
2
2
1
1
1
1
Loader
Cost
per
An.
Day
.0021
.0018
.0018
.0012
.0012
.0012
.0012
Spreader
Hrs
per
Day
8.94
8.34
7.82
8.35
6.26
6.26
4.18
No.
7
5
4
3
2
1
1
Truck
Cost
per
An.
Dav
.0029
.0025
.0023
.0021
.0018
.0017
.0017
Total Cost
per An . Day
.0050
.0043
.0041
.0033
.0031
.0029
.0029
-------
Table 4. Costs for Commercial Loader and Spreader Truck for Removing Wastes from
an Open-Lot Feedlot, 2.0 Mile Hauling Distance, 20,000 Head, 20 to 300
Days per Year
Total Investment
Cost
182,900
126,200
113,400
69,500
56,700
43,900
43,900
Commercial
Days
per
Year
20
30
NJ
co 40
50
100
200
300
Hrs
per
Day
7.54
7.54
5.66
9.05
4.52
2.26
1.51
No.
3
2
2
1
1
1
1
Loader
Cost
per
An.
Day
.0021
.0018
.0018
.0012
.0012
.0012
.0012
Spreader
Hrs No.
per
Day
9.84
9.18
8.60
9.17
6.88
6.88
4.59
7
5
4
3
2
1
1
Truck
Cost
per
An.
Day
.0030
.0027
.0024
.0022
.0020
.0018
.0018
Total Cost
per An. Day
.0052
.0045
.0042
.0034
.0032
.0030
.0030
-------
Table 5,
Costs for Operating a Rotary Scraper with Tractor for Removing Solid
Wastes from Open Feedlots, 1,000-50,000 Head, 100 Days per Year, .25
Mile Hauling Distance
Scraper Costs
Tractor Costs
No. of
Animals
1,000
2,000
3 3,000
4,000
5,000
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
Hrs
per
Day
0.85
1.70
2.55
3.39
4.24
8.49
8.49
8.49
8.49
8.49
No.
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
3
4
5
Cost
per
An.
Day
.0027
.0025
.0023
.0022
.0021
.0018
.0018
.0018
.0018
.0018
No.
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
3
4
5
Cost
per
Day
.0007
.0007
.0007
.0007
.0007
.0006
.0006
.0006
.0006
.0006
Total Cost
per An. Day
.0034
.0032
.0030
.0029
.0028
.0024
.0024
.0024
.0024
.0024
Total Investment
Cost
7,214
8,533
9,852
11,170
12,489
13,665
27,330
40,995
54,660
68,325
-------
Table 6,
Costs for Operating a Rotary Scraper with Tractor for Removing Solid
Wastes from a 20,000 Head Open Feedlot, .25 Mile Hauling Distance 20
to 200 Days per Year
Scraper Costs
Tractor Costs
Days
per
Year
20
30
00
40
50
60
100
150
200
Hrs
per
Day
9.43
9.43
8.49
8.49
9.43
8.49
5.66
8.49
No.
9
6
5
4
3
2
2
1
Cost
per
An.
Day
.0025
.0023
.0022
.0021
.0019
.0018
.0018
.0019
No.
9
6
5
4
3
2
2
1
Cost
per
Day
.0007
.0007
.0007
.0007
.0007
.0006
.0006
.0005
Total Cost
per An. Day
.0032
.0030
.0029
.0028
.0026
.0024
.0024
.0024
Total Investment
Cost
79,433
61,748
55,853
49,958
40,995
27,330
27,330
13,665
-------
Table 7,
Costs for Operating a Rotary Scraper with Tractor for Removing Solid
Wastes from a 20,000 Head Open Feedlot, 1.0 Mile Hauling Distance,
20 to 200 Days per Year
Scraper Costs
Tractor Costs
Days
per
Year
20
30
40
50
60
100
150
200
Hrs
per
Day
9.
9.
9.
9.
9.
9.
9..
6.
70
05
70
05
05
05
05
79
No.
14
10
7
6
5
3
2
2
Cost
per
An.
Day
.0039
.0037
.0034
.0033
.0031
.0028
.0029
.0029
No.
14
10
7
6
5
3
2
2
Cost
per
An.
Day
.0011
.0011
.0011
.0011
.0011
.0010
.0008
.0008
Total Cost
per An. Day
.0050
.0048
.0045
.0044
.0042
.0038
.0037
.0037
Total Investment
Cost
124
101
83
77
68
40
27
27
,735
,155
,470
,575
,325
,995
,330
,330
-------
Table 8,
Costs for Operating a Rotary Scraper with Tractor for Removing Solid
Wastes from a 20,000 Head Open Feedlot, 2.0 Mile Hauling Distance,
20 to 200 Days per Year
Scraper Costs
Tractor Costs
Days
per
Year
20
30
K>
CO
01 40
50
60
100
150
200
Hrs
per
Day
9.87
9.70
9.26
9.05
9.70
8.15
9.05
6.79
No.
69
11
9
7
5
3
3
Cost
per
An.
Day
.0196
.0055
.0052
.0049
.0046
.0043
.0043
.0043
No.
69
14
11
9
7
5
3
3
Cost
per
An.
Day
.0057
.0017
.0017
.0017
.0016
.0014
.0013
.0013
Total Cost
per An. Day
.0252
.0072
.0069
.0066
.0062
.0058
.0056
.0056
Total Investment
Cost
618,388
145,838
128,152
116,362
95,655
68,325
40,995
40,995
-------
ro
en
Table 9. Costs for Using Elevating Scraper for Removing Wastes from an Open Feed-
lot, 1,000-50,000 Head, .25 Mile Hauling Distance, 100 Days per Year
No. of Animals
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
Hrs . per Day
0.42
0.83
1.25
1.67
2.08
4.16
8.33
6.25
8.33
6.94
No.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
3
Cost per An. Day
.0056
.0050
.0045
.0041
.0037
.0023
.0014
.0016
.0014
.0015
Total Investment Cost
37,226
37,226
37,226
37,226
37,226
37,226
37,226
74,452
74,452
111,678
-------
K>
CO
Table 10. Costs for Using Elevating Scraper for Removing Wastes for an Open Feed-
lot, 20,000 Head, .25 Mile Hauling Distance, 20 to 200 Days per Year
Days per Year
20
30
40
50
60
100
150
200
Hrs. per Day
8.33
9.25
6.94
8.33
6.94
8.33
5.55
4.16
No.
5
3
3
2
2
1
1
1
Cost per An. Day
.0041
.0031
.0031
.0023
.0023
.0014
.0014
.0014
Total Investment Cost
186,130
111,678
111,678
74,452
74,452
37,226
37,226
37,226
-------
CO
CO
Table 11. Costs for Using Elevating Scraper for Removing Wastes for an Open
Feedlot, 20,000 Head, 1.0 Mile Hauling Distance, 20 to 200 Days
per Year
Days per Year
20
30
40
50
60
100
150
200
Hrs. per Day
9.66
9.66
9.66
7.73
9.66
5.79
7.73
5.79
No.
6
4
3
3
2
2
1
1
Cost per An. Day
.0053
.0043
.0034
.0034
.0024
.0024
.0020
.0020
Total Investment Cost
223,356
148,904
111,678
111,678
74,452
74,452
37,226
37,226
-------
CD
to
Table 12. Costs for Using Elevating Scraper for Removing Wastes from an Open Feed-
lot, 20,000 Head, 2.0 Mile Hauling Distance, 20 to 200 Days per Year
Days per Year
20
30
40
50
60
100
150
200
Hrs. per Day
9.96
8.85
9.96
7.97
8.85
7.97
5.31
7.97
No.
8
6
4
4,
3
2
2
1
Cost per An. Day
.0072
.0062
.0046
.0046
.0036
.0027
.0027
.0028
Total Investment Cost
297,808
223,356
148,904
148,904
111,678
74,452
74,452
37,226
-------
Table 13.
Costs of Manure
Deep Pit
Pump Driven by Tractor for Confinement Buildings with
No. of
Head
200
300
400
500
750
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
10,000
20,000
Days
per
Year
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
Mrs
per
Day
.41
.61
.81
1.01
1.52
2.03
4.06
6.09
8.11
5.07
6.76
8.11
No.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
3
6
Pump Cost
per An. Day
.0005
.0005
.0005
.0005
.0005
.0005
.0005
.0005
.0005
.0005
.0005
.0005
Tractor Cost
per An . Day
.0004
.0004
.0004
.0004
.0004
.0004
.0004
.0004
.0003
.0003
.0003
.0003
Total Cost
per An. Day
.0009
.0009
.0009
.0009
.0009
.0009
.0009
.0009
.0008
.0008
.0008
.0008
Total
Investment
Cost
1,559
1,622
1,685
1,748
1,906
2,064
2,694
3,325
3,956
6,020
10,606
19,779
-------
Table 14. Costs for Pull-Type Vacuum Liquid Spreader without Injector for Confine-
ment Barns with Deep Pit
CO
Haul-
Days ing
No. of per Dis-
Head Year tance
200 20 0.25
1.0
2.0
300 20 0.25
1.0
2.0
400 20 0.25
1.0
2.0
500 10 0.25
1.0
2.0
Tractor £
Hrs
per
Day
4.00
5.13
6.64
6.00
7.70
9.97
8.00
5.13
6. 64
6.67
8.57
8. 30
-, Spreader
No.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
Spreader
Cost
per
An.
Day
.0051
.0064
.0081
.0049
.0061
.0076
.0047
.0064
.0081
.0052
.0065
.0084
Tractor
Cost
per
An.
Day
.0033
.0043
.0055
.0033
.0043
.0055
.0033
.0043
.0055
.0033
.0043
.0055
Total
Cost
per
An.
Day
.0084
.0107
.0136
.0082
.0104
.0131
.0081
.0107
.0136
.0085
.0108
.0140
Total Invest-
ment Cost per
An . Day
3,143
3,495
3,964
3,764
4,292
4,996
4,386
6,989
7,928
8,806
9,686
12,758
-------
Table 14. Continued
Haul-
Days ing
No. of per Dis-
Head Year tance
500 20 0.25
1.0
2.0
«o 30 0.25
fO
1.0
2.0
750 20 0.25
1.0
2.0
1000 20 0.25
1.0
2.0
Tractor
Hrs
per
Day
5.00
6.42
8.30
6.67
8.56
5.54
7.50
9.63
8.30
6.67
8.56
8. 30
S Spreader
No.
2
2
2
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
Spreader
Cost
per
An.
Day
.0050
.0063
.0078
.0046
.0056
.0078
.0048
.0059
.0078
.0049
.0060
.0078
Tractor
Cost
per
An.
Day
.0033
.0043
.0055
.0033
.0043
.0055
.0033
.0043
.0055
.0033
.0043
.0055
Total
Cost
per
An.
Day
.0083
.0105
.0134
.0079
.0099
.0134
.0081
.0101
.0134
.0082
.0103
.0134
Total Invest-
ment Cost per
An. Day
6,907
7,787
8,960
5,008
5,888
8,960
8,461
9,781
13,440
11,915
13,675
17,920
-------
Table 15. Cost for Pull-Type Liquid Spreader without Injector for Confinement
Barns with Deep Pit, Pump and Tractor
Haul-
Days ing
No. of per Dis-
Head Year tance
200 20 0.
1.
ro
"> 9
CO £ •
300 20 0.
1.
2.
400 20 0.
1.
2.
500 10 0.
20 0.
30 0.
25
0
0
25
0
0
25
0
0
25
25
25
Tractor £
Spreader
Hrs No.
per
Day
2.
3.
5.
4.
5.
8.
5.
7.
5.
6.
6.
4.
79
93
44
19
89
15
59
85
44
98
98
66
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
Spreader
Cost
per
An.
Day
.0035
.0048
.0065
.0034
.0047
.0062
.0033
.0045
.0065
.0035
.0033
.0033
Tractor
Cost
per
An.
Day
.0023
.0033
.0045
.0023
.0033
.0045
.0023
.0033
.004^5
.0023
.0023
.0023
Pump &
Tractor
Cost
per
An.
Day
.0009
.0009
.0009
.0009
.0009
.0009
.0009
.0009
.0009
.0009
.0009
.0009
Total
Cost
per Total Invest-
An. ' ment Cost per
Day An . Day
.0067
.0090
.0119
.0066
.0088
.0116
.0066
.0087
.0119
.0067
.0065
.0065
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
8
7
9
9
,167
,559
,988
,664
,192
,896
,161
,865
,544
,398
,560
,560
-------
Table 15. Continued
Haul-
Days ing
No. of per Dis-
Head Year tance
500 10 1.0
20 1.0
30 1.0
10 2.0
20 2.0
30 2.0
750 20 0.25
1.0
2.0
1000 20 0.25
1.0
2.0
Tractor S
Spreader
Hrs WoT
per
Day
9.81
8.91
6.54
9.06
6. .79
9.06
5.24
7.36
6.79
6.98
9.81
9.06
2
1
1
3
2
1
2
2
3
2
2
3
Spreader
Cost
per
An.
Day
.0047
.0044
.0044
.0066
.0063
.0057
.0033
.0045
.0063
.0033
.0044
.0061
Tractor
Cost
per
An.
Day
.0033
.0033
.0033
.0045
.0045
.0045
.0023
.0033
.0045
.0023
.0033
.0045
Pump &
Tractor
Cost
per
An.
Day
.0009
.0009
.0009
.0009
.0009
.0009
.0009
.0009
.0009
.0009
.0009
.0009
Total
Cost
per Total Invest-
An. ment Cost per
Day An . Day
.0089
.0085
.0085
.0120
.0118
.0111
.0066
.0087
.0118
.0065
.0085
.0115
9,278
6,538
6,538
11,188
9,452
7,712
8,642
9,962
13,461
9,885
11,645
15,731
-------
Table 16. Costs for Pull-Type Liquid Spreader with Injector for Confinement Barns
with Deep Pit, Pump and Tractor
Pump £
Tractor 6 Spreader Tractor Tractor Total
Haul-
Days ing
No. of per Dis-
Head Year tance
200 20 0.25
1.0
K>
10 2.0
tn
300 20 0.25
1.0
2.0
400 20 0.25
1.0
2.0
500 10 0.25
1.0
2.0
Spreader
Hrs No.
per
Day
3.17
4.46
6.17
4.75
6.68
9.26
6.34
8.91
6.17
7.93
7.43
7.71
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
3
4
Cost
per
An.
Day
.0058
.0079
.0106
.0056
.0076
.0101
.0055
.0074
.0106
.0057
.0080
.0111
Cost
per
An.
Day
.0027
.0037
.0051
.0026
.0037
.0051
.0026
.0037
.0051
.002£
.0037
.0051
Cost
per
An.
Day
.0009
.0009
.0009
.0009
.0009
.0009
.0009
.0009
.0009
.0009
.0009
.0009
Cost
per Total In vest -
An. ment Cost per
Day An . Day
.0093
.0125
.0167
.0091
.0122
.0162
.0090
.0120
.0167
.0092
.0126
.0171
5,438
5,838
6,371
5,994
6,593
7,393
6,550
7,349
11,308
10,000
13,892
18,118
-------
Table 16. Continued
N3
to
No. of
Head
500
750
1000
Haul-
Days ing
per Dis-
Year tance
20 0.25
1.0
2.0
30 0.25
1.0
2.0
20 0.25
1.0
2.0
20 0.25
1.0
2.0
Tractor £
Spreader
Hrs No.
per
Day
7.93
5.57
7.71
5.28
7.43
5.14
5.95
8.36
7.71
7.93
7.43
7.71
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
2
3
2
3
4
Spreader
Cost
per
An.
Day
.0053
.0077
.0104
.0053
.0071
.0104
.0055
.0074
.0104
.0053
.0075
.0104
Tractor
Cost
per
An.
Day
.0026
.0037
.0051
.0026
.0037
.0051
.0027
.0037
.0051
.0026
.0037
.0051
Pump 6
Tractor
Cost
per
An.
Day
.0009
.0009
.0009
.0009
.0009
.0009
.0009
.0009
.0009
.0009
.0009
.0009
Total
Cost
per Total Invest-
An . ment Cost per
Day An . Day
.0089
.0124
.0164
.0089
.0117
.0164
.0090
.0120
.0164
.0089
.0121
.0164
7,106
10,998
12,330
7,106
8,105
12,330
11,390
12,887
17,779
12,779
17,671
23,229
-------
Table 17. Costs for Transporting Slurry Waste with Tank Truck, .25 to 2.0 Miles,
10, 20, 30 Days per Year
to
No. of Days per Hauling
Head Year Distance
200 20 0.25
1.0
2.0
300 20 0.25
1.0
2.0
400 20 0.25
1.0
2.0
500 10 0.25
1.0
2.0
10.0
Hours per
Day
1.89
2.11
2.39
2.83
3.16
3.59
3.78
4.21
4.78
9.46
5.26
5.98
7.78
No.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
3
Cost per
An. Day
.0088
.0098
.0110
.0085
.0093
.0104
.0082
.0090
.0100
.0079
.0096
.0107
.0201
Total Invest-
ment Cost
9,300
9,300
9,300
9,300
9,300
9,300
9,300
9,300
9,300
9,300
18,600
18,600
27,900
-------
Table 17. Continued
to
oo
No. of Days per Hauling
Head Year Distance
500 20 0.25
1.0
2.0
10.0
30 0.25
1.0
2.0
10.0
1,000 20 0.25
1.0
2.0
10.0
300 0.25
1.0
2.0
10.0
Hours per
Day
4.73
5.27
7.49
7.31
3.15
3.51
4.99
7.78
9. 46
5.26
5.98
9.74
0.63
0.70
0.80
1.56
No.
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
3
1
1
1
1
Cost per
An. Day
.0079
.0086
.0113
.0222
.0079
.0086
.0113
.0153
.0067
.0086
.0095
.0204
.0067
.0072
.0078
.0119
Total Invest-
ment Cost
9,300
9,300
9,300
18,600
9,300
9,300
9,300
9,300
9,300
18,600
18,600
27,900
9,300
9,300
9,300
9,300
-------
Table 17. Continued
ro
CD
CO
No. of Days per
Head Year
5,000 20
200
10,000 20
300
Hauling
Distance
0.25
1.0
2.0
10.0
0.25
1.0
2.0
0.25
1.0
2.0
10.0
0.25
1.0
2.0
10.0
Hours per
Day
9.46
8.78
9.96
9.73
3.15
3.51
3.98
9.i*6
9.57
9.96
9.75
6.30
7.02
7.97
7.78
No.
5
6
6
12
1
1
1
10
11
12
30
1
1
1
2
Cost per
An. Day
.0067
.0076
.0083
.0163
.0044
.0048
.0054
.0067
.0074
.0083
.0204
.0045
.0069
.0149
.0254
Total Invest-
ment Cost
46,500
55,800
55,800
111,600
9,300
9,300
9,300
93,000
102,300
111,600
279,000
9,300
9,300
9,300
18,600
-------
Table 17. Continued
CO
o
o
No. of Days per Hauling
Head Year Distance
20,000 20 0.
1.
2.
10.
300 0.
1.
2.
10.
25
0
0
0
25
0
0
0
Hours per
Day
9.
9.
9.
9.
6.
7.
7.
™ ^7
96
57
96
93
31
02
97
78
No.
19
22
24
47
2
2
2
4
Cost per
An. Day
.0066
.0074
.0083
.0162
.0045
.0069
.0149
.0254
Total Invest-
ment Cost
176
204
223
437
18
18
18
37
,700
,600
,200
,100
,600
,600
,600
,200
-------
CO
o
Table 18. Total Operating Cost per Animal Day for Various Systems for Removing and
Hauling Wastes from 200 to 1,000 Head Confinement Buildings, .25 Mile
Hauling Distance, 20 Days per Year
Solid Waste Handling Systems
No. of
Head
200
300
400
500
750
1000
Tractor
Front -End
Loader 8
Pull-Type
Spreader
.0066
.006H
.0063
.0062
.0059
.0058
Tractor
Front -End
Loader 8
Dump Truck
.0092
.0090
.0088
.0086
.0082
.0078
Tractor
Front -end
Loader 8
Spreader
Truck
.0079
.0078
.0076
.0075
.0072
.0069 ,
Slurry Handling Systems
Pull-Type
Vacuum
Spreader
without
Injector
.0084
.0082
.0081
.0083
.0081
.0082
Pull-Type
Spreader
without
Injector,
Pump
.0067
.0066
.0066
.0065
.0066
.0065
Pull-Type
Spreader
with
Injector,
Pump
.0093
.0091
.0090
.0089
.0090
.0089
Tank
Truck
with
Spreader,
Pump
.0097
.0094
.0091
.0088
.0081
.0075
-------
OJ
o
Is}
Table 19. Total Investment Costs for Various Systems for Removing and Hauling Wastes
from 200 to 1,000 Head Confinement Buildings, .25 Mile Hauling Distance,
20 Days per Year
Solid Waste Handling Systems
No. of
Head
200
300
400
500
750
1000
Tractor
Front-End
Loader +
Pull-Type
Spreader
3,230
3,560
3,890
4,220
5,040
5,860
Tractor
Front-End
Loader +•
Dump Truck
11,140
11,300
11,460
11,610
12,000
12,390
Tractor
Front-End
Loader +
Spreader
Truck
14,240
14,400
14,560
14,710
15,100
15,590
Liquid Waste
Pull-Type
Vacuum
Spreader
without
Injector
4,702
5,386
6,071
7,655
10,367
13,979
Pull-Type
Spreader
without
Injector
+ Pump
5,726
6,286
6,846
9,146
10,548
11,949
Handling Systems
Pull-Type
Spreader
with
Injector
+ Pump
6,997
7,616
8,235
11,748
13,296
14,843
Tank
Truck
with
Spreader
+ Pump
10,859
10 ,922
10,985
11,048
11,364
-------
Table
20. Total Operating Cost per Animal Day for Various Systems of Removing and
Hauling Wastes from a 20,000 Head Confinement Building, .25 Mile Hauling
Distance, 20 to 300 Days per Year
Solid Waste Handling Systems
Slurry Handling Systems
Days
per
Year
20
CO
S 30
40
50
100
200
300
Commer- Commer-
cial cial
Loader + Loader +
Dump Spreader
Truck Truck
.0057
.0050
.0016
.0038
.0036
.0036
.0036
.0047
.0040
.0038
.0032
.0030
.0028
.0028
Tractor
with
Front-End
Loader +
Pull-Type
Spreader
.0052
.0046
.0044
.0042
.0036
.0035
.0037
Tractor Pull-Type Pull-Type Pull-Type Tank
with Vacuum Spreader Spreader Truck
Front-End Spreader without with +
Loader + without Injector Injector Pump
Dump Injector + Pump + Pump
Truck
.0067
.0057
.0051
.0048
.0042
.0044
.0050
.0079
.0075
.0073
.0071
.0060
.0056
.0077
.0063
.0060
.0059
.0057
.0050
.0045
.0042*
.0086
.0083
.0081
.0079
.0087
.0094
.0098
.0074
.0065
.0060
.0056
.0051
.0053
.0053
*Spreaders need to be replaced before 300 days of use per year at 10 hours per day
-------
Table 21. Total Investment Cost for Various Waste Handling Systems for 20,000 Head
Confinement Building, .25 Mile Hauling Distance, 20 to 300 Days per Year
Solid Waste Handling Systems
Slurry Handling Systems
Days
per
Year
20
oo 30
o
-F
40
50
100
200
300
Commer-
cial
Loader +
Dump
Truck
190,300
130,100
110,700
69,900
50,500
40,800
40,800
Commer-
cial
Loader +
Spreader
Truck
170,100
113,400
100,600
69,500
56,700
43,900
43,900
Tractor
with
Front-End
Loader +
Pull-Type
Spreader
149,900
108,500 "
96,700
86,300^
54,400
36,200
18,100
Tractor
with
Front-End
Loader +
Dump
Truck
194,900
130,200
101,900
83,300
46,100
27,500
18,600
Pull-Type
Vacuum
Spreader
without
Injector
221,500
193,750
166,800
88,500
49, '8 00
30,400
Pull-Type
Spreader
without
Injector
155,100
137,900
127,900
117,800
66,300
37,700
28,200
Pull-Type
Spreader
with
Injector
210,600
175,500
161,500
154,200
83,900
44,100
33,400
Tank
Truck
199,300
138,800
114,900
92,000
54,200
35,600
35,600
-------
CO
o
en
Table 22. Effect of Moisture Content of Slurry on Costs of Evaporation Lagoon
500 Head, 20 Inches of Annual Precipitation, 50 Inches of Annual
Evaporation
Lagoon
Depth
3 ft
5 ft
Moisture
Content
.85
.88
.90
.92
.94
.96
.98
.85
.88
.90
.92
.94
.96
.98
Lagoon
Area (ft^)
83,600
108,200
132,800
169,700
231,200
354,200
723,100
83,600
108,200
132,800
169,700
231,200
354,200
723,100
Investment
Cost
2,490
3,190
3,890
4,950
6,690
10,170
20,560
4,340
5,540
6,730
8,510
11,460
17,330
34,800
Cost per
An. Day
.0025
.0032
.0039
.0050
.0068
.0103
.0208
.0044
.0056
.0068
.0086
.0116
.0176
.0352
-------
Table 23. Effect of Depth on Cost of Evaporation Lagoon for 500 Head, 30 Inches of
Precipitation, 50 Inches of Evaporation, 90% Moisture Content Slurry
Depth
1
2
3
4
5
o
6
7
8
9
10
Lagoon Area (ft )
132,800
132,800
132,800
132,800
132,800
132,800
132,800
132,800
132,800
132,800
Investment Cost
1,250
2,550
3,890
5,280
6,730
8,220
9,760
11,360
13,010
14,720
Cost per Animal Day
.0013
.0026
.0039
.0054
.0068
.0083
.0099
.0115
.0132
.0149
-------
CO
o
Table 24. Effect of Feedlot Capacity on Cost of Evaporation Lagoon, 5 Feet Depth,
30 Inches Precipitation, 50 Inches Evaporation, 90% Moisture Content
Slurry
NUITU "^ of Animals
200
300
400
500
750
1,000
2,000
5,000
10,000
"0,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
Lagoon Area (ft*)
53,100
79,700
106,300
132,800
199,200
265,600
531,300
1,328,200
2,656,300
5,312,600
7,968,900
10,625,200
13,281,500
Investment Cost
2,840
4,140
5,440
6,730
9,930
13,100
25,700
63,270
125 ,480
249,990
373,250
496,900
620,500
Cost per Animal Day
.0072
.0070
.0069
.0068
.0067
.0066
.0065
.0064
.0064
. 0063
.0063
.0063
.0063
-------
Table 25. Costs for Evaporation Lagoon, 500 Head, 90% Moisture Content Slurry
o
00
10 Inches 20 Inches 30 Inches
Annual Precipitation Annual Precipitation Annual Precipitation
Annual
Evapo-
ration
(in.)
3 ft
depth
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Lagoon
Area
(ft2)
265,600
132,800
88,500
66,400
53,100
44,300
37,900
Invest-
ment
Cost
7,670
3,890
2,630
1,990
1,610
1,350
1,170
Cost
per
An.
Day
.0078
.0039
.0027
.0020
.0016
.0014
.0012
Lagoon
Area
(ft2)
265,600
132,800
88,500
66,400
53,100
44,300
Invest-
ment
Cost
7,670
3,890
2 ,630
1,990
1,610
1,350
Cost
per
An.
Day
.0078
.0039
.0027
.0020
.0016
.0014
Lagoon
Area
(ft2)
265,600
132,800
88,500
66,400
53,100
Invest-
ment
Cost
7,670
3,890
2,630
1,990
1,610
Cost
per
An.
Day
.0078
.0039
.0027
.0020
.0016
-------
Table 25. Continued
CO
o
CO
10 Inches
Annual Precipitation
20 Inches 30 Inches
Annual Precipitation Annual Precipitation
Annual
Evapo-
ration
(in.)
5 ft
depth
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Lagoon
Area
(ft2)
265,600
132,800
88,500
66,400
53,100
44,300
37,900
Invest-
ment
Cost
13,100
6,730
4,580
3,490
2,840
2,390
2,080
Cost
per
An.
Day
.0133
.0068
.0046
. 0035
.0029
.0024
.0021
Lagoon
Area
Cft2)
265,600
132,800
88,500
66,400
53,100
44,300
Invest-
ment
Cost
13,100
6,700
4,580
3,490
2,840
2,390
Cost
per
An.
Day
.0133
.0068
.0046
.0035
.0029
.0024
Lagoon
Area
(ft2)
265,600
132,800
88,500
66,400
53,100
Invest-
ment
Cost
13,100
6,730
4,580
3,490
2 ,840
Cost
per
An.
Day
.0133
.0068
.0046
.0035
.0029
-------
Table 26. Costs for Cable Scraper, Pump and Tractor, and Pull-Type Liquid Spreader
for Removing and Hauling Wastes from 500 Head Confinement Building, .25
Mile Hauling Distance, 200 to 350 Days per Year
CO
H
0
Days
per
Year
200
250
300
350
Cable
Scraper
Cost
per An.
Day
.0037*
.0037
.0037
.0037
Pump and
Tractor
Cost
per An.
Day
.0005
.0005
.0005
.0005
Pull-Type
Hrs
per
Day
0.70
0.56
0.47
0.40
Liquid
No.
1
1
1
1
Spreader
Cost
per
An.
Day
.0033
.0032
.0033
.0033
Tractor
Costs
per An.
Day
.0027
.0027
.0027
.0027
Total
Costs
per
An.
Day
.0102
.0102
.0102
.0102
Total
Invest-
ment
Costs
12,074
12,074
12,074
12,074
*Two cable scrapers operate 0.2625 hours per day each time used
-------
Table 27. Costs for Tractor Front-
Wastes from Solid Floor
20 Days per Year, 20 to
-End Loader and Pull-Type Spreader for Removing
Confinement Buildings, .25 Mile Hauling Distance,
20,000 Head
Tractor Front-End Loader
Capac-
ity
200
300
400
500
750
1,000
2,000
5,000
10,000
20,000
Hrs
per
Day
1.02
1.53
2. OH
2.56
3.83
5.11
5.11
8.52
8.52
9.29
No.
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
3
6
11
Cost
per
An.
Day
.0043
.0042
.0041
.0040
.0037
.0036
.0036
.0032
.0032
.0031
Pull-Type Spreader
Hrs
per
Day
1.11
1.67
2.22
2.78
4.17
5.59
5.56
9.26
9.26
9.26
No.
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
3
6
12
Cost
per
An.
Day
.0013
.0013
.0013
.0013
.0013
.0012
.0012
.0012
.0012
.0012
Tractor
Cost
per
An.
Day
.0009
.0009
.0009
.0009
.0009
.0009
.0009
.0009
.0009
.0009
Total
Cost
per
An.
Day
.0066
.0064
.0063
.0062
.0059
.0058
.0058
.0053
.0053
.0052
Total
Invest-
ment
Cost
3,230
3,560
3,890
4,220
5,040
5,860
11,720
13,000
26,000
52,000
-------
Table 28. Costs for Tractor Front-End Loader and Pull-Type Spreader for Removing
Wastes from Solid Floor Confinement Buildings, .25 Mile Hauling Distance,
20,000 Head, 20 to 300 Days per Year
Tractor Front-End Loader
Days
per
Year
20
30
40
50
100
200
300
Hrs
per
Day
9.29
9.73
8.52
8.18
6.81
5.11
6.81
No.
11
7
6
5
3
2
1
Cost
per
An.
Day
.0031
.0026
.0024
.0022
.0019
.0018
.0025
Pull-Type Spreader
Hrs
per
Day
9.26
9.26
9.26
8.89
7.41
5.56
7.41
No.
12
8
6
5
3
2
1
Cost
per
An.
Day
.0012
.0011
.0010
.0010
.0009
.0009
.0006
Tractor
Cost
per
An.
Day
.0009
.0009
.0009
.0009
.0008
.0007
.0006
Total
Cost
per
An.
Day
.0052
.0046
.0044
.0042
.0036
.0035
.0037
Total
Invest-
ment
Cost
149,902
108,486
96,678
86,324
54,372
36,248
18,124
-------
Table 29. Costs for Tractor Front-End Loader and Pull-Type Spreader for Removing
Wastes from Solid Floor Confinement Buildings, 1.0 Mile Hauling Distance,
CO
I-1
CO
Tractor Front -End Loader
Days
per
Year
20
30
40
50
100
200
300
Hrs
per
Day
9.29
9.73
8.52
8.18
6.81
5.11
6.81
No.
11
7
6
5
3
2
1
Cost
per
An.
Day
.0031
.0026
.0024
.0022
.0019
.0018
. 0025
Pull-Type Spreader
Hrs
per
Day
9.64
9. 64
9.03
9.64
9.64
7.23
9.64
No.
15
10
8
6
3
2
1
Cost
per
An.
Day
.0015
.0014
.0014
.0013
.0012
.0012
.0012
Tractor
Cost
per
An.
Day
.0012
.0012
.0012
.0012
.0010
.0009
.0009
Total
Cost
per
An.
Day
.0058
.0052
.0050
.0047
.0041
.0039
.0046
Total
Invest-
ment
Cost
164,630
121,760
109,952
98,144
54,372
36,248
25,894
-------
Costs for Tractor Front-End Loader and PUll-Type Spreader for Removing
Wastes from Open-Lot Solid Manure Handling Systems, 2.0 Mile Hauling
Distance, 20,000 Head, 20 to 300 Days per Year
Tractor Front-End Loader
D.
Pf
Yt
J
i,
5'
10 r
20
30i
Hrs
per
Day
9.29
9.73
8.52
8.18
6.81
5.11
6.81
No.
11
7
6
5
3
2
1
Cost
per
An.
Day
.0031
.0026
.0024
.0022
.0019
.0018
.0025
Pull-Type Spreader
Hrs
per
Day
9.94
9.69
9.45
9.45
9.45
9.45
6.30
No.
19
13
10
8
4
2
2
Cost
per
An.
Day
.0020
.0018
.0018
.0017
.0016
.0014
.0014
Tractor
Cost
per
An.
Day
.0016
.0016
.0016
.0016
.0013
.0011
.0011
Total
Cost
per
An.
Day
.0066
.0060
.0058
.0055
.0048
.0044
.0050
Total
Invest-
ment
Cost
184,267
139,943
126,681
114,873
63,596
36,248
27,348
-------
in
Table 31. Costs for Tractor Front-End Loader + Dump Truck for Removing Wastes
from Solid Floor Confinement Building, .25 Mile Hauling Distance,
20 Days per Year, 200 to 20,000 Head
Tractor
Front-End Loader
Dump Truck
Capac-
ity
200
300
400
500
750
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
10,000
20,000
Hrs
per
Day
1.
1.
2.
2.
3.
5.
5.
7.
6.
8.
8.
9.
02
53
04
55
83
11
11
67
81
52
52
29
No.
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
3
3
6
11
Cost
per
An.
Day
.0043
.0042
.0041
.0040
.0038
.0036
.0036
.0033
.0033
.0032
.0031.
.0031
Hrs
per
Day
0.
1.
1.
2.
3.
4.
9.
7.
9.
8.
9.
9.
99
48
98
47
71
94
89
42
89
24
89
89
No.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
3
5
10
Cost
per
An.
Day
..0049
.0048
.0047
.0046
.0044
.0042
.0036
.0039
.0036
.0038
.0036
.0036
Total Cost
per An. Day
.0092
.0090
.0088
.0086
.0082
.0078
.0071
.0071
.0069
.0069
.0067
.0067
Total
11
11
11
11
12
12
27
37
46
55
101
194
Investment
Cost
,140
,300
,460
,610
,000
,390
,500
,200
,100
,800
,900
,900
-------
Table 32. Costs for Tractor Front-End Loader + Dump Truck for Removing Wastes from
Solid Floor Confinement Building, .25 Mile Hauling Distance, 20,000
Head, 20 to 300 Days per Year
Tractor
Front-End Loader
Dump Truck
Hrs
Days
per
Year
20
£ 30
o>
40
50
100
200
300
No.
per
Day
9.
9.
8.
8.
6.
5.
6.
29
73
52
18
81
11
81
11
7
6
5
3
2
1
Cost
per
An.
Day
.0031
.0025
.0024
.0022
.0019
.0018
.0025
Hrs
No.
per
Day
9.
9.
9.
9.
9.
9.
6.
89
42
89
89
89
89
59
10
7
5
4
2
1
1
Cost
per
An.
Day
.0036
.0031
.0028
.0026
.0023
.0026
.0026
Total Cost
per An. Day
.0067
.0057
.0051
.0048
.0042
.0044
.0050
Total Investment
Cost
194
130
101
83
46
27
18
,900
,200
,900
,300
,100
,500
,600
-------
Table 33. Costs for Tractor Front-End Loader + Dump Truck for Removing Wastes
from Solid Floor (Open Lot) Waste Systems, 1.0 Mile Hauling Distance,
20,000 Head, 20 to 300 Days per Year
Tractor
Front-End Loader
Dump Truck
Days
per
Year
20
30
40
50
100
200
300
Hrs
per
Day
9
9
8
8
6
5
6
.29
.73
.52
.18
.81
.11
.81
No.
11
7
6
5
3
2
1
Cost
per
An.
Day
.0031
.0025
.0024
. .0022
.0019
.0018
.0025
Hrs
per
Day
9.
8.
8.
8.
7.
5.
7.
77
96
96
60
17
37
16
No.
11
8
6
5
3
2
1
Cost
per
An.
Day
.0039
.0035
.0031
.0029
.0026
.0025
.0037
Total Cost
per An. Day
.0070
.0061
. 0056
.0052
.0045
.0043
.0061
Total
204
139
111
93
55
37
18
Investment
Cost
,600
,900
,600
,000
,800
,200
,600
-------
Table 34,
03
Costs for Tractor Front-End Loader + Dump Truck for Removing Wastes
from Solid Floor (Open Lot) Wastes Systems, 2.0 Mile Hauling Distance,
20,000 Head, 20 to 300 Days per Year
Tractor
Front-End Loader
Dump Truck
Days
per
Year
20
30
40
50
100
200
300
Hrs
per
Day
9.
9,
8.
8.
6.
5.
6.
29
73
53
18
81
11
81
No.
11
7
6
5
3
2
1
Cost
per
An.
Day
.0031
.0025
.0024
.0022
.0019
.0018
.0025
Hrs
per
Day
9.
9.
9.
9.
7.
5.
7.
92
92
92
52
94
95
94
No.
12
8
6
5
3
2
1
Cost
per
An.
Day
.0043
.0037
.0033
.0031
.0028
.0027
.0066
Total Cost
per An . Day
.0074
.0063
.0058
.0054
.0047
.0046
.0091
Total Investment
Cost
214
139
111
93
55
37
18
,300
,900
,600
,000
,800
,200
,600
-------
CO
to
Table 35. Costs for Commercial Loader and Dump Truck for Removing Wastes from
Open-Lot Solid Manure Handling Systems, .25 Mile Hauling Distance,
1,000-20,000 Head, 20 Days per Year
Commercial Loader
Dump Truck
Hrs
No. of
Head
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
10,000
20,000
No.
per
Day
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
5.
7.
13
26
39
53
65
65
54
1
1
1
1
1
2
3
Cost
per
An.
Day
.0029
.0027
.0026
.0024
.0023
.0023
.0021
Hrs
No.
per
Day
4.
9.
7.
9.
8.
9.
9.
94
89
42
89
24
89
89
1
1
2
2
3
5
10
Cost
per
An.
Day
.0042
.0036
.0039
.0036
.0038
.0036
.0036
Total Cost
per An. Day
.0071
.0063
.0064
.0060
.0060
.0059
.0057
Total
40
40
50
50
60
110
190
Investment
Cost
,800
,800
,500
,500
,200
,700
,300
-------
CO
NJ
O
Table 36. Costs for Commercial Loader and Dump Truck for Removing Wastes from
Open-Lot Solid Manure Handling Systems, .25 Mile Hauling Distance,
20,000 Head, 20 to 300 Days per Year
Commercial Loader
Dump Truck
Hrs
Days
per
Year
20
30
40
50
100
200
300
No.
per
Day
7.
7.
5.
9.
4.
2.
1.
54
54
65
05
53
26
51
3
2
2
1
1
1
1
Cost
per
An.
Day
.0021
.0018
.0018
.0012
.0012
.0012
. 0012
Hrs
No.
per
Day
9.
9.
9.
9.
9.
9.
6.
89
42
89
89
89
89
59
i-o
7
5
4
2
1
1
Cost
per
An.
Day
.0036
.0032
.0028
.0026
.0023
.0026
.0026
Total Cost
per An. Day
.0057
.0050
.0046
.0038
.0036
.0036
.0038
Total Investment
Cost
190
130
110
69
50
40
40
,300
,100
,700
,900
,500
,800
,800
-------
Table
37. Costs for Commercial Loader and Dump Truck for Removing Waste from
Open-Lot Solid Manure Handling Systems, 1.0 Mile Hauling Distance,
20,000 Head, 20 to 300 Days per Year
Commercial Loader
Dump Truck
Hrs
Days
per
Year
20
30
03
M 40
50
100
200
300
No.
per
Day
7.
7.
5.
9.
4.
2.
1.
54
54
65
05
53
26
51
3
2
2
1
1
1
1
Cost
per
An.
Day
.0021
.0018
.0018
.0012
.0012
.0012
.0012
Hrs
No.
per
Day
9.
8.
8.
8.
7.
5.
7.
77
96
36
60
17
38
17
11
8
6
5
3
2
1
Cost
per
An .
Day
.0039
.0035
.0031
.0029
.0026
.0025
.0037
Total Cost
per An. Day
.0060
.0053
.0049
.0042
.0038
.0038
.0049
Total
200
139
120
79
60
50
40
Investment
Cost
,000
,800
,400
,600
,200
,500
,800
-------
Table
38. Costs for Commercial Loader and Dump Truck for Removing Wastes from
Open-Lot Solid Manure Handling Systems, 2.0 Mile Hauling Distance,
20,000 Head, 20 to 300 Days per Year
Commercial Loader
Dump Truck
Days
per
Year
20
30
CO
K HO
50
100
200
300
Hrs
per
Day
7.
7.
5.
9.
4.
2.
I.
54
54
65
05
53
26
51
No.
3
2
2
1
1
1
1
Cost
per
An.
Day
.0021
.0018
.0018
.0012
.0012
.0012
.0012
Hrs
per
Day
9.
9.
9.
9.
7.
5.
7.
92
92
92
52
93
95
94
No.
12
8
6
5
3
2
1
Cost
per
An.
Day
.0043
.0037
.0033
.0031
.0028
.0027
.0066
Total Cost
per An. Day
.0064
.0055
.0051
.0044
.0041
.0040
.0078
Total Investment
Cost
209
139
120
79
60
50
40
,700
,800
,400
,600
,200
,500
,800
-------
i Accession Number
w
2
Subject Field & Group
1 ,
SELECTED WATER RESOURCES ABSTRACTS
INPUT TRANSACTION FORM
Aeri Cultural Enerinpornnrr TV»T%=j-^-t-~ — j.
Oklahoma State University
Stillwater, Oklahoma 74074
Evaluation of Beef Cattle Feedlot Waste Management Alternatives
10
Authors)
Butchbaker, Allen F.
Garton, James E.
Mahoney, George W. A.
Paine, Myron D.
16
Project Designation
EPA, WQA Grant No. 13040 FXG
21 Note
22
Citation
23
Descriptors (Starred First)
Beef Waste, Waste Handling Alternatives, Waste Treatment Alternatives,
Ultimate Disposal, Waste Handling Costs, Feedlot Design, Pollution
Control
25
Identifiers (Starred First)
Beef Waste Management
27 Abstract
' Alternative beef waste management systems were examined to deter-
mine minimum cost systems for effective waste disposal. Design and
cost information was obtained from feedlot visits and the literature.
A computer program was developed for use with a Conversational Program-
ming System (CPS) for calculating the sizes of equipment and facil-
ities and for estimating the facility and machinery operating and
investment costs.
For a 20,000 head capacity open feedlot, the total system invest-
ment cost for pens, roads, and waste handling was $420,000 with an oper-
ating cost of $0.133 per animal day. The pen facilities were about 65% of
the total costs, the runoff control system about 10%, and the solids
handling about 25%.
Confinement building waste management systems were also examined.
Various treatment and ultimate disposal methods were evaluated. A
manure irrigation system was one of the least costly methods of con-
veying and disposing of the waste.
Abstractor
A. F. Butchbaker
Institution
State tini VPT^Q•? +y
WR;102 (REV. JULY 19691
WRSI C
SEND. WITH COPY-OF DOCUMENT. TO: W ATER «||°M^E SQV V^HE iNT^ERIoS""
WASHINGTON. D. C. 20240
ftU.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 197P
------- |