EPA-600/2-77-159
August 1977
Environmental Protection Technology Series
BEEF CATTLE FEEDLOT RUNOFF AND
CONTROL IN EASTERN NEBRASKA
Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Ada, Oklahoma 74820
-------
RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES
Research reports of the Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, have been grouped into nine series. These nine broad cate-
gories were established to facilitate further development and application of en-
vironmental technology. Elimination of traditional grouping was consciously
planned to foster technology transfer and a maximum interface in related fields.
The nine series are:
1. Environmental Health Effects Research
2. Environmental Protection Technology
3. Ecological Research
4. Environmental Monitoring
5. Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
6. Scientific and Technical Assessment Reports (STAR)
7. Interagency Energy-Environment Research and Development
8. "Special" Reports
9. Miscellaneous Reports
This report has been assigned to the ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION TECH-
NOLOGY series. This series describes research performed to develop and dem-
onstrate instrumentation, equipment, and methodology to repair or prevent en-
vironmental degradation from point and non-point sources of pollution. This work
provides the new or improved technology required for the control and treatment
of pollution sources to meet environmental quality standards.
This document is available to the public through the National Technical Informa-
tion Service. Springfield, Virginia 22161.
-------
EPA-600/2-77-159
August 1977
BEEF CATTLE FEEDLOT RUNOFF AND CONTROL
IN EASTERN NEBRASKA
By
L. P. Schram
L. P. Schram Feed Lot, Inc.
Papillion, Nebraska
Grant No. S-802197
Project Officer
Lynn R. Shuyler
Source Management Branch
Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory
Ada, Oklahoma 74820
ROBERT S. KERR ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
ADA, OKLAHOMA 74820
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research
Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and approved for publication.
Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the views and
policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, nor does mention of trade
names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
ii
-------
FOREWORD
The Environmental Protection Agency was established to coordinate
administration of the major Federal programs designed to protect the
quality of our environment.
An important part of the Agency's effort involves the search for
information about environmental problems, management techniques and new
technologies through which optimum use of the nation's land and water
resources can be assured and the threat pollution poses to the welfare
of the American people can be minimized.
EPA's Office of Research and Development conducts this search through
a nationwide network of research facilities.
As one of these facilities, the Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research
Laboratory is responsible for the management of programs to: (a) investi-
gate the nature, transport, fate and management of pollutants in ground-
water; (b) develop and demonstrate methods for treating wastewaters with
soil and other natural systems; (c) develop and demonstrate pollution
control technologies for irrigation return flows; (d) develop and demonstrate
pollution control technologies for animal production wastes; (e) develop
and demonstrate technologies to prevent, control or abate pollution from
the petroleum refining and petrochemical industries; and (f) develop and
demonstrate technologies to manage pollution resulting from combinations
of industrial wastewaters or industrial/municipal wastewaters.
This report contributes to the knowledge essential if the EPA is to
meet the requirements of environmental laws that it establish and enforce
pollution control standards which are reasonable, cost effective and
provide adequate protection for the American public.
William C. Galegar, Director
Robert S. Kerr Environmental
Research Laboratory
iii
-------
PREFACE
Introducing man-made structures into the natural environment may disrupt
environmental activity. One such disruption is pollution, which occurs when
activities instigated by civilization create environmental imbalances that
would not normally occur. While primary attention has been given to
pollution from urban activities, increasing emphasis is being placed on that
from agricultural enterprises. One such area of emphasis is that of pollu-
tion from confined livestock feeding. Animals concentrated in small areas
produce wastes that must be removed from the lot and used or disposed of
elsewhere. Solid residues and lot runoff, which both contain elements usable
in agriculture, are included in these wastes. The mismanagement of these
materials allows excess elements to enter surface and groundwater, and
concerns both the environmentalist and the feedlot owner.
In many cases the feedlot owner has also become an environmentalist,
concerned with the quality of the surrounding area as well as animal health
and business prosperity. Larry Schram, Papillion, Nebraska, has become this
type of lot owner. His Sarpy County feedlot is bordered by two streams.
Runoff from his lots posed a potential pollutional threat. Also, Papillion,
3 miles to the northeast, and Richfield, 2% miles south, were concerned about
air and water quality in their areas. A dam to be built near the feedlot
will be used for recreation, and the water in its reservoir must be clean.
Alleviation of the Schram feedlot problems required professional help.
Agricultural engineers from the University of Nebraska, the United States
Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service and Soil Conserva-
tion Service were asked to assist in the design of a system that would reduce
potential pollution from the Schram feedlot.
The control project began in 1973. Designed using known research
techniques demonstrated on small plots and new concepts with merit, it
has been modified to its present condition. This includes a system of con-
veyance channels, debris basins, holding ponds, and disposal system. The
various components of the system have been tested and this report has been
prepared to record those findings.
iv
-------
ABSTRACT
This study was initiated to determine operational characteristics of
runoff control facility components for beef cattle feedlots.
A runoff control facility was designed and constructed for a 3,000 head
capacity feedlot in eastern Nebraska. Components of the runoff control
facility included debris basins inside the pen and outside the pen, a holding
pond, and a disposal system.
Results indicated that design volumes for the debris basins and holding
ponds were effective in controlling runoff from the lots caused by snowmelt
and rainfall for climatic conditions within eastern Nebraska. Characteris-
tics of runoff transported solids from this large lot compared favorably with
values developed earlier on small research lots. All values for total and
volatile solids, electric conductivity, pH, nitrogen, phosphorus, and COD
were within published ranges.
This report was submitted in fulfillment of Grant No. S802197-01-4 by
L. P. Schram under partial sponsorship of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. This report covers the period March 15, 1973 to September 30, 1976.
-------
CONTENTS
Disclaimer ii
Foreword iii
Preface iv
Abstract v
Figures and Tables viii
List of Conversion Factors ix
Acknowledgments x
1. Introduction 1
2. Summary and Conclusions 2
3. Recommendations 4
4. Management Concerns 5
Physical Components 5
System Components 7
5. Design 9
Debris Basins 9
Holding Ponds 12
Disposal System 12
6. Construction 13
Debris Basins and Holding Ponds 13
Disposal System 13
7. Results and Discussion 18
Runoff Characteristics 18
Beef Feedlot Residue Characteristics 22
System Operation 24
References 29
vii
-------
FIGURES
Number Page
1 Feedlot before construction of runoff control system 6
2 Runoff control design for the feedlot 9
3 Feedlot after construction of a runoff control system 15
TABLES
Number Page
1 Debris Basins and Risers 10
2 Construction Design Criteria for Debris Basins 13
3 Characteristics of the Installed Disposal System 14
4 Monthly Precipitation and Summary of Lot Runoff 18
5 Settled Solids Removed from Runoff Debris Basins 19
6 Estimated Quantity of Manure Produced 20
7 Holding Pond Effluent, Debris Basin Effluent, Debris
Basin Solids, and Walnut Creek Water Characteristics 22
8 Advantages or Disadvantages of Debris Basins 25
viii
-------
LIST OF CONVERSION FACTORS
Distance
1 Inch
1 ft
1 mile
2.54 cm
0.3048 m
1.61 km
Volume
1 ac-in.
1 ft3
1 yd3
1 gallon
101.6 m3
0.28 m3
0.76 m3
3.785 £ = 0.0038 m3
Weight
1 Ib
1 English ton
0.454 kg
0.907 metric tons
Ratios
1 in./ac
1 English ton/ac
1 ton/ac-in.
1 gal./min
251 m3/ha.
2.24 metric tons/ha.
8.9 kg/m3
3.785 2,/min = 0.0038 m3/min
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The cooperation of the University of Nebraska, Soil Conservation Service,
USDA, and the Agricultural Research Service, USDA, is gratefully acknowledged.
Particular appreciation is extended to Dr. W. E. Splinter, Chairman of
the Agricultural Engineering Department, UN-L, for his active support and
sustained interest in the project; C. B. Gilbertson and J. A. Nienaber,
agricultural engineers, USDA-ARS, for a design of the facility; J. L. Gartung,
former agricultural engineer, UN-L, now agricultural engineer, Kansas River
Valley Experiment Farm, Topeka, Kansas, for his follow through on construction
and instrumentation; Dr. J. R. Ellis, microbiologist, USDA-ARS, for laboratory
analyses of samples obtained; R. H. Tharnish, technician, UN-L, for on-site
recording of data; and Gary L. Goranson, editorial assistant, UN-L.
The University of Nebraska Extension Service is commended for the
efforts of E. A. Olson, Extension Agricultural Engineer, for assisting with
tours throughout the duration of the project with local, national, and
foreign visitors.
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
Crop production on land and animal production in confined areas may
pollute both surface and ground water. While agricultural industries may have
to correct these pollution problems, agencies governing environmental quality
must provide reasonable quality standards and workable control methods through
research.
Methods exist for controlling feedlot runoff, but the need extends
beyond control. Information is needed on maintenance of waste management
facilities, improvement of feedlot operations, and overall reduced costs.
A good control system must be composed of the right components in the right
places to be successful.
Thorough documentation shows that feedlot runoff must be controlled
(1, 2, 4, 7, 11, 13, 16, 17, 21). The quantity and quality of feedlot runoff
has been shown to be unaffected by slope (4). The effect of the distance
between the "source and pollution point" has not been documented, but guide-
lines are in effect and research underway to define the effect of distance on
the quantity and quality of feedlot discharge.
Runoff control systems for feedlots with high pollution potential have
been built (3, 5, 10, 14, 18, 19). Basic runoff control structures included
a debris basin, a holding pond, and a disposal area. When properly managed,
this system provides adequate protection. Environmental protection, however,
is affected by the methods used to remove settled solids from the debris
basin and liquid from the holding pond. Problems exist when debris basin
settled solids are removed in the form of a slurry, or if disposal fields are
saturated and holding ponds filled to capacity.
Research is being conducted to solve these problems, but information on
available systems and potential problems must be made available to feedlot
operators. A demonstration site accessible to both feedlot owners and
designers can show systems and management methods that may be suited to many
design needs.
Methods for applying holding pond effluent to cropland and its effects
on the crop have been reported (9, 15, 20). Eisenhauer (2) reported that the
quality of runoff from a low permeability grassed disposal area was not
affected by the application of holding pond effluent. McCaskey (12), however,
measured a significant increase in pollution in precipitation runoff from
small plots where dairy barn waste had been applied. Precipitation runoff
from an area where effluent from a beef cattle feedlot has been applied may
be high in pollutants.
-------
SECTION 2
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
A runoff control system was Installed under EPA sponsorship on the L. P.
Schram Feedlot, Papillion, Nebraska, to determine runoff characteristics from
a large feedlot, to determine the adequacy of current runoff control system
design criteria, and to test debris basin design taken from small research
sites, on a commercial basis. System components include debris basins,
conveyance channels, holding ponds, and a disposal system.
Precipitation patterns were above normal for the construction period
(April through October of 1973) and about 30% below normal for the test
period of 1974 and 1975. Runoff averaged about 30% of the annual precipita-
tion compared with 40% recorded for small feedlots in previous years. Re-
duced annual precipitation and relatively light snowmelt explain the discrep-
ancy between these two observations.
The amount of dry matter removed from the debris basins varied, but was
higher than that recorded in literature. While no immediate explanation for
this recording is available, heavy precipitation following extended dry
periods may transport a larger than normal quantity of solid material.
The quantity of settled solids removed from basins located within the
lots ranged from 2.4 to 7 tons/acre-inch of runoff compared to 1.6 to 6.5
tons/acre-inch for basins located outside the lots. A considerable quantity
of material was removed from fencelines where debris basins were located
outside the feedlot. The moisture content of the materials within debris
basins was generally higher in basins inside the lot. Extremely dry condi-
tions showed that inside-lot basins dried faster than those outside, due to
the continual aeration caused by cattle movement. A surface crust on basins
outside the lot reduced evaporation losses.
Characteristics of holding pond and debris basin effluent were similar
to values developed by earlier research (7, 8, 11, 17). The total solids
content of the holding ponds, however, was 25% below that of published values.
All values for total and volatile solids, electric conductivity, pH, nitrogen,
phosphorus, and COD were within published ranges.
Design volumes used for the debris basins and holding ponds were con-
sidered adequate for the L. P. Schram feedlot and other sites in eastern
Nebraska.. No overflow events were recorded when all components of the system
were operational.
-------
Debris basins were designed with a capacity of 1.25 ac-in. for each
acre of feedlot. Volumes for debris basins remote from the holding ponds
were designed with a safety factor of 2.5, while the basin adjacent to a
holding pond was designed with no safety factor. Overflow from this basin
went directly to the holding pond.
The center pivot performed adequately as a distribution system for
runoff.
In general, the system proved adequate, and design criteria functioned
for climate conditions within eastern Nebraska.
-------
SECTION 3
RECOMMENDATIONS
The design of runoff control components (debris basins, holding ponds,
and disposal systems) must be tailored to individual operations. General
design for systems capacity, however, must consider chronic wet periods
expected to occur over a 10-year period; interaction of system components to
reduce chance of overflow and resulting pollution; pollution potential of the
feedlot; and, the type of feedlot the design is intended for.
Debris basin capacity depends on location with respect to the holding
pond and the pollution potential of the lot. A design capacity of 1.25 in/
acre of feedlot is adequate for gravity-drained debris basins adjacent to a
holding pond. A safety factor of 2.5 is recommended for debris basins remote
from a holding pond using a pumping station to transfer effluent.
A holding pond capacity equal to 100% of the 10-year, 24-hour reoccurrence
interval storm is recommended for all sites with climate similar to that of
eastern Nebraska. The ponds may be 10 or more feet deep to reduce surface
area requirements.
Disposal system design should include a permanent pumping station with
a distribution system that can apply effluent under saturated soil conditions.
The distribution system should have low labor requirements and use available
farm equipment to save money. The system should not be designed to irrigate
cropland unless irrigation is already used or planned. The disposal area
should be close to the holding pond, thereby reducing pumping cost. A trans-
fer pond may be built at the disposal site if it is remote from the holding
pond.
Equipment and pumping systems may include conventional centrifugal pumps
with cast iron or bronze impellers if settled solids and debris are removed
before pumping. Manure pumps with agitators should be used if the system
uses a combination debris basin-holding pond. Plastic pipe should be used
to transfer liquids to holding ponds and the disposal site. Galvanized metal
riser pipes will resist damage better than plastic, and do not need to be
shielded from animals. Therefore, they would be recommended for debris basins
located within or outside the lot.
-------
SECTION 4
MANAGEMENT CONCERNS
PHYSICAL COMPONENTS
The L. P. Schram Feedlot, Inc., is a cattle feeding operation covering
more than 20 acres in Sarpy County, Nebraska, near the town of Papillion
(Figure 1). Lot capacity ranges from 3000-5000 head of finishing cattle, with
an animal concentration of from 120-200 animals/acre. Runoff from the lots
flows into Walnut Creek, a low flow permanent stream to the west and north of
the lot, and an intermittent flow stream to the north. Both streams empty
into the Papio Creek, which drains into the Missouri River. A flood control-
recreation dam is to be built % mile downstream from the Schram lot.
Residue Quantity and Quality
The Schram lot produces about 2800 dry tons of manure annually. The
initial moisture control of the lot manure is about 85%. After evaporation,
seepage, and mixing with soil by cattle movement, the residue is reduced to
a moisture content of about 50%. About 3%-6% of the material deposited on the
lot is estimated to be transported in runoff, a figure that varies with the
lot conditions and amount of snowmelt runoff. This runoff will have a solids
content of 1.5% to 2.0%. Mielke, et al. (13) showed that seepage through
the lot surface to groundwater is minimal. The surface runoff from the lot
that affects the quality of the surface waters can be managed. A system was
designed to accomplish this management.
Soil and Water
The Schram lot is in an area of rolling hills and valleys, covered with
deposits of wind-blown soils (loess) with good infiltration. Perched water
tables above clay tills are evident at shallow depths in much of the area
and depth to water table varies from 0 to 200 ft. This variable water table
means that dissolved materials in the groundwater may be present over a wide
area, or in localized water pockets. As a result, some build-up of salts and
other elements has occurred in soil in the areas of shallow groundwater.
Wells usually provide reliable, but moderate supplies of good quality water
for domestic use, but water for irrigation is not available.
Wind
Predominant winds blow to the northeast in the spring and summer, toward
Papillion and the city of Omaha. Early spring winds are moderate and normal-
-------
Intermittent waterway
Proposed
disposal
area
Walnut
Creek
To proposed
recreation
dam
Feedlot
Figure 1. Feedlot before construction of runoff control system.
-------
ly will not carry feedlot odors into populated areas. As urban sprawl
encroaches on the lot, however, some odor problem may develop.
SYSTEM COMPONENTS
The system designed uses conveyance channels, debris basins, a holding
pond, and a disposal system. All runoff from the lots or farm-yard runs into
conveyance channels, to the debris basins, or directly into debris basins.
Liquid from the debris basins either flows by gravity or is pumped to the
holding pond, and stored for later application to land. Application of the
stored residue is accomplished by using a center pivot irrigation system.
The lots are cleaned semi-annually and the solid residue applied to the crop-
land.
The basins and holding pond were designed to hold lot runoff from a
10-year, 24-hour storm (4.7 inches in 24 hours for L. P. Schram lot location).
System Effects
The Schram lot is near the junction of two streams (Figure 1) that join
the Papio Creek and eventually the Missouri River. If the proposed conserva-
tion-recreation dam is built, the estimated 240 acre-inches of runoff from
the Schram lots could collect in the water of the reservoir, causing eutro-
phication and possible fish kills. The design of the control system should
keep an estimated 400 tons of sediment from polluting the streams each year,
delaying sedimentation of the streams and the proposed reservoir site.
The effect of the control system is not limited to the flowing streams
and proposed reservoir. Area groundwater, currently of good quality, could
also be altered. Elements could leach into the sand and gravel pockets of
the area, raising the concentration of salts and adversely affecting ground-
water quality. The decline in groundwater quality could be attributed to
the following:
1. As the capacity of the lot increases, leaching from the lot would
increase.
2. Percolation from the holding pond could increase the amount of
elements in groundwater.
3. Animal residue applied to the disposal field could increase leaching
of elements from that area.
Some of these concerns can be discounted. Leaching from the lot is
minimal since the surface of the current lot has been packed and sealed by
the animals. The bottoms of the basins and holding pond usually seal, pre-
venting the percolation of elements. Although the application of additional
residue to the disposal field could increase leaching from the site, the
application of only the amount of nutrients needed for optimum crop growth
will reduce the potential leaching of nutrients to groundwater.
-------
The quality of the atmosphere surrounding the lot is also of concern.
No serious odor problem now exists; however, odor from the lot could be
increased by the following:
1. Anaerobic conditions of the holding pond.
2. Anaerobic conditions of the conveyance channels and debris basins.
3. Clean-out operations, and application of residue through the center
pivot.
Odor may be at a maximum during the spring and fall cleaning of the lots and
holding structures.
Usually, the odor from the lots is dissipated by the wind before it
reaches populated areas. However, the city of Omaha is expanding toward the
feedlot and a housing development is located 1 mile east from the Schram
site.
The positive aspects of a control project are water pollution reduction
in the surrounding waterways, and fertilizer and additional water for crops.
The adverse environmental effects must be controlled to make the project
feasible.
-------
SECTION 5
DESIGN
The feedlot control systems designed for use at the Schram Feedlot
incorporated many variables to provide a site for the demonstration, observa-
tion and comparison of several runoff control system components. Debris
basins (inside and outside of the animal pens), riser intake designs, holding
ponds, and a method for disposal of controlled runoff (Figure 2) were included
in the system.
DEBRIS BASINS
Four types of basins were constructed, using information provided by
Gilbertson and Nienaber, Swanson et.al., and the Soil Conservation Service
(3, 5, 14, 18, 19) (Figure 2). Because neither in-pen or outside-pen debris
basin positioning is established as superior, both methods were designed into
the Schram system for comparison under one manager.
Basin design volumes were determined considering the relative positions
of the basins to the holding ponds. A minimum design figure of 1.25 inches
per acre was used for debris basins. Safety factors of up to 2.5 were used
to adjust design capacity according to pollution potential (or to hold from
1 to 2.5 times the amount of the 1.25 inches per acre design capacity). A
safety factor of 2.5 was used for basins remote from the holding pond because
overflow could cause stream pollution. Basins adjacent to the holding pond
used the minimum design volume with no safety factor, since any overflow
would run directly into the holding pond.
The SCS basins (lot 2-23, Figure 2) were designed with a capacity equal
to 70% of the 10-year, 24-hour storm with discharge to a holding pond. The
SCS basin in pen 23 was designed as a combination debris basin and holding
pond with a capacity of 125% of the 10-year, 24-hour storm.
All basins, except that below pens 7-10, were designed as shallow basins
less than 3.5 feet deep. These were to serve primarily as demonstration and
comparison units. The deep debris basin below pens 7-10 was a research
unit, using new design criteria. Conveyance channels were installed below the
pens to transport runoff to the deep (8 ft.) debris basin below pens 7-10.
This basin was built to reduce both the area requirement and the groundwater
pollution potential caused by the wet and dry cycles of a shallow basin.
Several riser designs were installed in the debris basins to compare
management characteristics (Table 1). Liquids were transported from the
-------
SCALE ICM«26M
SUMP FOR EAST
DEBRIS BASINS
DEBRIS
BASIN
DISPOSAL HELD
21 HECTARES
(91.66 acres)
Figure 2. Runoff control design for the feedlot.
-------
TABLE 1. DEBRIS BASINS AND RISERS (3, 10, 14)
Pen
Description
7 through 10
11 and 12
13 and 15
One 8-inch corrugated plastic riser with 3/4-inch holes
and located outside the lot.
One 4-inch corrugated plastic riser with 3/4-inch holes
and located outside the lot.
One 6-inch-diameter PVC overflow pipe (6 feet from basin
bottom to top of pipe) and located outside the lot.
Two risers are spaced 75 feet from the ends and 150 feet
apart. From north to south, the risers are: an 8-inch
flexible drain tile line 12 feet in length; 4-inch flexi-
ble drain tile, 8 feet in length; and, two 8-inch PVC
risers with 5/8 inch holes. Risers are outside the pen.
Two 12-inch corrugated metal risers set in concrete with
3/4 inch holes. The riser in pen 15 is protected by a
wooden fence.
14
16
20 through 23
One 12-inch-diameter metal riser with slots cut by torch
3/4 inch by 8 inches, and located inside the lot.
One 6-inch PVC riser with 3/4-inch holes and located
outside the lot.
One 12-inch-diameter corrugated metal riser with 5/8-inch
holes set in concrete and located inside the lot.
11
-------
debris basins to the holding pond through underground polyvinylchloride (PVC)
pipe. Debris basins for pens 5 and 6 were gravity drained. The deep debris
basin was connected to the holding pond by a 6-inch drain line, 6 feet from
the bottom of the basin. Pens 11-16 drained to a sump near the pond (holding
pond l)with a 60 gpm submersible pump. A 10-year, 24-hour storm could be
pumped to the holding pond in 4 days. Debris basins in pens 20, 21 and 22
drained by gravity to the pond (holding pond 2). The drains were designed
to drain the runoff from a 10-year, 24-hour storm in 3 days. The debris
basin in pen 23 also drains by gravity to holding pond 2.
Debris basins were built to compare operation and management character-
istics in different locations. The merits of in-pen and outside-pen place-
ment, pen slope length, and the distance between risers were also considered.
Pens 14 and 15 (short slope) were compared with pen 13 (long slope). The
effect of slope length on solids transport was measured by the quantity of
solids removed from the basins below these pens. Risers were placed at
distances of 150, 175 and 200 feet in the debris basin (below pens 11 and 12)
to show the effect of riser placement on basin drainage.
HOLDING PONDS
The SCS design for holding pond 2 provided a volume capacity equal to
75% of the runoff from a 10-year, 24-hour storm. Holding pond 1 has a capaci-
ty of 100% of the runoff from a 10-year, 24-hour storm.
DISPOSAL SYSTEM
A sprinkler irrigation system was the only disposal system practical for
use on the disposal site (Figures 1 and 2). Such a system should be incorpor-
ated into an existing irrigation system, if possible. Center pivot, solid
set, and big gun were the irrigation systems considered. The solid set system
was unsuitable because of the potential management problems of changing sets
and potential riser damage during tillage operations. The big gun was imprac-
tical because the liquid application rate was higher than the infiltration
rate of the soil. A center pivot system was chosen to fulfill the disposal
system requirements. The pivot distributes from 0.13 to 1.04 inches per
revolution over a disposal field about twice the size of the feedlot. The
center pivot was equipped with both sprinkler and spray nozzles for comparison.
Two sizes of rubber tires were used (regular and floatation,to determine the
effect of tire size on terraces and farming techniques.
12
-------
SECTION 6
CONSTRUCTION
DEBRIS BASINS AND HOLDING PONDS
The feedlot area and facility construction are shown on Table 2.
Construction started on holding pond 1 on May 27, 1973 (Figure 1). Glacial
till and perched water were encountered near the bottom of the holding pond,
at an elevation above the adjacent creek bed. Work on the pond was stopped
until the water was drained by a channel cut in the pond bottom. After about
one month, the area had dried, the outlet was closed, and the berm completed.
During this time, work was completed on basins for pens 11 through 16.
The drainage system for these pens consisted primarily of 6-inch diameter
PVC pipe, with an expansion to 8 inch between basins 12 and 13. Pen 14 was
drained by 4-inch PVC pipe connected to the pipe from pen 16. An 8-inch
drainline transported runoff into a sump built near the north side of basin
11-12. The sump was built of a 15-foot length of 84-inch road culvert and
equipped with a 60 gpm capacity sump pump. Liquids were transferred to the
holding pond through a 6-inch PVC pipe with an outlet 3 feet below the top
of the holding pond.
The deep debris basin was completed about the same time as holding pond
1. A single 6-inch PVC drainline connected the two.
Debris basins for pens 5 and 6 were not completed until cattle held in
those areas were moved. These basins were drained by 6-inch PVC pipe. When
this drainline was installed, the berm of the conveyance channel serving pens
7 and 8 was completed.
The channel of Walnut Creek was straightened, to increase the throat
area of the waterway for erosion prevention and to supply fill soil for
holding pond 1 and the conveyance channel. During construction of the basins,
new fences, concrete feedbunks and aprons were installed in the lots.
DISPOSAL SYSTEM
After delays caused by material shortages, the center pivot system
(Table 3) became operational June 14, 1974 (Figure 3). The system used
effluent from holding ponds 1 and 2 and was flushed with fresh pond water
after use. An intake system consisting of 4-inch PVC pipe carried liquid
from the holding ponds and the fresh pond to the centrifugal pump that served
13
-------
TABLE 2. CONSTRUCTION DESIGN CRITERIA FOR DEBRIS BASINS
Pen
5
£
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
15
14
16
Holding
Pon.1 1
20
21
22
23
Holding
Fond 2
Surface Area
(ac)
Pen
3.33
0.61
1.34
1.63
1.51
1.02
1.22
1.29
1.3S
0.82
0.54
1.26
15.95
1.47
1.40
1.53
1.19
5.69
Basin
0.17
0.17
0.46
0.76
0.73
0.12
0.32
0.78
0.45
0.18
0.35
0.31
Lot
Slope
Z
8
10
10
10
10
10
12
11
9
14
13
10
10
10
10
Slope
Length
(ft)
400
150
360
400
330
240
230
300
360
200
180
304
360
360
380
330
Lot
Exposure
NW
HW
V
NW
N
HE
B
E
E
E
SE
SE
SE
SE
SE
Basin . ,
Location
0-R
0-K
0-A
0-R
1-R
I-R
0-R
1-R
I-R
I-C
Design .
Volume^'
(Ac-In)
10.4
1.9
9.6
3.8
3.2
4.3
2.5
1.7
3.9
75.0
5.1
4.6
5.0
6.9
24.1
Constructed
Volume
(Ac-In)
11.54
4.77
10.86
7.06
6.86
1.83
5.17
84.3
12.20
5.72
8.75
26.5
inside the lot-remote from holding pond; I-C, inside the lot-combination debris basin and holding pond.
2/ Pens 5 through 16 designed on base of (1.25 ac-in/ac) (5).
3/ Pens 20 through 23 designed by SCS on basis of a percentage of the design storm (10 year -24 hour storm
~~ equal to 4.7 in.), and a runoff coefficient of 0.7 for debris basins and 1.25 for combination holding
pond and debris basins.
14
-------
TABLE 3. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE INSTALLED DISPOSAL SYSTEM
Type:
Length:
Crop clearance:
Tires:
Speed of rotation:
Capacity:
Power source:
Pump:
Special feature:
Pipeline to system:
6 tower, electric drive center pivot
797 feet, 52 acres
9 feet
Standard-11.2 x 24; 1, 3 and 5 towers
Flotation-14.9 x 24; 2, 4 and 6 towers
12-96 hours
260 gpm at 65 psi
PTO driven, 480 volt - 3 phase generator
(pump driven by same PTO drive)
Centrifugal, 260 gpm at 110 psi
Spray nozzles between towers 4 and 5
Slipjoint cement asbestos - 6" diameter
15
-------
Center pivot
Holding pond 1
Holding pond 2
Walnut Creek
Feedlot
Figure 3. Feedlot after construction of a runoff control system.
16
-------
the pivot. This pump was placed on a trailer adjacent to a three-phase
generator. Both were belt-driven by a common jackshaft from a tractor power
take-off (pto) drive. Liquids were carried to the center pivot through
6-inch asbestos pipe buried 4 to 6 feet. This pipe featured slip-joint
design and was resistant to individual section failure. The electric motors
on each of the 6 center pivot towers were driven by electricity from the
generators since three-phase electricity was not available.
17
-------
SECTION 7
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
RUNOFF CHARACTERISTICS
Runoff Volume
Table 4 shows the climatic conditions and resulting runoff for the feed-
lot from April 1973 to December 1975. Runoff averaged about 30% of the
annual precipitation for the site as compared with the 40% value for a small
feedlot study (4, 7, 8). Rainfall averaged about 70% of the normal precipi-
tation and caused a reduction in the quantity of runoff. In addition,
snowmelt runoff was less than snowmelt runoff on research sites near Mead,
Nebraska (7).
When reduced annual precipitation and relatively mild snowmelt conditions
are considered, the relationships for runoff previously established are
realistic.
Runoff Solids Transported
Table 5 summarizes the settled solids removed from debris basins during
August 1974 and July 1975. Dry matter removed from pens 11-16 ranged from
18.6 to 55.2 tons/acre of feedlot area in August 1974 and 2.9 to 57.2
tons/acre of feedlot in July 1975. The low quantities of solids removed
from basin 12 may be attributed to cross-slope runoff from pen 12 to pen 11
and into the debris basins (see Figures 2 and 3). A greater quantity of
solids was removed from the basins in pens 20, 21, and 22 than from the
research basins. There was, however, no visible explanation for the large
quantity of materials removed form basins 20 through 22 compared to those
in pens 11 through 16, except that lots 20 through 22 were new. Continuous
high stocking rates and a relatively long slope could have contributed to the
higher amount of solids transported from basin 20 through 22. In addition,
3 to 5 inches of dry material that had accumulated on the lots during a dry
period could have floated off during runoff events. Manure voided into the
debris basin located in the feedlot may also be a factor. Extremely wet,
sloppy conditions within the debris basin for pen 23 prevented topographic
surveys and sampling.
Table 6 summarizes the animal numbers and estimated amount of manure
voided per pen. The large area debris basins contained larger quantities of
voided manure, and this affected the amount of material removed during clean-
ing.
18
-------
TABLE 4. MONTHLY PRECIPITATION AND" SUMMARY OF LOT RUNOFF
vo
Precipitation
Normal!/ 1973 1974
(inches)
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
Total
0.69
0.96
1.62
2.82
3.99
4.93
3.71
4.01
3.86
1.76
1.01
0.77
30.13
1.44
0.38
0.61
3.603/ 2.31
6.6S3-/ 4.28
1.861/ 1.34
5.661/ 0.43
0.74 5.25
9.75 1.20
4.49 3.04
1.73 1.08
0.53 0.68
17.06 22.04
Runoffi/
1975
1.07
0.91
2.31
3.07
2.84
3.35
0.77
4.17
0.55
1.65
7.90
1.15
24.14
1973
(ac-in)
A/
A/
A/
A/
A/
65.01
9.92
8.26
0.00
83.19
(inches)
A/
A/
A/
A/
A/
4.08
0.62
0.52
0.00
5.22^
1974
(ac-in)
0.00
0.00
0.00
8.26
31.96
2.20
0.00
38.02
3.86
13.23
16.53
0.00
114.06
(inches)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.52
2.00
0.14
0.00
2.38
0.24
0.83
1.04
0.00
7.15
1975
(ac-in)
0.00
0.00
19.28
22.86
11.85
6.89
0.00
32.78
0.00
0.00
11.02
0.00
104.68
(inches)
1.21
1.43
0.74
0.43
0.00
2.06
0.00
0.00
0.69
0.00
6.65
_!/ From Climatological Data, Nebraska Annual Summary, Vol. 80, No. 13, U. S. Dept. of Commerce, 1975.
21 Ac-in. x 101.6 = m3; inches x 2.54 - cm
3/ Estimated from Climatological Data, WSO AP Station, Omaha, Nebraska, Vol. 78, Nos. 4, 5, 6, and
7 for facility construction period prior to rain gauge installation on site.
4/ Runoff control facilities under construction.
J5/ Runoff resulting from 17.06 inches of precipitation.
-------
TABLE 5. SETTLED SOLIDS REMOVED FROM RUNOFF DEBRIS BASINS
August 1974 , ,
Basin
16
15
14
13
12
11
5
6
20
21
22
23
Basin
Area 1 ,
(acres)
1.26
0.82
0.54
1.38
1.29
1.22
3.33
Tons/acre^
f
(wet weight)
71.0
307.0
125.0
104.0
23.5
52.4
104.0
Tons /acre
(dry weight)
18. 8-^
55.2
22,4
18.6
12.5
37.0
18.7
July 1975
Tons /acre
(wet weight)
101.0
61.2
127.0
72.2
8.1
32.5
Tons /acre
(dry weight)
53.7^
53.7
57.2
41.6
2.9
26.6
(Not cleaned during study period)
2.97
2.97
1.53
(Unable to
obtain topographic surveys
and reliable
202.0
215.0
146.0
180.4
190.3
86.8
sample due to continuous wet conditions)
I/ Ac. x .405 - ha; tons/ac. x 2.24 = metric tons/ha.
2_/ Values for material removed may reflect considerable soil other than transported in runoff.
-------
TABLE 6. ESTIMATED QUANTITY OF MANURE PRODUCED
Pen
Number
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
20
21
22
23
Total:
Pen Area
(acres)
3.33
0.61
1.34
1.63
1.51
1.02
1.22
1.29
1.38
0.54
0.82
1.26
1.57
1.40
1.53
1.19
21.64
Animals/Pen
Maximum Average
1974-75
Total Solids Voided-/
Maximum
Calculated
1974-75
Average
(tons/year)
580
106
230
284
263
178
212
225
240
94
143
220
274
244
267
207
3767
125
127
131
96
60
165
126
76
55
127
158
159
191
140
1736
423
77
160
208
192
130
155
164
175
69
104
161
200
178
195
151
2750
62.3
48.9
81.5
48.3
30.9
93.1
40.7
22.7
40.5
105.9
119.2
113.6
153.9
207.7
1169.2
I/ 1 ac x 0.405 = ha; 1 ton x 0.907 = metric tons
21 Estimated from known numbers of animals and ration (6)
21
-------
Settled solids removed from basins inside the lot ranged from 2.36 to
7 tons/acre-inch of runoff compared to 1.59 to 6.47 tons/acre-inch of runoff
for debris basins outside the lot. Slope length did not have a significant
effect on the quantities of settled solids removed from basin 13 compared to
basins 14 and 15. Basin 13 (360 ft. slope length) contained less residue
than basins 14 and 15 (180 and 200 ft. slope lengths).
The total solids content of the material within the debris basins varied,
ranging from 26.5 to 81.6% for debris basins located outside the feedlot to
18.0 to 67.3% for debris basins inside the feedlot. During cleaning, basins
outside the feedlot were generally drier and easier to manage than those in-
side the feedlot.
Suspended Solids
Total solids content of the holding pond effluent was periodically
determined from June 1974 through August 1975. The pond liquid contained
an average 0.32% total solids concentration or 0.36 tons of suspended solids/
acre-inch of runoff. The effluent from the debris basins contained an aver-
age 0.54% total solids. This indicated that settling took place in the hold-
ing pond. It was estimated that 0.5 tons of solids settled in the holding
pond per acre-inch of transported and stored runoff. The quantity of settled
solids will vary depending on the runoff storage time in the holding pond (8).
Prompt disposal of the holding pond effluent may reduce the quantity of
settled solids in the holding pond.
BEEF FEEDLOT RESIDUE CHARACTERISTICS
Table 7 summarizes characteristics of effluent in the holding ponds and
debris basins, as well as those of the settled solids and the water in
Walnut Creek above and below the feedlot. Values for the total solids in
the holding ponds were 25% below those values from other research feedlots
(3, 4, 7, 8, 17). The total solids content of the debris basin effluent in-
dicated that the debris basins satisfactorily removed solids before the
effluent was transported to the holding pond. Published results have indi-
cated that solids content of feedlot runoff averages about 1.52% for small
research lots (7); therefore, it was assumed that about 60% of the solids
transported settled in the debris basins before transport to the holding
pond.
Total Solids
Settled solids removed from the inside and outside the lot debris basins
were almost the same moisture content. Moisture contents of the samples,
however, were dependent upon antecedent conditions and do not indicate an
average moisture content of material at any given time during a year. In
general, the basins inside the lot dried faster during dry weather because
animal hoof action stirred the debris and resulted in increased evaporation.
The debris within these same basins, however, seemed to remain damp longer
than in outside lot basins during cool, wet periods of the year.
22
-------
TABLE 7. HOLDING POND EFFLUENT, DEBRIS BASIN EFFLUENT, DEBRIS BASIN SOLIDS, AND WALNUT CREEK WATER CHARACTERISTICS
Total Solids Volatile Solids Sine Electric Conductivity Total N Total P COD
Range Range Range Range Range Range
High Low Ave. High Low Ave. High Low Ave. High Low Ave. High Low Ave. High Low Ave. High Low Ave.
(Z ) (Zj (mmhos/cm) (ppm) (ppm) (ppm)
Holding Fond 1 0.39 0.27 0.32 0.16 0.05 0.11 7.9 6.5 7.4 2.78 1.78 2.45 148 42 104 42 17 31 2055 1477 1685
Holding Fond 2 0.38 0.30 0.34 0.23 0.18 0.22 7.6 6.9 7.4 6.70 0.70 2.98 624 70 300 106 20 45 6060 1410 2635
Debris Baain
Effluent 0.63 0.40 0.54 0.47 0.14 0.28 7.1 6.4 6.8 2.90 1.50 2.14 196 86 140 39 25 26 4503 876 2195
Settled Solids
Inside Lot
Basins 72.90 40.70 59.30 18.60 8.20 12.50 ______ __ _ __ _
Outside Lot
Basins 87.70 34.80 61.00 27.50 6.40 14.60 ______ __ _ __ _
Walnut Creek
Above Feedlot 0.34 0.06 0.14 0.05 0.02 0.03 8.3 5.9 7.1 0.60 0.20 0.41 88 1 60.7 36.7 0.2 7.3 2289 8 740.3
Below Feedlot 0.26 0.09 0.14 0.16 0.01 0.08 7.8 6.4 7.5 0.78 0.36 0.56 293 2 32 35 0.4 4.0 221 36 147.5
Intermittent
Stream 0.10 0.07 0.09 0.04 0.01 0.02 8.1 7.6 7.8 0.55 0.50 0.52 735 0.3 0.1 0.2 136 12 54.9
Tile Drainage
from Holding
Pond 1 0.30 0.28 0.29 0.29 0.17 0.23 7.6 6.6 7.2 2.20 1.80 2.03 135 67 100 21 11 17 1350 876 1134
-------
The total solids content of the creek water before and after entering
the feedlot area indicated that the pollution control system performed
satisfactorily. The average solids content of the creek water above and
below the feedlot was about the same. The intermittent stream leading into
Walnut Creek and the drainage tile below holding pond 1 were considered to
be major factors in changing the water quality of Walnut Creek, but these
could not be isolated as a significant influence on the water flow of
Walnut Creek. Additional data must be obtained before these influences can
be interpreted.
Volatile Solids
Volatile solids value of the holding pond effluent was somewhat below
published values (7), but within a usable range. Sixty percent of the
total solids within debris basin effluent were volatile. It was assumed
that biological activity and/or settling removed some of the volatile
solids within the holding pond. The volatile solids content (21 to 24%)
of the settled solids indicated that either soil was mixed with the settled
solids or biological degradation had taken place. It was estimated that
the large quantity of soil in the solids was a result of the steep slopes
of the feedlot.
pH and Electrical Conductivity
The pH of the liquids ranged from 5.9 to 8.3, well within the range of
published values.
Electrical conductivity of holding pond effluent and debris basin
effluent ranged from 1.5 to 6.7. The electric conductivity of Walnut
Creek water below the feedlot did not seem to be affected since the range
was 0.2 to 0.78 mmhos/cm.
Elemental Content
Nitrogen content within all samples tested varied as shown in Table 7.
The total phosphorus in holding pond and debris basin effluent also varied
although the range was less than that of nitrogen. Average phosphorus with-
in holding pond effluent ranged from 17 to 106 ppm, while debris basin
effluent total phosphorus ranged from 25 to 39 ppm. Phosphorus content of
Walnut Creek was relatively low, and ranged from 0.2 to 36.7 ppm. The COD
of holding pond effluent was low compared to published values for rainstorm
runoff from feedlots. Average COD for holding pond effluent and debris
basin effluent ranged from 1410 to 6060 ppm,compared to an average of 3100
for rainfall runoff from outdoor unpaved feedlots (7). The COD of the
Walnut Creek water was relatively low although highly variable and ranged
from 8 to 2289 ppm. A usable average, however, was established.
SYSTEM OPERATION
The runoff control system satisfactorily controlled runoff from rain-
fall and snowmelt. Samples from the stream above and below the lot indi-
cated that pollution from the lot was insignificant.
24
-------
Debris Basins
Before all system components were operational, some overflow from the
debris basins occurred before the disposal system was established. The
debris basins for pens 11 through 16 overflowed during September of 1973
before the sump pump to transfer basin effluent to the holding pond was
installed. The storm that caused the overflow exceeded the 10-year, 24-hour
design storm. The debris basin adjacent to the holding pond which controlled
runoff from lots 7 through 10 also overflowed; however, runoff control was
effected as overflow went directly to the holding pond. A considerable
location advantage was shown for a debris basin near or adjacent to the
holding pond. This system would not, however, be appropriate for pens 11
through 16, as topography limits its application. An additional holding
pond could be installed for these particular pens to reduce the distance
from the debris basin to the holding pond.
The location of the debris basin with respect to the pen is also an
important consideration. Both inside and outside the lot debris basins
functioned well in separating the settled solids in runoff. There is, how-
ever, a difference in the management of the two debris basin locations.
Basins located inside the lots had repeated drainage problems. These result-
ed from cattle churning settled solids into a mud slurry during runoff events.
The slurry plugged riser and drain openings.
Another problem occurred in fall of 1973. Rain prevented cleaning of
pens 20 through 23 and created slurry conditions in the basins. The top of
the slurry froze during late fall. Two 800 Ib. steers melted through the
thin layer of frozen slurry and died.
During summer of 1974, the first major cleaning of pens and debris
basins was completed. The slurry from basins inside the lots was spread
on to the slope of the pen. This material dried, and was mounded. This
process is not possible unless the pens are empty. If not, the operator
would have to haul the slurry to the disposal field. During this same
cleaning period, pens 8, 9, and 10 with basins outside the pen had slurry
from the lower fenceline hauled out of the pen. Cleaning of basins 11, 12,
and 16 was accomplished by pushing the settled solids over the basin berm
and using it for fill material. It was not hauled to the field for dis-
posal because such a small quantity of material was available.
After two seasons of operation, the feedlot owner indicated that he
favors the location of basins outside the pen. He said customers touring
his commercial operation don't like to see cattle standing in a slurry build-
up. No evidence exists, however, that indicates this arrangement has an
adverse effect on cattle performance.
The deep debris basin performed satisfactorily as a solids settling
unit; however, maintenance problems will prohibit application unless
special manure pump equipment is adapted to the system.
Table 8 summarizes the advantages and disadvantages of inside and out-
side the lot debris basins, as determined by the two-year study.
25
-------
TABLE 8. ADVANTAGES OR DISADVANTAGES
OF THE DIFFERENT DEBRIS BASINS
INSIDE THE LOT
Efficient use of the land.
Slurry conditions can exist during
summer and winter.
Basin cleanings can be spread
on lot and mounded, or applied
directly to land.
Risers plug from winter conditions
and from slurry if draining is slow
or incomplete in the summer.
Cattle using basin for shelter (from
high winds, etc.) can be endangered
by deep slurry.
With basins inside - there can be
a problem of where to place fence-
line.
Pens and basins can be stacked on a
hill more efficiently.
Cattle can use berms of basin as
mounds during extended wet periods.
OUTSIDE THE LOT
Extra space is required for runoff
control.
Slurry conditions exist primarily
during periods of winter mud
slurry runoff conditions.
Disposal from basin is minimized.
Risers plug only from winter slurry
runoff. No drain plugging problems
from cattle rubbing on riser.
Solid may accumulate at the fenceline
due to the berm formed by animal
traffic.
Basins are difficult to keep free
of weeds. Extreme snowmelt slurry
runoff can bury fencelines.
Basin location may be located at any
convenient location.
Mounds should be constructed on the
lot for cattle to seek dry ground
during severe weather.
26
-------
Design Volumes
The volume of the basins was considered adequate for the feedlot. The
design criteria used (1.25 inches per feedlot site with a design safety
factor of 2.5) was adequate when all components were operational. A design
safety factor of 1.5 would be adequate for basins inside or outside the lot
if the basins are remote from the holding pond. Debris basins located ad-
jacent to the holding pond had an adequate volume without application of a
safety factor. These conditions would be satisfactory if the basins were
cleaned once, or preferably twice a year.
Design capacity and operational characteristics of the holding pond at
the lot were successful. The design volume of 100% of the 10-year, 24-hour
storm is adequate and will, under stress conditions, relieve pollution
problems when disposal systems are non-functional. Some minor problems were
caused when weeds and other debris plugged intakes to the pump but were
minimized by use of screen filters.
The type of riser is an important factor. There were no performance
differences observed between metal and PVC risers. However, the corrugated
metal risers resisted damage from animal traffic and other rough service.
PVC risers must be protected by a fence to avoid breakage. Distance between
risers could not be clearly differentiated within the time frame of this
study.
The flexible tube risers did not perform satisfactorily within debris
basin 12. Snowmelt slurry covered the pipe and prevented further use. The
metal riser plugged several times. Slots cut in this riser were large,
with rough edges. Even though design of risers have been documented (10)
additional research may be required to reduce maintenance problems.
Disposal System
The center pivot performed satisfactorily as a system for disposal of
liquid runoff with settled solids removed. The unit was not fully tested
during the research period since rainfall was only 70% of normal. The dis-
posal area of 52 acres was twice the area shown as sufficient by previous
research (16).
Several disposal problems were encountered and may be a problem for
other sites using a similar system. A major problem occurred when effluent
was pumped from more than one source. Air leaks in intake lines caused
priming problems for the pump and plugged intake lines. The three-phase
power required for operation of the center pivot may or may not be available
on a particular site. At the Schram site it was not, so a generator was
necessary. The same power shaft drove both the effluent pump and the gener-
ator and caused coordination problems. It is recommended that the electrical
generation equipment be self-contained with an individual power unit and a
pumping station established for each pond using a moveable pump rather than
a common point for a single pump operation.
27
-------
A conventional centrifugal pump was used and was unsatisfactory for
pumping solids from the deep debris basin, although the center pivot was
satisfactory for application of a higher solids content material (3-5%), when
the deep debris basin was emptied. A manure-type pump with agitators was
used and nozzles on the center pivot were changed to 5/8 in. diameter. The
conventional centrifugal pump was not adequate unless the debris basin mass
was highly diluted.
The spray nozzles were unsuccessful because the spray nozzles plugged
even when materials from holding ponds 1 and 2 were highly diluted.
The center pivot is a high cost disposal system if designed specifical-
ly for applying controlled runoff to land as it was at the Schram site.
During the dry weather of 1974 and 1975, the spring-fed creek dried up and
water was not available for irrigation. Alternate methods of disposal, such
as a solid set system with a main pipeline using a tow line and several
riser pipes, or large sprinkler guns may have merit.
In general, the center pivot adequately disposed of liquid runoff.
The flexibility of application rates (1/8 in. to 1.5 in. per hour) would
meet the demands for almost any soil type, and were a major asset for this
site because of high pollution potential.
28
-------
REFERENCES
1. Boesch, B. E. and D. F. Kesselring. 1973. Pollution Abatement Systems
for Farm Animal Wastes in Southeast Michigan. ASAE Paper No. 73-414.
Presented at Annual ASAE Meeting, University of Kentucky, Lexington,
Kentucky, June 17-20.
2. Eisenhauer, D. E. 1973. Treatment and Disposal of Cattle Feedlot Run-
off Using a Spray - Runoff Irrigation System. M. S. Thesis. Kansas
State University, Manhattan, Kansas.
3. Gilbertson, C. B., T. M. McCalla, J. R. Ellis, and W. R. Woods. 1971.
Methods of Removing Settleable Solids from Outdoor Beef Cattle Feedlot
Runoff. Trans. ASAE 14:899-905.
4. Gilbertson, C. B., J. A. Nienaber, T. M. McCalla, J. R. Ellis, and
W. R. Woods. 1972. Beef Cattle Feedlot Runoff, Solids Transport and
Settling Characteristics. Trans. ASAE 15(6):1132-1134.
5. Gilbertson, C. B., and J. A. Nienaber. 1973. Feedlot Runoff Control
System Design and Installation - A Case Study. Trans. ASAE 16(3):
462-470.
6. Gilbertson, C. B., J. A. Nienaber, J. R. Ellis, T. M. McCalla, T. J.
Klopfenstein, and S. D. Farlin. 1974. Nutrient and Energy Composition
of Beef Cattle Feedlot Waste Fractions. Nebr. Agric. Exp. Sta., UN-L
Res. Bull. 262.
7. Gilbertson, C. B., J. R. Ellis, J. A. Nienaber, T. M. McCalla, and T. J.
Klopfenstein. 1975. Physical and Chemical Properties of Outdoor Beef
Cattle Feedlot Runoff. Nebr. Agric. Exp. Sta., UN-L, Res. Bull. 271.
8. Linderman, C. L., and J. R. Ellis. 1975. Quality Variation of Feedlot
Runoff in Storage. ASAE Paper No. 75-2563. Presented at Winter ASAE
Meeting, Chicago, Illinois, Dec. 15-18.
9. Linderman, C. L., and L. N. Mielke. 1975. Irrigation with Feedlot
Runoff, p. 26-37. In; Nebraska Short Course Irr. Proc. Lincoln,
Nebraska, Jan. 20-21.
10. Linderman, C. L., N. P. Swanson, and L. N. Mielke. 1976. Riser Intake
Design for Settling Basins. Trans. ASAE 19(5):894-896.
29
-------
11. Madden, J. M., and J. N. Dornbush. 1971. Pollution Potential of Run-
off from Livestock Feeding Operations. ASAE Paper No. 71-212. Pre-
sented at Annual ASAE Meeting, Washington State University, Pullman,
Washington, June 27-30.
12. McCaskey, T. A., G. H. Rollins, and J. A. Little. 1971. Water Quality
of Runoff from Grassland Applied with Liquid, Semi-Liquid, and "Dry"
Dairy Waste. In; Livestock Waste Management and Pollution Abatement,
p. 239-242. ASAE, St. Joseph, Michigan.
13. Mielke, L. N., N. P. Swanson, and T. M. McCalla. 1974. Soil Profile
Conditions of Cattle Feedlots. J. Environ. Quality 3(1):14-17.
14. Miner, J. R., L. R. Fina, J. W. Funk, R. I. Lipper, and G. H. Larson.
1966. Stormwater Runoff from Cattle Feedlots. ASAE Publ. No. SP-0366,
23-27.
15. Nebraska Soil Conservation Service. 1973. Nebraska Engineering
Standard and Specifications for Livestock Waste Control Facilities.
Sec. VIII. In Proc. Livestock Waste Manage. System Conf. Nebr. Center
for Contin. Educ., Lincoln, Nebraska, Feb., 1973.
16. Nienaber, J. A., C. B. Gilbertson, T. M. McCalla, and F. M. Kestner.
1974. Disposal of Effluent from a Beef Cattle Feedlot Runoff Control
Holding Pond. Trans. ASAE 17(2):375-378.
17. Robbins, J. D., G. J. Kriz, and D. H. Howells. 1971. Quality of
Effluent from Farm Animal Production Sites, pp 166-169. In Proc.
Livestock Waste Manage, and Pollut. Abatement. ASAE, St. Joseph,
Michigan.
18. Swanson, N. P., L. N. Mielke, J. C. Lorimor, T. M. McCalla, and
J. R. Ellis. 1971. Transport of Pollutants from Sloping Cattle
Feedlots as Affected by Rainfall Intensity, Duration and Recurrence.
p 51-55. In: Livestock Waste Manage, and Pollut. Abatement. ASAE,
St. Joseph, Michigan.
19. Swanson, N. P., J. C. Lorimor, and L. N. Mielke. 1973. Broad Basin
Terraces for Sloping Cattle Feedlots. Trans. ASAE 16(4):746-749.
20. Swanson, N. P. and L. N. Mielke. 1973. Solids Trap for Beef Cattle
Feedlot Runoff. Trans. ASAE 16(4):743-745.
21. Swanson, N. P., C. L. Linderman, and J. R. Ellis. 1974. Irrigation
of Perennial Forage Crops with Feedlot Runoff. Trans. ASAE 17(1):144-
147.
22. Wise, G. G. and D. L. Reddell. 1973. Water Quality of Storm Runoff
from a Texas Beef Feedlot. ASAE Paper No. 73-441. Presented at ASAE
Annual Meeting, University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky, June 17-20,
1973.
30
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-600/2-77-159
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION-NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
BEEF CATTLE FEEDLOT RUNOFF AND CONTROL IN
EASTERN NEBRASKA
5. REPORT DATE
August 1977 issuing date
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
L. P. Schram
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
L. P. Schram Feed Lot, Inc.
Papillion, Nebraska 68046
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
1HB617
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
S-802197
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Lab .-Ada, OK
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Ada, Oklahoma 74820
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final (3/15/73 - 9/30/76)
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/15
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
This study was initiated to determine operational characteristics of runoff
control facility components for beef cattle feedlots.
A runoff control facility was designed and constructed for a 3,000 head
capacity feedlot in eastern Nebraska. Components of the runoff control facility
included debris basins inside the pen and outside the pen, a holding pond, and
a disposal system.
Results indicated that design volumes for the debris basins and holding ponds
were effective in controlling runoff from the lots caused by snowmelt and rainfall
for climatic conditions within eastern Nebraska. Characteristics of runoff trans-
ported solids from this large lot compared favorably with values developed earlier
on small research lots. All values for total and volatile solids, electric
conductivity, pH, nitrogen, phosphorus, and COD were within published ranges
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
COSATI Field/Group
Livestock, Runoff, Agricultural wastes,
Waste disposal
Feedlot, Debris basins,
Holding pond
02/C
02/E
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
RELEASE TO PUBLIC
19. SECURITY CLASS (ThisReport)
UNCLASSIFIED
21. NO. OF PAGES
41
20. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)
UNCLASSIFIED
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
31
& U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1977-757-056/6518 Region No. b-ll
------- |