&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Roberts Kerr Environmental Research EPA 600/2 78 102
Laboratory May 1978
Ada OK 74820
Research and Development
A Manual On:
Evaluation And
Economic Analysis Of
Livestock Waste
Management Systems
-------
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-600/2-78-102
May 1978
A Manual on:
EVALUATION AND ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF
LIVESTOCK WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
by
R. K. White
D. L. Forster
The Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center
Wooster, Ohio 44691
and
The Ohio State University
Columbus, Ohio 43210
Grant No. R-804548
Project Officer
S. C. Yin
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.
-------
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 endeavors to fulfill its mission
involves the search for information about environmental problems, manage-
ment techniques and new technologies through which optimum use of the
nation's land and water resources can be assured. The primary and ulti-
mate goal of these efforts is to protect the nation from the scourge of
existing and potential pollution from all sources.
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 con-
trol 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 is a contribution to the Agency's overall effort in ful-
filling its mission to improve and protect the nation's environment for
the benefit of the American public.
William C. Galegar, Directfcr
Robert S. Kerr Environmental
Research Laboratory
111
-------
ABSTRACT
This manual was developed to describe and evaluate alternative systems
and/or technologies currently used to handle wastes from livestock facili-
ties of less than 1000 animal units. The systems are evaluated with regard
to controlling water pollution and odor nuisance. An economic analysis of
alternative livestock waste management systems for dairy, beef, swine, sheep
and poultry facilities is provided. The economic impact of water pollution
control technologies is discussed. This manual is intended to be used by
environmental planners, regulatory personnel, and livestock producers.
The discussion and evaluation of waste management systems are related
to the regional concentration of livestock species. Climatic constraints
are considered in evaluating alternative waste systems. The economic analy-
sis of alternative waste systems is done for each species separately.
Each section on dairy, beef, swine, sheep and poultry considers the cur-
rent waste management options, an economic analysis of the options and an
environmental assessment of the options, including acceptable pollution con-
trol technologies. The number of waste systems including technologies for
controlling runoff and odor nuisance considered are 59 dairy systems, 45
beef systems, 70 swine systems, 35 sheep systems and 35 poultry systems.
The technologies considered for controlling runoff from confined live-
stock feedlot are: (1) solids settling, detention and was tewater irrigation
and (2) solids settling and infiltration of wastewater in grassed areas.
Economies of size are more evident with detention/irrigation than with
grassed infiltration. Therefore, runoff control using infiltration which is
less expensive is more acceptable economically for small producers.
Manure storage capability is evaluated. Where storage is used, plow-
down or injection of waste will reduce the potential for odor nuisance and
runoff from land spreading. The benefit from lower fertilizer nutrient loss
usually offsets the added cost for incorporating the waste in the soil.
Detailed economic analysis of waste management options are provided in
the Appendices for each species. All cost data are in 1977 dollars. These
data will enable the producer or engineer to cost the waste management sys-
tem for a particular facility.
This manual was submitted in fulfillment of Grant No. R-804548 by the
Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center under the sponsorship of
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The report covered the period
July 1, 1976 to June 30, 1977.
IV
-------
CONTENTS
Foreword iii
Abstract iv
Figures vi
Tables x
1. Introduction 1
2. Summary 3
3. Conclusions and Recommendations 5
4. Regional Aspects of Livestock Production and
Waste Management Options 7
5. Selecting Waste Management Options 21
6. Dairy Waste Management Options 33
7. Beef Waste Management Options 67
8. Swine Waste Management Options 93
9. Sheep Waste Management Options 126
10. Poultry Waste Management Options 149
11. Bibliography 170
Appendix 174
A. Detailed Analysis of Dairy Waste Management Options . 175
B. Detailed Analysis of Beef Waste Management Options 205
C. Detailed Analysis of Swine Waste Management Options 228
D. Detailed Analysis of Sheep Waste Management Options 263
E. Detailed Analysis of Poultry Waste Management Options 281
F. Conversion Table - English to Metric 299
Glossary of Terms 300
-------
FIGURES
Number Page
1. Climatic regions of the continental United States used for
grouping similar livestock waste management systems .... 8
2. Regional patterns of temperature and annual moisture deficit or
surplus (precipitation minus potential evapotranspiration). 9
3. Beef cow-calf production in the United States (cows and
heifers that have calved January 1, 1977) 11
4. Fed beef production in the United States (number on feed
January 1, 1977) 12
5. Fed hog production in the United States (number on farms
December 1, 1975) 14
6. Sheep (ewe and lamb) production in the United States
(number in breeding flocks January 1, 1977) 15
7. Fed lamb production in United States (number on feed
January 1, 1976) 16
8. Dairy-milk cows on farms in United States (cows and
heifers that have calved January 1, 1976) 17
9. Laying hens in production in United States (hens and
pullets of laying age December 1, 1976) 18
10. Commercial broiler production in United States (1976) 19
11. Turkeys raised in United States (1976) 20
12. Free stall dairy barn with tractor scraper, piston pump
and earthen storage basin waste system 35
13. Free stall dairy barn with mechanical alley scraper, cross-
gutter cleaner, piston pump and upground storage tank ... 36
14. Free stall dairy barn with tractor scrape, upground plank
walled storage and box spreader for solid handling 37
15. Confinement dairy barn with conventional gutter cleaner
or elevator (stacker) and concrete pad storage 3Q
vi
-------
Number Page
16. Free stall dairy barn with tractor scrape, below ground
storage tank, agitation/loading pump and tank wagon
for liquid spreading 39
17. Flushing free stall alleyways to a two-stage lagoon
treatment system 41
18. Dry-lot dairy system common to hot arid and warm arid
regions, Manure is periodically scraped from lot 42
19. Dairy, annual net system costs for confined free stall
(100% utilization of available nutrients assumed) 50
20. Dairy, annual net system costs for confinement stall
(100% utilization of available nutrients assumed) 50
21. Dairy, annual net system cost for free stall, open lot, tractor
scrape (100% utilization of available nutrients assumed) ... 55
22. Dairy, annual net system costs for flush systems (100%
utilization of available nutrients assumed) 55
23. Fed beef dry lot. Manure is scraped from lot periodically and
spread on cropland. Runoff settling and detention
basins are shown 68
24. Paved beef feed lot typical of cold and cool humid areas .... 69
25. Total confinement, slotted floor, pit storage, liquid
manure handling system 71
26. Fed beef, annual net systems costs for paved dry lot
(100% utilization of available nutrients assumed) 75
27. Fed beef, annual net system costs for unpaved dry lot
(100% utilization of available nutrients assumed) 75
28. Fed beef, annual net system costs for total shelter, fully
slotted floor (100% utilization of available nutrients
assumed) 81
29. Beef cow/calf, annual net system costs for paved lot and
unpaved lot (100% utilization of available nutrients
assumed) 81
30. Swine breeding - portable farrowing houses on pasture 94
31. Swine breeding - Farrowing house is on paved lot. Manure
scraped and handled in solid form. Runoff control
includes settling basin and grassed infiltration area .... 96
vii
-------
Number Page
32. Confined housing, farrowing crates, partially slotted
floor/ pit storage, liquid handling 97
33. Fed hogs - paved lot with shelter, solid manure handling.
Inserts show alternative for runoff control 99
34. Fed hogs - confined, partially slotted floor, pit storage,
liquid handling 100
35. . Fed hogs - confined, concrete floor, narrow gutter,
outside storage, liquid handling 102
36. Two-stage anaerobic lagoon system for treatment of wastes
flushed from swine building 103
37. Fed swine, annual net system costs for paved lot with shelter
(100% utilization of available nutrients assumed) 107
38. Fed swine, annual net system costs for unpaved lot with shelter
(100% utilization of available nutrients assumed) 107
39. Fed swine, annual net system costs for total slats with
pit storage, and partial slats discharging to lagoon
(100% utilization of available nutrients assumed) 114
40. Fed swine, annual net system cost for solid floor with flush
channel and solid floor with narrow gutter discharge to
storage basin (100% utilization of available nutrients
assumed) 114
41. Swine breeding, annual net system costs for paved lot with
farrowing house (100% utilization of available nutrients
assumed) 116
42. Swine breeding, annual net system costs for total shelter
systems (100% utilization of available nutrients assumed). . . 116
43. Ewes wintering on regrowth and field stored hay 127
44. Ewes wintering in open building with unpaved lot.
Manure removed in spring 128
45. Fed lambs on open, dry lot. Manure is scraped and
removed once or twice a year 129
46. Ewes and lambs, net system costs for unpaved lot with shelter
(100% utilization of available nutrients assumed) 134
Vlll
-------
Number Page
47. Ewes and lambs, annual net system costs for unpaved lot
without shelter (100% utilization of available
nutrients assumed) 134
48. Fed lambs, net system costs for unpaved lot with shelter
(100% utilization of available nutrients assumed) 138
49. Fed lambs, annual net system costs for unpaved lots with
shelter (100% utilization of available nutrients assumed)• . . 139
50. Fed lambs, annual net system costs for unpaved lots without
shelter (100% utilization of available nutrients assumed). . . 139
51. Caged layer facility in arid region, manure handled
as a solid 150
52. Caged layer house with a mechanical (cable) scraper 151
53. Caged layer "high-rise" house. Manure accumulates for
one or more years 152
54. Litter system for broilers or turkeys. Buildings are
cleaned between groups of birds 154
55. Layers, annual net system costs for solid waste handling
alternatives (100% utilization of available nutrients
assumed) 159
56. Layers, net system costs for flush systems (100% utilization
of available nutrients assumed) 159
57. Turkeys, net system costs for waste management systems
(100% utilization of available nutrients assumed) 164
IX
-------
TABLES
Number Pag£
1. Percentages Used in Computing Annual Fixed Costs
for Structures and Equipment 28
2. Nitrogen, Phosphate (P2°5^ and Potash (K O) Available
to Crops from Dairy Waste per Animal Unit for
Alternative Handling Systems ... 46
3. Dairy, Confined Free Stall, Annual Returns and Costs
for Alternative Waste Management Systems Using
Tractor Scraping 47
4. Dairy, Confined Free Stall, Annual Returns and Costs
for Slotted Floor Alternative 47
5. Dairy, Confined Free Stall, Annual Returns and Costs
for Alternative Waste Management Systems Using
Mechanical Scraping 48
6. Dairy, Confinement Stall, Annual Returns and Costs
for Alternative Waste Management Systems 51
7. Dairy, Free Stall Open Lot, Annual Returns and Costs for
Alternative Waste Management Systems Without Storage .... 52
8. Dairy, Free Stall Open Lot, Annual Returns and Costs for
Alternative Waste Management Systems With Storage 53
9. Dairy, Flush Systems, Annual Returns and Costs for
Alternative Waste Management Systems 56
10. Dairy, Unpaved Lot with Shade, Annual Returns and Costs
for Alternative Waste Management Systems 57
11. Dairy, Confined Free Stall, Net System Returns and Level of
Pollutants for Alternative Management Systems Using
Tractor Scraping or Slotted Floors 58
12. Dairy, Confined Free Stall, Net System Returns and Level of
Pollutants for Alternative Management Systems Using
Mechanical Scraping 59
-------
Number
13. Dairy, Confinement Stall, Net System Returns and Level
of Pollutants for Alternative Management Systems 60
14. Dairy, Free Stall Open Lot, Net System Returns and
Level of Pollutants for Alternative Management Systems
without Storage 61
15. Dairy, Free Stall Open Lot, Net System Returns and
Level of Pollutants for Alternative Management Systems
with Storage 63
16. Dairy, Flush Systems, Net System Returns and Level of
Pollutants for Alternative Management Systems 64
17. Dairy, Unpaved Lot with Shade, Net System Returns and Level
of Pollutants for Alternative Waste Management Systems ... 65
18. Nitrogen, Phosphate (P2°s) > sand Potash (K2O) Available
to Crops from Beef Waste, per Animal Unit for
Alternative Handling Systems 74
19. Fed Beef, Annual Costs and Returns for Alternative Waste
Management Systems with Dry Lot Paved Systems 77
20. Fed Beef, Annual Costs and Returns for Alternative Waste
Management Systems with Dry Lot Unpaved Systems 78
21. Fed Beef, Annual Costs and Returns for Alternative Waste
Management Systems with Fully Slotted Systems 80
22. Fed Beef, Annual Costs and Returns for Alternative Waste
Management Systems without Shelter 82
23. Beef Cow-Calf, Annual Costs and Returns for Alternative
Waste Management Systems with Pasture, Paved Lot 83
24. Beef Cow-Calf, Annual Costs and Returns for Alternative
Waste Management Systems with Pasture, Unpaved Lots 84
25. Fed Beef, Dry Lot Paved Systems, Annual Net System
Returns and Level of Pollution for Alternative
Waste Management Systems 86
26. Fed Beef, Dry Lot Unpaved Systems, Annual Net System
Returns and Level of Pollution for Alternative
Waste Management Systems 87
27. Fed Beef, Total Shelter, Fully Slotted Systems, Annual
Net System Returns and Level of Pollution for
Alternative Waste Management Systems 88
xi
-------
Number
28. Fed Beef, Unpaved Lot without Shelter, Annual Net
System Returns and Level of Pollution for Alternative
Waste Management Systems ................. 89
29.. Beef Cow-Calf, Pasture, Paved Lot, Annual Net System
Returns and Level of Pollution for Alternative Waste
Management Systems .................... 91
30. Beef Cow-Calf, Pasture, Unpaved Lot, Annual Net System
Returns and Level of Pollution Control for Alternative
Waste Management Systems ................. 92
31. Nitrogen, Phosphate (P2O5) , and Potash (K-0) Available
to Crops from Swine Waste per Animal Unit for
Alternative Waste Management Systems ........... 106
32. Fed Swine, Paved Lot with Shelter, Annual Returns and
Costs for Alternative Waste Management Systems ...... 108
33. Fed Swine, Unpaved Lot with Shelter, Annual Returns and
Costs for Alternative Waste Management Systems ...... no
34. Fed Swine, Unpaved Lot without Shelter, Annual Returns and
Costs for Alternative Waste Management Systems ......
35. Fed Swine, Total Shelter, Annual Returns and Costs for
Alternative Waste Management Systems ........... 113
36. Swine Breeding, Annual Returns and Costs for Alternative
Waste Management Systems ................. 117
37. Fed Hogs, Paved Lot with Shelter, Net System Returns
and Level of Pollutants for Alternative Waste
Management Systems .................... 119
38. Fed Swine, Unpaved Lot with Shelter, Net System Returns
and Level of Pollutants for Alternative Waste
Management Systems .................... 120
39. Fed Swine, Unpaved Lot without Shelter, Net System
Returns and Level of Pollutants for Alternative
Waste Management Systems ................. 121
40. Fed Swine, Total Shelter, Net System Returns and Level of
Pollutants for Alternative Waste Management Systems . . . 122
41. Swine Breeding, Net System Returns and Level of Pollutants
for Alternative Waste Management Systems ......... 124
xii
-------
Number Page
42. Swine Breeding, Net System Returns and Level of Pollutants
for Alternative Waste Management Systems .......... 125
43. Nitrogen, Phosphate (P205) , and Potash (K2O) Available
to Crops from Sheep Waste, per Animal Unit for
Alternative Handling Systems ................ 132
44. Sheep, Ewes and Lambs, Unpaved Lot with Shelter, Annual
Returns and Costs for Alternative Waste Management
Systems .......................... 133
45. Sheep, Ewes and Lambs, Unpaved Lot without Shelter,
Annual Returns and Costs for Alternative Waste
Management Systems ..................... 136
46. Sheep, Fed Lambs, Paved Lot with Shelter, Annual Returns
and Costs for Alternative Waste Management Systems ..... 137
47. Sheep, Fed Lambs, Unpaved Lot with Shelter, Annual Returns
and Costs for Alternative Waste Management Systems ..... 141
48. Sheep, Fed Lambs, Unpaved Lot without Shelter, Annual Returns
and Costs for Alternative Waste Management Systems , . . . . 142
49. Sheep, Ewes and Lambs, Unpaved Lot with Shelter, Net System
Returns and Level of Pollution for Alternative Waste
Management Systems ..................... 143
50. Sheep, Ewes and Lambs, Unpaved Lot without Shelter, Net
System Return and Level of Pollution for Alternative
Waste Management Systems .................. 144
51. Sheep, Fed Lambs, Paved Lot with Shelter, Net System
Return and Level of Pollution for Alternative Waste
Management Systems ..................... 145
52. Sheep, Fed Lambs, Unpaved Lot with Shelter, Net System
Returns and Level of Pollution for Alternative Waste
Management Systems ..................... 146
53. Sheep, Fed Lambs, Unpaved Lot without Shelter, Net
System Returns and Level of Pollution for Alternative
Waste Management Systems .................. 147
54. Nitrogen, Phosphate (P2O5> and Potash (K2O) Available
to Crops from Poultry Waste per Bird Unit for
Alternative Disposal Systems ................ 157
55. Layers, Solid Waste Handling, Annual Returns and
Costs for Alternative Waste Management Systems ....... 158
xiii
-------
Number Page
56. Layers, Shallow Pit with Flush Systems, Annual Returns
and Costs for Alternative Waste Management Systems 161
57. Broilers, Chicken Brooders, and Turkey Brooders, Litter
with Solid Handling, Annual Returns and Costs for
Waste Management Systems 162
58. Turkeys, Annual Returns and Costs for Alternative Waste
Management Systems 163
59. Layers, Solid Waste Handling, Annual Net System Returns
and Level of Pollution for Alternative Waste Management
Systems 166
60. Layers, Shallow Pit with Flush Systems, Annual Net
System Returns and Level of Pollution for Alternative
Waste Management Systems 167
61. Broilers, Chicken Brooders, and Turkey Brooders, Litter
with Solid Handling, Annual Net System Returns and
Level of Pollution 168
62. Turkeys, Annual Net System Returns and Level of Pollution
for Alternative Waste Management Systems 169
xiv
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
Society is placing a continuing emphasis on the maintenance or enhance-
ment of the environment. Legislative, administrative, and judicial branches
of government are reflecting this public commitment by the laws, implementing
regulations, and court rulings which have established an improved environment
as a national goal.
Agriculture, like most sectors of the economy, has been principally
affected by Public Law 92-500 which established the national goal of elimi-
nating by 1985 "the discharge of pollutants into navigable waters". This
Act delineates two origins of pollutants, point and nonpoint sources. Feed-
lots are identified in the Act as point source category, and the remainder of
production agriculture is placed in the nonpoint category.
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) implements the
point source provisions of the Act through the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) regulations (Federal Register, March 18, 1976).
For concentrated animal feeding operations, the regulations require a permit
for all livestock facilities over 1000 animal units with point source dis-
charges of pollutants into navigable waters. An animal unit is one beef
animal or equivalent. Facilities with 300 to 1000 animal units require a
permit if the feedlot (1) discharges pollutants through a man-made conveyance
or (2) discharges pollutants into waters passing through or coming into con-
tact with animals in the confined area. No permit is required for feedlots
with less than 300 animal units except for a case-by-case designation where
control is needed. The majority of livestock operations in the United States
are not required to obtain an NPDES permit.
The objective of this manual is to provide descriptions and economic and
environmental assessments of a range of livestock waste management systems
for concentrated feeding operations with less than 1000 animal units. Before
producers are mandated to change their water pollution control technologies,
environmental planners and regulators and the producer need to have an aware-
ness of the available pollution control technologies, an approximation of the
economic impacts of these technologies on the livestock business, and an
estimate of the environmental impacts of these technologies. The intent of
this manual is to provide this information to environmental planners, regu-
lators, and livestock producers.
The range of waste management systems is greatly influenced by climatic
conditions. Thus, throughout the manual the regional nature of available
-------
technologies is emphasized. In addition, the location of the various live-
stock species tends to be regional in nature. Due to economic, technical,
and historic reasons, most species are concentrated in a few regions rather
than spread uniformly throughout the country. Discussion and evaluation of
waste management systems is limited to principal areas of production for
each livestock species.
USING THE MANUAL
Most users of the manual will be interested in identifying and assess-
ing the waste management alternatives for one or more species in a particu-
lar area of the country. It is suggested that Section 4, titled "Regional
Aspects of Livestock Production and Waste Management", be read to understand
the climatological constraints and regional delineation of livestock produc-
tion used in the manual. Next, a general discussion of the waste management
option selection process found in Chapter 5 should be read. Finally, the
reader would turn to the Section(s) dealing with the species of interest
where the waste management options and economic assessments are outlined.
If more technical or economic detail is desired for a particular waste man-
agement system, the user then could turn to the Appendix where the detailed
engineering, investment, and annual cost assumptions are tabulated.
Several caveats are in order. First, the manual is not intended to be
an engineering design manual for the vast array of waste management systems
noted. Those interested in designing specific systems are encouraged to use
Cooperative Extension Service materials or engineering design manuals from
their state or region. Second, each of the systems described is producer
specific with design, investment outlay, and annual costs being unique. De-
signs, investments and costs are thought to be "representative"; however,
environmental planners and agricultural producers who want to analyze al-
ternatives for a particular farm situation will want to do further analysis.
Third, producers recognize that the "best" waste management system does not
necessarily dictate the "best" livestock system. The feeding and housing
components of any livestock system must also be considered as well as the
effects of the livestock system on the use of farm resources. For example,
a pasture system in the Cornbelt may appear to be the least-cost waste man-
agement system, but only casual analysis would demonstrate its inefficiencies
in feeding and costly use of productive cropland. Finally, environmental
planners and regulators should be cognizant of the macro implications of any
waste management system recommendations. This manual presents only the micro
impacts to the farm operation. Persuading large numbers of producers to use
a "best management" technology such as six month manure storage may produce
unexpected results when all producers in one watershed spread the stored
manure at the same time preceding a spring storm.
-------
SECTION 2
SUMMARY
Agriculture is in a process of change due to a number of actors in the
economic and political process. One set of actors, the farmers, view agri-
culture as an efficient sector of the economy producing a low cost food
supply. Many farmers view agriculture as their historic domain and become
defensive when other actors appear on the scene. Another set of actors
includes the institutions, citizens groups, and individuals who place envir-
onmental quality as an important national goal. They view agriculture as a
sector producing environmental degradation which they have an obligation to
check. They usually recognize the immense benefits created by agriculture
and seek to make these environmental changes without unduly lessening the
low cost food supply.
Livestock production has and will continue to be an area of agriculture
where these actors meet. Decisions have been and will be made concerning
the "proper" methods of livestock production which are economically effi-
cient and environmentally safe. This manual provides information for this
decision making process.
First, the analysis delineates the regions of livestock production in
the United States. The principal factors used in identifying these regions
are temperature, rainfall, moisture evaporation, livestock production pat-
terns, and topographic features. Then the principal regions of production
are located for each species - dairy, beef cow-calf, swine breeding, fed
swine, ewes and lambs, fed sheep, layers, broilers, and turkeys.
For each species, common waste management systems are described and
evaluated. An economic analysis is done for each system. All cost data are
in 1977 dollars. Monetary benefits and monetary costs are computed. Also,
a qualitative measure of the environmental costs of each system is estimated.
This procedure is followed for 59 dairy systems, 45 beef systems, 70 swine
systems, 35 sheep systems, and 35 poultry systems.
Several general observations are apparent from the analysis of these
244 systems. First, the farmer is faced with substantial investment in any
particular system. If the farmer is asked to change from a present waste
management system to another, it is possible that harsh economic results
could occur.
The environmentalist and agriculturalist can make recommendations about
the "best" waste management system only by closely analyzing individual farm
-------
situations. Recommendations should be made by recognizing the existing sys-
tem and analyzing the monetary costs and benefits as well as the expected
environmental improvements resulting from a range of possible changes.
Major changes in a livestock waste management system may be economically
ruinous. However, most existing systems can be modified at a relatively low
cost to improve environmental quality. These modifications include control-
ling runoff from exposed lot surfaces, controlling runoff from fields where
waste is surface spread, and lessening odor nuisances from the concentrated
livestock lot as well as from the field where wastes are spread.
For the producer using a system with exposed lot surfaces, the least
costly changes are normally to modify the existing system to control runoff
from the lot. The runoff control options available are the detention/irri-
gation system and the grassed infiltration system. The detention/irrigation
system is the more costly alternative for the farmer, but also it improves
environmental quality more than does the grass infiltration system. The
small producer is at a distinct disadvantage if the detention/irrigation sys-
tem is to be required. Economies of size are strongly evident with this
technology. Thus, the recommended technology may be different for the small
producer than the large one.
Producers with manure storage capabilities are well advised to provide
for plowdown of surface spread waste or direct injection of the waste into
the soil. These processes reduce potential for runoff of wastes into nearby
streams and reduce odor nuisances. In addition, more of the fertilizer
nutrients from the waste are available to crops. In most cases where stor-
age is already present, these benefits from increased nutrient availability
overshadow any added costs of injection or plowdown.
Producers without manure storage may add storage and realize the bene-
fits of soil incorporation. When storage is not available, daily spreading
of manure must be used since regular injection or plowdown is not practical
due to cropping. Reduction in labor required for daily spreading of manure
can offset a major portion of storage costs.
Waste treatment in lagoons combined with wastewater disposal by irriga-
tion are generally effective methods of pollution control. For larger herd
sizes, these systems are competitive with other waste management systems.
Those livestock producers building new facilities are well advised to
consider the livestock operation as a complete system rather than consider-
ing waste disposal as an afterthought. The waste disposal method strongly
affects the type of housing, the feeding system, and the profitability of
the livestock enterprise.
-------
SECTION 3
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The following conclusions and recommendations are relevant to the find-
ings of this study with respect to controlling pollution from non-NPDES
livestock facilities:
1. A large number of livestock production technologies are currently
available which effectively control water pollution and odor. Of the 244
systems evaluated in this study, the majority limit water pollution and odor
nuisance to acceptable levels. However, even the most effective pollution
control technology can go awry if good management practices are not followed.
2. Objective measurement of environmental degradation caused by live-
stock units has not been established. The lack of objective common denomi-
nators means that most waste systems must be evaluated qualitatively.
3. Waste management systems are an important cost to most producers.
On the other hand, manure is a resource. There are fertilizer nutrient and
labor-saving benefits from manure systems which partially and sometimes fully
offset these costs. Farmers as well as national planners need to consider
both the costs and the benefits before deciding on acceptable systems.
4. Farmer's monetary benefits and costs are important criteria in the
selection of a waste management system. However, other important criteria
need to be considered. These include the level of pollution control, the
impact of the system on the overall performance of the livestock enterprise,
and the operator's preferences.
5. Due to the wide range of acceptable technologies, design standards
to meet environmental goals are impractical. In order to carry out the ob-
jectives of the Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, producers are to apply
the "best available technology economically achievable" by 1983. If this
terminology is retained as law, it should at least be viewed as a list of
alternative technologies.
6. The goal of the Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 is "that the
discharge of pollutants into the navigable waters be eliminated by 1985."
This goal cannot be met completely by livestock producers without severe eco-
nomic hardship, particularly to the small farmer.
7. In areas where a number of concentrated livestock facilities are
located, the aggregate impact of individual pollution control practices
-------
needs to be considered. Similar actions by many producers may overload the
capacity of the environment to assimilate the waste in the event of unusual
circumstances, e.g., a large rainfall event.
-------
SECTION 4
REGIONAL ASPECTS OF LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION AND
WASTE MANAGEMENT OPTIONS
Livestock production occurs in every state; however, the livestock in-
dustries are concentrated in various regions because of favorable climate,
feed availability, proximity to market, labor availability, etc. Also, po-
tential pollution problems, e.g., rainfall runoff, odor, or dust, are a
function of climate specific to an area. The regional nature of livestock
production and potential pollution problems lead to livestock management
practices which are also regional. Pollution problems and pollution control
practices are related to regional facility design and management.
This section identifies regional factors that affect livestock produc-
tion, potential pollution problems and waste management practices. Wherever
livestock are raised local pollution problems may occur. Just because this
section considers only those regions where livestock production is concen-
trated, it does not exclude the need for pollution control on isolated live-
stock production facilities in other regions.
The regions established for the purpose of this manual are shown in
Figure 1. The principal factors used in identifying the boundaries of each
region are temperature, rainfall and moisture evaporation similarities, live-
stock production patterns and topographical features. Alaska is considered
in the cold humid region and Hawaii in the hot humid even though the live-
stock management practices are significantly different in these two states.
CLIMATOLOGICAL AND HYDROLOGIC FACTORS
Both water quality and odor problems are affected by temperature,
humidity, precipitation, evaporation, solar radiation and wind patterns.
Moist and warm conditions increase the generation of odorous volatiles from
livestock wastes. The principal water quality problem is polluted runoff
from feedlots. The amount of runoff depends on the feedlot surface, evapora-
tion and antecedent moisture conditions, rainfall intensity and duration,
topography, vegetative cover, etc.
Regional patterns of temperature and annual moisture deficit are shown
in Figure 2. The moisture deficit is the annual precipitation minus the
potential evapotranspiration. In the humid regions, defined as having less
than 10 inches of moisture deficit, evaporation of surface water does not
significantly reduce the volume of wastewaters. The 80°F average July
temperature line is included because warmer summer temperatures can stress
-------
00
Figure 1. Climatic regions of the continental United States used for grouping similar
livestock waste management syster.3 .
-------
-30"
32°F
20°F
,1""-!°" JAN AVG
« ,-30" -30"
JAN AVG
x/ 80°F
JUL AVG
JUL AVG
30"MO]STURE DEFICIT
OR SURPLUS
Figure 2. Regional patterns of temperature and annual moisture deficit or surplus
(precipitation minus potential evapotranspiration).
-------
livestock unless steps are taken to provide cooling or shade. North of the
32°F average January temperature line, waste management systems must allow
for freezing of waste and wastewaters. North of the 20°F average January
temperature line, insulated total confinement buildings with designed venti-
lation systems are often utilized to give improved livestock performance.
Other climatic factors are related to livestock waste system design and man-
agement. For instance, solar radiation and wind influence the evaporation
rate of moisture from lot surfaces. In warm climates, anaerobic lagoons can
have a heavier loading rate without increasing the odor nuisance potential.
In regions of high rainfall, it may be advisable to reduce the area of
exposed lot surface in order to minimize runoff. In states with more than
10 inches of moisture deficit and having cool to warm winters, open feedlots
are most common. In these drier regions, runoff control is usually total
detention and irrigation. In the more humid states, runoff may also be con-
trolled using a settling basin/grass infiltration area.
Freezing weather not only affects design of waste treatment facilities
but it also usually requires a storage facility. Such storage facilities
allow the farmer to schedule his field application to avoid adverse soil and
weather conditions and conflicts with crop production. The wastes should be
stored in the designed structures until they can be spread and incorporated
into the soil. Incorporation will reduce pollutants-laden surface runoff,
will reduce odor nuisance, and will conserve fertilizer nutrients.
The topography affects both lot runoff and the runoff from land appli-
cation sites. The slope of the land affects the amount of runoff and the
amount of suspended pollutants in the runoff. Both the size of the feedlot
(drainage area) and the distance of the feedlot to a flowing stream as well
as topography need to be considered in selecting runoff control facilities.
OTHER REGIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
Agricultural land use planning or zoning is being done in many states.
These plans usually stipulate the type of agricultural production facilities
that may be built. It is expected that the zoning requirement will even-
tually indicate what type of waste management systems are suitable for the
region.
SPECIES LOCATION
The location of the beef cow-calf enterprise is geographically dis-
persed throughout the U.S. Leading states are found in the central part of
the U.S. and include Texas, Oklahoma, Missouri, Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, and
South Dakota. However, substantial beef cow numbers are found in the Nor-
thern Great Plains, North Central, Southeastern, Southwestern and North-
western Regions. Although large herds are found in western states, there is
a wide range in herd sizes in all producing areas. The principal areas of
cow-calf production are shown in Figure 3.
Fed beef production is more concentrated than cow-calf production as
shown in Figure 4. Leading states include Texas, Iowa, Nebraska, and Kansas.
10
-------
HEAD (1000)
101 2701
Cvj 2161 - 2700
|jf] 1621 - 2160
Ell 1081 - 1620
Figure 3. Beef cow-calf pieduction in the United States (cows and heifers that
have calved January 1, 1977).
-------
to
HEAD (1000)
1241-1550
981-1240
621- 930
Figure 4. Fed beef production in the United States (number on feed, January 1, 1977).
-------
A second tier of states includes California and Colorado. Numbers in other
states then drop rapidly. States of secondary importance in fed beef pro-
duction are the Corn Belt states of Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota,
Missouri, Ohio, and South Dakota; Northwestern states of Idaho and Washing-
ton; and South Central states of New Mexico and Oklahoma. Many feedlots in
the western half of the nation are subject to the National Pollution Dis-
charge Elimination System (NPDES) since they have capacities greater than
1000 animal units. The vast majority of feedlots in the Corn Belt states
have less than 1000 head capacities.
The primary hog producing states are found in the Corn Belt and South-
eastern U.S. (Figure 5). Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, and Missouri are leading
hog producing states with Minnesota, Nebraska, North Carolina, Ohio, and
Georgia also being important. Many of the Southeastern states are important
sources of feeder pigs for later concentrated feeding in Corn Belt states.
The ewe and lamb enterprise is geographically dispersed in many states
(Figure 6). Like the beef cow-calf herd, it is an enterprise commonly used
to take advantage of forage production from land not suitable for crops.
Important states for stock sheep are Texas and Wyoming, with California,
Utah, Montana, South Dakota, and New Mexico being other important states.
North Central states are of secondary importance for the ewe and lamb enter-
prise. The pattern of fed lamb production shows high concentrations in
Western states, primarily in Califonia, Colorado, Texas and Wyoming. North
Central, Northern Plains, and other Western states are of secondary import-
ance in fed lamb production. The inventory of lambs on feed as of January
1, 1976 is shown in Figure 7.
Wisconsin, California, Minnesota, and New York are the predominant
dairy states, followed by Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio and Iowa (Figure 8).
Most of the other states in the eastern half of the country are of secondary
importance in dairy production.
The location of poultry production varies widely, depending on the spe-
cies. Layers are dispersed with Arkansas, California and Georgia being
leading states, followed by Alabama, Florida, Pennsylvania, Indiana, Minne-
sota, North Carolina, and Texas (Figure 9). Layers are also found in many
other states throughout the eastern half of the country. Commercial broiler
production is highly concentrated in the Southeast/with Arkansas, Alabama,
and Georgia being principal broiler production states, followed by North
Carolina and Mississippi (Figure 10). Turkeys are largely concentrated in
three states, California, Minnesota, and North Carolina, with states of
secondary importance including Missouri, Texas, and Arkansas (Figure 11).
Many states have little or no production of turkeys.
13
-------
m
Figure 5. Fed hog production in the United States (number on farms/ December 1, 1975J
-------
m-
Figure 6. Sheep (ewe and lamb) production in the United States (number in breeding
flocks January 1, 1977).
-------
HEAD (1000)
[jvj 161-200
|j] 121-160
?53 81--120
Figure 7. Fed lamb production in United States (number on feed January 1, 1976)
-------
HEAD (1000)
££]741-915
pH 556-740
^ 371-555
Figure 8. Dairy-milk cows on farms in United States (cows and heifers that have calved
January 1, 1976).
-------
03
BIRDS (1,000,OOO)
£>i] 12.5-15.6
fir
8.1-6.3
9.4-12.5 [HI 1.5-3.1
6.3- 9.4 |~| 0-1.5
Figure 9.
introduction in United States (hens and pullets of laying age
-------
BIRDS (1,000,000)
£•3 401-500
1111 301-400 [
201-300
101-200
51-100
0- 50
Figure 10. Commercial broiler production in United States (1976).
-------
K)
O
BUM
BIRDS U,000,000)
15.8
M 12.6-15.8
°3t 6.3-9.5
Figure 11. Turkeys raised in United States (1976)
-------
SECTION 5
SELECTING WASTE MANAGEMENT OPTIONS
One objective of the manual is to identify and outline alternative
waste management systems which are suitable to control pollution from small
farms, barnyards and pastures. Waste management systems commonly being used
are identified for each species: dairy, beef, swine, sheep and poultry. In
addition, certain advanced systems which control pollution are described.
Also, the benefits and costs of the various waste management options and
pollution control practices are analyzed and evaluated.
The engineering design of waste management systems or components of the
system is not the intent of this manual. The reader may wish to refer to
the Bibliography for bulletins and handbooks giving design information for
waste systems in general and for systems specific to each species. Publica-
tions giving design criteria for feedlot runoff system components are also
included in the Bibliography.
WATER QUALITY CONSTRAINTS
Both surface water and ground water quality are affected by pollutants
from livestock operations. This manual will address the impact of livestock
operations on the quality of receiving streams. The sources of water pollu-
tants may be put into three categories: (1) rainfall runoff from confine-
ment areas, (2) runoff from pasture production of livestock, and (3) runoff
from land with manure spread on it. Each of these sources will be con-
sidered in turn.
Feedlot (Barnyard) Runoff
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in the Federal Register on
March 18, 1976, promulgated regulations pertaining to concentrated animal
feeding operations. Criteria were stated for livestock production facili-
ties that would be required to obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimi-
nation System (NPDES) permit. The primary thrust of the Concentrated Animal
Feeding Operations regulation was to control runoff. Different conditions
were applied according to the size of the animal production facility. The
first criterion referred to discharge of pollution from the feedlot. A sec-
ond criterion was whether pollutants were discharged into waters passing
through or coming in contact with animals in the confined area. The intent
of this regulation is to eliminate the discharge of pollutants into surface
waters.
21
-------
The runoff from confinement areas may contain high concentrations of
organic material and dissolved salts. Factors affecting the degree of pol-
lution are the amount of precipitation, number of animals, type of animals,
type and size of feedlot surface, management practices, etc. From one-
fourth to one-half of the annual precipitation may become runoff.
There are two types of runoff pollution control systems: (1) a system
which collects all the runoff, detains it in storage and subsequently
irrigates on cropland, and (2) a system which collects all runoff, settles
out particles, and provides for infiltration and/or filtration in vegetated
strips to clarify the effluent. Essential to both systems is the diversion
of all outside surface water and roof water away from the manured area.
The detention basin-irrigation system is used mainly in the dry and
arid regions and is stipulated in some state regulations, e.g., Kansas. The
settling basin-infiltration strip system is generally used by farmers in more
humid regions and is used particularly with small livestock facilities. It
is the recommended runoff management practice in states such as Ohio and
Indiana. The detention basin-irrigation system is illustrated in Figure 23
and the settling basin-infiltration strip system in Figure 31.
Runoff from Pasture
A distinction is made between "pasture" and "range". A pasture normally
has been improved with fertilization and selected grasses and generally will
carry more animals per unit area. The use of pastures is a major component
of most types of stock production. Feeder calves are produced almost exclu-
sively on pasture or range. About 30% of hog production is still on pasture.
Most dairy farms, except for the Southwest, use pasture when seasonal condi-
tions permit. Sheep production is mainly a range and pasture operation.
Good livestock and pasture management is the best insurance against pol-
lution of water from pasture livestock production. The relative importance
of management practices differs by type of livestock and regions of the
country. General management practices which apply are as follows:
1. Maintain a stocking density and rotation of grazing to prevent
overgrazing and subsequent erosion.
2. Maintain a highly productive forage on the land to retard
runoff, trap animal wastes and utilize nutrients.
3. Locate feeders and waterers a reasonable distance from streams
and water courses. Move feeders (waterers) to new locations
often enough to avoid creating "holding areas" and cattle
paths that will erode.
4. Provide summer shade to lessen the need for livestock to
enter streams for relief from heat.
5. Utilize good water erosion control practices to control runoff.
22
-------
If the above management practices are followed, the need for limiting
livestock access to streams or providing a buffer strip between the pasture
and stream will be minimized.
Runoff from Manure-Applied Land
The most common and still the most acceptable method for disposing
(utilizing) of livestock wastes is application to cropland. It is not the
purpose of this manual to detail management guidelines and application cri-
teria for spreading manures on cropland. The reader is referred to a
companion USEPA publication, Animal Waste Utilization oil Crop and Pasture
Land by Gilbertson, 1977 (in press).
Some good management practices which should be considered are:
1. Determine plant nutrient value of the waste and apply it to the
land according to crop requirement. The nitrogen requirement
of the crop is the usual basis for determining the application
rate. However, applying manure according to the phosphorus or
potassium needs of the crop and providing supplemental nitrogen
fertilizer as needed may be more economical.
2. Schedule the timing of manure applications for efficient
nutrient utilization by plants, e.g., spring applications
versus fall application.
3. Inject liquid wastes into the soil or incorporate manure as
soon as possible after spreading. Nitrogen losses through
ammonia volitilization may be as large as 20% in six hours
or 45% in three days.
4. Ens.ure that enough land is available for spreading when
manure must be moved.
5. Apply manure to sloping lands only when vegetative cover is
on the field. Avoid application to sloping land when frozen
and snow-covered.
6. Utilize good sediment erosion control practices to control
runoff.
These practices involve good agronomic and soil conservation management
factors which in turn reduce the pollution potential.
AIR-BORNE NUISANCES
The principal nuisance is odor. In some cases, dust may be the princi-
pal air-borne nuisance and be the carrier of odor. Odorous gases and
volatiles are produced in the biological decomposition of manure. Manures
in the liquid form are particularly odorous. Freshly excreted manure will
not usually have as offensive odors as when the manure has been stored.
23
-------
The trend towards larger, confined livestock operations with manure storage
increases the possibility of odor nuisance.
The odor nuisance problem is compounded by the subjective nature of
odor and the difficulty in field testing. No acceptable standards for odor
intensity or concentration of volatile compounds have been developed.
Siting of livestock buildings, storage basins and treatment lagoons is
important for minimizing odor nuisance. The prevailing winds should be away
from the closest neighbors, and away from the farmstead. The livestock waste
facility should be located as far as possible from neighbors.
Good management decisions with respect to spreading manure on cropland
can decrease the odor nuisance for neighbors. Spread when there is a wind
to disperse the odor. Spread in the morning when the air is likely to be
rising. Select fields for application that are farthest away from neighbors
or that have the wind blowing away from the neighbors.
When manure must be spread in large quantities, soil incorporation may
be the only method to adequately abate the odor nuisance. Commercial injec-
tion equipment is available for most tank wagons for liquid manure handling.
If the manure must be spread on the ground surface, immediate incorporation
will control the odor nuisance.
Several commercial odor control products are available from agricultural
supply stores. The effectiveness of these chemicals varies with the type of
waste, storage conditions and disposal method. These products may work for
short-term situations but generally have not been effective as long-term
solutions for odor problems.
ECONOMIC EVALUATION
Benefits and costs of alternative waste disposal systems are a primary
determinant in selecting a waste management system. When faced with the
added costs of controlling pollution, many producers may face the final
choice of whether or not to remain in the livestock business. Thus, the pro-
ducer needs to closely examine the economic factors associated with alterna-
tive systems.
Most waste disposal systems for concentrated animal feeding operations
of less than 1000 animal units have costs which clearly exhibit economies
of size. That is, as production from the livestock operation increases, per
unit waste disposal costs decrease. For example, the 100 and 400 head
capacity beef feedlots with paved open lot construction (25 sq ft paved lot
inside and 30 sq ft paved lot outside per head) have nearly the same require-
ments for investments in manure spreaders, loaders, and scrapers. Therefore,
costs per head on the 400 head lot would be smaller than on the 100 head lot.
The immediate dilemna that is fostered by these economies of size is how to
improve water quality without burdening the small producer with substantial
costs which may force him out of business.
Due to these characteristics of the livestock industry where profits
24
-------
are squeezed and economies of size in waste disposal technologies pre-
dominate, this manual outlines net waste disposal system costs for a range
of technologies and a range of size levels. For each livestock species,
several waste disposal systems are investigated and the systems are applied
to several herd sizes. The intent is to present these ranges in relevant
system costs and returns in order to assist in rational decision making by
both livestock producers and pollution control authorities.
Relevant System Costs and Returns^
Both society and livestock producers have a stake in the selection of
disposal systems. Quantifying the level of the stake is the intent of the
estimates of net disposal costs. The farmer's stake is defined by the bene-
fits of nutrients produced by the system and the costs incurred. Allowing
a return to nutrients assumes that the farmer values wastes as a resource
to be used in an economic fashion. That is, he uses the wastes to supply
nutrients to plants and/or recycles the wastes as a source of energy or feed.
Using the wastes as a nutrient source for plant growth is a primary benefit
from wastes with current technologies. Thus, in this manual, the only esti-
mated benefits flowing to the farmer are the values of plant nutrients sup-
plied by the wastes.
The costs borne by the farmer are assumed to be the total costs asso^
ciated with the livestock waste system. The problem in estimating these
costs is that the waste disposal system is an integral part of the total
livestock enterprise. Where the housing system ends and waste disposal be^
gins or where the feeding system ends and waste disposal begins is often
arbitrary. While recognizing the interdependence of waste, feeding and
housing components of the livestock enterprise, the authors focus only on
the waste system. Farmers' costs and returns must be put in the perspective
of the total livestock enterprise before prescriptions are made about the
best waste system.
The stake which society has in livestock pollution control includes the
farmer's interests as well as the "externalities" of the livestock unit.
These externalities are in the form of costs which the farmer does not bear
but which accrue to society. The costs of water pollution and air pollution
are externalities flowing from confined animal feeding operations and are
the cause for the interest in livestock production outside the agricultural
community.
Placing a monetary value on water and air pollution costs is not feas-
ible. The effect of runoff and odor on downstream or downwind users of
water and air cannot be determined precisely. Therefore, the costs of ex-
ternalities are best estimates in a qualitative sense. Scales ranging from
"severe pollution" to "no pollution" have been established to provide esti-
mates of water pollution costs for each waste disposal system.
Benefits from Nutrients in Waste
Availability of nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium is highly dependent
25
-------
on the species/ size of animal, housing, storage, and handling method.
Nitrogen is the nutrient which has the greatest variation in availability
between waste disposal systems. Nitrogen may be in the ammonia, nitrate/
nitrite, or organic form. The system components used to store, handle and
spread the waste may allow the ammonia portion to be lost to the air or the
nitrate/nitrite portion to leach through the soil or lot surface. Generally,
most of the phosphorus and potassium produced by the animal is available to
crops when spread. Exceptions are open lot and lagoon systems which permit
greater losses of phosphorus and potassium than do other systems.
Costs to Farmers
Both variable and fixed costs must be considered when installing a pol-
lution control system. Variable or operating and maintenance costs are
those costs which vary as output from the facility changes. For example, if
an enclosed free stall dairy barn designed for 120 head is used for only 60
head, some per unit costs such as labor costs would be substantially less
than if the facility would be filled to capacity.
Other costs do not change as output from a facility changes. For ex-
ample, the facility loses some of its value each year due to depreciation,
and depreciation occurs with or without animals using the facility. Thus,
depreciation is an example of a fixed cost. Fixed costs are associated with
durable inputs or those capital investments which remain over several time
periods. The following items are fixed costs.
a. Depreciation represents the annual charge for the use of the dur-
able input. In budgeting costs, depreciation is the following:
annual depreciation = original investment - salvage value
useful live
If the salvage value is zero the formula is
annual depreciation = [Original I 1
\Investmentj|Useful life/
For a non-depreciating input such as land, the annual depreciation
is zero.
b. Interest represents the average earnings foregone by having capital
tied up in the fixed input. It is calculated by:
annual interest charge =
/Original Salvage!
I Investment Value
\
Interest!
Kate
26
-------
If the salvage value is zero the formula is:
annual interest charge =
Original Investment
Interest Rate
To apply this last formula, the input must be a depreciable asset such as
buildings or equipment. For a non-depreciating input such as land the
formula would be:
annual interest charge = (original investment)(interest rate)
c. Repairs and maintenance are partially fixed and partially variable.
The new barn needs an occasional painting whether it is used or
not. Typically, it is assumed that the building or piece of equip-
ment will be used for production throughout its lifetime, and both
variable and fixed repairs are lumped into one charge. The annual
charge is assumed a constant percentage of new cost.
annual repair charge = (original investment)(repair percent)
These repair rates are based largely on repair and maintenance in-
formation in farm management publications from several universities.
d. Insurance is calculated by multiplying the average investment value
by the insurance rate. If the salvage value is zero, the annual
insurance cost is:
annual insurance cost =
original investment|
(insurance
rate
e. Taxes are charged in most states on an asset regardless of its use.
Many states have real property and personal property taxes which
are levied at a rate which varies from state to state. To estimate
an average annual charge, the computation would be:
annual tax charge =
The assessment ratio is the assessed value of the property divided
by the market value. The costs estimates used in this publication
do not include an annual tax charge since the charge is relatively
minor and varies between states.
For the purpose of this publication, salvage value of depreciable assets
is assumed to be zero for the above fixed costs computations. Thus, the
annual charge is a constant percentage of the original investment outlay as
shown in Table 1 for each of the waste disposal system components.
' original
investment
salvage
+ value
i
assessment]
ratio 1
Itax
rate
27
-------
TABLE 1. PERCENTAGES USED IN COMPUTING ANNUAL FIXED COSTS,
FOR STRUCTURES AND EQUIPMENT
to
00
Component
Concrete floor
Concrete lot
Concrete pit
Concrete flume
(swine)
Concrete slats
Concrete settling
basin
Concrete upground
tanks
Concrete flume
(beef)
Earthen settling
basin
Earthen detention
basin
Earthen storage
basin
Lagoon
Diversion terrace
Grassed infiltration
area
Component
Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
12
12
13
14
15
16
Estimated
Years
Life
20
20
20
20
10
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
Assumed Annual Costs
(% of original investment)
Total
11.0
11.0
11.0
11.0
16.0
11.0
11.0
11.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
11.0
12.0
= Depreciation
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
10.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
+ Repairs +
and
Maintenance
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
Interest +
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Insurance
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
(continued)
-------
TABLE 1 (continued)
<£>
Component
Tractor scraper
Mechanical alleyway
scraper
Mechanical cage
scraper
Gutter cleaner
Gutter cleaner
(elevator)
Gutter cleaner
(stacker)
Stacker
Tractor scraper
(poultry)
Front end loader
Tractor skid loader
Cage pan scraper
Box spreader (with
storage)
Vacuum tank wagon
Tank wagon
Truck box spreader
Truck tank spreader
Injector
Box spreader (daily
spread)
Component
Number
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
41
42
43
44
45
46
57
Estimated
Years
Life
10
7
7
10
10
10
10
10
10
7
7
10
7
7
7
7
7
5
Assumed Annual Costs
(% of original investment)
Total =
18.0
24.3
24.3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
18.0
18.0
24.3
24.3
20.0
24.3
23.3
24.3
23.3
24.3
30.0
Depreciation
10.0
14.3
14.3
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
14.3
14.3
10.0
14.3
14.3
14.3
14.3
14.3
20.0
+ Repairs +
and
Maintenance
3.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
3.0
3.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
4.0
5.0
4.0
5.0
5.0
Interest +
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Insurance
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
(continued)
-------
TABLE l (continued)
U)
o
Component
Siphon Tank
Tipping Tank
Gated Tank
Recycle Pump
Piston Pump
Agitate/Load Pump
Irrigation System
(waste)
Irrigation System
(runoff)
Oxidation Ditch
Rotor
Floating Aerator
Dehydrator
Pit Ventilation
Land
Component
Number
51
52
53
60
61
62
66
67
71
72
76
81
82
Estimated
Years
Life
10
7
10
5
7
5 '
7
10
4
5
5
5
—
Assumed Annual Costs
(% of original investment)
Total = Depreciation + Repairs +
and
18.0
24.3
20.0
30.0
23.3
30.0
24.3
19.0
35.0
29.0
30.0
30.0
11.0
10.0
14.3
10.0
20.0
14.3
20.0
14.3
10.0
25.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
—
Maintenance
3.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
4.0
5.0
5.0
4.0
5.0
4.0
5.0
5.0
2.0
Interest +
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
8.0
Insurance
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
-------
Pollution Contrcl Scale^
For individual livestock operations, some quantitative measurement of
water quality coming off the lot and odor from the lot are possible. How-
ever, the degradation of stream and air quality is nearly impossible to
measure. First, the amount of degradation is a function of the quality of
the receiving waters and air. Therefore, not only must a measure of pollu-
tants received by the stream and air be made, but also the background level
of water and air quality needs to be made to have an accurate assessment of
pollution potential. For example, runoff from livestock facilities may not
be a problem near a stream of high flow and high water quality. However,
that same level of runoff could be quite damaging to a stream at low flow
already suffering from impaired water quality.
Second, quantities of pollutants leaving fields or lots are not damag-
ing to water quality unless they reach surface or ground waters. It is
possible that the feedlct operator using a buffer strip of grass below his
feedlot may cause little water pollution even though runoff from the lot is
substantial. Thus, quantitative measures must be made where the environ-
mental burden actually occurs rather than at the lot or field.
Finally, the level of pollutants from any facility is a function of the
climatic conditions. Quantitative measures of water or air pollution imply
something about quality only at one pcint in time. Several measures through
time are necessary to accurately assess damage.
Because of the complexities of measuring water and air parameters quan-
titatively, a qualitative measure has been developed for the quantity of
water running off the facility, the quality of the water, and the level of
odor near the facility. The following scale is used for these three parame-
ters.
12345
No Severe
Pollution Pollution
LIVESTOCK WASTE SYSTEMS USED
Each livestock, operation is nearly unique in its complement of feeding,
housing, and waste disposal systems. Certainly, similarities exist between
operations for the same species,but the number of different waste disposal
systems is large. When reviewing the literature, more discussion of "exotic"
and advanced engineered systems is often found than of the systems actually
in use on the majority of farms. For example, the oxidation ditch for swine
is referred to regularly in the literature although its appearance on farms
is uncommon. On the other hand, the common swine feeding operation using
pasture or unpaved open lot construction with shelter is rarely mentioned.
The result of these two factors - uniqueness of systems and a dearth of
information about those which are more common - makes the identification of
benefits and costs of "typical" systems a challenging effort. Those systems
31
-------
identified in this analysis are those that the authors and others familiar
with the industry feel to be representative of actual or potential systems
for a large number of operations.
Systems to be discussed in the following sections are for dairy, fed
beef, beef cow/calf herds, fed hogs, swine breeding, fed lambs, ewes/lamb
flocks and poultry-layers, broiler and turkeys. Alternative systems for
each species are noted. In discussing the benefits from the fertilizer
nutrients in livestock, wastes, the nutrients are valued according to the
quantities available to crops. The cost of pollution control alternatives
is presented for the various systems.
32
-------
SECTION 6
DAIRY WASTE MANAGEMENT OPTIONS
The trend in dairy production has been toward fewer farms and fewer
total cows, but higher producing cows and larger herds. For the 10-year
period from 1964 to 1974, herds of 10 or more cows were reduced by 40%
(Hoglund, 1975).
It is difficult to regionally distinguish waste handling systems.
Within a state the waste systems vary due to nearness to urban areas, crop-
ping practices, climate, farmers' preference, etc. For example, waste
handling in California varies from the southern part of the State with very
large cow herds using a dry lot to the northern high rainfall Humbolt area
with small herds using stall barns and conventional manure systems.
An additional constraint on selection of waste handling systems is that
of milk sanitation. For Class A milk production, control of odors and
flies, and cow cleanliness as related to manure handling must be considered.
This constraint causes a higher annual cost per animal for the dairy manure
systems than for other livestock.
Factors affecting dairy waste system selection in addition to climate,
topography, soils, etc. are type of housing, feeding regime, animal type and
herd size. The type of housing will be a major factor in determining whe-
ther the manure will be handled as a solid or a liquid (slurry). Cows in
the dairy industry may be divided into two classes: milking and dry cow/re-
placement heifers. In many cases the manure system for the dry cow/replace-
ment heifer herd is part of the total dairy operation. However, for the
larger herds, frequently the dry cow/replacement heifers are removed from
the milking herd and housed at another location with a separate waste system.
The same manure system selection criteria and constraints apply to the re-
placement herd's manure system.
The following section describes various dairy waste systems which are
analyzed for costs in a later section. Regional aspects of the various
manure systems are noted. In all the systems illustrated there is a storage
structure shown. This storage structure is a pollution control feature.
Many dairy farmers continue to haul and spread manure on a daily basis and
do not use manure storage. Other pollution control components that will be
analyzed for costs are rainfall runoff control and odor control by soil
incorporation.
33
-------
WASTE SYSTEMS
The housing facility in the cold humid, cool humid, and warm humid
regions typically provides housing for the cows during the winter months.
The cows may be fed inside the barn or in a feedbunk on a lot adjacent to
the barn. Frequently a paved lot may be provided for exercising the cattle.
Wherever there is an open lot area for cattle, a provision for runoff con-
trol is evaluated for pollution control. The decision to totally house the
cows may in itself be a pollution control feature.
A free stall barn with the cows being fed on an outside paved lot is
shown in Figure 12. Cows are allowed to move in and out freely. The waste
system depicted in this figure is a free stall, tractor scrape, piston pump
and earthen storage basin. The earthen storage basin is usually designed
for a minimum of 12 months storage. Runoff control is obtained in Figure 12
by curbing the outside paved lot and channeling the runoff into the storage
basin. For a large feedlot area it may be desirable to use a settling basin
and a grassed infiltration area instead of channeling the runoff into the
storage basin. Scraping of the outside paved lot may be restricted in cold
humid areas due to freezing of accumulated manure. Milking facility waste-
water would typically be pumped to the storage basin. An alternative to the
piston pump would be a push-off ramp extending out over the storage basin,
or a vertical, concrete abutment at the edge of the basin.
A free stall dairy barn is shown in Figure 13. In some areas of lime-
stone rock or soils unsuitable for an earthen storage basin, the above ground
concrete or treated steel tank (silo) is the storage component. By using a
mechanical alley scraper and cross-gutter cleaner with the piston pump,
manure removal can be automated.
When the fanner chooses to handle his free stall manure in the solid
form a treated plank walled structure, as shown in Figure 14, can be used.
The roof over the storage structure is optional. At facilities with an out-
side lot that have runoff control components, the farmer may choose not to
roof the storage area.
A confinement stall barn is shown in Figure 15 with the conventional
gutter cleaner. A manure spreader is being loaded directly by the gutter
cleaner/elevator. This method for daily hauling is typical of many small
dairy farms. In order to provide additional storage the farmer may choose
to use a stacker (elevator). The stacker may be fixed at one point or pro-
vision for moving it in an arc can be made, as shown in the insert. The
stored manure is loaded into a box spreader for land application.
The use of a concrete manure storage tank,as shown in Figure 16, is one
of the earlier liquid handling systems. The concrete tank is located under
the floor of the building. A variation of this system is to have slotted
floor alleyways with the storage pits beneath the slats.
The previous illustrations of dairy manure management systems are typi-
cal of those in humid and cooler climates. In the warm humid, hot humid,
34
-------
U)
Cn
EARTHEN
STORAGE
BASIN
Figure 12. Free stall dairy barn with tractor scraper, piston pump
and earthen storage basin waste system.
-------
ABOVE GROUND
STORAGE TANK
(SILO)
MECHANICAL
SCRAPER
CROSS-GUTTER CLEANER
PISTON PUMP
PUMP FOR AGITATION/LOADING
Figure 13. Free stall dairy barn with mechanical alley scraper, cross-
gutter cleaner, piston pump and upground storage tank.
-------
w
-J
ROOF IS
OPTIONAL
TREATED PLANK
WALLED STORAGE
Figure 14. Free stall dairy barn with tractor scrape, upground plank
walled storage and box spreader for solid handling.
-------
U)
oo
DAILY HAUL OPTION
STORAGE OPTION
Figure 15. Confinement dairy barn with conventional gutter cleaner or elevator
(stacker) and concrete pad storage.
-------
Figure 16. Free stall dairy barn with tractor scrape, below ground storage
tank, agitation/loading pump aid tank wagon for liquid spreading.
-------
and warm arid parts of the United States, a flushing system with treatment
lagoons may be used. A dairy facility where the alleyways are flushed to a
cross-gutter is shown in Figure 17. The wastewater then flows to a two-stage
lagoon. Flush water is recycled from the second lagoon. Management of the
lagoons requires yearly irrigation to control the dissolved salts in the
lagoon wastewater and periodic (3 to 5 years) sludge removal.
In warm arid, hot arid, and hot humid areas, the unpaved open lot may
be used (Figure 18). Manure is scraped from the feedlot and stockpiled or
hauled directly to cropland. Runoff control is needed for the few rainstorms
that do occur. Usually a detention basin with controlled irrigation is used.
Odors and dusts can be a problem from these dairy feedlots.
OPTIONS TO BE ANALYZED
The trend in dairy herds is towards total confinement and larger sizes.
The dairy systems to be analyzed are confined systems and open lot systems
for milking cows. Also, dry cow and replacement heifer facilities are dis-
cussed.
Milking Cows, Confined Free Stall
The confinement of cattle to an area which is unexposed to rainfall
means that runoff from the lot surface is effectively controlled. However,
runoff from cropland may result when the manure is spread.
Benefits and costs for the farmer are computed for the following con-
fined free stall systems. The systems are located primarily in cold humid,
cool humid, and warm humid areas as delineated in Figure 1.
1. Tractor scrape
(a) base system, daily spread
(b) base system with 6 months plank storage
2. Tractor scrape, concrete pit storage (6 months)
(a) base system
(b) base system, manure plowdown
3. Slotted floor, concrete pit storage (6 months)
(a) base system
(b) base system, manure plowdown
4. Mechanical scrape, piston pump, earthen storage (6 months)
(a) base system
(b) base system, manure plowdown
5. Mechanical scrape, piston pump, silo storage (6 months)
(a) base system
(b) base system, manure plowdown
40
-------
RECYCLE LINE FOR
FLUSH WATER
-CROSS-GUTTER .
RECYCLE
PUMP
IRRIGATION
Figure 17. Flushing free stall alleyways to a two-stage lagoon treatment system.
-------
Figure 18. Dry-lot dairy system conmon to hot arid and warm arid regions.
Manure is periodically scraped from lot.
-------
6. Mechanical scrape, concrete pit storage (6 months)
(a) base system
(b) base system, manure plowdown
Milking Cows, Confinement Stall
Another type of confined system is the confinement stall system where
dairy animals are restricted to individual stalls. These systems are found
primarily in the cool humid and cold humid regions delineated in Figure 1.
Gutter cleaner with elevator or stacker
(a) base system, daily spreading
(b) base system, 6 months above ground concrete storage
(c) base system, 6 months above ground concrete storage,
and plowdown
(d) base system, 6 months plank storage
(e) base system, 6 months plank storage, and plowdown
Milking Cows, Open Lot, Free Stall
Used in the cool humid, warm humid, and hot humid areas, this system
permits cattle access to an exposed open lot area as well as an enclosed
free stall barn. Thus, control of lot runoff is a pollution control modi-
fication for the system.
1. Tractor scrape, solid spreading
(a) base system
(b) base system with diversion, settling basin, and
grass infiltration area
(c) base system with diversion, settling basin, lagoon,
and wastewater irrigation
2. Tractor scrape, piston pump, earthen storage
(a) base system
(b) base system with plowdown
Milking Cows, Confined Free Stall Flush
Limited primarily to warm arid, warm humid and hot humid areas, this
system is found on lots with large numbers of dairy cows. When the system
is located in arid regions, the effluent is often metered into an existing
irrigation line.
1. Flush, anaerobic lagoon (6 month storage)
(a) base system
(b) base system with solid separation
2. Flush, earthen storage (limited storage is provided)
Milking Cows, Pasture Year-ppund. Flush
Animals are confined to an unpaved open lot with shade provided. This
43
-------
system is used in warm arid, hot arid, and hot humid climates.
Tractor scrape, solid spreading
(a) base system
(b) base system with diversion, settling basin,
detention or evaporation basin
In summary, the primary form of pollution control needed is handling
rainfall runoff. Two methods of controlling rainfall runoff are: diversion
terrace-settling basin-detention basin-irrigation system and diversion
terrace-settling basin-grassed infiltration area. Other forms of pollution
control are (1) storage to alleviate the need for daily spreading, and
(2) soil incorporation to control odor nuisance from field spreading.
Dry Cows/Heifers—
On most dairy farms, the dairy heifer production is tied closely with
the dairy cow system. Confined free stall, confinement stall, open lot free
stall, pasture, and unpaved open lot systems with all the variations de-
scribed earlier pertain to replacement herd as well as the milking herd.
While the structure of the systems is basically the same for heifers as
for cows, costs and benefits from disposal systems will change slightly.
Waste production would be less for heifers, thus benefits would be reduced.
Labor and tractor requirements for hauling, scraping, and spreading also
would be reduced due to the smaller volume of waste hauled. On the other
hand, most of the capital investments would be similar. Animal densities
are approximately the same for heifers as cows, and equipment and structures
require about the same investment.
Due to the similarities of replacement herd and milking herd benefits
and costs, system estimates are not made for dry cows and heifers. Those
interested in estimates for farms with dry cows and heifers can refer to the
basic dairy cow systems, and assume that size designations refer to numbers
of animal units rather than number of cows.
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
For dairy as well as the other major livestock species, the benefits
and costs of alternative waste systems are described. The organization of
the analysis is designed to (a) estimate farmers' returns and costs for
alternative systems, (b) qualitatively estimate society costs in terms of
water and air quality, and (c) depict the tradeoffs between the costs to
farmers and society of pollution control technology and the benefits of im-
proved water and air quality.
Benefits from Waste
Quantities of nutrients in dairy waste depend on animal size, species,
feed ration, and climate. For the purpose of this analysis, it is assumed
that one dairy animal is 1400 pounds and produces annually 210 pounds of
nitrogen, 84 pounds of phosphate (P2°5^ • anc* 166 pounds of potash (I^O) .
44
-------
Nitrogen losses occur in storage, handling, and spreading. Soil incor-
poration of manure by plowdown or injection reduces losses of nitrogen as
compared to surface spreading. Handling manure by a flush system, storing
in a lagoon, and irrigating can lead to significant nitrogen losses (Table 2).
Phosphate and potash losses are less affected by storage, handling, and
spreading than are nitrogen losses. Generally, a high proportion of phos-
phate and potash is available to the plant regardless of the waste management
system. An exception is the liquid flush, lagoon, and irrigated systems
where substantial losses occur.
Even though nutrients are available after storage, handling, and spread-
ing, valuing all the remaining nutrients as benefits is erroneous in some
regions. Cropland may not be available for manure application, and it is
applied to crops or grass which does not fully utilize the available nutri-
ents. Thus, in computing benefits, two levels of nutrient return have been
assumed. One level assumes that 100 percent of all available nutrients
(after storing, handling, and spreading losses have been discounted) are
utilized by the crops. The second level assumes that only 50 perdent of
available nutrients is utilized by the crops. Nutrient prices used in the
calculation are $0.16 per pound for nitrogen, $0.18 per pound for phosphate,
and $0.10 per pound for potash. These prices and the resulting benefits may
need to be adjusted by users for their particular region.
Analysis of Options
Confined Free Stall—
Several variations of this basic system are analyzed and shown in Tables
3, 4 and 5: (1) tractor scrape, daily spread, (2) tractor scrape, plank
storage (6 month), (3) tractor scrape, pit storage [6 month] , (4) slotted
floor, pit storage [6 month], (5) mechanical scrape, piston pump, earthen
storage, (6) mechanical scrape, piston pump, silo storage, and (7) mechanical
scrape, concrete pit storage. For (1) tractor scrape, daily spreading, the
pollution control alternative is assumed to be earthen storage. For the
other free stall systems with storage already in place [systems (2), (3) ,
(4), (5), (6), and (7) above], plowdown of manure is the pollution control
modification available.
The basic free stall system of tractor scrape and daily spread [system
(1) above] is relatively inexpensive. For the 100 head unit, annual net
system costs are $31.04 per head (Table 3) and are $20.93 per head for the
200 head units. However, annual net system costs escalate as mechanical
scrapers and/or various types of storage are added. For example, adding a
concrete pit to the basic system [system (3) above] increases annual net
system costs to $73.00 per animal year for the 100 head herd (Table 3). Add-
ing a concrete pit with mechanical scrape [system (7) above] to the basic
system increases annual net system costs to $109.48 per animal year for the
100 head herd (Table 5).
The annual net system costs increase as additional capital investments
in scraping and storage are added to the free stall system, as seen in
45
-------
TABLE 2. NITROGEN, PHOSPHATE (P205) AND POTASH (K20)AVAILABLE
TO CROPS FROM DAIRY WASTE PER ANIMAL UNIT3 FOR
ALTERNATIVE HANDLING SYSTEMS
Nutrients Available to Crops
per Animal Unitb (Ibs/yr)
System
Nitrogen Phosphate
aOne animal unit = 1400 Ib cow.
Average assumed production from 1400 Ib cow:
nitrogen per animal year = 210 Ibs,
phosphate (P-OcJper animal year = 84 Ibs, and
potash (K20) per animal year = 166 Ibs.
c
Injected or plowed down the day of spreading.
Potash
(K20)
Solid handling, daily spread
Solid handling, uncovered storage,
surface spread
Solid handling, covered storage,
soil incorporated0
Solid handling, uncovered storage,
soil incorporated0
Solid handling, storage in
loafing shed, surface spread
Liquid handling, storage,
surface spread
Liquid handling, storage,
soil incorporated0
Liquid, flush, lagoon, irrigate
Liquid, flush, solid separation,
lagoon, irrigate
Solid handling, open lot
storage, surface spread
124
143
179
170
107
116
149
32
26
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
80
42
34
71
149
141
149
141
141
149
158
100
80
141
46
-------
TABLE 3. DAIRY, CONFINED FREE STALL, ANNUAL RETURNS AND COSTS FOR ALTERNATIVE
WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS USING TRACTOR SCRAPINGa
Returns to Nutrients
Waste
Management System
System Modification
(1) (2)
Tractor scrape,
daily spread
Surface spread
Surface spread
Surface spread
Tractor scrape, (surface spread
plank storage \ Surface spread
(6 month) (Surface spread
Tractor scrape,
pit storage
(6 month)
Surface spread
Plowdown
Surface spread
Plowdown
Surface sprea
Plowdown
Herd
Size
(Head
Capacity)
(3)
50
100
200
50
100
200
50
50
100
100
200
200
50 Percent 100 Percent
Usage of
Available
Nutrients
(4)
24.21
24.21
24.21
25.73
25.73
25.73
23.57
27.02
23.57
27.02
23.57
27.02
Usage of
Available
Nutrients
(5)
48.42
48.42
48.42
51.46
51.46
51.46
47.14
54.04
47.14
54.04
47.14
54.04
Variable
Costs
(6)
(Dollars per
67.06
54.30
50 . 49
67.06
49.40
44.70
69.23
69.23
63.88
63.88
46.59
46.59
Fixed
Costs
(7)
Animal
31.71
25.15
18.86
47.94
40.15
32.15
73.36
73.36
56.25
56.25
44.11
44.11
Net System Returns
At 50
Percent
Usage of
Nutrients
!4) -(6) -(7)
Year)
-74.56
-55.24
-45.14
-89.27
-63.82
-51.12
-119.02
-115.57
-96.57
-93.12
-67.13
-63.68
At 100
Percent
Usage of
Nutrients
(5) -(6)-(7)
-50.35
-31.04
-20.93
-63.54
-38.09
-25.39
-95.45
-88.55
-73.00
-66.10
-43.56
-36.66
Appendix
Reference
A-l
A- 2
A- 3
A-4
A-5
A- 6
A- 7
A- 8
A-9
A- 10
A-ll
A- 12
aThese systems are located primarily in cold humid, cool humid, and warm humid regions
TABIE 4. DAIRY, CONFINED FREE STALL, ANNUAL RETURNS AND COSTS FOR
SLOTTED FLOOR ALTERNATIVE2
Returns to Nutrients
Waste
Management
System
(1)
Slotted floor,
pit storage
(6 month)
System
Modification
(2)
(Surface spread
| Plowdown
Herd
Size
(Head
Capacity)
(3)
100
100
50 Percent
Usage of
Available
Nutrients
(4)
23.57
27.02
100 Percent
Usage of
Available
Nutrients
(5)
47.14
54.04
Variable
Costs
(6)
(Dollars per
43.10
43.10
Fixed
Costs
(7)
Animal
83.30
83.30
Net System Returns
At 50
Percent
Usage of
Nutrients
Year)
-102.83
-99.38
At 100
Percent
Usage of
Uutrients
-79.26
-72.36
Apper.clix
Reference
A-13
A- 14
aThese systems are located primarily in cold humid, cool humid, and warm humid regions.
-------
TABLE 5. DAIRY, CONFINED FREE STALL, ANNUAL RETURNS AND COSTS FOR ALTERNATIVE
WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS USING MECHANICAL SCRAPING*
CD
Returns to Nutrients
Waste
Management
System
(1)
Herd
Size
System (Head
Modification Capacity)
(2) (3)
50 Percent
Usage of
Available
Nutrients
(4)
100 Percent
Usage of
Available Variable
Nutrients Costs
(5) (6)
Fixed
Costs
(7)
Net System
At 50
Percent
Usage of
Nutrients
Returns
At 100
Percent
Usage of Appendix
Nutrients Reference
(Dollars per Animal Year)
1
Mechanical scrape,
piston pump, <
earthen storage
Mechanical scraps.
pis tor. pump.
silo storage
(3 month)
Mechanical scrape.
pit storage
(6 mon'chs)
^Surface spread
\ Plowdown
1 Surface spread
/
\
\ Plowdown
1 Surface spread
V^Plowdown
(Surface spread
) Plowdown
(Surface spread
1 Plowdown
50
50
100
100
200
200
100
100
100
100
23.57
27.02
23.57
27.02
23.57
27.02
23.57
27.02
23.57
27.02
47.14
54.04
47.14
54.04
47.14
54.04
47.14
54.04
47.14
54.04
68.99
68.99
53.16
53.16
39.21
39.21
40.33
40.33
57.76
57.76
97.21
97.20
56.40
56.40
44.13
44.00
71.49
71.49
98.86
98.86
-142.63
-139.17
- 85.99
- 82.54
- 59.77
- 56.19
- 88.25
- 84.80
-133.05
-129.60
-119.06
-112.15
- 62.42
- 55.52
- 36.20
- 29.17
-64.68
-57.78
-109.48
-102.58
A- 15
A- 16
A-17
A-18
A- 19
A-20
A-21
A-22
A-23
A-24
systems are located primarily in cold humid, cool humid and warm humid regions.
-------
Figure 19. From the farmer's point of view, storage is costly. However, if
storage is chosen as part of the free stall, confinement system, plowdown or
soil incorporation becomes a way of easing the extra cost burden. For those
systems already having storage, manure plowdown returns approximately $7 per
animal year. For example, annual net system costs for the tractor scrape,
pit storage system [system (3) above] decline from $73.00 to $66.10 per
animal year when surface spreading is replaced by plowdown for the 100 head
herd (Table 3). Similar cost reductions of about $7 per animal unit are seen
in the mechanical scrape systems (Table 5) and the slotted floor system
(Table 4) as plowdown is substituted for surface spreading.
Confinement Stall—
The benefits and costs of the confinement stall systems are shown in
Table 6. All systems use gutter cleaners with (1) daily spreading, (2) plank
storage with stacker, or (3) above ground concrete storage with solid head
piston pump. The method of pollution control for those systems with storage
is soil incorporation by plowdown.
Annual net system costs tend to be slightly lower than the confined
free stall systems. For the 100 cow herd using the confinement stall, gutter
cleaner system with no storage, annual net system costs are $33.45 per animal
year. Adding plank storage results in annual net system costs of $47.66 per
animal year; however, adding plank storage plus plowdown reduces annual net
system costs to $43.34 due to more nutrients available.
The above ground concrete storage with piston pump [system (3) above] is
relatively expensive for the 50 cow herd with net system costs of $92.26 per
animal year. However, the system becomes competitive with other confinement
stall systems for the 100 cow herd. Here net system costs are $45.38 per
animal year and $38.82 with plowdown (Table 6).
The annual net system costs for confinement stall systems with daily
spreading, with concrete and plank storage and plowdown are shown in Figure
20. The confinement stall system with no storage or plowdown is unusual in
that nearly constant returns to size are exhibited rather than the economies
of size in other systems.
Free Stall Open Lot—
The free stall open lot waste system has two basic variations - daily
spreading and storage. The estimates for this system with its variations
are shown in Tables 7 and 8. With the open lot daily spreading system, the
methods of pollution control for runoff are the grass infiltration or the
detention/irrigation systems. For the open lot system with storage, pollu-
tion control is by plowdown of stored manure and runoff control.
Differences in annual net system costs for free stall open lot systems
are substantial, ranging from $20.00 per animal year for the 100 cow unit
with daily spreading and no runoff control to $67.63 per animal year for the
100 cow unit with earthen storage with surface spreading. Furthermore, these
differences would be larger if all the numerous types of storage systems
(concrete above ground, concrete pit, etc.) were included. Most of these
differences are attributable to differences in fixed costs associated with
49
-------
Ul
o
120
100
« 80
u
60
40
20
-MECHANICAL SCRAPE, EARTHEN
STORAGE, SURFACE SPREAD
-MECHANICAL SCRAPE, EARTHEN STORAGE,
PLOWDOWN
TRACTOR SCRAPE, PIT
STORAGE, SURFACE SPREAD
TRACTOR SCRAPE, PIT
STORAGE, PLOWEOWN
TRACTOR SCRAPE, DAILY
SURFACE SPREAD
100
80
a.
u 6°
K
u 40
cu
H
U]
O
U
20
GUTTER CLEANER, PISTON PUMP, CONCRETE
STORAGE, DAILY SURFACE SPREAD
GUTTER CLEANER, PISTON PUMP, CONCRETE
STORAGE, PDOWDOWN
GUTTER CLEANER, PISTON PUMP, PLANK
STORAGE, DAILY SURFACE SPREAD
-GUTTER CLEANER, STACKER, PLANK
STORAGE, PLOWDOWN
-GUTTER CLEANER, DAILY
SURFACE SPREAD
100 200 300
HEAD CAPACITY OF LIVESTOCK FACILITY
400
100 200 200
HEAD CAPACITY OF LIVESTOCK FACILITY
400
Figure 19. Dairy, annual net system costs for
confined free stall (100Z utilization
of available nutrients assumed).
Figure 20. Dairy, annual net system costs for
confinement stall (100X utilization
of available nutrients assumed).
-------
TABLE 6. DAIRY, CONFINEMENT STALL, ANNUAL RETURNS AND COSTS FOR ALTERNATIVE
WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS3
Waste
Management
System
(1)
Herd
Size
System (Head
Modification Capacity)
(2) (3)
Returns to
50 Percent
Usage of
Available
Nutrients
(4)
Nutrients
100 Percent
Usage of
Available Variable
Nutrients Costs
(5) (6)
Fixed
Costs
(7)
Net System
At 50
Percent
Usage of
Nutrients
Returns
At 100
Percent
Usage of
Nutrients
Appendix
Reference
(Dollars per Animal Year)
Gutter cleaner,
daily spread
Gutter cleaner.
stacker,
plank storage
(C month)
Gutter cleaner.
piston pump,
concrete storage
(6 month)
[Surface spread
(surface spread
/'Surface spread
1 Plowdown
<
] Surface spread
/
^Plowdown
( Surface spread
\
I Plowdown
<
j Surface spread
V, Plowdown
50
100
50
50
100
100
50
50
100
100
24.21
24.21
25.73
27.89
25.73
27.89
25.33
28.61
25.33
28.61
48.42
48.42
51.46
55.78
51.46
55.78
50.66
57.22
50.66
57.22
47.12
46.05
39.53
39.53
36.30
36.30
40.31
40.31
19.44
19.44
40.54
35.82
74.60
74.60
62.03
62.03
102.61
102.61
76.60
76.60
-63.44
-57.66
-88.40
-86.24
-73.39
-71.23
-117.59
-114.31
-70.71
-67.43
-39.23
-33.45
-62.67
-58.35
-47.66
-43.34
-92.26
-35.70
-45.38
-38.82
A-25
A-26
A- 31
A- 32
A-33
A-34
A-27
A- 2 8
A- 29
A-30
systems are located primarily in cool humid and cold humid regions.
-------
TABLE 7. DAIRY, FREE STALL OPEN LOT, ANNUAL RETURNS AND COSTS FOR ALTERNATIVE
WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS WITHOUT STORAGEa
Returns to Nutrients
Herd
Waste Size
Management System (Head
System Modification Capacity)
(1) (2) (3)
Tractor scrape, j
^Base
Runoff control-
infiltration
Runoff control-
detention
Base
Runoff control-
ro daily spread, / infiltration
surface spread )
Runoff control-
detention
Base
Runoff control-
infiltration
Runoff control-
\detention
50
50
50
100
100
100
200
200
200
50 Percent
Usage of
Available
Nutrients
(4)
24.21
24.21
24.21
24.21
24.21
24.21
24.21
24.21
24.21
100 Percent
Usage of
Available Variable
Nutrients Costs
(5) (6)
48.42
48.42
48.42
48.42
48.42
48.42
48.42
48.42
48.42
Net System
At 50
Percent
Fixed Usage of
Costs Nutrients
(7) (4)-(6)-(7)
(Dollars per Animal Year)
48.36 32.48 -56.62
48.80
50.14
42.50
42.82
43.62
29.99
30.15
31.17
34.10
44.24
25.93
27.20
33.04
19.10
20.94
24.01
-58.69
-70 . 17
-44.21
-45.82
-52.45
-24.87
-26.88
-30.97
Returns
At 100
Percent
Usage of Appendix
Nutrients Reference
(5)-(6)-(7)
-32.41
-34.48
-45.96
-20.00
-21.61
-28.24
- 0.66
- 2.67
- 6.76
A-35
A-36
A-37
A-38
A- 39
A- 40
A-41
A-42
A-43
*These systems are located primarily in cool humid, warm humid, and hot humid regions.
-------
TABLE 8. DAIRY, FREE STALL OPEN LOT, ANNUAL RETURNS AND COSTS FOR ALTERNATIVE
WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS WITH STORAGEa
Returns to Nutrients
Waste
Man agement Sy s tern
System Modification
(1) (2)
Tractor scrape.
piston pump,
earthen storage
Surface spread
Plowdown
Surface spread
Plowdown
Herd
Size
Head
(Capacity)
(3)
100
100
200
200
50 Percent
Usage of
Available
Nutrients
(4)
23.57
27.02
23.57
27.02
100 Percent
Usage of
Available
Nutrients
(5)
47.14
54.04
47.14
54.04
Variable
Costs
(6)
(Dollars per
52.38
52.38
43.34
43.34
Fixed
Costs
(7)
Animal
62.38
62.38
31.19
31.19
Net System Returns
At 50
Percent
Usage of
Nutrients
(4)-(6)-(7)
Year)
-91.20
-87.74
-50.96
-47.51
At 100
Percent
Usage of
Nutrients
(5)-(6)-(7)
-67.63
-60.72
-27.39
-20.49
Appendix
Reference
A-44
A-45
A-46
A-47
aThese systems are located primarily in cool humid, warm humid, and hot humid regions.
u>
-------
storage and runoff systems. The variable costs and returns to nutrients are
similar for each of the free stall open lot systems, but the fixed costs
change dramatically.
Net system costs are illustrated in Figure 21 for the free stall open
lot systems. Obvious implications are that storage and controlling runoff
are expensive to farmers. Storage adds approximately $47.00 per animal year
to the annual net system cost of a 100 cow herd, and controlling runoff with
the detention/irrigation system adds costs of $8 per animal year for the 100
head herd.
Another implication visualized in Figure 21 is that if storage is used,
soil incorporation of the waste is beneficial to the farmer. Although soil
incorporation benefits in terms of increased nutrient availability are
approximately $7 per animal year, it can be used regularly only when storage
is available. The daily spreading operation faces too many adverse soil
conditions to allow regular soil incorporation.
Confined Free Stall, Wastewater Irrigation—
This large-scale system designed for the hot humid, warm humid, and
warm arid regions has relatively low costs due to the economies of size en-
joyed by larger herd sizes. Annual net system costs for the flush, lagoon
system are $12.52 per head for the 200 head facility and $7.29 per head for
the 500 head facility (Table 9). This basic system provides reasonably com-
plete pollution control with no additional storage required.
System modifications include installation of temporary earthen storage
rather than longer term lagoon. Using the earthen storage system allows the
wastewater to be flushed from the free stall facility and applied immedi-
ately to the land. Added nutrients are available to crops and fixed costs
are lower due to the lower investment in storage. Annual net system returns
are $15 per animal year for the 200 head lot and $19 per animal year for the
500 head lot (Table 9).
Another system modification of the basic flush, lagoon, irrigate system
is the addition of solids separation. Annual net system costs are increased
to $28.04 per animal year for the 200 head lot and $18.31 per animal year
for the 500 head lot (Table 9). Figure 22 shows economies of scale for
these systems and modifications.
Pasture Year-Round, Lagoon, Irrigate—
Another large-scale system for the hot humid, warm humid, and warm arid
regions, this system enjoys relatively low costs per head. The components
of this system are similar to the confined system previously mentioned with
the exception that animals are confined to a lot only during milking. Thus,
the fixed costs and variable costs are similar, but nutrient returns are re-
duced substantially. Annual net system costs per animal are $15.78 for 200
head and $12.66 for 500 head (Table 9).
Unpaved Lot with Shade—
This system is designed primarily for warm and hot arid regions and has
54
-------
ico r
<2 so
5
Ul
0,
<
w
60
a,
a
a.
40
20
EARTHEK STORAGE, DAILY
SURFACE SPREAD
EARTHEN STORAGE, PLCWDOWN
NO STORAGE, RUNOFF DETENTION
MID IRRIGATION
— NO STORAGE, RUNOFF
INFILTRATION AREA
STORAGE, BASE SYSTEM
i i
100 200 300
HEAD CAPACITY OF LIVESTOCK FACILITY
400
Figure 21. Dairy, annual net system cost for
free stall, open lot, tractor scrape
(100% utilization of available nutrients
assumed).
<
K
60 i-
40
20
w -20
-40
-CONFINED FREE STALL, SOLIDS
SEPARATION, LAGOON
PASTURE YEAR ROUND, FLUSH
MILKING PARLOR
NET LOSS
CONFINED FREE STALL, LAGOON
NET RETURN
CONFINED FREE STALL,
EARTHEN STORAGE
200 300 400
HEAD CAPACITY OF LIVESTOCK FACILITY
SCO
Figure 22. Dairy, annual net system costs for
flush systems (100% utilization of
available nutrients assumed).
-------
TABLE 9 . DAIRY, FLUSH SYSTEMS, ANNUAL RETURNS AND COSTS FOR ALTERNATIVE
WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS3
Returns to Nutrients
Waste
Management System
System Modification
(1) (2)
Free stall,
lagoon, waste- Base
water irrigate
Free stall.
earthen storage, Base
wastewater irrigate
Free stall, solid
separation, lagoon Base
wastewater irrigate
Pasture year
around, flush Base
milking center.
wastewater irrigate
Herd
Size
(Head
Capacity)
(3)
1200
500
1200
500
1200
500
!200
500
50 Percent
Usage of
Available
Nutrients
(4)
11.34
11.34
23.57
23.5-7
9.14
9.14
1.62
1.62
100 Percent
Usage of
Available
Nutrients
(5)
22.68
22.68
47.14
47.14
18.28
18.28
3.24
3.24
Variable
Costs
(6)
(Dollars per
4.74
3.19
6.69
6.37
4.83
4.15
2.01
2.01
Fixed
Costs
(7)
Animal
30.45
26.78
25.45
21.76
41.49
32.44
17.01
13.88
Net System Returns
At 50
Percent
Usage of
Nutrients
(4)-(6)-(7)
Year)
-23.86
-18.63
- 8.57
- 4.57
-37.18
-27.45
-17.40
-14.28
At 100
Percent
Usage of
Nutrients
(5)-(6)-(7)
-12.52
- 7.29
+15.00
+19.00
-28.04
-18.31
-15.78
-12.66
Appendix
Reference
A-48
A- 49
A-50
A-51
A-52
A-53
A-54
A-55
aThese systems are located primarily in hot humid, warm humid and warm arid regions.
-------
TABLE 10. DAIRY, UNPAVKD LOT WITH SHADE, ANNUAL RETURNS AND COSTS FOR
ALTERNATIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS*
Returns to Nutrients
Waste
Management System
System Modification
(1) (2)
Herd
Size
(Head
Capacity)
(3)
50 Percent
Usage of
Available
Nutrients
(4)
100 Percent
Usage of
Available
Nutrients
(5)
Variable
Costs
(6)
Fixed
Costs
(7)
(Dollars per Animal
Tractor scrape,
semi-annual
spreading
on
'Base
Runoff control
detention/
irrigation
Base
Runoff control
detention/
irrigation
300
300
500
500
19.52
19.52
19.52
19.52
39.04
39.04
39.04
39.04
17.13
21.59
17.11
23.00
24.04
36.26
17.46
26.80
Net System Returns
At 50
Percent
Usage of
Nutrients
(4)-(6)-(7)
Year)
-21.65
-38.33
-15.05
-30.28
At 100
Percent
Usage of
Nutrients
(5)-(6)-(7)
- 2.13
-18-81
+ 4.47
-10.76
Appendix
Reference
A-56
A-57
A-58
A- 59
aThese systems are located primarily in warm arid, hot arid, and hot humid regions.
-------
TABLE 11. DAIRY, CONFINED FREE STALL, NET SYSTEM RETURNS AND LEVEL OF POLLUTANTS FOR
ALTERNATIVE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS USING TRACTOR SCRAPING OR SLOTTED FLOORS
Net System Return
Waste
Management System
System Modification
Tractor scrape,
daily spread
Tractor scrape,
plank storage
(6 month)
tn
CO
Tractor scrape,
pit storage
(6 month)
Surface spread
Surface spread
Surface spread
Surface spread
Surface spread
Surface spread
Surface spread
Plowdown
Surface spread
Plowdown
Surface spread
Plowdown
Slotted floor, t Surf ace spread
pit storage \
(6 month) /Plowdown
Herd
Size
(Head
Capacity)
50
100
200
50
100
200
50
50
100
100
200
200
100
100
At 50
Percent
Usage of
Nutrients
(Dollars
-74.56
-55.24
-45.14
-89.27
-63.82
-51.12
-119.02
-115.57
-96.57
-93.12
-67.13
-63.68
-102.83
-99.38
At 100
Percent
Usage of
Nutrients
per Animal Year)
-50.35
-31.04
-20.93
-63.54
-38.09
-25.39
-95.45
-88.55
-73.00
-66 . 10
-43.56
-36.66
-79.26
-72.36
Level of Pollution3
Water
Quantity Quality
of Runoff of Runoff
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
(Pollution Scale) a
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
Odor
1
1
1
2
2
2
4
1
4
1
4
1
4
1
aScale: 1
No Pollution
Severe Pollution
-------
TABLE 12. DAIRY, CONFINED FREE STALL, NET SYSTEM RETURNS AND LEVEL OF POLLUTANTS FOR
ALTERNATIVE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS USING MECHANICAL SCRAPING
Net System Return
Waste
Management System
System Modification
Mechanical scrape.
piston pump,
earthen storage
Surface spread
Plowdown
Surface spread
Plowdown
Surface spread
Plowdown
15 Mechanical scrape, (Surface spread
piston pump, <
silo storage (Plowdown
(3 month)
Mechanical scrape,
pit storage
(6 month)
Surface spread
<
Plowdown
Herd
Size
(Head
Capacity)
50
50
100
100
200
200
100
100
100
100
At 50
Percent
Usage of
Nutrients
(Dollars
-142.63
-139.17
- 85.99
- 82.54
- 59.77
- 56.19
- 88.25
- 84.80
-133.05
-129.60
At 100
Percent
Usage of
Nutrients
per Animal Year)
-119.06
-112.15
- 62.42
- 55.52
- 36.20
- 29.17
- 64.68
- 57.78
-104.48
-102.58
Level of Pollution*
Water
Quantity
of Runoff
Quality
of Runoff
Odor
(Pollution Scale) a
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
4
1
4
1
4
1
4
1
4
1
*Scale;
No Pollution
Severe Pollution
-------
TABLE 13. DAIRY, CONFINEMENT STALL, NET SYSTEM RETURNS AND LEVEL OF POLLUTANTS
FOR ALTERNATIVE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
Net System Return
Waste
Management
System
Gutter cleaner,
daily spread
Gutter cleaner.
piston pump,
concrete storage
(6 month)
Gutter cleaner,
stacker, plank <
storage
(6 month)
System
Modification
Herd
Size
(Head
Capacity)
At 50
Percent
Usage of
Nutrients
At 100
Percent
Usage of
Nutrients
(Dollars per Animal Year)
{'Surface spread
Surface spread
'Surface spread
Plowdown
Surface spread
Plowdown
! Surface spread
Plowdown
Surface spread
Plowdown
50
100
50
50
100
100
50
50
100
100
-63.
-57.
-92.
-90.
-69.
-67.
-88.
-86.
-73.
-71.
44
66
56
16
66
26
40
24
39
23
-39.
-33.
-66.
-61.
-43.
-38.
-62.
-58.
-47.
-43.
23
45
35
55
45
65
67
35
66
34
Level of Pollution3
Water
Quantity
of Runoff
Quality
of Runoff
Odor
(Pollution Scale) a
2
2
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
2
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
*Scale:
No Pollution
Severe Pollution
-------
TABLE 14. DAIRY, FREE STALL OPEN LOT, NET SYSTEM RETURNS AND LEVEL OF POLLUTANTS
FOR ALTERNATIVE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS WITHOUT STORAGE
-------
substantial economies of size. For the basic system annual net system costs
are $2.13 per head for the 300 head facility (Table 10). With the basic
system the 500 head lot enjoys annual net system returns of $4.47 per head
since nutrient returns outweigh system costs. The pollution control is a
detention basin/irrigation system and net annual system costs and returns
are increased to $18.81 and $10.76 per head for 300 and 500 head, respec-
tively.
LEVEL OF MR AND WATER POLLUTION FROM DAIRY SYSTEMS
The typical systems used in this analysis have relatively little problem
with pollution control. Dairy animal numbers concentrated on a farm are
generally small; thus, severe problems of odor and runoff control are less
than those for some other species.
Water pollution level estimates are rated as 1 (no pollution) or 2
(slight pollution) for all confined free stall and confinement stall systems
(Tables 11, 12, and 13). These levels indicate that water pollution prob-
lems are generally minimal. However, runoff problems may result when
spreading occurs without plowdown or soil injection. Thus, for those systems
using daily spreading, a water quality and quantity parameter of 2 is
assigned (Table 11). In addition, odor problems may result when spreading
occurs without plowdown.
For free stall open lot systems, water pollution problems become more
prevalent. This basic system allows some runoff from exposed lot surfaces;
thus, water pollution is rated at 3 (moderate pollution) in Table 14. Using
the diversion terrace, settling basin, grass infiltration components reduces
water pollution to a rating of 2 (Table 14). Water quality can be improved
significantly with the diversion terrace, settling basin, detention basin,
irrigation system.
Free stall open lot systems using earthen storage have some capacity to
prevent runoff from leaving the farm and entering water courses. This system
provides adequate water pollution control with a rating of 2 (Table 15). it
also allows significant reduction in odor when plowdown of manure is used
rather than surface spreading.
Runoff control and odor are controlled well on properly managed flush
systems (Table 16). Even though large numbers of animals are concentrated
in these systems, pollution control is adequate.
Runoff problems may be significant on unpaved lots, as seen in Table 17,
where the base system has water pollution levels of 5 (severe pollution).
With large quantities of manure stored on exposed lot surfaces, an intense
rainfall may create serious water quality problems. Most lots use a deten-
tion/irrigation system to control runoff (Table 17).
TRADEOFFS BETWEEN SYSTEM COSTS AND POLLUTION CONTROL
The difference between net annual costs of pollution control systems
and the resulting change in water and air quality are shown in Tables 11
through 17.
62
-------
TABLE 15. DAIRY, FREE STALL OPEN LOT, NET SYSTEM RETURNS AND LEVEL OF POLLUTANTS
FOR ALTERNATIVE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS WITH STORAGE
Net System Return
Waste
Management System
System Modification
Tractor scrape.
piston pump,
earthen storage
'Surface spread
Plowdown
Surface spread
Plowdown
Herd
Size
(Head
Capacity)
100
100
200
200
At 50
Percent
Usage of
Nutrients
(Dollars
-91.20
-87.74
-50.96
-47.51
At 100
Percent
Usage of
Nutrients
per Animal Year)
-67.63
-60.72
-27.39
-20.49
Level of Pollution3
Water
Quantity
Quality
of Runoff of Runoff
2
1
2
1
(Pollution Scale)3
2
1
2
1
Odor
4
1
4
1
No Pollution
Severe Pollution
-------
0>
TABLE 16. DAIRY, FLUSH SYSTEMS, NET SYSTEM RETURNS AND LEVEL OF POLLUTANTS
FOR ALTERNATIVE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
Net System Return
Herd At 50 At 100
Waste Size Percent Percent
Management System (Head Usage of Usage of
System Modification Capacity) Nutrients Nutrients
Confined free 1
stall, lagoon. Base \
was tew ate r 1
irrigation
Confined free
stall, earthen Base
storage, waste
water irrigate
Confined free
stall, solid Base
separation.
lagoon, waste-
water irrigate
Pasture year
around, flush Base
milking center,
wastewater
irrigate
(Dollars per Animal Year)
200 -23.86 -12.52
500 -18.63 - 7.29
200 - 8.57 +15.00
500 - 4.57 +19.00
200 -37.18 -28.04
500 -37.18 -28.04
200 -17.40 -15.78
500 -14.28 -12.66
Level
Water
Quantity
of Runoff
of Pollution3
Quality
of Runoff
Odor
(Pollution Scale) a
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
aScale:
No Pollution
Severe Pollution
-------
TABLE 17. DAIRY, UNPAVED LOT WITH SHADE, NET SYSTEM RETURNS AND LEVEL OF POLLUTANTS
FOR ALTERNATIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
Net System Return
Waste
Management System
System Modification
Tractor scrape,
semi-annual
spreading
' Base
Runoff control-
detention/
irrigation
Base
Runoff control-
detention/
irrigation
in
Herd
Size
(Head
Capacity)
300
300
500
500
At 50
Percent
Usage of
Nutrients
(Dollars
-21.65
-38.33
-15.05
-30.28
At 100
Percent
Us age of
Nutrients
per Animal Year)
- 2.13
-18.81
+ 4.47
-10.76
Quantity
Level of Pollution3
Water
Quality
of Runoff of Runoff
5
2
5
2
(Pollution Scale)3
5
2
5
2
Odor
3
3
3
3
*Scale:
No Pollution
4 5
Severe Pollution
-------
For the free stall open lot systems (Table 14), runoff control may be
expensive relative to the improved water and air quality. Imposing a grass
infiltration area increases net system costs by $2.07 per head ($34.48 -
$32.41) for the 50 cow herd and $1.61 per head ($21.61 - $20.00) for the
100 cow herd. Imposing a detention/irrigation system increases net costs by
$13.55 per head for the 50 cow herd, and $8.24 per head for the 100 cow herd.
For the free stall open lot system with earthen storage (Table 15),
soil incorporation not only improves water and air quality, but it also im-
proves returns due to improvements in nutrient availability. For the 200
head capacity facility, per head annual net costs are reduced by $6.90 while
water quality is improved slightly and odor control is improved substantially
at the time of spreading.
Other systems using soil incorporation exhibit similar benefits. For
example, the confinement stall system with storage (Table 13) has reduced
annual net system costs of about $4 to $5 per head when waste is incorporated
in the soil, and all of the pollution parameters improve slightly. Confined
free stall systems with storage and plowdown (Tables 11 and 12) also exhibit
similar qualities.
The implication that soil incorporation is to be prescribed for all sys-
tems is erroneous. It is only a feasible alternative where storage is al-
ready part of the system. To require herds now using daily spreading to use
soil incorporation would require the expensive addition of storage.
For herds in the Southwest using unpaved lots, constructing a
detention basin/irrigation system is both an expensive and an effective
means of controlling runoff. Annual net system costs are increased by
approximately $16 per head while water quality parameters are improved sub-
stantially as seen in Table 17.
66
-------
SECTION 7
BEEF WASTE MANAGEMENT OPTIONS
WASTE SYSTEMS
Beef production units are mainly cow-calf operations or fed beef opera-
tions. Stockers, or beef fed on grass from 450 to 750 pounds, is a third
group in some areas of the country. In recent years the profit margin for
beef production has been very small and at a number of points there have been
losses. Therefore, beef producers look for economical methods and equipment
for handling the manure.
In the 18 major beef producing states, 181,000 or 99% of the fed beef
operations are less than 1000 head capacity. These fed beef operations pro-
duce about 51% of the total beef marketings in these states (Johnson, et al,
1975). It is estimated that 49,000 fed beef facilities or about 27% of all
operations had pollution runoff problems. Three-fourths of the operations
with problems had less than 100 head capacity (Johnson, et al, 1975).
Climate is the principal factor in selecting feedlot site location,
type of shelter, and type of waste system. A major beef feeding area is in
the Great Plains area which typically has an annual moisture deficiency
(rainfall minus evapotranspiration) of approximately 30 inches of water. In
the cold areas of this region, shelter is usually provided with the open
feedlots; in the cool and warm arid region, no shelter is provided. In the
cold humid, cool humid and warm humid regions, shelter is usually provided
for the winter months. In the hot humid, hot arid and warm arid regions,
shade becomes important in the summer months.
The most common type of fed beef lot is that shown in Figure 23. This
unpaved lot without shelter is typically 400 sq. ft. per head. Manure is
scraped from the lot once or twice a year. If the feedlot cannot be located
on sloping ground (3 to 6% slope recommended), then a mound of soil and
manure is usually provided,as shown in Figure 23. The detention basin-
irrigation system or the grass infiltration system is an option to control
rainfall runoff.
A paved feedlot with shelter is shown in Figure 24. A manure pack is
allowed to accumulate in the shelter and is scraped and loaded into a box
spreader between groups of cattle. The paved surface should be scraped regu-
larly and the manure either stored or field spread directly. A plank walled
storage is shown in the insert. Normally,25 sq. ft. of floor in the shelter
and 30 sq. ft. of paved lot is provided per animal. Also, an unpaved feed-
lot may have shelter similar to that shown in Figure 24. In the case of an
unpaved lot with shelter, the lot area is typically 150 sq. ft. per animal
67
-------
00
IRRIGATION
SOLIDS
SETTLING
BASIN
RUNOFF
DETENTION
BASIN
Figure 23. Fed beef dry lot. Manure is scraped from lot periodically and spread
on cropland. Runoff settling and detention basins are shown.
-------
MANURE
STORAGE
SOLIDS
SETTLING
BASIN
RUNOFF
INFILTRATION
AREA
Figure 24. Paved beef feed lot typical of cold and cool humid areas,
-------
•J
o
Figure 25. Total confinement, slotted floor, pit storage, liquid manure handling system.
-------
with another 30 sq. ft. under roof. In these systems feeding may be done
under the roof or in a fenceline feed bunk as shown.
In cooler and humid regions, some beef feeding operators prefer total
confinement under shelter. A common system is the slotted floor with pit
storage (Figure 25). A minimum of 90 days storage is usually recommended.
The principal problem with this system is odor nuisance. Soil incorporation
of the liquid slurry when spreading is the recommended management practice
to control odors. Soil incorporation may be done by injecting or immediate
plowdown. Soil incorporation also has an added benefit of conserving more
nitrogen for crop use.
Some operators who wish to automate their beef manure handling systems
use flushing. This system is suitable where feezing does not occur for ex-
tended periods in the winter. It is used in the warm humid and hot humid
regions for some fed-beef operations.
Most beef cow-calf operations utilize a pasture (range) feeding regime.
In the cool and cold portions of the United States, feedlots for wintering
beef cows are used. Unpaved and paved feedlots with shelter are commonly
used, similar to that shown for fed-beef in Figure 24. In the warm and hot
areas, cows are usually wintered on the pasture and forage brought to them
as needed.
A pasturing system commonly used for stocker cattle in the Southern
Plains region is winter pasturing on fall planted wheat. Care must be taken
not to overstock the wheat field. No waste management system is needed for
this type of operation.
OPTIONS TO BE ANALYZED
Fed beef; The size of beef feedlots has trended upward in recent years
although low prices in the mid-1970's has slowed this trend. It is expected
that production and marketing efficiencies will continue to provide incen-
tives to concentrate large numbers of feeders in large western lots. How-
ever, Corn Belt feedlots will remain a major source of fed beef. These lots
are much smaller than their western counterparts and are primarily the focus
on this section. While relatively few efforts have been made to control
pollution from these smaller lots, large lots have been the focus of the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). All of the follow-
ing systems assume 100, 400, and 700 head capacity feedlots. Each type is
assumed to have a turnover rate of 1.2, producing marketings of 120, 480, and
840 head per year.
Fed beef waste systems analyzed are:
Fed beef, unpaved lot, shelter, solid handling
1. Base system
2. Base system with diversion, settling basin and
grass infiltration area
3. Base system with diversion, settling basin, lagoon,
and wastewater irrigation
71
-------
Fed beef, paved lot, shelter, solid handling
1. Base system
2. Base system with diversion, settling basin, and
grass infiltration area
3. Base system with diversion, settling basin, lagoon,
and wastewater irrigation
Fed beef, unpaved lot, no shelter, solid handling
1. Base system
2. Base system with diversion, settling basin, and
grass infiltration area
3. Base system with diversion, settling basin, lagoon,
and wastewater irrigation
Fed beef, confined, slotted floor, pit storage, liquid handling
1. Base system
2. Base system with soil incorporation of manure
by injection
Control of rainfall runoff is the major pollution control unit needed
on units with exposed lot surfaces. Runoff control may be either the deten-
tion basin-irrigation system or the settling basin-grass infiltration sys-
tem. On confined lots with manure storage, soil incorporation is the major
pollution control option to prevent runoff of spread manure from cropland.
Stockers; The midwestern states often include the grazing of beef
stockers (400-700 Ibs.) on wheat stubble or grass. Animal density is low,
and no waste disposal system is required. No waste disposal estimates have
been provided for this feeding regime since no costs are incurred and net
benefits from manure nutrients are minimal.
Pollution control is related to grazing management practices which pre-
vent overstocking of pasture. Overstocking reduces the vegetation covering
the soil and permits increased runoff. Suggested stocking rates vary by
location and time of the year, and producers should consult local Coopera-
tive Extension Service personnel to find appropriate stocking rates.
Cow-calf enterprises are found on land that is not readily suitable for
more profitable feed, food, and fiber crops. Generally, the alternatives
for this land are limited and extensive pasturing is a reasonable land use
practice. As with beef stockers, the cow-calf enterprise on a pasture sys-
tem does not require a waste disposal system. However, during the winter
months the breeding cows are normally restricted to a lot and may be provided
shelter. The cows are usually returned to pasture (range) for calving.
Two systems for beef cow-calf waste facilities during winter confine-
ment are analyzed:
1. Pasture, unpaved lot with shelter, tractor scraper/loader,
solid handling
2. Pasture, paved lot with shelter, tractor scraper/loader,
solid handling
72
-------
Pollution control options are the detention basin-irrigation system and
the settling basin-grassed infiltration system. Smaller quantities of runoff
will occur from the smaller paved lot but the concentration of pollutants may
be larger.
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
The organization of the economic analysis of beef waste management sys-
tems is to estimate farmers' returns and costs for alternative systems first.
Then qualitative estimates of society costs in terms of water and air quality
are made. Finally, the trade offs between the costs of pollution control and
the benefits of improved water and air quality are depicted.
Benefits from Waste
Economic benefits accruing to waste are dependent on the quantities of
nutrients in the waste and the losses in storing, handling and spreading.
Generally, substantial nitrogen losses occur on beef feedlots or cow-calf
wintering facilities. A manure pack on the lot surface or storage in mounds
allows nitrogen losses of over 50 percent for most situations (Table 18).
Once the losses due to storing, handling, and spreading have been com-
puted (as in Table 18), assumptions need to be made about crop utilization
of available nutrients. For fed beef, two sets of nutrient utilization
assumptions are used. First, it is assumed that 100 percent of available
nutrients is utilized. The second set assumes that 50 percent of available
nutrients is utilized.
For the cow-calf enterprise, part of the manure is from the lot and can
be allocated to cropland. However, part is returned to pasture or range land
by the pasturing cow. For both the manure from the lot and manure from the
pasture, the 100 percent and 50 percent utilization assumptions are used.
As with dairy systems, nutrients are priced at $0.16 per pound for
nitrogen, $0.18 for phosphate (P205), and $0.10 for potash (K^O). These
prices are multiplied by the assumed amount of utilized nutrients to arrive
at the nutrient return.
Analysis of Options
Due to the relative simplicity of most beef waste systems, waste dis-
posal generally returns a profit (Table 19). Waste system components are few
and the capital investment and labor utilization are small compared to the
more elaborate dairy systems.
It does not follow that positive net returns for beef systems having
effective pollution control will be accepted by farmers. Although a system
may have positive annual returns, they may be quite expensive compared to
other less elaborate systems where returns are even higher for waste disposal.
73
-------
TABLE 18. NITROGEN, PHOSPHATE (P205), AND POTASH (K20)
AVAILABLE TO CROPS FROM BEEF WASTE, PER ANIMAL
UNIT3 FOR ALTERNATIVE HANDLING SYSTEMS
LbsAear Available to
Crops/Animal Unitb
System
Nitrogen
Phosphate
Potash
(K20)
Feeders (1000 Ib)
Unpaved lot, shelter, solid handling 53
Paved lot, shelter, solid handling 58
Unpaved lot, no shelter, solid
handling 45
Total shelter, slotted floor,
liquid handling 68
Total shelter, slotted floor,
liquid handling, injection 88
Paved lot, shelter, flushing,
lagoon, irrigation 19
Stockers (500 Ibs)
Pastured on winter wheat 23
64
64
46
82
86
46
22
animal unit:
feeder at 1000 Ibs, 2 stockers at 500 Ibs,
cow-calf at 1250 Ibs
•"Production of nutrients per year:
80
80
64
95
101
64
26
Cow-Calf (1250 Ibs)
Pasture year around
Pasture, winter in unpaved lot,
solid handling
Pasture, winter in paved lot,
shelter, solid handling
98
77
80
100
85
85
114
100
100
1000 Ib feeder animal
500 Ib stocker
1250 Ib cow-calf
N (Ibs)
124
62
131
P2O5 (Ibs)
91
45
100
K20 (Ibs)
106
53
114
74
-------
10
10
-J
I/I
NET LOSS
a.
<
w
NET RETURN
RUNOFF CONTROL-DETENTION
AND IRRIGATION
RUNOFF CONTROL-GRASS
INFILTRATION AREA
-20
-30
BASIC MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
200 400 600 800
HEAD CAPACITY OF LIVESTOCK FACILITY
J-10
U)
X
tfl
,-30 -
t
NET LOSS
NET RETURN
:UNOFF CONTROL-DETENTION
AND IRRIGATION
: RUNOFF CONTROL-GRASS
INFILTRATION AREA
•o
-A
BASIC MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
200 400 600
HEAD CAPACITY OF LIVESTOCK FACILITY
800
Figure 26. Fed beef, annual net systems costs for
paved dry lot (100% utilization of
available nutrients assumed).
Figure 27. Fed beef, annual net system costs for
unpaved dry lot, (100% utilization of
available nutrients assumed).
-------
Fed Beef, Dry Lot, Paved—
The dry lot, paved system has two pollution control options, the grass
infiltration or the detention/irrigation system. Annual net system costs
for the basic system and the two pollution control options are illustrated
in Figure 26. For the basic system with no pollution control, annual net
system returns range from $6.93 per head for the 100 head lot to $15.47 per
head for the 700 head lot (Table 19).
Adding grass infiltration pollution control components increases annual
net system costs $1.70 per head for the 100 head lot ($6.93 - $5.23, Table
19) and $0.74 per head for the 700 head lot ($15.47 - $14.73, Table 19).
Thus, pollution control costs for the grass infiltration area are minimal.
Adding the detention basin/irrigation system as a pollution control op-
tion increases costs more than does the grass infiltration system. With the
detention/irrigation system, annual net system costs are increased $6.23 per
head for the 100 head lot ($6.93 - $0.70, Table 19) and $1.49 per head for
the 700 head lot ($15.47 - $13.96, Table 19).
Annual net system returns in Table 19 are depicted graphically in
Figure 26. It is apparent that economies of size are gained at about 400
head where costs reach low levels. Also, it is apparent that the detention/
irrigation method of controlling runoff is substantially more expensive than
the grass infiltration method for the smaller lot sizes.
Fed Beef, Dry Lot, Unpaved—
Net system costs for the dry lot, unpaved system are shown in Table 20.
Due to the smaller labor requirements and slightly lower capital require-
ments, the annual net system returns are generally higher than that from the
dry lot, paved system. Net annual returns for the basic dry lot, unpaved
system range from $13.75 per head for the 100 head capacity lot to $20.28
per head for the 700 head lot.
Pollution control technology in the form of the grass infiltration op-
tion increases costs $2.24. per head on the 100 head lot ($13.75 - $11.51,
Table 20) and $1.34 per head on the 700 head lot ($20.28 - $18.94, Table 20).
If the detention/irrigation system is added, costs increase $8.33 per head
on the 100 head lot and $2.66 per head on the 700 head lot.
Runoff control is more expensive on the unpaved lot than the paved lot,
fed beef systems. Larger capital investments are needed for diversion,
settling basin, detention basin, and wastewater irrigation components. For
example, on the 100 head paved lot, adding the detention/irrigation runoff
control system costs $6.23 per head (Table 19). However, on the 100 head
unpaved lot, it costs $8.33 per head.
Again, most economies of size are gained with 400 head capacity on the
dry lot, unpaved feedlot (Figure 27). Thus, smaller producers bear sub-
stantially higher per-unit costs than do the larger producers.
Fed Beef, Total Shelter—
The total shelter, fully slotted floor, pit storage technology reduces
76
-------
TABLE 19. FED BEEF, ANNUAL COSTS AND RETURNS FOR ALTERNATIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT
SYSTEMS WITH DRY LOT PAVED SYSTEMS3
Waste
Management System
System Modification
(1) (2)
Dry lot, partial
shelter, paved, /
solid spread \
/Base
Runoff control-
detention/
irrigation
Runoff control-
grass infil-
tration
Base
Runoff control-
detention/
irrigation
Runoff control-
grass infil-
tration
Base
Runoff control-
detention/
irrigation
Runoff control-
grass infil-
\ tration
Herd
Size
(Head
Capacity)
(3)
100
100
100
400
400
400
700
700
700
Returns to
50 Percent
Usage of
Available
Nutrients
(4)
14.40
14.40
14.40
14.40
14.40
14.40
14.40
14.40
14.40
Nutrients
100 Percent
Us age of
Available Variable
Nutrients Costs
(5) (6)
28.80
28.80
28.80
28.80
28.80
28.80
28.80
28.80
28.80
(Dollars per
4.93
5.48
5.48
4.32
4.51
4.51
4.85
5.08
5.03
Fixed
Costs
(7)
Animal
16.94
22.62
18.08
9.29
11.06
9.90
8.48
9.75
8.98
Net System
At 50
Percent
Usage of
Nutrients
Year)
- 7.47
-13.70
- 9.17
0.78
- 1.17
- 0.11
1.U7
- 0.44
0.33
Returns
At 100
Percent
Usage of
Nutrients
6.93
0.70
5.23
15.18
13.23
14.29
15.47
13.96
14.73
Appendix
Reference
B-l
B-2
E-3
B-4
B-5
B-6
B-7
B-8
B-9
Regions: cold humid and cool humid.
-------
TABLE 20. FED BEEF, ANNUAL COSTS AND RETURNS FOR ALTERNATIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT
SYSTEMS WITH DRY LOT UNPAVED SYSTEMSa
00
Waste
Management System
System Modification
(1) (2)
Dry lot, partial
shelter, unpaved, X
solid spread >
f Base
Runoff control
with detention/
irrigation
Runoff control-
grass infil-
tration
Dase
Runoff control-
detention/
irrigation
Runoff control-
grass infil-
tration
Base
Runoff control-
detention/
irrigation
Runoff control-
grass infil-
\ tration
Herd
Size
(Head
Capacity)
(3)
100
100
100
400
400
400
700
700
700
Returns to
50 Percent
Usage of
Available
Nutrients
(4)
14.00
14.00
14.00
14.00
14.00
14.00
14.00
14.00
14.00
Nutrients
100 Percent
Usage of
Available Variable Fixed
Nutrients Costs Costs
(5) (6) (7)
(Dollars
28.00
28.00
28.00
28.00
28.00
28.00
28.00
28.00
28.00
per Animal Year)
3.14 11.12
3.87 18.71
3.67 12.61
2.53 5.85
3.12 8.03
3.12 6.26
2.57 5.15
3.53 6.85
3.53 5.53
Net System
At 50
Percent
Usage of
Nutrients
(4}-(6)-(7)
-0.25
-8.58
-2.49
5.62
2.85
4.62
6.28
3.62
4.94
Returns
At 100
Percent
Usage of
Nutrients
(5)-(6)-(7)
13.75
5.42
11.51
19.62
16.85
18.53
20.28
17.62
18.94
Appendix
Reference
B-10
B-ll
3-12
B-13
B-14
B-15
B-16
E-17
B-18
*Regions: cool humid, cold humid, cool arid, cold arid.
-------
labor requirements but significantly increases capital investments. As a
result, waste management costs per head are greater for this system than for
any of the others. Net annual system returns for the basic system are shown
in Table 21, and they range from -$14.72 per head for the 100 head lot to
$2.94 for the 700 head lot.
Adding soil incorporation to the waste spreading operation increases
fixed and variable costs slightly, but it produces even larger returns from
nutrients. With incorporation, annual net system returns are improved by
$0.16 per head for the 100 head lot ($14.56 - $14.72, Table 21) and $3.09
per head for the 700 head lot ($6.03 - $2.94, Table 21).
Incorporation of stored animal waste is a system modification which im-
proves returns as seen in Figure 28. Furthermore, the larger the feedlot,
the larger the per-head savings, as fixed costs are spread over more units
of output. Again, lot sizes of approximately 400 head realize most of the
economies of size for waste management on the total shelter, fully slotted
floor system.
Fed Beef, Unpaved Lot, No Shelter—
While this system is limited to areas with cool arid, warm arid, and
hot arid climates, the waste disposal costs compare favorably with other
systems. Annual net system returns are $5.52 for the 100 head lot and
$13.83 for the 700 head lot (Table 22). For areas where this system is
adaptable, detention basin/irrigation systems would be the likely pollution
control technology. This technology lowers annual net system returns by
$7.81 per head for the smaller lot and $2.74 per head for the larger lot
(Table 22).
As with other systems, the runoff control system using detention/irri-
gation adds substantial fixed costs to fed beef. For the 400 head unpaved
lot without shelter, adding the detention/irrigation components lowers waste
management returns by $3.17 per head ($15.13 - $11.95, Table 22). Of this
$3.17 per-head cost, variable costs account for only $0.38 per head while
fixed costs account for $2.79 per head.
Cow-Calf, Pasture, Paved Lot and Unpaved Lot—
Both the basic paved lot and unpaved lot systems incur similar costs and
returns (Figure 29). The components of these systems are much the same, with
the difference consisting of the structure for wintering. Of course, runoff
control requirements change between the lots due to the different lot struc-
tures.
For both basic systems, annual net system returns varying between
approximately $13 per head for the 40 cow herd to $30-$31 per head for the
200 cow herd (Tables 23 and 24).
Runoff control with detention/irrigation is relatively expensive on the
unpaved lot as components are sized larger to accommodate the larger lot
area. For the unpaved lot using grass infiltration, annual net system costs
are $1.22 per head for the 40 cow lot ($13.23 - $12.01, Table 24), and $1.09
per head for the 200 cow lot ($30.35 - $29.16, Table 24). For the unpaved
79
-------
TABLE 21. FED BEEF, ANNUAL COSTS AND RETURNS FOR ALTERNATIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT
SYSTEMS WITH FULLY SLOTTED SYSTEMS*
Returns to Nutrients
Waste
Management System
System Modification
(1) (2)
Total shelter,
fully sotted.
liquid spread,
90-day storage
Base
Injection
Base
Injection
Base
y. Injection
m
Herd
Size
(Head
Capacity)
(3)
100
100
400
400
700
700
50 Percent
Usage of
Av ail able
Nutrients
(4)
17.57
19.83
17.57
19.83
17.57
19.83
100 Percent
Usage of
Available
Nutrients
(5)
(Dollars
35.14
39.66
35.14
39.66
35.14
39.66
Variable
Costs
(6)
Fixed
Costs
(7)
Net System Returns
At 50
Percent
Usage of
Nutrients
(4)-(6)-(7)
At 100
Percent
Usage of
Nutrients
(5)-(6)-(7)
Appendix
Reference
per Animal Year)
10.14
10.94
9.91
10.71
11.40
12.33
39.72
43.28
22.59
23.48
20.80
21.30
-32.29
-34.39
-14.93
-14.36
-14.63
-13.80
-14.72
-14.56
2.64
5.47
2.94
6.03
B-19
B-20
B-21
B-22
B-23
B-24
^Regions: cool humid, cold humid
-------
20 r
oo
8 10
5
I
NET RETURN
SOIL INCORPORATION
j-10
I
tn
'-20
200 400 600
HEAD CAPACITY OF LIVESTOCK FACILITY
800
1C r-
I °
a
j
«c
z
M
§
«
-10
-20
-30
NET LOSS
^'NET RETURN
UNPAVFD LOT, RUNOFF CONTPOL-
DETEMTION AND IRRIGATION
PAVED LOT, RUNOFF CONTROL-
GRASS INFILTRATION AREA
-UNPAVED IOT,
NC PUNOFF
MANAGEMENT
PAVED LOT, NO RUNOFF
MANAGEMENT
40 IOC 150
HEAD CAPACITY OF LIVESTOCK FACILITY
200
Figure 28. Fed beef, annual net system costs for
total shelter, fully slotted floor
(100% utilization of available nutrients
assumed).
Figure 29. Beef cow/calf, annual net system costs
for paved lot and unpaved lot (100%
utilization of available nutrients
assumed).
-------
T7iBLE 22. FED BEEF, ANNUAL COSTS AND RETURNS FOR ALTERNATIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT
SYSTEMS WITHOUT SHELTER3
Returns to Nutrients
Waste
Management System
System Modification
(1) (2)
/Base
Unpaved lot, I
Runoff control-
detention/
irrigation
Base
no shelter, / Runoff control-
solid spread \ detention/
00
to
irrigation
Base
Runoff control-
detention/
\irrigation
Herd
Size
(Head
Capacity)
(3)
50 Percent
Usage of
Available
Nutrients
(4)
100 Percent
Usage of
Available
Nutrients
(5)
(Dollars per
100
100
400
400
700
700
10.94
10.94
10.94
10.94
10.94
10.94
21.88
21.88
21.88
21.88
21.88
21.88
Variable
Costs
(6)
Animal Year)
6.57
7.10
2.64
3.03
4.69
5.17
Fixed
Costs
(7)
9.79
17.07
4.11
6.91
3.36
5.62
Net System Returns
At 50
Percent
Usage of
Nutrients
(4)-(6)-(7)
- 5.42
-13.23
4.19
1.00
2.89
0.14
At 100
Percent
Usage of
Nutrients
(5)-(6)-(7)
5.52
- 2.29
15.13
11.94
13.83
11.08
Appendix
Reference
B-25
B-26
B-27
3-28
B-29
B-30
Regions: cool arid, warm arid, hot arid.
-------
TABLE 23. BEEF COW-CALF, ANNUAL COSTS AND RETURNS FOR ALTERNATIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT
SYSTEMS WITH PASTURE, PAVED LOTa
Waste
Management System
System Modification
(1) (2)
Pasture, paved j
/Base
Runoff control-
grass infil-
tration
Base
lot, winter / Runoff control-
shelter, solid
spreading
00
OJ
grass infil-
tration
Base
Runoff control-
grass infil-
Vtration
Herd
Size
(Head
Capacity)
(3)
40
40
100
100
200
200
Returns
50 Percent
Usage of
Available
Nutrients
(4)
19.05
19.05
19.05
19.05
19.05
19.05
to Nutrients
100 Percent
Usage of
Available
Nutrients
(5)
(Dollars
38.10
38.10
38.10
38.10
38.10
38.10
Variable
Costs
(6)
per Animal
2.69
3.11
2.11
2.36
1.86
2.15
Fixed
Costs
(7)
Year)
21.86
24.83
8.81
10.07
38.10
6.27
Net System
At 50
Percent
Usage of
Nutrients
(4)-(6)-(7)
- 5.50
- 8.89
8.13
6.62
11.97
10.63
Returns
At 100
Percent
Usage of
Nutrients
[5)-(6}-(7)
13.55
10.16
27.18
25.67
31.02
29.68
Appendix
Reference
B-31
B-32
B-33
B-34
B-35
B-36
aRegions: cool humid, cold humid.
-------
TABLE 24. BEEF COW-CALF, ANNUAL COSTS AND RETURNS FOR ALTERNATIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT
SYSTEMS WITH PASTURE, UNFAVED LOTSa
GO
Waste
Management System
System Modification
(1) (2)
Pasture, unpaved
f Base
Runoff control-
Detention/
irrigation
Runoff control-
grass infil-
tration
Base
lot, winter J Runoff control-
shelter, solid \ detention/
spreading
irrigation
Runoff control-
grass infil-
tration
Base
Runoff control-
detention/
irrigation
Runoff control-
arass infil-
\tration
Herd
Size
(Head
Capacity)
(3)
40
40
40
100
100
100
200
200
200
Returns
50 Percent
Usage of
Available
Nutrients
(4)
18.81
18.81
18.81
18.81
18.81
18.81
18.81
18.81
18.81
to Nutrients
100 Percent
Usage of
Available
Nutrients
(5)
(Dollars
37.62
37.62
37.62
37.62
37.62
37.62
37.62
37.62
37.62
Variable
Costs
(6)
per Animal
2.11
3.08
2.53
1.73
2.44
1.99
1.51
2.22
2.22
Fixed
Costs
(7)
Year)
22.28
35.45
23.08
9.27
16.02
10.05
5.75
9.35
6.24
Net System
At 50
Percent
Usage of
Nutrients
- 5.58
-19.72
- 6.80
7.81
0.36
6.77
11.54
7.24
10.35
Returns
At 100
Percent
Usage of
Nutrients
13.23
-0.91
12.01
26.62
19.17
25.58
30.35
26.05
29.16
Appendix
Reference
B-37
B-38
B-39
B-40
B-41
B-42
B-43
B-44
B-45
'Regions: cool arid, cold arid, cool humid, cold humid, warm humid.
-------
lot using detention/irrigation, annual net system costs increase approxi-
mately $14 per head on the 40 cow lot and $4 per head on the 200 cow lot.
For the paved lot system, only the grass infiltration system is ana-
lyzed. Added annual costs with the grass infiltration components are $3.39
per head for the 40 cow lot ($13.55 - $10.16, Table 23) and $1.34 per head
for the 200 cow lot ($31.02 - $29.68, Table 23).
LEVEL OF AIR AND WATER POLLUTION FROM BEEF SYSTEMS
The herd sizes for fed beef are generally larger than for dairy. These
larger concentrations mean that uncontrolled pollution may cause more severe
damages from beef feedlots than from dairy systems. The water pollution
problems on fed beef dry lot, unpaved and paved basic systems are rated as
severe (Tables 25 and 26).
Adapting the grass infiltration or the detention/irrigation system on
dry lot paved or unpaved systems greatly abates potential pollution. The
grass infiltration effectively controls water pollution but does not offer
the complete elimination of runoff as does the detention/irrigation system.
Slight water pollution (rating of 2, Tables 25 and 26) occurs with grass in-
filtration while no water pollution occurs with a properly designed deten-
tion/irrigation system. However, none of the systems effectively control
the level of odor.
For the confinement, fully slotted system, water pollution is effec-
tively controlled (Table 27). Any problems with runoff occur at the time of
spreading, and soil injection provides a method of eliminating runoff of
waste from the field. Injection also abates the odor nuisance that occurs
when surface spreading.
Water pollution is rated as severe on the basic unpaved lot without
shelter system (Table 28). Large areas of exposed lot surface which are
scraped only occasionally provide the setting for severe runoff problems
when prolonged and intense rains occur. Due to the location of these sys-
tems in moisture deficit areas, runoff control by the grass infiltration
method is not recommended. Instead, detention/irrigation components are
used and are able to reduce moderate runoff pollution to near zero levels.
Odor nuisances are a characteristic of all unpaved lot systems.
As with all systems with exposed lot surfaces, the basic beef cow-calf
systems present the problem of runoff from the lot area (Tables 29 and 30).
However, concentrations are less, due to smaller herd sizes and pasturing
during six months of the year. As with fed beef, the detention/irrigation
and grass infiltration systems are effective pollution control methods for
beef cow-calf enterprises.
TRADEOFFS BETWEEN SYSTEM COSTS AND POLLUTION CONTROL
The monetary costs and qualitative water quality estimates as pollution
control components are added to the alternative fed beef and cow-calf beef
systems are presented in Tables 25-30.
85
-------
TABLE 25. FED BEEF, DRY LOT PAVED SYSTEMS, ANNUAL NET SYSTEM RETURNS AND LEVEL
OF POLLUTION FOR ALTERNATIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
Waste
Management System
System Modification
Herd
Size
(Head
Capacity)
Net System
At 50
Percent
Usage of
Nutrients
Returns
At 100
Percent
Usage of
Nutrients
(Dollars per Animal Year)
a, Dry lot, partial ,
& shelter, paved, ^
solid spread '
f Base
Runoff control-
detention/
irrigation
Runoff control-
grass infil-
tration
Base
Runoff control-
detention/
irrigation
Runoff control-
grass infil-
tration
Base
Runoff control-
detention/
irrigation
Runoff control-
grass infil-
\tration
100
100
100
400
400
400
700
700
700
- 7.47
-13.70
- 9.17
0.78
- 1.17
- 0.11
1.07
- 0.44
0.33
6.93
0.70
5.23
15.18
13.23
14.29
15.47
13.96
14.73
Level of Pollution3
Water
Quantity Quality
of Runoff of Runoff
(Pollution Scale)3
4 5
1 1
2 2
4 5
1 1
2 2
4 5
1 1
2 2
Odor
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
No Pollution
4 5
Severe Pollution
-------
TABLE 26. FED BEEP, DRY LOT UNPAVED SYSTEMS, ANNUAL NET SYSTEM RETURNS AND
LEVEL OF POLLUTION FOR ALTERNATIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
00
Net System Return
Waste
Management System
System Modification
[ Base
Dry lot, partial /
she Iter , unpaved , /
solid spread >
Runoff control-
detention/
irrigation
Runoff control-
grass infil-
tration
Base
Runoff control-
detention/
irrigation
Runoff control-
grass infil-
tration
Base
Runoff control-
detention/
irrigation
Runoff control-
i grass infil-
\tration
Herd
Size
(Head
Capacity)
100
100
100
400
400
400
700
700
700
At 50
Percent
Usage of
Nutrients
(Dollars per
-0.25
-8.58
-2.49
5.62
2. 85
4.62
6.28
3.62
4.94
At 100
Percent
Usage of
Nutrients
Animal Year)
13.75
5.42
11.51
19.62
16.85
18.53
20.28
17.62
18.94
Level of Pollution*
Water
Quantity Quality
of Runoff of Runoff Odor
(Pollution Scale)3
554
114
224
554
114
224
554
114
224
aScale:
No Pollution
4 5
Severe Pollution
-------
TABLE 27. FED BEEF, TOTAL SHELTER, FULLY SLOTTED SYSTEMS, ANNUAL NET SYSTEM
RETURNS AND LEVEL OF POLLUTION FOR ALTERNATIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
Net System Return
Waste
Management System
System Modification
Total shelter,
fully slotted,
liquid spread.
90-day storage
Base
Injection
Base
Injection
Base
Injection
00 a-,. ,„. , ,
Herd
Size
(Head
Capacity)
100
100
400
400
700
700
•5
At 50
Percent
Usage of
Nutrients
(Dollars per
-32.29
-34.39
-14.93
-14.36
-14.63
-13.80
A c.
At 100
Percent
Usage of
Nutrients
Animal Year)
-14.72
-14.56
2.64
5.47
2.94
6.03
Level of Pollution3
Water
Quantity
of Runoff
2
1
2
1
2
1
Quality
of Runoff
(Pollution Scale) a
2
1
2
1
2
1
Odor
5
2
5
2
5
2
No Pollution
Severe Pollution
-------
TABLE 28. FED BEEF, UNPAVED LOT WITHOUT SHELTER, ANNUAL NET SYSTEM RETURNS AND LEVEL
OF POLLUTION FOR ALTERNATIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
00
vo
Net System Return
Waste
Management System
System Modification
/'Base
Unpaved lot,
Runoff control-
detention/
irrigation
Base
no shelter, J
solid spreading \ Runoff control-
detention/
irrigation
Base
Runoff control-
detention/
\irrigation
Herd
Size
(Head
Capacity)
100
100
400
400
700
700
At 50
Percent
Usage of
Nutrients
(Dollars per
- 5.42
-13.23
4.19
1.02
2.89
0.14
At 100
Percent
Usage of
Nutrients
Animal Year)
5.52
- 2.29
15.13
11.95
13.83
11.08
Level of Pollution*
Water
Quantity Quality
of Runoff of Runoff
(Pollution Scale)3
5 5
1 1
5 5
1 1
5 5
1 1
Odor
3
3
3
3
3
3
aScale:
No Pollution
Severe Pollution
-------
Generally, the pollution control technology of grass infiltration con-
trols most of the runoff while adding minimal costs to those systems having
exposed lot surfaces. To illustrate the point/ consider the paved dry lot
for fed beef (Table 25), the unpaved dry lot for fed beef (Table 26) , the
cow-calf paved lot (Table 29), and the cow-calf unpaved lot (Table 30) sys-
tems . Adding the grass infiltration system to any of these systems improves
runoff quantity and quality substantially with added annual net system costs
of $2 per head or less for the fed beef systems and $3 per head or less for
the cow-calf systems.
Using the detention basin/irrigation system is the most effective means
of controlling pollution for systems with exposed lot surfaces. Although
the monetary costs of detention/irrigation are substantially more than the
costs of grass infiltration, it also improves water quality more. For ex-
ample, compare the two methods of controlling runoff on the fed beef, dry
lot unpaved system (Table 26). Adding grass infiltration to the basic 400
head dry lot unpaved system costs $1.09 per head annually ($19.62 - $18.53,
Table 26), and water pollution levels improve from a rating of 5 to a rating
of 2. Adding the detention/irrigation system further improves water quality
to a rating of 1 (no pollution), but annual costs increase $2.77 per head
($19.62 - $16.85, Table 26). The obvious question is whether the more ex-
pensive detention/irrigation systems are worth the added costs. This ques-
tion is especially relevant for small producers who would bear higher per-
unit costs with detention/irrigation systems.
For the slotted floor system with pit storage or any other system where
waste storage is included, soil incorporation is a very effective method of
controlling odor and water pollution. Furthermore, either injection or plow-
down can be done while improving returns to the farmer (Table 27).
90
-------
TABLE 29. BEEF COW-CALF. PASTURE, PAVED LOT, ANNUAL NET SYSTEM RETURNS AND LEVEL
OF POLLUTION FOR ALTERNATIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
Net System Return
Waste
Management System
System Modification
f Base
Pasture, paved
Runoff control-
grass infil-
tration
lot, winter / Base
shelter, solid \
spreading
Runoff control-
grass infil-
tration
Base
Runoff control-
, grass infil-
\ tration
aScale: 1 2
Herd
Size
(Head
Capacity)
40
40
100
100
200
200
3
At 50
Percent
Usage of
Nutrients
(Dollars per
- 5.50
- 8.89
8.13
6.62
11.97
10.63
4 5
At 100
Percent
usage of
Nutrients
Animal Year)
13.55
10.16
27.18
25.67
31.02
29.68
Level of Pollution3
Water
Quantity Quality
of Runoff of Runoff
(Pollution Scale) a
4 4
2 2
4 4
2 2
4 4
2 2
Odor
2
2
2
2
2
2
No Pollution
Severe Pollution
-------
TABLE 30. BEEF COW-CALF, PASTURE, UNPAVED LOT, ANNUAL NET SYSTEM RETURNS AND
LEVEL OF POLLUTION CONTROL FOR ALTERNATIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
to
Waste
Management System
System Modification
Herd
Size
(Head
Capacity)
Net System
At 50
Percent
Usage of
Nutrients
Return
At 100
Percent
Usage of
Nutrients
(Dollars per Animal Year)
/Base
Pasture, unpaved ,
lot, winter /
shelter, solid i
spreading
Runoff control-
detention/
irrigation
Runoff control-
grass infil-
tration
Base
Runoff control-
detention/
irrigation
Runoff control-
grass infil-
tration
Base
Runoff control-
detention/
irrigation
Runoff control-
t grass infil-
\tration
40
40
40
100
100
100
200
200
200
- 5.58
-19.72
- 6.80
7.81
0.36
6.77
11.54
7.24
10.35
13.23
-0.91
12.01
26.62
19.17
25.58
30.35
26.05
29.16
Level of Pollution3
Water
Quantity Quality
of Runoff of Runoff
(Pollution Scale) a
4 4
1 1
2 2
4 4
1 1
2 2
4 4
1 1
2 2
Odor
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
No Pollution
4 5
Severe Pollution
-------
SECTION 8
SWINE WASTE MANAGEMENT OPTIONS
The trend in swine production is towards total confinement with hogs
under roof. However, at present, only about 20 percent of the hogs raised
by 10 percent of the hog farmers in the United States are in total confine-
ment systems (Van Arsdale and Smith, 1974). The shelter plus open-lot
facilities, either paved or dirt/partially paved lots, constitute about 60
percent of the total systems. The remaining 30 percent of facilities are
pasture with portable shelters.
The major environmental problems with swine production facilities are
runoff from open lots and runoff from manure covered cropland and odors.
Estimates are that about 112,000 farms, or over 20 percent of the hog farms,
have runoff problems (Van Arsdale and Smith, 1974) . Of those lots with run-
off control problems, open-lot systems constitute 77 percent, pasture sys-
tems 18 percent, and confinement systems 5 percent. Proper management is a
key to avoiding polluted runoff from manured fields. Odor nuisances have
occurred where cropland used for spreading manure is limited and/or near
neighbors. Management practices for controlling runoff and minimizing odors
will be discussed later.
Swine waste management options consider the two phases of production,
the breeding or production of feeder pigs and the feeding. The first in-
cludes farrowing, nursery, gestating sows and boars. The feeding operation
begins when the pigs are about 40 to 50 Ibs and ends when the market weight
is about 220 Ibs.
Prime concerns in selecting housing and waste handling facilities are
feed efficiency, disease control, capital investment required, and annual
operating costs. Other important factors affecting the system are climatic
conditions, land availability and operator's preference.
WASTE SYSTEMS
Partial housing is frequently used for small breeding operations.
Either portable housing rotated to new pastures or paved lots with farrowing
houses are common. The portable houses are disinfected and moved to a new
pasture between farrowings. Because of the high labor requirements of these
types of farrowing, the swine operation is normally small.
The pasture system is depicted in Figure 30. There is no waste handl-
ing needed, and the potential for water and odor pollution is low. Capital
investment is low in areas with low land prices. Bedding is cleaned out of
93
-------
W**'£^A^J*I
(£>
Figure 30. Swine breeding - portable farrowing houses on pasture.
-------
the farrowing houses before moving them to a new pasture. Stocking rate
and site selection are primary factors in avoiding pollution.
There should be a complete grass cover present, and fields with flowing
streams, wet spots or grassed waterways must be avoided. In periods of
high temperature, shade or provision to ventilate the farrowing houses is
needed.
The farrowing house on paved lot system is illustrated in Figure 31.
The manure dropped on the lot is normally accumulated until the sow and
pigs are removed. Then the lots are scraped,with the manure being handled
in the solid form. Rainfall runoff is a potential pollution problem. A
settling basin and grass infiltration area (Figure 31) can be used to avoid
direct runoff into a waterway. Odor nuisance can be a problem during warm
and moist weather conditions and additional scraping of solids on the paved
lot may be needed. Capital investment and operating costs generally are
higher than the pasture system; however, the pigs produced per litter with
the paved lot system are higher than the pasture system.
Totally housed farrowing and nursery facilities are common for swine
breeding operations. The trend is mostly to slotted floors for the rear
portion of the farrowing crate or pen. Some form of liquid waste handling
is used with slotted floor systems. Houses with solid concrete floors are
used in many facilities. Solid floors require scraping and manure is
usually handled as a solid.
The concept of slotted floors with pit storage for farrowing crates
and nursery pigs is shown in Figure 32. A vacuum tank wagon is normally
used to pump out the pit. The suction hose is inserted into the pump-out
port and pushed to the bottom of the pit. If the pits are pumped empty each
time, very little sludge will accumulate in the pits. The distance between
pump-out ports is a design constraint. Frequently a few inches of water
are placed in the bottom of the pit after each emptying to help control
odors.
Variations in handling the waste in slotted floor facilities for far-
rowing are the "V-trough" pit facility with gravity discharge to outside
storage or a "trickle tube" or standpipe with over-flow to an outside stor-
age basin. The waste is stored in the outside structure and then hauled to
the field or pumped through an irrigation system to the field. Plastic or
rubber linings and covers are commercially available for earthen basin to
help control odors. In regions of moisture deficit the trickle tube system
can be utilized for many years without any spreading of liquid or solids
required. When wastes are flushed from beneath slats to an outside treat-
ment lagoon, an irrigation system is normally used for disposal of effluent.
The principal environmental concern of these waste systems is disposing of
the waste on cropland. Regional application rates and management factors
for the land application of manure to avoid pollution should be used. Odor
nuisance should not be a problem if proper application methods and manage-
ment practices are used.
95
-------
ffl
SOLIDS
SETTLING
BASIN
RUNOFF INFILTRATION AREA
Figure 31. Swine breeding - Farrowing house is on paved lot. Manure scraped and handled
in solid form. Runoff control includes settling basin and grassed infiltra-
tion area.
-------
Figure 32. Confined housing, farrowing crates, partially slotted floor, pit storage,
liquid handling.
-------
Three management systems are used for feeding out hogs: pasture, open-
lot, and total confinement.
Pasturing of hogs is practiced through much of the humid areas. A
recommended loading of 25 market hogs per acre is given by the Midwest Plan
Service. Beyond this density, bare spots will begin to appear in the pas-
ture. With rotation of pastures and/or removing animals during the non-
growing season, larger stocking rates may be used. Lots with 100 or more
hogs per acre will not support vegetation. If the stocking density and man-
agement system used maintains vegetative cover, no waste handling is needed.
It was noted earlier that 18 percent or about 20,000 pasture systems do have
potential pollution problems. By avoiding steep slopes, waterways and
streams and using proper pasture management, runoff problems can be minimized
Open-lot systems can be divided into two categories: totally or par-
tially paved and unpaved. In cool and cold humid areas, housing is provided
with the open lot. In the warm and hot areas, housing may not be provided,
but shade is essential.
Paved lot units typically allow 6 sq ft of shelter and 6 to 20 sq ft of
open lot per animal. The solid waste is scraped periodically and spread on
cropland. Runoff from the paved lot has high pollutant levels and needs to
be managed to avoid polluting surface waters. This type of system and al-
ternative methods of handling the runoff are shown in Figure 33. For swine
facilities in the humid areas, the settling basin and grass infiltration
area may be the best choice. For large facilities the detention basin with
cropland irrigation may be a better choice. For facilities in dry or arid
climates, the detention pond with cropland irrigation is commonly used to
avoid pollution.
Unpaved or partially paved (feeding pad) units allow 6 sq ft of shelter
per animal and widely varying lot densities. These lots do not support
vegetative cover. In lots with higher densities, any manure buildup is
generally scraped and spread on cropland so that manure packs characteristic
of high density beef do not occur. Runoff needs to be controlled as dis-
cussed for paved lots. Water infiltrating into the soil can be high in
nitrogen/particularly at medium densities (25 to 100 animals/acre).
Total confinement systems may be divided into two major categories:
slotted floor with pit storage and solid floor with discharge to outside
storage or treatment. Liquid handling characterizes total confinement
facilities.
A partially slotted floor with a pit beneath the slats is shown in
Figure 34. The area slatted may range from total to about 1/3 of the pen
area. Pens less than 1/3 slatted tend to be very dirty and need hand scrap-
ing. With proper pen design and management practices, pigs will void their
waste on the slatted area. The depth of the pits varies to provide desired
storage time. In some cases/additional outside storage is provided. The
swine waste stored in the pit is commonly spread on cropland,using a vacuum
tank wagon. Withdrawing waste from the ports properly spaced along the
98
-------
SOLIDS
SETTLING
BASIN
SOLIDS SETTLING BASIN
RUNOFF CONTROL-
INFILTRATION AREA
RUNOFF CONTROL-DETENTION
AND IRRIGATION
Figure 33. Fed hogs - paved lot with shelter, solid manure handling. Inserts show
alternatives for runoff control.
-------
o
o
PUMP OUT PORT
Figure 34. Fed hogs - confined, partially slotted floor, pit storage, liquid
handling.
-------
length of the pit removes most of the solid, and sludge buildup does not
occur.
There are two types of solid concrete floor facilities with discharge
to outside storage or treatment. The narrow-gutter system with outside
storage is shown in Figure 35. The accumulated wastes in the gutter
(several days quantity) is released manually to flow by gravity to the stor-
age tank. Frequently, storage is provided in a concrete tank, although
earthen storage basins may be used.
The other solid floor system incorporates a shallow channel which is
flushed periodically, every 1 to 4 hours. The flushing water transports the
waste to an outside treatment unit. Usually the treatment unit is an anaer-
obic lagoon system. A two-stage lagoon system is common, shown in Figure 36.
Lagoon water is normally recycled for flushing from the second lagoon. For
the anaerobic lagoon(s) to function with minimum odor, dilution water from
well, roofs or surface runoff is needed. Therefore, provision for irrigat-
ing lagoon wastewater on cropland is needed. Design criteria and management
requirements for anaerobic lagoons can be found in the Livestock Waste
Facilities Handbook, MWPS-18, Midwest Plan Service.
Capital requirements tend to be high for total confinement systems;
however, their operating costs are less than those of the open-lot or pas-
ture system. For swine operations located on productive cropland, open-lot
and total confinement systems are preferred due to their low land require-
ments .
With confinement systems come more disease control problems. Generally
the level of management must be much higher with confinement systems in order
to control disease and control odor and runoff.
OPTIONS TO BE ANALYZED
Swine production is concentrated in the Midwest, Southeast and Texas,
with the Midwest providing about two-thirds of the hogs produced. Waste
management alternatives are considered for fed hogs and for breeding units.
Breeding Hogs
Facilities for swine breeding have moved increasingly toward confine-
ment. One outside system and four confinement systems with farrowing pens
or crates are analyzed.
1. Single farrowing house on paved lot, scrape, solid spread
(a) basic system
(b) basic system with diversion, settling basin,
grass infiltration area
2. Confined, solid floor, scrape, solid spread
101
-------
^,; ^
V
Figure 35. Fed hogs - confined, concrete floor, narrow gutter, outside storage,
liquid handling.
-------
o
U)
Figure 36. Two-stage anaerobic lagoon system for treatment of wastes flushed from swine building.
-------
3. Confined, partially slotted floor, pit storage, liquid spread
(a) basic system
(b) basic system with soil incorporation by injection
4. Confined, partially slotted floor, shallow pit, flush to
lagoon, wastewater irrigation
5. Confined, partially slotted floor, flush under slats,
lagoon, wastewater irrigation
A sixth swine breeding system is also common where single portable far-
rowing houses are moved to new pastures for each farrowing. No economic
analysis of this system was made since no waste disposal components are
required.
Fed Hogs
Two types of fed swine facilities are used, (1) open lot or pasture and
(2) total confinement. Three basic open-lot and four basic confinement sys-
tems are analyzed along with several pollution control modifications.
1. Unpaved lot, shelter
(a) base system
(b) base system with diversion, settling basin, grass
infiltration area
(c) base system with diversion, settling basin, detention,
wastewater irrigation
2. Paved lot, shelter
(a) base system
(b) base system with diversion, settling basin, grass
infiltration area
(c) base system with diversion, settling basin, detention,
wastewater irrigation
3. Unpaved lot, no shelter
(a) base system
(b) base system with diversion, settling basin, grass
infiltration area
4. Slotted floor, pit storage
(a) base system
(b) base system with soil incorporation by injection
5. Partially slotted floor, shallow pit, discharge to lagoon,
wastewater irrigation
6. Concrete floor, shallow flushing channel, lagoon,
wastewater irrigation
7. Concrete floor, narrow gutter, storage
(a) base system
(b) base system with soil incorporation by injection
For unpaved lots, an area of 125 sq ft is used per fed hog. For paved
lots, an area of 6 sq ft of outside concrete is used, with another 6 sq ft
104
-------
inside the sheltered area. For hogs in total confinement an average area of
7 sq ft per hog is used.
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
The following analysis of swine waste management systems includes an
estimate of returns and costs for alternative systems. Also, qualitative
estimates of society costs are made in terms of water and air quality.
Benefits from Waste
Nitrogen, phosphate and potash losses vary depending on the type of
swine waste management system (Table 31). Generally, those systems scraping
and loading solid manure from an exposed lot surface have more nutrient
losses than those systems where liquid manure is stored. Immediate soil in-
corporation by injection reduces nutrient losses substantially. On the other
hand, a flush system using a lagoon for storage and treatment substantially
increases nutrient losses.
Manure production is variable and depends on the ration, weight of the
hog, and climate. It is assumed that a fed hog averages 135 pounds on the
lot and produces an average of 15 pounds of nitrogen, 17 pounds of phosphate
(P205), and 18 pounds of potash (K20) per year. The breeding herd during
gestating, farrowing and nursing is assumed to weigh an average of 304 pounds
per animal unit. This animal unit produces an average of 40 pounds of nitro-
gen, 14 pounds of phosphate and 26 pounds of potash per year.
After computing losses due to storage, handling and spreading (Table 31),
returns to nutrients are computed by pricing the available nitrogen at $0.16,
phosphate at $0.18, and potash at $0.10 per pound. Like other species, two
sets of assumptions are used concerning the returns to nutrients: one set
uses 100 percent utilization of available nutrients, and the other uses 50
percent utilization.
Analysis of Options
Fed Swine, Paved Lot—
Annual net system costs for this system are shown in Table 32. The
basic system results in the lowest annual net system costs,with grass infil-
tration and detention irrigation systems producing higher costs at each size
level. These costs are depicted in Figure 37.
Between swine feedlot capacities of 200 and 1000 head, few economies of
size are gained. Thus, the investment outlays in equipment such as spread-
ers, loaders, and scrapers result in lot capacities of less than 200 head
being at a relative disadvantage.
The 50 head capacity system is at a distinct disadvantage under any of
the pollution control alternatives. The paved lot system with no runoff
control results in annual net system costs of $16.92 per animal year, as seen
in Table 32. With a 2.5 turnover rate, waste disposal costs per pig sold
105
-------
TABLE 31. NITROGEN, PHOSPHATE (P2O5), AND POTASH (K20)
AVAILABLE TO CROPS FROM SWINE WASTE PER ANIMAL
UNIT3 FOR ALTERNATIVE HANDLING SYSTEMS.
System
Nutrients Available to Crops
per Animal Unit*3 (Ib/yr)
Nitrogen
Phosphate
Potash
(K20)
Fed Swine
Pasture, portable shelter 11
Unpaved lot, shelter, solid handling 5
Paved lot, shelter, solid handling 7
Total shelter, slotted floor, pit, 8
liquid handling
Total shelter, concrete floor, flush 2
lagoon, irrigate
Total shelter, concrete floor, narrow 8
gutter, storage
Total shelter, slotted floor, pit, 11
liquid, soil incorporated
Total shelter, concrete floor, narrow 11
gutter, storage, soil incorporation
Swine Breeding
Pasture, portable shelter 30
Paved lot, shelter, solid handling 19
Total shelter, concrete floor, 24
pen/crate, solid handling
Total shelter, slotted floor, 22
pit, liquid handling
Total shelter, slotted floor, flush, 6
lagoon, irrigate
Total shelter, slotted floor, 28
pit, liquid, soil incorporation
17
8
12
15
8
15
17
17
14
10
13
13
7
14
18
11
13
16
11
16
18
18
16
20
23
23
16
26
animal unit: fed hog = 135 Ib, swine breeding = 304 Ib (sow and
litter = 375 Ib, gestating sow = 275 Ib)
Nutrient production per year:
N (Ibs) P205 (Ibs)
15 17
Fed swine (135 Ib feeder)
Swine breeding
sow with litter (2/7 of year)
gestating sow (5/7 of year)
K20
40
14
(Ibs)
18
26
24
16
8
6
16
10
106
-------
40 _
30
rt
U
x 20
10
C-) 0
-RUNOFF CONTROL- DETENTION
AND IRRIGATION
RUNOFF CONTROL-GRASS
INFILTRATION AREA
NET RETURN
NO RUNOFF CONTROL
J
200 400 600
HEAD CAPACITY OF LIVESTOCK FACILITY
800
1000
401-
30
a.
u
3
20
10-
-RUNOFF CONTROL-DETENTION
AND IRRIGATION
- RUNOFF CONTROL-GRASS
INFILTRATION ARE?
BASIC MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
•O
ifl
200
400 600 800
HEAD CAPACITY OF LIVESTOCK FACILITY
1000
Figure 37. Fed swine, annual net system costs for paved lot
with shelter (100 utilization of available
nutrients assumed).
Figure 38. Fed swine, annual net system costs for unpaved
lot with shelter (100% utilization of available
nutrients assumed).
-------
TABLE 32. FED SWINE, PAVE!) U)T WITH SHELTER, ANNUM, RETURNS AND COSTS FOR
ALTERNATIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS3
Waste
Management
System
(1)
Returns to Nutrients
Net System Returns
Herd 50 Percent 100 Percent At 50 At 100
System Size Usage of Usage of Variable Fixed Percent Percent Appendix
Modification (Head Available Available Costs Costs Usage of Usage of Reference
Capacity) Nutrients Nutrients Nutrients Nutrients
(?) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (4)-(6)-(7) (5)-(6)-(7)
/Base 50 2.29 4.58
i— <
o
00
Runoff control-
detent-ion/ 50 2.29 4.58
irrigation
Runoff control-
grass infil- 50 2.29 4.58
tration
Base 200 2.29 4.58
Runoff control-
detention/ 200 2.29 4.58
irrigation
Runoff control-
grass infil- 200 2.29 4.58
tration
Paved lot /
with shelter \ Base 600 2.29 4.58
Runoff control-
detention/ 600 2.29 4.58
irrigation
Runoff control-
grass infil- 600 2.29 4.58
tration
Base 1000 2-29 4.58
Runoff control-
detention/ 1000 2.29 4.58
irrigation
Runoff control-
, grass infil- 1000 2.29 4.58
\tration
(Dollars per Animal Year)
2.55 ' 18.95 -19.21 -16.92 C-l
2.95 29.64 -30.31 -28.02 C-2
2.69 20.48 -20.88 -18.59 C-3
2.55 5.91 - 6.17 - 3.68 C-4
2.73 8.71 - 9.15 - 6.86 C-5
2.60 6.42 - 6.73 -4.44 C-6
2.5S 3.29 - 3.55 - 1.26 C-7
2.62 4.25 - 4.58 - 2.29 C-8
2.59 3.52 - 3.81 - 1.52 C-9
2.55 2.88 - 3.14 - 0.85 C-10
2.60 3.52 - 3.83 -'1.54 C-ll
2.58 3.07 - 3.36 - 1.07 C-12
aRegions: cool hunid, cold humid, warm humid, and hot humid
-------
are $6.77. When the grass infiltration area is added, annual net system
costs per animal year increase by $1.67, and waste disposal costs per pig
sold increase to $7.44. If the detention basin/irrigation system is used
costs per animal year increase by $11.10, and costs per pig sold escalate to
$11.21.
Annual net system costs per animal year for the 1000 head capacity
paved lot with no pollution are approximately $1, and additions of grass in-
filtration or detention/irrigation increase these costs by less than $1 per
animal year.
Fed Swine, Unpaved Lot—
The annual net system costs per animal year for the unpaved lot systems
are similar to those for the paved lot systems. Again, substantial econo-
mies of size are enjoyed by the moderate to large sized lots due to the
lumpiness of the initial investment as shown in Figure 38. Also, the added
costs of pollution control are minimal for the grass infiltration system.
For the 50 head capacity lot, costs of the basic system are $13.21 per
animal year (Table 33). With the addition of the grass infiltration method
of runoff control, costs per animal year increase by $0.90 to $14.11. If the
detention/irrigation system is used to control runoff, costs per animal year
jump by $12.05 to $25.26.
Comparing these costs for the 50 head capacity lot with those for the
600 or 1000 head capacity lot, economies of size in the detention/irrigation
system are noticeable. For the 600 head lot using detention/irrigation, costs
per animal unit are $2.33, and costs for the 1000 head lot using detention/
irrigation are only $1.41 per animal unit. Thus, if this system were imposed
on all lots the larger producer would have a distinct competitive advantage.
On the other hand, the grass infiltration system presents fewer dis-
advantages to the small producer. The addition of grass infiltration systems
increased per animal year costs by $0.90, $0.50, $0.31, and $0.27 for the
50, 200, 600 and 1000 head capacity lots, respectively.
Fed Swine, Unpaved Lot without Shelter—
Limited to warm and hot humid regions of the country, this waste man-
agement system requires only small investment outlays. The only initial in-
vestment and annual costs of waste management are for land. With land area
being 250 sq ft per fed hog, the initial investment is computed at $215 per
head capacity,which results in annual costs of $0.47 per animal year.
Due to the large surface area of the lot, using the detention/irrigation
system would require massive detention basin volume and result in high ini-
tial capital investments. Thus, only the grass infiltration system is con-
sidered. For example, with the addition of grass infiltration on the 600
head lot, costs per animal year increase from $0.47 on the basic system to
$0.85 (Table 34).
Fed Swine, Total Slats, 6 Month Pit Storage—
Confined feeding operations are increasing in numbers throughout all
109
-------
TABLE 33. FED SWINE, UNPAVED LOT WITH SHELTER, ANNUAL RETURNS AND COSTS FOR
ALTERNATIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS3
Returns to Nutrients
Herd
Waste System Size
Management Modification (Head
System Capacity]
(1) (2) (3)
f Base
Runoff control"
detention/
irrigation
i&iRoff control-
grass infil-
tration
Base
Runoff control-
detention/
irrigation
Runoff control-
grass infil-
Unpaved lot J tration
with shelter \
1
Base
Runoff control-
detention/
irrigation
Runoff control-
grass infil-
tration
Base
Runoff control-
detention/
irrigation
Runoff control-
i grass infil-
\cration
50
50
50
200
200
200
600
600
600
1000
1000
100C
50 Percent
Usage of
Available
Nutrients
(4)
1.17
1.17
1.17
1.17
1.17
1.17
1.17
1.17
1.17
1.17
1.17
1.17
100 Percent
Usage of Variable
Available Costs
Nutrients
(5) (6)
Net System Returns
At 50
Fixed Percent
Costs Usage of
Nutrients
(7) (4}-(6)-(7)
(Dollars per Animal Year)
3.34 1.29 15.26 -14.38
3.34
3.34
3.34
3.34
3.34
3.34
3.34
3.34
3.34
3.34
3.34
2.36
1.57
1.20
2.28
1.34
1.20
2.28
1.30
0.92
2.00
0.99
26.24
15.89
4.17
7.85
4.53
1.71
3.39
1.93
1.38
2.75
1.57
-26.43
-15.28
-3.21
-7.96
-3.71
-0.74
-3.50
-1.05
-0.13
-2.58
-0.40
At 100
Percent
Usage of
Nutrients
(5)-(6)-(7)
-13.21
-25.26
-14.11
-2.04
-6.79
-2.54
+0.43
-2.33
+0.12
+1.04
-1.41
+0.77
Appendix
Reference
C-13
C-14
C-15
C-16
C-17
C-18
C-19
C-20
C-21
C-22
C-23
C-24
^Regions: cold humid, cool humid, warm humid, hot humid
-------
TABLE 34. FED SWINE, DNPAVEP LOT WITHOUT SHELTER, ANNUAL RETURNS AND COSTS FOR
ALTERNATIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMSa
Returns to Nutrients
Herd
Waste System Size
Management Modification (Head
System Capacity)
(1) (2) (3)
/Base
Runoff control-
grass
infiltration
Base
Runoff control-
grass
infiltration
Unpaved lot /
without shelter \ Base
Runoff control-
grass
infiltration
Base
Runoff control-
grass
V infiltration
50
50
200
200
600
600
1000
1000
Net System Returns
50 Percent 100 Percent At 50
Usage of Usage of Variable Fixed Percent
Available Available Costs Costs Usage of
Nutrients Nutrients Nutrients
(4) (5) (6) (7) (4)-(6)-(7)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
(Dollars per Animal Year)
0.00 0.47 -0.47
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.95
0.47
0.88
0.47
0.85
0.47
0.85
-0.95
-0.47
0.88
-0.47
-0.85
-0.47
-0.85
At 100
Percent
Usage of
Nutrients
(5)-(6)-(7)
-0.47
-0.95
-0.47
-0.88
-0.47
-0.85
-0.47
-0.85
Appendix
Reference
C-25
C-26
C-27
C-28
C-29
C-30
C-31
C-32
aRegions: warm humid, hot humid
-------
humid regions. The types of systems are numerous; however, only the pre-
dominant types are discussed. One of the more typical confinement systems
is the slotted floor construction with a pit beneath the slats. Waste is
stored and then hauled to the field by tank wagon to be spread or injected.
This system is analyzed using 200, 600, and 1000 head herd sizes and results
are shown in Table 35 and Figure 39. Net system costs total $5.84 per ani-
mal year for the 200 head capacity lot using surface spreading. These per
animal unit costs decline for the larger slotted floor systems using surface
spreading to $2.04 and $1.32 per animal year for the 600 and 1000 head
capacity lots.
Incorporating the waste by injection is a modification to the slotted
floor system. As the investment in injection equipment is nearly the same
for the 200 head lot as the 1000 head lot, economies of size are realized.
In addition, injecting the waste makes more of the nitrogen available for
crops. Thus, for the larger lot sizes, injection actually costs less than
surface spreading. Net system costs per animal year on the 1000 head capa-
city lot using injection are only $0.69, and this is $0.63 per animal year
less than the cost for surface spreading.
Fed Swine, Partial Slats, Shallow Pit, Lagoon—
This system is used in warm and hot humid regions. Manure drops through
slats to a shallow pit beneath the floor. The manure in the pit is flushed
to a lagoon where the wastewater is disposed of by an irrigation system.
Net system costs are similar to the totally slotted floor construction
(Table 35 and Figure 39). For the 200 head capacity unit, net system costs
are $5.36 per animal year. These per animal year costs drop to $2.89 for the
1000 head capacity unit.
Fed Swine, Solid Floor, Flush Shallow Channel to Lagoon—
Another common confinement system is the solid floor flush channel sys-
tem. Manure accumulates in a shallow gutter and is removed by flushing to a
lagoon. Irrigation equipment is used to spread the treated wastewater on
nearby fields. Net system costs range from $5.04 per animal year for the
200 head facility to $1.91 for the 1000 head facility (Table 35 and Figure
40), and these compare favorably with the costs of other confinement systems.
Fed Swine, Solid Floor, Narrow Gutter, Storage Basin—
The lowest cost waste management system for fed hogs in confinement
appears to be this system. Gravity moves the accumulated waste from a nar-
row gutter to a storage basin upon manually opening of the valve. A tank
wagon is used to transport the waste to the field where it is either spread
or injected.
For the larger herd sizes, this system actually produces a small return.
On the 600 head capacity lot using surface spreading, net system returns are
$0.55 per animal year, and on the 1000 head capacity lot net returns are
$1.63 per animal year (Table 35).
Injecting waste improves returns on the larger lots even when a larger
112
-------
TABLE 35. FED SWINE, TOTAL SHELTER, ANNUAL RETURNS AND COSTS FOR ALTERNATIVE
WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
Returns to Nutrients
Waste System
Management Modification
System
(1) (2)
Herd
Sise
(Head
Capacity)
(3)
50 Percent 100 Percent
Usage of Usage of Variable
Available Available Costs
Nutrients Nutrients
(4) (5) (6)
Fixed
Costs
(7) (
(Dollars per Anima]
Total slats ,
6 month pit
storage3
Partial slats,
shallow pit dis- ^
charge to lagoon'5
Surface spread
Injection
Surface spread
Injection
Surface spread
Injection
Base
Base
Base
Solid floor, [Ease
flush gutter
-------
8 15
J
8
S
W
10
•PARTIAL SLATS, SHALLOW PIT, DISCHARGE
TO LAGOON, IRRIGATION
TOTAL SLATS,
PIT STORAGE
SURFACE SPREAD
PLOWDOWN —
6 MONTH
8_
I
200
400 600 800
HEAD CAPACITY OF LIVESTOCK FACILITY
1000
20 r
15
10
a.
u
C.
-5
-SOLID FLOOR, FLUSH CHANNEL,
LAGOON, IRRIGATION
SOLID FLOOR,
NARROW GUTTER
PLOWDOWN
SURFACE SPREAD
s
200
400 600 800
HEAD CAPACITY OF LIVESTOCK FACILITY
1000
Figure 39. Fed swine, annual net system costs for total
slats with pit storage, and partial slats
discharging to lagoon (100% utilization of
available nutrients assumed).
Figure 40. Fed swine, annual net system costs for solid
floor with flush channel and solid floor with
narrow gutter discharge to storage basin (100%
utilization of available nutrients assumed).
-------
initial investment is required. Net system returns are $0.89 per animal
year for the 600 head capacity lot, or $0.34 per animal year higher than
surface spreading.
Swine Breeding, Paved Lot with Farrowing House—
The outside paved lot with portable farrowing houses is a low cost al-
ternative for breeding herd waste disposal. Annual net system costs are
generally below confinement system costs as seen when comparing Figure 41
and 42. These net costs for various capacities of sows only consider costs
and returns of the waste system and do not consider the number of pigs pro-
duced per litter for each system; thus, it is only a partial analysis.
Annual net system costs per sow for the 20 head lot are nearly double
those for the 50 head lot (Table 36). With no pollution control, the paved
lot, farrowing house system for 50 head has net disposal costs of $21.06 per
animal year and $43.68 per animal year for the 20 head facility, Further
economies of size are gained with the 100 head farrowing unit with net costs
dropping to $13.52 per animal unit.
Adding the grass infiltration area increases costs slightly with added
costs of $3.49 per animal unit for the 20 head lot to $1.11 per animal unit
for the 100 head facility.
Swine Breeding, Total Shelter Systems—
Four total shelter systems are considered, and they include the solid
concrete floor with farrowing pens, partial slotted floor with 3 month pit
storage beneath the floor, partial slotted floor with shallow pit storage
flushed to a lagoon for treatment, and partial slotted floor with waste
flushing to a lagoon.
The solid floor farrowing pen system offers relatively low annual net
system costs compared to other breeding confinement systems. Net system
costs range from $48.80 per animal year to $23.50 per animal year for the 20
and 50 sow units, respectively.
Highest waste disposal costs are associated with the partial slotted
floor with pit storage. Annual net system costs are from $71.70 per animal
unit for 20 sows to $27.11 per animal unit for 100 sows. Unlike most of the
other species examined, adding injection increases costs as the increased re-
turns from nutrient availability are small due to the smaller amounts of
waste. Added costs for the injection system total $17.47 per animal unit for
the 20 sow unit and $3.02 for the 100 sow unit.
The two systems using partial slotted floors with lagoon treatment dif-
fer only slightly in terms of their components and net system costs (Table
36). Incorporating the shallow pit into the system is sometimes done in
warm humid and hot humid regions. Waste is periodically flushed to a treat-
ment lagoon. With the other lagoon system, regular flushing occurs beneath
the slats and requires added investments in a flushing tank and recycle pump.
Annual net system costs are $42.67 per animal unit for the 20 sow
capacity facility using shallow pit storage with lagoon treatment. For the
115
-------
100
a 80
8
9
w
60
w 40
5
E-i
en
M 20
RUNOFF CONTROL-GRASS
INFILTRATION AREA
BASIC MANAGEMENT
SYSTEM
20
40 60 BO
HEAD CAPACITY OF LIVESTOCK FACILITY
100
S
E-I
U
z
80
60
40
20
ARTIAL SLATS, 3 MONTH
PIT STORAGE
INJECTION
PARTIAL SLATS,
SHALLOW PIT DISCHARGE
TO LAGOON
I I
20
40 60 80
HEAD CAPACITY OF LIVESTOCK FACILITY
J
100
Figure 41. Swine breeding, annual net system costs for
paved lot with farrowing house (100% utiliza-
tion of available nutrients assumed).
Figure 42. Swine breeding, annual net system costs for
total shelter systems (100% utilization of
available nutrients assumed).
-------
TABLE 36. SWINE BREEDING, ANNUAL RETURNS AND COSTS FOR ALTERNATIVE
WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
Waste
Management
System
(1)
Paved lot
with farrowing
house
Total shelter,
concrete
floor
Total shelter,
partial slats,
3 month pit
storage
Total shelter,
partial slats,
shallow pit
with lagoon
Total shelter,
flush beneath
partial slats
to lagoon
Returns
to Nutrients
Herd 50 Percent 100 Percent Variable
System Size Usage of Usage of Costs
Modification (Head Available Available
Capacity) Nutrients Nutrients
(2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
'Base
Funoff control-
grass
infiltration
1 Base
X Runoff control-
\ grass
infiltration
Base
Runoff control-
grass
\Ln filtration
f Base
/
i
(Base
(Surface spread
I Injection
) Surf ace spread
\Injection
(surface spread
(^Injection
(Base
-------
system using flushing to a treatment lagoon, annual net system costs are
$50.56 per animal unit for the 20 sow capacity facility. These per animal
unit costs on the 100 sow capacity facility decline to $16.90 and $19.24 for
the shallow pit storage and flushing systems, respectively (Figure 42).
LEVEL OF AIR AND WATER POLLUTION FROM SWINE SYSTEMS
For fed swine lots with exposed lot surfaces, water quality may be sub-
stantially impaired due to runoff. Uncontrolled runoff from the unpaved
open lot or the paved open lot produces high volumes of runoff with high
concentration of pollutants as seen in Tables 37 , 38 and 39, where lots with
controlled runoff receive ratings of "severe pollution". Odor is also a
problem on these lots. Adapting either the grass infiltration system or the
detention/irrigation system dramatically improves the level of water quality.
However, odor problems axe unaffected.
Odor problems become less troublesome as densities on exposed lot sur-
faces decline. For example, all waste management alternatives using paved
lot with shelter (12 sq ft per hog) receive an odor rating of "4" (Table 37) ,
while those using the unpaved lot with shelter construction (125 sq ft per
hog) receive an odor rating of "3" (Table 38) , and those with unpaved lot
without shelter (250 sq ft per hog) receive an odor rating of "2" (Table 39) .
The total shelter, fully slotted system for fed swine is an effective
method of controlling water pollution. Water quality parameters for this
system are reduced to 2 in Table 40, indicating potential runoff problems
only at times of field spreading manure. Odor problems become more severe,
however, with the confinement system. Surface spreading of pit stored waste
is often a nuisance to neighbors close by. Soil injection of pit. stored
wastes not only improves water quality parameters to high levels, but also
it reduces the odor nuisance at spreading time.
Both water pollution and odor control are adequate with the partial
slats, shallow pit storage, and lagoon system for fed swine (Table 40). The
only potential runoff problem occurs at the time of irrigation, and a well
managed system should avoid this problem.
Water pollution and odor also are controlled well with the solid floor,
flush gutter, lagoon system (Table 40) . Slight water pollution occurs at
the time of wastewater irrigation, thus water pollution ratings are "2".
The narrow gutter, storage basin system for fed hogs effectively con-
trols water pollution, as seen in Table 40. Odor control problems occur when
the storage basin is emptied and spreading occurs. Injection improves water
quality and odor parameters to excellent levels.
The paved lot, farrowing house system for breeding swine results in
water pollution control problems similar to the exposed lot systems for
other species. The grass infiltration area adequately controls any discharge
from this system (Table 41) . Odor at the time of spreading presents a po-
tential nuisance.
118
-------
TABLE 37. FED HOGS, PAVED LOT WITH SHELTER, NET SYSTEM RETURNS AND LEVEL OF
POLLUTANTS FOR ALTERNATIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
Net System Return
Waste
Management System
System Modification
/Base
Runoff control-
detention/
irrigation
Runoff control-
grass infil-
tration
Base
Runoff control-
detention/
irrigation
Runoff control-
grass infil-
tration
Pave lot >. Base
with shelter
Runoff control-
detention/
irrigation
Runoff control-
grass infil-
tration
Base
Runoff control-
detention/
irrigation
Runoff control-
grass infil-
\fration
Herd
Size
(Head
Capacity)
50
50
50
200
200
200
600
600
600
1000
1000
1000
At 50
Percent
Usage of
Nutrients
(Dollars
-19.21
-30.31
-20.88
- 6.17
- 9.15
- 6.73
- 3.55
- 4.58
- 3.81
- 3.14
- 3.83
- 3.3.6
, ' * ' • —
At 100
Percent
Usage of
Nutrients
per Aniir.al Year)
-16.92
-28.02
-18.59
- 3.88
- 6.86
- 4.44
- 1.26
- 2.29
- 1.52
- 0.85
- 1.54
- 1.07
Level of Pollution
Water
Quantity Quality
of Runoff of Runoff
4
1
1
4
1
1
4
1
1
4
1
1
(Pollution Scale) a
5
1
1
5
1
1
5
1
1
5
1
'
1
Odor
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
aScale:
No Pollution
Severe Pollution
-------
TABLE 38. FED SWINE, UNPAVED LOT WITH SHELTER, NET SYSTEM RETURNS AND LEVEL OF
POLLUTANTS FOR ALTERNATIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
Herd
Waste system Size
Management Modification (Head
System Capacity)
/ Base
Runoff control-
detention/
irrigation
Runoff control-
grass infil-
tration
Base
Runoff control-
Unpaved lot ) detention/
with shelter \ irrigation
Runoff control-
grass infil-
tration
Base
Runoff control-
detention/
irrigation
Runoff control-
grass infil-
tration
Base
Runoff control-
detention/
irrigation
Runoff control-
V grass infil-
tration
50
50
50
200
200
200
600
600
600
1000
1000
1000
Net System
At 50
Percent
Usage of
Nutrients
Return
At 100
Percent
Usage of
Nutrients
(Dollars per Animal Year)
-14.38 -13.21
-26.43
-15.28
- 3.21
- 7.96
- 3.71
- 0.74
- 3.50
- 1.05
-00.13
- 2.58
-0.40
-25.26
-14.11
- 2.04
- 6.79
- 2.54
+ 0.43
- 2.33
+ 0.12
+ 1.04
- 1.41
+ 0.77
Level of Pollution3
Water
Quantity
of Runoff
Quality
of Runoff
(Pollution Scale) a
5 5
1
1
5
1
1
5
1
1
5
1
1
1
1
5
1
1
5
1
1
5
1
1
Odor
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
"Scale:
No Pollution
Severe Pollution
-------
to
TABLE 39. FED SWINE, UNPAVED LOT WITHOUT SHELTER, NET SYSTEM RETURNS AND LEVEL
OF POLLUTANTS FOR ALTERNATIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
Herd
Waste System Size
Management Modification (Head
System Capacity)
/Base
Runoff control-
detention/
irrigation
Base
Runoff control-
detention/
Unpaved lot J irrigation
without \
shelter
Base
Runoff control-
detention/
irrigation
Base
Runoff control-
L detention/
\irrigation
50
40
200
20O
600
600
1000
1000
Net System
At 50
Percent
Usage of
Nutrients
Return
At 100
Percent
Usage of
Nutrients
(Dollars per Animal Year)
-0.47 -0.47
-0.95
-0.47
-0.88
-0.47
-0.85
-0.47
-0.85
-0.95
-0.47
-0.88
-0.47
-0.85
-0.47
-0.85
Level of Pollution3
Water
Quantity
of Runoff
Quality
of Runoff
(Pollution Scale)*
5 5
2
5
2
5
2
5
2
2
5
2
5
2
5
2
Odor
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
No Pollution
Severe Pollution
-------
TABLE 40. FED SWINE, TOTAL SHELTER, NET SYSTEM RETURNS AND LEVEL OF POLLUTANTS
FOR ALTERNATIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
NJ
Ko
Net System Return
Waste System
Management Modification
System
Total slats,
6 month pit
storage
Surface spread
Injection
Surface spread
Injection
Surface spread
Plowdown
Partial slats, iBase
shallow pit, die- \ Base
charge to lagoon (Base
Solid floor, [Base
flush gutter \ Base
to lagoon (Base
Solid floor,
narrow gutter dis-
charge to storage
basin
Surface spread
Injection
Surface spread
Injection
Surface spread
.Injection
*Scale» 1 2
Herd
Size
(Head
Capacity)
200
200
600
600
1000
1000
200
600
1000
200
600
1000
200
200
600
600
1000
1000
3 4
At 50
Percent
Usage of
Nutrients
(Dollars
-8.63
-9.97
-4.83
-4.95
-4.11
-4. CO
-6.79
-4.73
-4.32
-6.47
-3.87
-3.34
-6.27
-7.67
-2.24
-2.42
-1.16
-1.05
5
At 100
Percent
Usage of
Nutrients
per Animal Year)
-5.84
-6.66
-2.04
-1.64
-1.32
-0.69
-5.36
-3.30
-2.89
-5.04
-2.44
-1.91
-3.48
-4.36
+0.55
+0.89
+1.63
+2.26
Level of Pollution3
Quantity
Water
Quality
Odor
of Runoff of Runoff
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
1
2
1
(Pollution Scale)8
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
1
2
1
5
2
5
2
5
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
5
1
5
1
5
1
No Pollution
Severe Pollution
-------
Water pollution is well controlled by confinement systems for breeding
swine. For the partial slotted floor pit storage system, incorporation im-
proves water quality and odor parameters to excellent ratings (Table 41).
For the partial slotted floor systems with lagoons (Table 42), water pollu-
tion problems are negligible. Odor control is generally acceptable with
confinement systems, although spreading from pit storage presents some odor
nuisance unless incorporation is used.
TRADEOFFS BETWEEN SYSTEM COSTS AND POLLUTION CONTROL
Fcr fed swine on exposed lot systems (Tables' 37, 38 and 39), water pol-
lution can be effectively controlled by either the grass infiltration or
detention/irrigation system. In areas where grass infiltration is feasible,
it should be the recommended water pollution control practice for exposed.
lot, fed swine systems. Costs are substantially less for the grass infil-
tration method than for the detention/irrigation system. This cost differ-
ential is especially significant for the smaller producer.
When using manure storage (total slats and narrow gutter systems, Table
40) on fed swine systems, soil incorporation by injection slightly improves
water quality and significantly reduces odor problems at the time of spread-
ing. For smaller lots, the increased fixed costs in injection equipment are
slightly larger than returns from improved nutrient availability, and the
farmer bears higher costs with injection. However, on larger lots, net re-
turns actually increase by using injection of stored manure.
For fed swine systems using lagoon treatment, slight water pollution is
possible at the time of wastewater irrigation. These systems do an effec-
tive job of controlling water pollution and odor nuisance if proper irriga-
tion procedures are followed.
Tradeoffs between levels of pollution and waste system costs for swine
breeding operations are similar to those for fed swine operations. Water
pollution can be controlled effectively on paved lots with farrowing houses
by using the grass infiltration system; furthermore, this method of control
is relatively'inexpensive.
For total shelter systems using pit storage, injection marginally im-
proves water quality and greatly improves odor control (Table 41). For
swine breeding, injection presents added costs of $17.47 per animal unit for
the small producer and S3.02 per animal unit for the large producer.
With the partial slat systems using lagoon treatment (shallow pit stor-
age and flush beneath slotted floors, Table 42), waste disposal costs are
relatively low and water pollution and odor are controlled reasonably well.
123
-------
TABLE 41. SWINE BREEDING, NET SYSTEM RETURNS AND LEVEL OF POLLUTANTS FOR
ALTERNATIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
to
Net System
Waste
Management
System
Herd
Size
System (Head
Modification Capacity)
Base
Runoff control-
grass
infiltration
Base
Runoff control-
grass
infiltration
Base
Runoff control-
grass
^infiltration
Total shelter, JBase
concrete floor )Base
Total shelter.
partial slats,
3 month pit
storage
I
Surface spread
Injection
Surface spread
Injection
Surface spread
.Injection
20
20
50
50
100
100
20
50
20
20
50
50
100
100
At 50
Percent
Usage of
Nutrients
Return
At 100
Percent
Usage of
Nutrients
(Dollars per Animal
-44
-48
-22
-24
-14
-15
-50
-24
-73
-90
-39
-46
-28
-31
.78
.27
.16
.03
.62
.73
.20
.90
.02
.79
.54
.48
.43
.75
-43
-47
-21
-22
-13
-14
-48
-23
-71
-89
-38
-44
-27
-30
Year)
.68
.17
.06
.93
.52
.63
.80
.50
.70
.17
.22
.86
.11
.13
Level
of Pollution3
Water
Quantity
of Runoff
Quality
of Runoff
Odor
(Pollution Scale) a
4
1
4
1
4
1
2
2
2
1
2
1
2
1
4
1
4
1
4
1
2
2
2
1
2
1
2
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
4
1
4
1
No Pollution
Severe Pollution
-------
TABLE 42. SWINE BREEDING, NET SYSTEM RETURNS AND LEVEL OF POLLUTANTS FOR
ALTERNATIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
Net System Return
I— "
KJ
Ul
Waste
Management
System
Total shelter, par-
tial slats, shallow
pit with lagoon
Total shelter,
flush beneath
partial slats
to lagoon
System
Modification
(Base
/Base
(Base
(Base
-------
SECTION 9
SHEEP WASTE MANAGEMENT OPTIONS
Sheep production trends are toward fewer but larger flocks. Production
facilities may be categorized into pasturing of ewes-lambs, confinement of
ewes-lambs to lots and feeding lambs in high density lots. With many of the
smaller ewe flocks the facility may be used to feed out the lambs born to
the ewes.
The major pollution problem is control of runoff from feedlots. Depend-
ing on the size of the lot and the climatic region, the detention basin-
irrigation system or the settling basin-grassed infiltration system may be
used. In a few facilities sheep and feeder lambs are raised on slotted or
expanded metal floors and the waste generated may need to be incorporated
into the soil to control odors. Normally sheep manure is handled in the
solid form, because the waste has a higher percent of total solids than that
for other animals.
WASTE SYSTEMS
Ewes and lambs are pastured during the summer months and either wintered
in barns in heavy snow areas or wintered in milder areas on pasture by graz-
ing regrowth and baled forage. Ewes on winter pasture, supplemented with
round ha/ bales, are illustrated in Figure 43. The pollution problems due to
runoff should be minimal. Ewes wintering in an open building with unpaved
lot is another system (Figure 44). Rainfall runoff control is needed for
such lots.
Both ewe flocks and feeder lambs may be raised on expanded metal (or
slotted) floor. Manure collects in a pit beneath the floor and may be
mechanically scraped to a storage area or to a box spreader. If the manure
is to be handled as a slurry some dilution water is needed. Ewes and lambs
need 11 sq ft of floor area per animal unit, and feeder lambs require 5 sq ft
of floor area per head.
Feeder lambs are commonly raised in unpaved feedlots without shelter in
the warm arid and hot arid regions (Figure 45). Manure is scraped periodic-
ally from the lot surface and spread directly on cropland or stockpiled for
later spreading. A settling detention basin system is shown for containing
runoff which then may be irrigated onto cropland. In colder climates, shel-
ter is normally provided similar to that shown for ewes in Figure 44.
126
-------
to
Figure 43. Ewes wintering on regrowth and field stored hay.
-------
to
00
SOLIDS
SETTLING
('.;IKE SCREEN DAi-13)
RUNOtF DETEHTIOM
BASIN
Figure 44. Ewes wintering in open building with unpaged lot. Manure removed in spring.
-------
ro
<£>
RUNOFF
DETENTION
BASIU
Figure 45. Fed laiubs on open, dry lot. Manure is scraped and removed once or twice a year.
-------
OPTIONS ANALYZED
Facilities may be categorized into simmer pasturing of ewes and lambs,
winter confinement of ewes in open or sheltered lots, and fed lambs in lots.
Three basic waste management systems are analyzed for fed lambs and two
winter confinement systems for ewes and lambs. Summer pasturing requires no
waste disposal system and is omitted from the analysis.
Ewe and lamb facility sizes are for 150 and 750 head capacity. The
facility is used approximately six months each year with pasturing during
the summer months. Costs for the following ewe-lamb waste systems are
analyzed:
1. Unpaved lot with shelter, solid handling
(a) base system
(b) base system with diversion, settling basin, lagoon,
wastewater disposal
(c) base system with diversion, settling basin, grass
infiltration area
2. Unpaved lot with no shelter
(a) base system
(b) base system with diversion, settling basin, lagoon,
wastewater irrigation
An area of 30 sq ft of unpaved lot for each ewe-lamb unit is assumed. For
the unpaved lot with no shelter/ the runoff control option is limited to the
lagoon/irrigation system since the system is found in arid regions not sup-
porting grass infiltration.
Fed lamb facility sizes of 200, 1000 and 5000 head capacity are evalu-
ated for the following basic waste handling systems:
(1) Paved lot with shelter, tractor scraper/loader, solid spread
(2) Unpaved lot with shelter, tractor scraper/loader, solid spread
(3) Unpaved lot, nc shelter, tractor scraper/loader, solid spread
Areas per fed lamb used in analyzing the above facilities are 6 sq ft
for inside paved floors, 6 sq ft for outside paved lot, and 30 sq ft for
unpaved lot. The following rainfall runoff control modifications are evalu-
ated for each system:
(a) basic system
(b) basic system with diversion, settling basin, lagoon
wastewater disposal
(c) basic system with diversion, settling basin, grass
infiltration area
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
The vast majority of concentrated sheep operations use an unpaved
130
-------
exposed lot area but some paved lots are used. Waste is scraped and hauled
from the lot periodically. Relatively few totally enclosed confinement
operations are in use. Thus, the analysis focuses on these unpaved and
paved open lot systems. Nutrient value, system costs, and qualitative esti-
mates of water and air quality are analyzed.
Benefits from Waste
Due to the exposed nature of sheep lots, nutrient losses are high. For
example, the feeder lamb operation having an unpaved lot with shelter has a
57 percent loss in nitrogen, 29 percent loss in phosphate ^205), and a 25
percent loss in potash (K2O). Furthermore, losses are similar over the
three feeder lamb systems and the same for the two ewe and lamb systems
(Table 43) .
As with other species, nutrients are valued according to quantities
utilized by crops. Nutrient losses are computed which gives the amounts of
available nitrogen, phosphate, and potash. Values are calculated either 100
percent or 50 percent of these available nutrients being utilized by the
crops. Unit prices for nutrients are $0.16 per pound for nitrogen, $0.18 for
phosphate, and $0.10 for potash.
Analysis of Options
Ewes and Lambs, Unpaved Lot with Shelter—
With no pollution control components on the unpaved lot system, annual
net system costs range from $7.40 per animal year on the 150 ewe facility to
$0.90 per animal year for 750 ewes (Table 44). This large variation is due
to declining average fixed costs as herd sizes become larger. Variable costs
and returns to nutrients are nearly constant for all sizes (Table 44).
The addition of the detention-irrigation system is an expensive option
for controlling runoff. Disposal costs per animal year increase by $3.63
per animal year ($11.23 - $7.60, Table 44) or about 46 percent for the small
lot. For the 750 ewe lot, disposal costs increase by $1.40 per animal year
($2.29 - $0.90, Table 44).
As seen in Figure 46, pollution control costs are minimal when the
grass infiltration system is used. Disposal costs increase by less than 3
percent for all herd sizes.
Ewes and Lambs, Unpaved Lot without Shelter—
The net system costs for the unpaved lot system without shelter are
approximately the same as those of the unpaved lot with shelter. Small dif-
ferences exist due to the slight difference in sizing of waste management
components. For example, annual net system costs are $6.96 per animal unit
for the 150 head flock not having shelter (Table 45) and $7.40 per animal
unit for the 150 head flock with shelter (Table 44 and Figure 47).
These systems cannot be compared directly since they are found in dif-
ferent regions. The unpaved lot without shelter is found in warm and hot
131
-------
TABLE 43. NITROGEN,PHOSPHATE (P2O5) AND POTASH (K20) AVAILABLE
TO CROPS FROM SHEEP WASTE, PER ANIMAL UNITa FOR
ALTERNATIVE HANDLING SYSTEMS
Lbs/Year Available to Crop/Animal Unitb
System Nitrogen Phosphate Potash
(P20s) (K20)
Feeder Lambs
Unpaved lot, no shelter, solid 4.0
Unpaved lot, shelter, solid 4.8
Paved lot, shelter, solid 5.3
Ewes and Lambs
Unpaved lot,
Unpaved lot,
shelter, solid 8.3
no shelter, solid 6.3
1.9 6.1
2.7 7.6
2.7 7.6
4.5 12.7
3.0 9.5
animal unit = 70 Ib feeder lamb or 160 Ib ewe and lamb.
Nutrient production per year:
N (Ibs) P2O5(lbs) K20 (Ibs)
70-lb feeder lambs 11.2 3.8 10.1
150-lb ewe and lamb 17.6 6.0 15.9
132
-------
TABLE 44. SHEEP, EWES AND LAMES, UNPAVED LOT WITH SHELTER, ANNUAL RETURNS
AND COSTS FOR ALTERNATIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS3
U)
00
Waste
Management Sys tern
System Modification
(1) (2)
f Base
Unpaved lot, j
shelter, solid /
handling \
Runoff control-
detention/
irrigation
Runoff control-
grass infil-
tration
Base
Runoff control-
detention/
irrigation
Runoff control-
grass infil-
Vtration
Herd
Size
(Head
Capacity)
(3)
150
150
150
750
750
750
Returns
50 Percent
Usage of
Available
Nutrients
(4)
1.74
1.74
1.74
1.74
1.74
1.74
to Nutrients
100 Percent
Usage of
Available Variable
Nutrients Costs
(5) (6)
3.48
3.48
3.48
3.48
3.48
3.48
(Dollars per
2.27
2.60
2.27
1.66
1.87
1.66
Fixed
Costs
(7)
Animal
8.61
12.44
8.81
2.72
3.91
2.82
Net System
At 50
Percent
Usage of
Nutrients
Year)
- 9.14
-12.97
- 9.34
- 2.64
- 4.03
- 2.74
Returns
At 100
Percent
Usage of
Nutrients
- 7.40
-11.23
- 7.60
- 0.90
- 2.29
- 1.00
Appendix
Reference
D-l
D-2
D-3
D-4
D-5
D-6
aRegions: cold humid, cool humid, cold arid, cool arid.
-------
10
•J
8
-RUNOFF CONTROL-DETENTION
AND IRRIGATION
a.
ui
U
z
200 400 600
HEAD CAPACITY CF LIVESTOCK FACILITY
800
Figure 46. Ewes and lambs, net system costs
for unpaved lot with shelter (100Z
utilization of available nutrients
assumed).
10 r
a
a
0.
14
RUNOFF CONTROL-DETENTION
AND IRRIGATION
200 400 600
HEAD CAPACITY OF LIVESTOCK FACILITY
800
Figure 47. Ewes and lambs, annual net system
costs for unpaved lot without shelter
(100% utilization of available nutri-
ents assumed).
-------
arid regions while shelter is provided in cold and cool humid and cool arid
regions.
For the unpaved lot without shelter, the addition of a detention-
irrigation system is the assumed method of runoff control. Since the loca-
tion is primarily arid regions, it is assumed that the producer would have
an irrigation system to empty the limited quantities of runoff which might
build up in the detention basin. Thus, costs of pollution control do not
contain fixed costs of irrigation equipment. As a result, the detention-
irrigation system costs only $2.30 per animal unit ($ 9.26 - $6.96, Table
45) for the 150 head flock and $0.60 ($1.05 - $0.45, Table 45) for the 750
head flock. Caution should be used in extrapolating these costs of runoff
control to all producers since some producers may not have irrigation equip-
ment currently in place.
Fed Lambs, Paved Lot—
Again, lumpiness of capital investments results in high fixed costs for
the small sheep feedlot producer. The 200 head lot has annual net system
costs of $5.36 per animal year on the paved lot, while the net costs for the
5000 head lot are $0.15 per animal year (Table 46). Grass infiltration in-
creases these costs slightly. Costs of grass infiltration pollution control
are $0.44 per animal year ($5.80 - $5.36, Table 46) and $0.08 per animal
year ($0.23 - $0.15, Table 46) for the small and large lots, respectively.
The basic system of paved lot with shelter is found in cool and cold
humid areas. The detention-irrigation runoff control component could be
used on these lots, but costs would be prohibitive on small lots. Thus,
«._,rass infiltration is the only runoff control system analyzed for the three
sizes of paved lots (Figure 48).
Costs for detention-irrigation runoff control are estimated for the
5000 head capacity lot. Costs increase on the 5000 head lot by $0.18 per
animal year ($0.33 - $0.15, Table 46) with the detention-irrigation compon-
ent and $0.08 per animal year ($0.23 - $0.15, Table 46) with the grass
infiltration component.
Fed Lambs, Unpaved, with Shelter and without Shelter—
The unpaved lot with shelter and the unpaved lot without shelter have
almost identical waste disposal costs. Basically, these systems vary only
with respect to the region of the country in which they are used, with the
no shelter systems found primarily in warm and hot arid regions. Again,
significant economies of size are enjoyed by large producers with both sys-
tems (Figures 49 and 50). For the larger producers, benefits from waste
outweigh disposal costs while the smaller producers suffer costs of approxi-
mately $5 per animal year.
Grass infiltration is an inexpensive pollution control system affecting
the large producer and small producer equally. For the unpaved lot with
shelter, annual net system costs for runoff control increase only $0.12 per
animal year and $0.03 per animal year for the 200 and 5000 head lots, re-
spectively.
135
-------
TABLE 45. SHEEP, EWES AND LAMBS, UNPAVED LOT WITHOUT SHELTER, ANNUAL RETURNS
AND COSTS FOR ALTERNATIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS*
Returns to Nutrients
M
LJ
cn
Waste
Management System
System Modification
(1) (.2)
Unpaved lot,
no shelter,
solid handling
Base
Runoff control-
detention/
irrigation
Base
Runoff control-
detention/
irrigation*5
Herd
Size
(Head
Capacity)
(.3)
150
150
750
750
50 Percent
Usage of
Available
Nutrients
(4)
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
100 Percent
Usage of
Available
Nutrients
(5)
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
Variable
Costs
(6)
(Dollars per
2.22
2.22
1.31
1.31
Net System
At 50
Percent
Fixed Usage of
Costs Nutrients
(7) (4)-(6)-(7)
Animal Year)
7.24 - 8.21
9.54 -10.51
1.64 - 1.70
2.25 - 2.30
Returns
At 100
Percent
Usage of Appendix
Nutrients Reference
(5)-(6)-(7)
- 6.96 D-7
- 9.26 D-8
- 0.45 D-9
- 1.05 D-10
aRegions: warm arid and hot arid.
bDue to the region location of these systems, the irrigation component is assumed to be in place.
Thus, fixed costs of irrigation are not included in the analysis.
-------
TABLE 46. SHEEP, FED LAMBS, PAVED LOT WITH SHELTER, ANNUAL RETURNS AND COSTS
FOR ALTERNATIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMSa
Returns to Nutrients
Waste
Management System
System Modification
(1) (2)
/Base
Paved lot, ,
Runoff control-
grass infil-
tration
Base
Runoff control-
grass infil-
i_j shelter, / tration
53 solid handling \
Base
Runoff control-
detention/
irrigation
Runoff control-
i grass infil-
\tration
Herd
Size
(Head
Capacity)
(3)
200
200
1000
1000
5000
5000
5000
50 Percent
Usage of
Available
Nutrients
(4)
1.07
1.07
1.07
1.07
1.07
1.07
1.07
100 Percent
Usage of
Available
Nutrients
(5)
2.14
2.14
2.14
2.14
2.14
2.14
2.14
Variable
Costs
(6)
(Dollars per
1.59
1.59
1.13
1.13
0.47
0.51
0.47
Fixed
Costs
(7)
Animal
5.91
6.35
2.53
2.66
1.82
1.96
1.91
Net System Returns
At 50
Percent
Usage of
Nutrients
Year)
-6.43
-6.87
-1.59
-1.72
-1.22
-1.40
-1.30
At 100
Percent
Usage of
Nutrients
-5.36
-5.80
-1.52
-1.65
-0.15
-0.33
-0.23
Appendix
Reference
D-ll
D-12
D-13
D-14
D-15
D-16
D-17
aRegions: cool humid, cold humid.
-------
10
05
3
I
RUNOFF CONTROL-GRASS INFILTRATION AREA
BASIC KANAGFMtNT SYSTEM
1500 3000 4500 6000
HEAD CAPACITY OF LIVESTOCK FACILITY
Figure 48. Fed lambs, net system costs for paved lot with shelter
(100% utilization of available nutrients assumed).
138
-------
10 r
w
• RUNOFF CONTROL-DETENTION
AND IRRIGATION
J
I
s
0.
RUNOFF CONTROL-GRASSED
INFILTRATION AREA
BASIC MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
lOc'.C iCCO 450C
HEAD CAPACITY OF LIVESTOCK. FACILITY
600C
8 6
IX
<
u
-2
RUNOFF CONTROL-DETENTION
AND IRRIGATION
RUNOFF CONTROL-GRASS
INFILTRATION AREA
-BASIC
MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
NET RETURN
1500 3000 4500 6000
HEAD CAPACITY OF LIVESTOCK FACILITY
Figure 49. Fed lambs, annual net system costs for
unpaved lots with shelter (100% utiliza-
tion of available nutrients assumed).
Figure 50. Fed lambs, annual net system costs for
unpaved lots without shelter (100%
utilization of available nutrients
assumed).
-------
On the other hand, detention-irrigation may impose substantial costs on
the small producer in regions where irrigation systems are not already in
place. On the 200 head capacity unpaved lot with shelter, costs increase by
$2.81 per animal year ($7.65 - $4.84, Table 47) with the addition of the
detention-irrigation system. For unpaved lots without shelter see Table 48.
LEVEL OF AIR AND WATER POLLUTION FROM SHEEP SYSTEMS
Like the exposed lot systems for other species, the unpaved lot systems
for ewe-lamb and fed sheep facilities present water quality problems. Both
grass infiltration and detention-irrigation are adequate methods of lessen-
ing these problems.
The level of pollution from ewe-lamb systems are shown in Table 49
(systems with shelter) and Table 50 (systems without shelter). Severe pol-
lution (rating of 5) occurs when no runoff control components are present.
With the addition of the grass infiltration to the unpaved lot systems found
in humid regions, pollution ratings improve to slight pollution (rating of
2). When detention-irrigation is added to the humid regions' shelter sys-
tems or the arid regions' open systems, pollution ratings improve to a level
of 1 or no pollution, assuming a well managed irrigation system.
Similar evidence of the effectiveness of the detention-irrigation or
grass infiltration systems exists for fed lambs as seen in Tables 51, 52,
and 53. Generally, the basic management systems produce severe runoff while
the runoff control systems improve pollution ratings markedly.
TRADEOFFS BETWEEN SYSTEM COSTS AND POLLUTION CONTROL
For these exposed lot systems, the marginal costs of abating pollution
with the grass infiltration system are minute. For ewes and lambs, these
added costs are about $0.20 per animal year on the 150 and 750 head lots
(Table 49). For fed lambs these added costs are $0.13 per animal year on
the 1000 head capacity paved lot with shelter (Table 51), and $0.06 per ani-
mal year on the 1000 head capacity unpaved lot with shelter (Table 52), and
$0.09 per animal year on the 1000 head capacity unpaved lot without shelter
(Table 53) .
The detention-irrigation system has improved water quality when compared
to the grass infiltration system. Ratings improve from "2" to "1" as the
detention-irrigation system replaces the grass infiltration area in Tables
49, 51, 52 and 53. The cost effectiveness of this marginal improvement re-
mains in doubt, however, For ewes and lambs in humid regions, this improve-
ment costs $3.83 per animal year ($11.23 - $7.40, Table 49) on the 150 head
lot.
Undoubtedly, the detention-irrigation system would be recommended in
many arid regions. There, the grass infiltration alternative is not feasible.
Many feedlots have access'to irrigation systems already in place which would
help keep runoff control costs down. Costs would increase $2.02 per animal
140
-------
TABLE 47. SHEEP, FED IAMBS, UNPAVED LOT WITH SHELTER, ANNUAL RETURNS AND COSTS
FOR ALTERNATIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS3
Waste
Management System
System Modification
(1) (2)
X
/Base
Runoff control-
detention/
irrigation
Runoff control-
grass infil-
tration
Base
Runoff control-
Unpaved lot, J detention/
with shelter, \ irrigation
solid handling
Runoff control-
grass infil-
tration
Base
Runoff control-
detention/
irrigation
Runoff control-
grass infil-
\tration
Herd
Size
(Head
Capacity)
(3)
200
200
200
1000
1000
1000
5000
5000
5000
Returns
50 Percent
Usage of
Available
Nutrients
(4)
1.07
1.07
1.07
1.07
1.07
1.07
1.07
1.07
1.07
to Nutrients
100 Percent
Usage of
Available
Nutrients
(5)
2.1.4
2.14
2.14
2.14
2.14
2.14
2.14
2.14
2.14
Variable
Costs
(6)
(Dollars per
1.64
1.89
1.64
1.17
1.32
1.17
0.50
0.64
0.50
Fixed
Costs
(7)
Animal
5.34
7.90
5.46
1.96
2.63
2.01
1.25
1.47
1.28
Net System
At 50
Percent
Usage of
Nutrients
Year)
-5.91
-8.72
-6.03
-2.05
-2.88
-2.11
-0.68
-1.05
-0.72
Returns
At 100
Percent
Usage of
Nutrients
(5)-(6)-(7)
-4.84
-7.65
-4.96
-0.98
-1.81
-1.04
+0.39
+0.02
+0.35
Appendix
Reference
D-18
D-19
0-20
D-21
D-22
D-23
D-24
D-25
D-26
aRegions: cold arid, cool arid.
-------
TABLE 48. SHEEP, FED LAMBS, UNPAVED LOT WITHOUT SHELTER, ANNUAL RETURNS AND
COSTS FOR ALTERNATIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS3
Waste
Management System
System Modification
(1) (2)
Unpaved lot,
'Base
Runoff control-
detention/
Irrigation13
Runoff control-
grass infil-
tration
Base
no shelter, / Runoff control-
solid handling
detention/
Irrigation
Runoff control-
grass infil-
tration
Base
Runoff control-
detention/
irrigation11
Runoff control-
grass infil-
\ tration
Herd
Size
(Head
Capacity)
(3)
200
200
200
1000
1000
1000
5000
5000
5000
50 Percent
Usage of
Available
Nutrients
(4)
0.80
0.80
0.80
0.80
0.80
0.80
0.80
0.80
0.80
100 Percent
Usage of
Available Variable
Nutrients Costs
(5) (6)
1.60
1.60
1.60
1.60
1.60
1.60
1.60
1.60
1.60
(Dollars per
1.59
1.83
1.59
1.14
1.30
1.14
0.48
0.62
0.48
Fixed
Costs
(7)
Animal
4.46
6.23
4.64
1.08
1.53
1.16
0.37
0.51
0.42
At 50
Percent
Usage of
Nutrients
Year)
-5.24
-7.26
-5.43
-1.42
-2.03
-1.51
-0.05
-0.33
-0.11
At 100
Percent
Usage of
Nutrients
-4.44
-6.46
-4.63
-0.62
-1.23
-0.71
4O.75
+0.47
+0.69
Appendix
Reference
D-27
D-28
D-29
D-30
D-31
D-32
D-33
D-34
D-35
aRegions: warm arid, hot arid, cool arid.
"Due to location of these systems, the irrigation component is assumed to be in place.
Thus, fixed costs of irrigation are not included in the analysis.
-------
TABLE 49. SHEEP, EWES AND LAMBS, UNPAVED LOT WITH SHELTER, NET SYSTEM KETURNS AND
LEVEL OF POLLUTION FOR ALTERNATIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
Net System Return
Waste
Management System
System Modification
/''Base
Unpaved lot, j
shelter, solid ^
handling
Runoff control-
detention/
irrigation
Runoff control-
grass infil-
tration
Base
Runoff control-
detention/
irrigation
Runoff control-
i grass infil-
\tration
Herd
Size
(Head
Capacity)
150
150
150
750
750
750
At 50
Percent
Usage of
Nutrients
(Dollars per
- 9.14
-12.97
- 9.34
- 2.64
- 4.03
- 2.74
At 100
Percent
Usage of
Nutrients
Animal Year)
- 7.40
-11.23
- 7.60
- 0.90
- 2.29
- 1.10
Level of Pollution3
Water
Quantity Quality
of Runoff of Runoff
(Pollution Scale) s
5 5
1 1
2 2
5 5
1 1
2 2
Odor
3
3
3
3
3
3
No Pollution
4 5
Severe Pollution
-------
TABLE 50. SHEEP, EWES AND LAMBS, UNPAVED LOT WITHOUT SHELTER, NET SYSTEM RETURN
AND LEVEL OF POLLUTION FOR ALTERNATIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
Net System Return
'Waste
Management System
System Modification
Unpaved lot,
no shelter,
solid handling
Base
Runoff control-
detention/
irrigation
Base
Runoff control-
detention/
irrigation
aScale: 1 2
No Pollution
Herd
Size
(Head
Capacity)
150
150
750
750
3
At 50
Percent
Usage of
Nutrients
(Dollars
- 8.21
-10.51
- 1.70
- 2.30
4 5
At 100
Percent
Usage of
Nutrients
per Animal Year)
-6.96
-9.26
-0.45
-1.05
Level of Pollution3
Water
Quantity Quality
of Runoff of Runoff
(Pollution Scale}3
5 5
1 1
5 5
1 1
Odor
3
3
3
3
Severe Pollution
-------
TABLE 51. SHEEP, FED LAMBS, PAVED LOT WITH SHELTER, NET SYSTEM RETURN AND LEVEL
OF POLLUTION FOR ALTERNATIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
Ul
Net System Return
Waste
Management System
System Modification
Paved lot, J
shelter , /
solid handling
/Base
Runoff control-
grass infil-
tration
Base
Runoff control-
grass infil-
tration
Base
Runoff control-
detention/
irrigation
Runoff control-
i grass infil-
\£ration
aScale : 1 2
Herd
Size
(Head
Capacity)
200
200
1000
1000
5000
5000
5000
3
At 50
Percent
Usage of
Nutrients
(Dollars per
-6.43
-6.87
-1.59
-1.72
-1.22
-1.40
-1.30
4 5
At 100
Percent
Usage of
Nutrients
Animal Year)
-5.36
-5.80
-1.52
-1.65
-0.15
-0.33
-0.23
Level of Pollution*
Water
Quantity Quality
of Runoff of Runoff
(Pollution Scale)3
5 5
2 2
5 5
2 2
5 5
1 1
2 2
Odor
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
No Pollution
Severe Pollution
-------
TABLE 52 SHEEP FED LAMBS, UNPAVED LOT WITH SHELTER, NET SYSTEM RETURNS AND
LEVEL'oF POLLUTION FOR ALTERNATIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
Net System Return
Waste
Management System
System Modification
/Base
Unpaved lot, J
shelter, \.
solid handling
Runoff control-
detention/
irrigation
Runoff control-
grass infil-
tration
Base
Runoff control-
detention/
irrigation
Runoff control-
grass infil-
tration
Base
Runoff control-
detention/
irrigation
Runoff control-
, grass infil-
\tration
aScale : 1 2
Herd
Size
(Head
Capacityi_
200
200
200
1000
1000
1000
5000
5000
5000
3
At 50
Percent
Usage of
Nutrients
(Dollars per
-5.91
-8.72
-6.03
-2.05
-2.88
-2.11
-0.68
-1.05
-0.72
4 5
At 100
Percent
Usage of
Nutrients
Animal Year)
-4.84
-7.65
-4.96
-0.98
-1.81
-1.04
+0.39
+0.02
+0.35
Level of Pollution3
Water
Quantity Quality
of Runoff of Runoff
(Pollution Scale)3
5 5
1 1
2 2
5 5
1 1
2 2
5 5
1 1
2 2
Odor
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
No Pollution
Severe Pollution
-------
TABLE 53. SHEEP, FED LAMBS, UNPAVED LOT WITHOUT SHELTER, NET SYSTEM RETURNS AND LEVEL
OF POLLUTION FOR ALTERNATIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
Waste
Management System
System Modification
/Base
Unpaved lot, 1
no shelter, <.
solid handling
Runoff control-
detention/
irrigation
Runoff control-
grass infil-
tration
Base
Runoff control-
detention/
irrigation
Runoff control-
grass infil-
tration
Base
Runoff control-
detention/
irrigation
Runof f con trol-
L grass infil-
\fration
^cale: 1 2
No Pollution
Herd
Size
(Head
Capacity)
200
200
200
1000
1000
1000
5000
5000
5000
3
Net System
At 50
Percent
Usage of
Nutrients
(Dollars per
-5.24
-7.26
-5.43
-1.42
-2.03
-1.51
-0.05
-0.33
-0.11
Return
At 100
Percent
Usage of
Nutrients
Animal Year)
-4.44
-6.46
-4.63
-0.62
-1.23
-0.71
+0.75
+0.47
+0.69
Level of Pollution3
Water
Quantity Quality
of Runoff of Runoff
(Pollution Scale) a
5 5
1 1
2 2
5 5
1 1
-0.71 2
5 5
1 1
2 2
Odor
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
4 5
Severe Pollution
-------
year on the 200 head lot ($6.46 - $4.44, Table 53), or $0.24 per animal year
on the 5000 head lot if detention-irrigation is installed on unpaved feedlots
without shelter where the present irrigation system can be used for disposing
of the detained water.
148
-------
SECTION 10
POULTRY WASTE MANAGEMENT OPTIONS
The trend is towards larger facilities for poultry production. Three
types of poultry production facilities are considered: layers, broilers and
turkeys. With the exception of some turkeys, poultry is raised in totally
housed systems. Layers are typically raised in cages. Broilers are almost
exclusively raised on litter (bedded floors). Turkeys are raised on litter
and on open, vegetated lots.
The principal pollution control needed is for odor. Poultry waste,
particularly when stored in a liquid form, generates offensive odors. If
poultry manure from layers is partially dried by "under cage" ventilation,
the manure can be handled as a solid with less odor nuisance. Provision to
collect and drain away water from leaking waterers is necessary. In arid
climates under-cage drying is the standard practice (Figure 51). If the
manure becomes very dry, blowing manure dust and feathers may be a problem
during field spreading. Plowdown immediately after spreading will reduce
non-point source runoff of pollutants as well as conserve a substantial
amount of nitrogen for crop production,
WASTE SYSTEMS
A typical shallow pit (4 to 6 inches deep) in a caged layer facility
is shown in Figure 52. Manure can be scraped on a daily basis but more often
it is left to accumulate from two to four weeks and then scraped and field
spread. The mechanical scraper shown in Figure 52 is one variation of the
shallow pit system. Additional storage can be provided by deepening the pit.
Another common type of manure handling for caged layers is the deep pit
or "high-rise" system shown in Figure 53. A distance of 6 or more feet is
provided beneath the cages. Manure is allowed to accumulate for a year or
longer. All water must be diverted from the pit and under-cage ventilation
is needed. As a result of drying and decomposition the volume is reduced.
A tractor loader goes beneath the cages and loads the manure for field
spreading. Immediate incorporation will lower non-point source pollutant
runoff and conserve fertilizer nutrients.
In warm arid regions, a shallow pit, flush system is often used in con-
junction with an existing irrigation system. Waste accumulates in a shallow
pit where it is flushed into a storage basin and then pumped into an irriga-
tion system. Also, in warm and hot humid regions, a shallow pit flush system
is used. There, waste is flushed from a shallow pit beneath the cages to a
149
-------
Ul
o
EITHER
STOCKPILE
OR LOAD
ONTO SPREADER
Figure 51. Caged layer facility in arid region/ manure handled as a solid in building with open sides.
-------
Ul
H
Figure 52. Caged layer house with a mechanical (cable) scraper.
-------
Ul
NJ
Figure 53. Caged layer "high-rise" house. Manure accumulates for one or more years.
-------
treatment lagoon. Frequently, the wastewater effluent is spread on cropland
by an irrigation system.
Figure 54 shows a litter (bedded floor) system. The building on the
left shows the typical method for cleaning out the poultry house. Broilers
and turkeys, both laying hens and meat birds, are raised on similar litter
systems. The usual cleanout procedure is to load the manure into a spreader
and haul to cropland. With a planned cleanout interval between flocks of
broilers and turkeys, no problems are usually encountered. Some broiler
facilities will treat the litter and possibly add some clean bedding between
flocks, so that cleanout will only be needed after several flocks, once or
twice a year. Immediate soil incorporation of manure into soil will reduce
odor and conserve nutrients.
In the humid areasi many turkeys are raised on open, vegetated lots.
The vegetated area is soon denuded by the turkeys. By moving waterers and
feed troughs to a new area weekly, vegetation will recover on denuded areas.
Lot areas have only one group of turkeys per year. Site selection, provid-
ing a grassed buffer strip between lots and waterways and reduced stocking
rate to maintain some vegetative cover, will reduce non-point source pollu-
tant runoff. Shelter (or shade trees) is needed, particularly in warm and
hot climates.
Options to be Analyzed
Concentration into large sized operating units has occurred more rapidly
in poultry than in any other livestock species. Two decades ago numerous
small flocks could be seen on many farms throughout the United States; how-
ever, concentrations of 100,000 layers or broilers in one operation are
frequently found today.
le concentration has occurred, pollution control has improved in most
cases. Layers and broilers typically are confined in enclosed houses with
no outside areas to produce runoff problems. Pollution control centers
around the components to store and incorporate the waste.
For poultry the choice of systems is narrowed to those allowing solid
handling since the solids content of the waste varies from 25 to 50 percent,
depending on the length of storage and in-house drying. Six solid handling
systems are analyzed for layers, one system is analyzed for broilers and two
for turkeys.
Layers are typically raised in cages. The space requirements used in
analyzing costs are 0.42 sq ft of cage floor space per bird and 0.8 sq ft
of housing per bird. Where layers are raised on litter approximate costs
can be obtained by doubling the waste handling costs of broiler production
for a comparative size facility. The sizes of flocks used in the cost eval-
uation are 10,000, 25,000 and 80,000 birds. Waste systems to be costed
include:
153
-------
in
Figure 54. Litter system for broilers or turkeys. Buildings are cleaned between groups of birds,
-------
1. Undercage storage, tractor scrape, solid handling
(a) base system
(b) 3 month storage
2. Shallow pit, mechanical scrape, solid handling
3. High-rise building, tractor loader, solid handling
4. Shallow pit, flush to storage basin, pump to
irrigation system
5. Shallow pit, flush to lagoon, wastewater disposal
Broilers are typically raised on litter: straw, sawdust, wood shavings,
etc. Some broiler houses in warmer regions do not use concrete floors;
nevertheless, the cost analysis in this manual assumes concrete floors. A
floor area of 0.9 sq ft per broiler is used. The cost of bedding used per
bird-year is $0.03. New bedding is costed for each batch of broilers. A
turnover rate of 5.0 batches of broilers per year is assumed. A tractor
scraper/loader and a solid spread method was used for the waste handling
system.
Turkeys are raised with two types of facilities: a litter system simi-^
lar to broilers and an open lot (pasture) system. When the lot system is
used, only one group of turkeys is produced per year. Two groups of turkeys
are raised each year on the litter system.
The average floor space for turkeys on a litter system used in the cost
analysis is 3.0 sq ft per bird. The cost of bedding used per bird-year is
$0.04. A tractor scraper/loader and solid handling method is used in cost-
ing this system.
For turkeys on open lot, a density of 750 birds per acre is used for
the base system. Densities range from about 250 to 1000 birds per acre in
practice. An alternative system to control pollution is to reduce the den-
sity to 250 birds per acre and assume that feeders and waterers are moved
weekly to a new area in the pasture to allow vegetation to recover.
Chicken and turkey brooding operations typically use a litter system
with solid handling. For chicken brooding, 2 sq ft of floor space per bird
is assumed in the analysis, and 3 sq ft of floor space per bird is assumed
for turkey brooding. Approximately 0.3 cu ft of bedding is used for chicken
and 0.5 cu ft for turkey brooding.
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
Poultry waste management systems tend to be fewer and less variable
than other species such as swine or dairy. Thus, the differences in bene-
fits and costs between systems can be expected to be relatively minor. It
must be remembered that these small differences in net system cost per bird
can be important with the size of today's poultry operations. For example,
155
-------
a difference in net system costs between two systems may be only $0.10 per
bird for a layer operation; however, for the 80,000 layer facility this small
difference would produce an $8,000 difference in annual profits.
Benefits from Waste
Poultry produce a relatively large amount of nutrients per pound of
animal. For example, the 4 pound layer produces a total of 2.5 pounds of
nutrients per year (1.06 pounds nitrogen, 0.91 pounds phosphate, and 0.53
pounds potash). Due to the relatively high proportion of ammonia nitrogen,
significant nitrogen losses occur for all waste management systems investi-
gated (Table 54).
Available nutrients are assumed to be either 100 percent or 50 percent
utilized in the cost analysis. Unit prices of utilized nutrients are $0.16
per pound for nitrogen, $0.18 for phosphate, and $0.10 for potash.
Analysis of Options
Layers, Undercage Storage Tractor Scrape and Undercage Storage Mechanical
Scrape—
Annual net waste system costs are shown in Table 55. For the Undercage
storage, tractor scrape system, nutrient returns outweigh disposal costs,
and annual net system returns per bird-year vary from zero for the 10,000
bird flock to $0.13 per bird-year for the 80,000 bird flock. The pollution
control option examined is providing more volume in the shallow pit and
spreading less often. Annual net system returns per bird are increased
approximately $0.01 by providing storage.
Using the shallow pit storage, mechanical scrape system costs more for
all size levels,as illustrated in Figure 55. An important assumption pro-
ducing these results is that the tractor is used on other farm enterprises,
thus the poultry enterprise does not bear the full fixed costs, but only pays
an hourly charge. On the other hand, the mechanical scraper costs must be
fully borne by the poultry enterprise since it has no other use. For the
small flock of 10,000 birds, the mechanical scrape system is costly as annual
net system costs per bird-year are $0.06 compared to no costs for the tractor
scrape system (Table 55).
Layers, High-Rise, Tractor Scrape—
Annual net system costs are lowest with the high-rise storage system.
Nutrient returns slightly improve while fixed costs and variable costs are
lower for the high-rise system than the shallow pit systems. Annual net
system returns are $0.05 for the 10,000 flock and increase to $0.14 for
80,000 layers. Plowing down the spread waste further increases annual net
system returns to $0.08 for 10,000 layers and $0.16 for 80,000 layers.
Layers, Flush to Storage Basin or Lagoon—
In warm arid regions, layer waste disposal systems are often designed
to complement an existing irrigation system. Waste is flushed from beneath
the cages to a storage basin and then pumped to an existing irrigation
156
-------
TABLE 54. NITROGEN, PHOSPHATE (P205) AND POTASH (K2O) AVAILABLE
TO CROPS FROM POULTRY WASTE PER BIRD UNITa FOR
ALTERNATIVE DISPOSAL SYSTEMS
System
Layer
Shallow pit, scrape, solid
surf ace , spread
Shallow pit, scrape, solid,
incorporated0
Deep pit storage, solid,
surface spread
Deep pit storage, solid,
incorporated0
Broiler
Litter, solid, surface spread
Litter, solid, incorporated0
Turkey
Litter, solid, surface spread
Litter, solid, incorporated0
Nutrients
per Bird
Nitrogen
0.49
0.59
0.52
0.63
0.35
0.42
1.0
1.2
Available to Crops
Yearb (Ib/yr)
Phosphate
(P205)
0.82
0.86
0.82
0.86
0.41
0.43
1.4
1.5
Potash
(K20)
0.48
0.50
0.48
0.50 '
0.30
0.31
1.4
1.4
bird unit = 4 Ib layer, 2 Ib (av wt) broiler, 10 Ib (av wt) turkey
Production of nutrient per year:
4 Ib layer
2 Ib broiler
10 Ib turkey
CPlowed down the day of spreading.
N (Ibs)
1.06
0.88
2.5
(Ibs)
(Ibs)
0.91
0.45
1.6
0.53
0.33
1.5
157
-------
TABLE 55. LAYERS, SOLID WASTE HANDLING, ANNUAL RETURNS AND COSTS FOR ALTERNATIVE
WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
Returns to Nutrients
Waste
Management
System
(1)
System
Modification
(2)
Herd
Size
(Head
Capacity)
(3)
50 Percent
Usage of
Available
Nutrients
(4)
100 Percent
Usage of
Available Variable Fixed
Nutrients Costs costs
(5) (6) (7)
(Dollars per Animal
Undercage storage,
tractor
Shallow
scrape3
Base
3 month storage
Base
3 month storage
Base
3 month storage
pit stor- (Base
age, mechanical I Base
scrape*
Ul
co
(Base
( Surface spread
I Plowdown
High-rise, ./Surface spread
tractor loader S Plowdown
J Surface spread
(_ Plowdown
10,000
10,000
25,000
25,000
80,000
80,000
10,000
25,000
80,000
10,000
10,000
25,000
25,000
80,000
80,000
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.15
0.14
0.15
0.14
0.15
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.31
0.28
0.31
0.28
0.31
0.04
0.02
0.03
0.01
0.03
0.01
0.04
0.03
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.02
0.24
0.25
0.15
0.17
0.12
0.14
0.30
0.24
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.18
0.16
0.14
0.14
Net System
At 50
Percent
Usage of
Nutrients
Year)
-0.13
-0.13
-0.04
-0.04
0.00
-0.01
-0.20
-0.12
-0.10
-0.09
-0.07
-0.06
-0.03
0.00
+0.01
Returns
At 100
Percent
Usage of
Nutrients
0
-1-0
+0
+0
+0
+0
-0
+0
+0
+0
+0
+ 0
+0
+0
+0
.00
.01
.09
.10
.13
.13
.06
.01
.04
.05
.08
.08
.12
.14
.16
Appendix
Reference
E-l
E-2
E-3
E-4
E-5
E-6
E-7
E-8
E-9
E-10
E-ll
E-12
E-13
E-14
E-15
aRegions: cold, cool, warm, and hot humid and warm arid
Regions: warm arid, cool humid, and warm humid
-------
in
8
0.20
0.1
UNDERCAGE SHALLOW PIT STORAGE,
-0.10
\ BOTANICAL SCRAPE •
- o- - \ I
<*\ V- JNET RETURN
A VC^~ UNDERCAGE STORAGE, TRACTOR SCRAPE
-UNDERCAGE 3 MO STORAGE, TRACTOR
SCRAPE
20 40 60 BO
HEAD CAPACITY OF POULTRY FACILITY (THOUSANDS)
a:
u
0.
8
0.30
0.20
§ 0.10
§
M
CQ
-0.10
UNDERCAGE SHALLOW PIT, FLUSH
TO LAGOON, IRRIGATE
NET LOSS
NET RETURN
UNDERCAGE SHALLOW PIT, FLUSH
TO STORAGE BASIN, PUMP TO
EXISTING IRRIGATION
20 40 60 80
HEAD CAPACITY OF POULTRY FACILITY (THOUSANDS)
Figure 55. Layers, annual net system costs for
solid waste handling alternatives
(100% utilization of available
nutrients assumed).
Figure 56. Layers, net system costs for flush
systems (100% utilization of avail-
able nutrients assumed).
-------
system. Since the irrigation system is a fixed cost to the farmer, its costs
are not included in the analysis. Annual net system returns range from zero
for the 10,000 bird flock to $0.11 per animal year for the 80,000 bird flock
(Table 56).
In warm and hot humid regions, the flush system also uses an irrigation
system. However, its primary purpose is for wastewater irrigation; thus,
all irrigation costs are included in the analysis. For this shallow pit,
flush to lagoon, wastewater irrigation system, annual net system costs range
from $0.29 per bird year for the 10,000 bird flock to $0.18 per bird year for
the 80,000 bird flock (Table 56). See Figure 56 for a comparison of these
two systems.
Broilers on Litter—
Due to its predominance in commercial broiler production, only the
litter system is analyzed. For capacities between 25,000 and 80,000 broil-
ers, waste disposal is nearly a break-even proposition (Table 57). The only
pollution control technology available for this system is plowdown at the
time of spreading. If the cropland is available for plowing, it is a profit-
able practice for the farmer, plus it reduces odor nuisance and polluted
runoff.
Brooders—
The technological options for brooders is limited typically to confine-
ment litter systems. Due to the smaller size relative to broiler and layer
operations, per bird costs are higher for chicken brooders. As seen in
Table 57, annual net system costs are $0.21 per bird year for the 3000 bird
flock.
Nutrient returns are high for the turkey brooder operation, but high
space requirements (3 sq ft per bird) result in high fixed costs. Net sys-
tem costs are $0.29 per bird year for the 3000 bird flock.
Turkey, Confinement and Open Lot—
Annual net system costs are negative for many turkey growers as the re-
turns to the waste outweigh costs of spreading. For the confinement litter
system,annual net returns are $0.07 for the 10,000 bird flock and $0.12 for
25,000 turkeys (Table 58). These returns are increased approximately $0.05
per bird when plowdown of spread waste is used.
Open lot turkey waste disposal systems are more costly due to the in-
ability of the farmer to spread the nutrients on cropland and realize a
return to waste (Figure 57). Land costs are included for this system. How-
ever, operating and fixed costs of waste disposal are negligible. Pollution
control becomes a problem with turkeys grown on range as the exposed lot
surface may produce severe runoff problems. Although not examined for this
alternative, a grass infiltration system would be a low cost method of re-
ducing runoff pollution on open lots.
160
-------
TABLE 56. LAYERS, SHALLOW PIT WITH FLUSH SYSTEMS, ANNUAL RETURNS AND COSTS
FOR ALTERNATIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
Returns to Nutrients
Waste
Management
System
(1)
Shallow pit, flush
to storage basin,
pump to irriga-
tion system3
Shallow pit, flush
to lagoon, waste-
water irriga-
tion15
System
Modification
(2)
[Base
/Base
JBase
(Base
(Ease
(Base
Herd
Size
(Head
Capacity)
(3)
10,000
25,000
80,000
10,000
25,000
80,000
50 Percent
Usage of
Available
Nutrients
(4)
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.07
0.07
0.07
100 Percent
Usage of
Available
Nutrients
(5)
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.14
0.14
0.14
Variable
Costs
(6)
(Dollars per
0.04
0.02
0.03
0.08
0.08
0.11
Fixed
Costs
(7) i
Animal
0.25
0.17
0.15
0.35
0.27
0.21
Net System Returns
At 50
Percent
Usage of
Nutrients
(4)-(6)-(7)
Year)
-0.14
-0.05
-0.03
-0.36
-0.27
-0.25
At 100
Percent
Usage of
Nutrients
(5)-(6)-(7)
0.00
+0.09
+0.11
-0.29
-0.20
-0.18
Appendix
Reference
E-16
E-17
E-18
E-19
E-20
E-21
aRegions: warm arid
^Regions: warm and hot humid
-------
TABLE 57. BROILERS, CHICKEN BROODERS, AMD TURKEY BROODERS, LITTER KITH SOLID
HANDLING, ANNUAL RETURNS AND COSTS FOR WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS3
10
Returns to Nutrients
Waste
Management
System
(1)
Herd 50 Percent
System Size Usage of
Modification (Head Available
Capacity) Nutrients
(2) (3) (4)
100 Percent
Usage of
Available
Nutrients
(5)
Variable
Costs
(6)
(Dollars per
Broilers on
litter
Chicken Brooders (
on litter
Turkey Brooders
Base 25
Slowdown 25
Base 80
Plowdown 80
Base 6
Base 12
Base 3
on litter ) Base 6
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
0.08
0.09
0.08
0.09
0.13
0.13
0.27
0.27
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
16
18
16
18
26
26
53
53
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.06
0.06
0.11
0.11
Fixed
Costs
(7)
Net System
At 50
Percent
Usage of
Nutrients
Returns
At 100
Percent
Usage of
Nutrients
Appendix
Reference
Animal Year)
0.16
0.16
0.14
0.14
0.42
0.35
0.71
0.56
-0.09
-0.09
-0.07
-0.06
-0.34
-0.27
-0.56
-0.40
-0
0
+0
+0
-0
-0
-0
-0
.01
.00
.01
.03
.21
.14
.29
.15
E-22
E-23
E-24
E-25
E-26
E-27
E-28
E-29
(
aAll humid regions
-------
TABLE 58. TURKEYS, ANNUAL RETURNS AND COSTS FOR ALTERNATIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
Returns to Nutrients
Waste
Management
System
(1)
Confinement ,
litter, solid
handling
Open Lot
System
Modification
(2)
iBase
Plowdown
Base
Plowdown
iBase
Seduced
density
Herd
Size
(Head
Capacity)
(3)
10,000
10,000
25,000
25,000
10 ,000
10,000
50 Percent
Usage of
Available
Nutrients
(4)
0.27
0.30
0.27
0.30
0.00
0.00
100 Percent
Usage of
Available
Nutrients
(5)
0.55
0.60
0.55
0.60
0.00
0.00
Variable
Costs
(6)
(Dollars per
0.04
0.04
0.02
0.02
0.00
0.02
Fixed
Costs
(7) i
Animal
0.45
0.45
0.40
0.40
0.18
0.53
Net System Returns
At 50
Percent
Usage of
Nutrients
(4)-(6)-(7)
Year)
-0.21
-0.18
-0.15
-0.12
-0.18
-0.55
At 100
Percent
Usage of
Nutrients
(5)-(6)-(7)
0.07
0.12
0.12
0.17
-0.18
-0.55
Appendix
Reference
E-30
E-31
E-32
E-33
E-34
E-35
u>
-------
0.20
2
3 o.io
ta
a,
a
o.
8-0.10
"-0.2 0|-
O OPEN LOT
t
NET LOSS
NET RETURN
SURFACE SPREAD
TOTAL SHELTER,
LITTER
PLOWDOWN
10 20 30 40
HEAD CAPACITY OF TURKEY FACILITY (THOUSANDS)
Figure 57. Turkeys, net system costs for waste management systems
(100% utilization of available nutrients assumed).
164
-------
LEVEL OF AIR AND WATER POLLUTION FROM POULTRY SYSTEMS
The movement of layers, broilers, brooders and turkeys into confinement
has improved economic efficiency. However, a secondary impact has been the
improvement in water quality from these systems. Runoff from facilities is
rare since most operations do not have exposed lot surfaces.
Potential water pollution and odor problems exist at the time of
spreading. For those poultry systems using solid handling and surface
spreading, water pollution receives a moderate rating ("3" in Tables 59, 61,
and 62). Runoff of spread waste from fields remains a possible problem in
periods of intense rainfall or snow melt. Odor problems at the time of
spreading are severe (ratings of "4" or "5" in Tables 59, 61, and 62).
Where storage is used on solid waste handling systems, plowdown of
spread waste is an effective method of water pollution and odor control.
High-rise systems (Table 59), and litter systems (Tables 61 and 62) receive
ratings of no water pollution or odor problems when immediate plowdown is
used.
Flush systems for layers are excellent water pollution control systems,
as indicated in Table 60. Also, they effectively control odor from the con-
finement systems and disposal operations if managed properly.
Open lot turkey systems present potential water pollution problems
(Table 62). Reduced stocking alleviates some of the water pollution poten-
tial, but moderate levels of water pollution remain.
TRADEOFFS BETWEEN SYSTEM COSTS AND POLLUTION CONTROL
Gaining added levels of pollution control is relatively inexpensive on
litter systems or facilities using solid handling. Plowdown allows substan-
tial control of pollutants at minimal costs. In most cases plowdown even
increases returns to the farmer.
Adoption of systems using flush technologies in climates where ap-
propriate does significantly improve pollution control. However, investing
in lagoon, pumps, and irrigation equipment also makes this system more ex-
pensive.
Turkey production on open lots appears to be not only uneconomical from
the farmer's point of view, but it also has the potential for degrading
water quality. Changes from open lot to confinement over the past decade on
many turkey farms validate this observation.
165
-------
TABLE 59. LAYERS, SOLID WASTE HANDLING, ANNUAL NET SYSTEM RETURNS AND LEVEL OF
POLLUTION FOR ALTERNATIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
Net System Return
Waste
Management
System
Under cage storage,
tractor scrape
Shallow pit stor-
age, mechanical
scrape
High-rise,
tractor loader
Herd
System Size
Modification (Head
Capacity)
!Base 10 ,000
3 month storage 10,000
Base 25,000
3 month storage 25,000
Base 80,000
3 month storage 80,000
(Base 10,000
I Base 25,000
(Base 80,000
[Surface spread 10,000
\Plowdown 10,000
) Surface spread 25,000
\Plowdown 25,000
1 Surf ace spread 80,000
(..Plowdown 80,000
At 50
Percent
Usage of
Nutrients
(Dollars per
-0.13
-0.13
-0.04
-0.04
0.00
0.6l
-0.20
-0.12
-0.10
-0.09
-0.07
-0.06
-0.03
-0.01
+0.01
At 100
Percent
Usage of
Nutrients
Animal Year)
0.00
0.01
0.09
0.10
0.13
0.13
-0.06
+0.01
+0.04
+0.05
+0.08
+0.08
+0.12
+0.14
+0.16
Level
of Pollution3
Water
Quantity Quality
of Runoff of Runoff
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
3
1
3
1
(Pollution Scale) a
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
3
1
3
1
Odior
4
5
4
5
4
5
4
4
4
4
1
4
1
4
1
*Scale:
No Pollution
Severe Pollution
-------
TABLE 60. LAYERS, SHALLOW PIT WITH FLUSH SYSTEMS, ANNUAL NET SYSTEM RETURNS AND
LEVEL OF POLLUTION FOR ALTERNATIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
Herd
Waste
Management
System
System
Modification
Size
(Head
Capacity)
Net
At 50
System Return
At 100
Percent
Usage
of
Nutrients
(Dollars
Shallow pit, flush
to storage basin, <
pump to irriga-
tion system
Base
Base
Base
Shallow pit, flush Cease
to lagoon, waste-
-------
TABLE 61. BROILERS, CHICKEN BROODERS, AND TURKEY BROODERS, LITTER WITH SOLID
HANDLING, ANNUAL NET SYSTEM RETURNS AND LEVELS OF POLLUTION
00
Net System Return
Waste
Management
System
Broilers on
litter
Herd
System Size
Modification (Head
Capacity)
Base 25,000
Plowdown 25,000
Base 80,000
Plowdown 80,000
Chicken brooders ) Base 6,000
on litter ] Base 12,000
Turkey brooders
on litter
a
Scale: 1
Base 3,000
Base 6,000
234
At 50
Percent
Usage of
Nutrients
(Dollars
-0.09
-0.09
-0.07
-0.06
-0.34
-0.27
-0.56
-0.40
5
At 100
Percent
Usage of
Nutrients
per Animal Year)
-0.01
0.00
+0.01
-t-0.03
-0.21
-0.14
-0.29
-0.15
Quantity
of Runoff
Level of Pollution3
Water
Quality
of Runoff
Odor
(Pollution Scale) a
3
1
3
1
3
3
3
3
3
1
3
1
3
3
3
3
4
1
4
1
4
4
4
4
No Pollution
Sever Pollution
-------
TABLE 62. TURKEYS, ANNUAL NET SYSTEM RETURNS AND LEVEL OF POLLUTION
FOP. ALTERNATIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
Net System Return
Waste
Management
System
Confinement, litter,
solid handling
Open lot
aScale: 1
System
Modification
!Base
Plowdown
Base
Plowdown
(Base
< Reduced
(stocking
2
Herd
Size
(Head
Capacity)
10,000
10,000
25,000
25,000
10,000
10,000
3 4
At 50
Percent
Usage of
Nutrients
(Dollars
-0.21
-0.18
-0.15
-0 . 12
-0.18
-0.55
5
At 100
Percent
Usage of
Nutrients
per Animal Year)
0.07
0.12
0.12
0.17
-0.18
-0.55
Level
of Pollution3
Water
Quantity
of Runoff
(Pollution
3
1
3
1
5
3
Quality
of Runoff
Scale) a
3
1
3
1
5
3
Odor
4
1
4
1
3
2
No Pollution
Severe Pollution
VO
-------
SECTION 11
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ashraf, M., R. L. Christensen, and G. E. Frick. The Impact on Dairy Farm
Organization of Alternative Manure Disposal Systems, Research Bulletin
608, Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Massachusetts, 1974.
Bache, D. H., B. C. Horsefield, D. C. Petritz. Costs of Alternative Waste
Handling Systems, Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue Uni-
versity, 1973.
Bielen, R. and B. V. Lessley. Resource Benchmark Data, Waste Handling Prac-
tices, and Economic Analysis for Dairy Farms in the Monocay River
Watershed, No. 5080, Agricultural Experiment Station, University of
Maryland, 1975.
Butchbaker, A. F., J. E. Carton, G.W.A. Mahoney, and M. D. Paine. Evaluation
of Beef Cattle Feedlot Waste Management Alternatives, 13040 FXG, Office
of Research and Monitoring, Environmental Protection Agency, 1971.
Buxton, B. M. and S. J. Zeigler. Economic Impact of Controlling Surface
Water Runoff from U. S. Dairy Farms, Agricultural Economics Report No.
260, Economic Research Service, U.S.D.A., 1974.
Carlisle, B. L. Dairy Waste Management Alternatives, Cooperative Extension
Service, North Carolina State University, 1973.
Casler, G. L. and E. L. LaDue. Environmental, Economic and Physical Con-
siderations in Liquid Handling of Dairy Cattle Manure, Bulletin No. 20
Agricultural Experiment Station, Cornell University, 1972.
Coote, D. R., D. A. Haith and P. J. Zeverman. Environmental and Economic
Impact of Nutrient Management on the New York Dairy Farm, Search Agri-
culture, Cornell University, Agricultural Experiment Station, Ithaca,
New York, 1975. Vol. 5, No. 5, 28 pp.
Dickey, E. C. and D. H. Vanderholm. Feedlot Runoff Control Systems, ii:
Proceedings of 1977 Livestock Waste Management Conference. Department
of Agricultural Engineering, University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois,
1977. pp. Cl-5.
Driggers, B. Poultry Waste Management Alternatives. Circular 570, Coopera-
tive Extension Service, North Carolina State University, 1973.
170
-------
Driggers, B. Swine Waste Management Alternatives, Cooperative Extension
Service, North Carolina State University, 1973.
Forster, D. L., L. J. Connor, and J. B. Johnson. Economic Impacts of
Selected Water Pollution Control Rules on Michigan Beef Feedlots of
Less Than 1,000 Head Capacity, Research Report 270, Agricultural Experi-
ment Station, Michigan State University, 1975.
Humenik, F. J. and M. R. Overcash. Design Criteria for Swine Waste Treatment
Systems, EPA-600/2-76-233, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Ada,
Oklahoma, 1976, 292 pp.
Gilbertson, C. B. Animal Waste Utilization on Crop and Pasture Land, (In
Press) U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Ada, Ok., 1977.
Good, D. L., C.. R. Hoglund, L. J. Connor, and J. B. Johnson. Economic Im-
pacts of Applying Selected Pollution Control Measures on Michigan Dairy
Farms, Research Report 225, Agricultural Experiment Station, Michigan
State University, 1973.
Henderson, H. A. and L. L. Bauer. Costs of Manure Disposal on Dairy Farms in
Tennessee, Bulletin 514, Agricultural Experiment Station, Tennessee
University, 1973.
Hoglund, C. R. Dairy System Analysis Handbook, Rpt. No. 300, Department of
Agricultural Economics, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI,
1976, 49 pp.
Hoglund, C. R., J. S. Boyd, L. J. Connor, and J. B. Johnson.
Practices and Systems on Michigan Dairy Farms, Report No. 208, Depart-
ment of Agricultural Economics, Michigan State University, 1972.
Jedele, D. G., editor. Livestock Waste Management In A Quality Environment,
Circular 1074, Cooperative Extension Service, University of Illinois,
Urbana, Illinois, 1972.
Jensen, A. H., B. G. Harmon, G. R. Carlisle, and A. J. Muehling. Management
and Housing for Confinement Swine Production, Circular 1064, Cooperative
Extension Service, University of Illinois, 1974.
Johnson, J. B., G. A. Davis, J. R. Martin, and C. Kerry Gee. Economic Im-
pacts of Controlling Surface Water Runoff from Fed Beef Production
Facilities, Agricultural Economic Report No. 292, Economic Research
Service, U.S.D.A., 1975.
Kesler, R. P. and A. G. Mueller. Can Confinement Hog Production Facilities
be Justified on Illinois Farms? Department of Agricultural Economics,
University of Illinois, 1976.
Kesler, R. P. and R. A. Hinton. An Economic Evaluation of Liquid Manure
Disposal From Confinement Finishing Hogs, Bulletin 722, Agricultural
Experiment Station, University of Illinois, 1966.
171
-------
Kimball, D., et al. Economic Evaluation of Liquid Manure Storage Systems
for Dairy, Bulletin 2199, Agricultural Experiment Station, University
of Wisconsin, 1970.
McCaskey, T. A., G. H. Rollins, and J. Little. Water Pollution by Dairy
Farm Wastes and Related to Method of Waste Disposal, Water Resources
Research Bulletin 18, Auburn University, 1973.
Midwest Plan Service, Beef Housing and Equipment Handbook, MWPS-6, 1968.
Midwest Plan Service, Dairy Housing and Equipment Handbook, NWPS-7, 1971.
Midwest Plan Service, Sheep Housing and Equipment Handbook, MWPS-3, 1974.
Midwest Plan Service, Swine Housing and Equipment Handbook, NWPS-8, 1972.
Midwest Plan Service, Livestock Waste Facilities Handbook, MWps-18, 1975.
Miner, J. R. and R. J. Smith, editors. Livestock Waste Management with Pol-
lution Control, North Central Regional Research Publication 222, 1975.
Nye, J. C., D. D. Jones, and A. L. Sutton. Runoff Control Systems for Open
Livestock Feedlots, Bulletin ID-114, Cooperative Extension Service,
Purdue University, West Lafayette, Ind. 8 pp.
Pherson, C. L., P. R. Hasbargen, and T. R. Nodland. Beef Housing Economics
for Farm-Feedlots, Economic Report ER77-1, Department of Agricultural
and Applied Economics, University of Minnesota, 1977.
Sutton, A. L., J. C. Nye, and D. H. Bache. Options for Managing Waste Within
the Building, Swine Housing Management Symposium, Des Moines, Iowa, 1976.
USDA Animal Waste Subcommittee. Implications of EPA Proposed Regulations of
November 20, 1975, for the Animal Feeding Industries. U. S. Department
of Agriculture, Washington, D.C., 1976, 40 pp.
U. S. Department of Agriculture. Agricultural Waste Management Field Manual.
Soil Conservation Service, USDA, 1975.
U. S. Department of Agriculture. Economic Impact of Controlling Surface
Water Runoff from Point Sources in U. S. Hog Production. Economic
Research Service, Agricultural Economic Report No. 263, 1974, 56 pp.
U. S. Department of Agriculture. Economic Impact of Controlling Surface
Water Runoff from Fed-Beef Production Facilities. Economic Research
Service, Agricultural Economic Report No. 292, 1975, 39 pp.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Economic Analysis of Proposed Efflu-
ent Guidelines, The Feedlots Industry, Small Scale Segments, EPA 230/2-
76-008A, Office of Planning and Evaluation, 1977.
172
-------
Van Arsdall, R. N., R. B. Smith, and T. A. Stucker. Economic Impact of Con-
trolling Surface Water Runoff from Point Sources in U. S. Hog Production
Agricultural Economics Report No. 263, Economic Research Service, USDA,
1974.
Watson, H. and R. E. Hermanson. Liquid Manure Handling Systems, Circular R-4
Cooperative Extension Service, Auburn University.
White, R. K. Ohio Livestock Waste Management Guide. Bulletin 604, Coopera-
tive Extension Service, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio.
173
-------
APPENDIX
The tables in this Appendix give the components for each of the livestock
waste systems analyzed. The assumptions for costing these units are given in
part in Table 1, p. 28. Unit costs can be determined for each component by
dividing the value under "Quantity" into the related value, in subsequent
columns. Production and losses of fertilizer nutrients are presented in the
respective chapters for each of the species.
The Appendix tables are organized as follows:
Dairy Systems
Beef Systems
Swine Systems
Sheep Systems
Poultry Systems
English to Metric Conversion
Glossary of Terms
A-l through A-59
B-l through B-45
C-l through C-70
D-l through D-35
E-l through E-35
Appendix F
Appendix G
174
-------
TABLE A-l. ECONOMIC DATA FOR DAIRY, CONFINED FREE STALL, TRACTOR SCRAPE,
DAILY SURFACE SPREAD, 50 ANIMAL UNITS3
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Trac scraper /loader
Concrete floor
Bx spdr/daily use
Nutrients
N
P205
K20
Total
Quantity
400 hrs
400 hrs
0 kw
1
55 ft2/an
1
124 Ib/an yr
76 Ib/an yr
149 Ib/an yr
Capital
Investment
($)
2,700
3,710
2,150
8,560
Annual
Cost
($/an yr)
28.00
39.06
0.00
10.01
8.41
13.29
98.77
Annual
Returns
($/an yr)
19.84
13.68
14.90
48.42
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
-28.00
-39.06
0.00
-10.01
- 8.41
-13.29
+19.84
+13.68
+14.90
-50.35
Regions: cool humid, cold humid, warm humid.
TABLE A-2. ECONOMIC DATA FOR DAIRY, CONFINED FREE STALL, TRACTOR SCRAPE,
DAILY SURFACE SPREAD, 100 ANIMAL UNITS*
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Trac scraper /loader
Concrete floor
Bx spdr/daily use
Nutrients
N
P205
R20
Total
Quantity
688 hrs
619 hrs
0 kw
1
55 ft2 /an
1
124 Ib/an yr
76 Ib/an yr
149 Ib/an yr
Capital
Investment
($)
2,700
7,420
3,800
13,920
Annual
Cost
($/an yr)
24.08
30.22
0.00
5.01
8.41
11.74
79.46
Annual
Returns
($/an yr)
19.84
13.68
14.90
48.42
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
-24.08
-30.22
0.00
- 5.01
- 8.41
-11.74
+19.84
+13.68
+14.90
-31.04
Regions: cool humid, cold humid, warm humid.
175
-------
TABLE A-3. ECONOMIC DATA FOR DAIRY, CONFINED FREE STALL, TRACTOR SCRAPE,
DAILY SURFACE SPREAD, 200 ANIMAL UNITSa
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Trac scraper/loader
Concrete floor
Bx spdr/no storage
Nutrients
N
P205
K20
Total
Quantity
1124 his
1012 hrs
0 kw
1
50 ft2 /an
1
124 Ib/an yr
76 Ib/an yr
149 Ib/an yr
Capital
Investment
(?)
4,100
13,500
4,800
22,400
Annual
Cost
($/an yr)
19.67
30.82
0.00
3.80
7.65
7.42
69.35
Annual
Returns
($/an yr)
19.84
13.68
14.90
48.42
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
-19.67
-30.82
0.00
- 3.80
- 7.65
- 7.42
+19.84
+13.68
+14.90
-20.93
Regions: cool humid, cold humid, warm humid.
TABLE A-4. ECONOMIC DATA FOR DAIRY, CONFINED FREE STALL, TRACTOR SCRAPE,
PLANK STORAGE, SURFACE SPREAD, 50 ANIMAL UNITS3
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Trac scraper/loader
Concrete floor
Storage/plank
Bx spdr/storage
Nutrients
N
P205
K20
Total
Quantity
400 hrs
400 hrs
0 kw
1
55 ft2/an
4x75x75 ft
1
143 Ib/an yr
76 Ib/an yr
149 Ib/an yr
Capital
Investment
($)
2,700
3,710
5,900
2,150
14,460
Annual
Cost
($/an yr)
28.00
39.06
0.00
10.01
8.41
20.66
8.86
115.00
Annual
Returns
($/an yr)
22.88
13.68
14.90
51.46
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
-28.00
-39.06
0.00
-10.01
- 8.41
-20.66
- 8.86
+22.88
+13.68
+14.90
-63.54
Regions: cool humid, cold humid, warm humid.
176
-------
TABLE A-5. ECONOMIC DATA FOR DAIRY,-CONFINED FREE STALL, TRACTOR SCRAPE,
PLANK STORAGE, SURFACE SPREAD, 100 ANIMAL UNITS3
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Trac scraper/loader
Concrete floor
Storage /plank
Bx spdr/s.torage
Nutrients
N
P2°5
K20
Total
Quantity
626 hrs
563 hrs
0 kw
1
55 ft2 /an
4x75x150 ft
1
143 Ib/an yr
76 Ib/an yr
149 Ib/an yr
Capital
Investment
($)
2,700
7,420
10,800
3,800
24,720
Annual
Cost
($/an yr)
21.91
27.49
0.00
5.01
8.41
18.91
7.83
89.55
Annual
Returns
($/an yr)
22.88
13.68
14.90
51.46
Annual Net
System P.eturn
($/an yr)
-21.91
-27.49
0.00
- 5.01
- 8.41
-18.91
- 7.83
+22.88
+13.68
+14.90
-38.09
Regions: cool humid, cold humid, warm humid.
TABLE A-6. ECONOMIC DATA FOR DAIRY, CONFINED FREE STALL, TRACTOR SCRAPE,
PLANK STORAGE, SURFACE SPREAD, 200 ANIMAL UNITS3
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Trac scraper /loader
Concrete floor
Storage /plank
Bx spdr/storage
Nutrients
N
P2°5
K20
Total
Quantity
995 hrs
896 hrs
0 kw
1,
50 ft2 /an
4x100x225 ft
1
143 Ib/an yr
76 Ib/an yr
149 Ib/an yr
Capital
Investment
($)
4,100
13,500
18,000
4,800
40,400
Annual
Cost
($/an yr)
17.41
27.28
0.00
3.80
7.65
15.76
4.94
76.85
Annual
Returns
($/an yr)
22.88
13.68
14.90
51.46
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
-17.41
-27.28
0.00
- 3.80
- 7.65
-15.76
- 4.94
+22.88
+13.68
+14.90
-25.39
Regions: cool humid, cold humid, warm humid.
177
-------
TABLE A-7. ECONOMIC DATA FOR DAIRY, .CONFINED FREE STALL TRACTOR SCRAPE,
PIT STORAGE, SURFACE SPREAD, 50 ANIMAL UNITSa
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Concrete floor
Trac scraper/cattle
Agitate /load pump
Concrete pit
Tank Wagon
Nutrients
N
P2o5
K20
Total
Quantity
407 hrs
366 hrs
0 kw
55 ft2 /an
1
1
1
116 Ib/an yr
76 Ib/an yr
149 Ib/an yr
Capital
Investment
($)
3,710
700
3,200
10,400
4,100
22,110
Annual
Cost
($/an yr)
28.49
40.74
0.00
8.42
2.60
19.12
23.57
19.67
142.59
Annual
Returns
($/an yr)
18.56
13.68
14.90
47.14
Annual Net
System Return
($/an vr)
-28.49
-40.74
0.00
- 8.42
- 2.60
-19.12
-23.57
-19.67
+18.56
+13.68
+14.90
-95.45
Regions: cool humid, cold humid, warm humid.
TABLE A-8. ECONOMIC DATA FOR DAIRY, CONFINED FREE STALL, TRACTOR SCRAPE,
PIT STORAGE, PLOWDOWN, 50 ANIMAL UNITS3
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Concrete floor
Trac scraper /cat tie
Agitate/ load pump
Concrete pit
Tank wagon
Nutrients
N
P205
K20
Total
Quantity
407 hrs
366 hrs
0 kw
55 ft3/an
1
1 ,
22,500 ft"5
1
149 Ib/an yr
80 Ib/an yr
158 Ib/an yr
Capital
Investment
($)
3,710
700
3,200
10,400
4,100
22,110
Annual
Cost
($/an yr)
28.49
40.74
0.00
8.42
2.60
19.12
23.57
19.67
142.59
Annual
Returns
($/an yr)
23.84
14.40
15.80
54.04
Annual Net
System Return
($/an vr)
-28.49
-40.74
0.00
- 8.42
- 2.60
-19.12
-23.57
-19.67
+23. 84
+14.40
+15.80
-88.55
Regions: cool humid, cold humid, warm humid.
178
-------
TABLE A-9. ECONOMIC DATA FOR DAIRY, CONFINED FREE STALL, TRACTOR SCRAPE,
PIT STORAGE, SURFACE SPREAD, 300 ANIMAL UNITS3
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Concrete floor
Trac scraper/cattle
Agitate/load pump
Concrete pit
Tank wagon
Nutrients
N
P2°5
K20
Total
Quantity
626 hrs
563 hrs
0 kw
55 ft2/an
1
1
45,000 ft3
1
116 Ib/an yr
76 Da/an yr
149 li/an yr
Capital
Investment
($)
7,420.00
700.00
3,200.00
20,800.00
5,400.00
37,52.0.00
Annual
Cost
($/an yr)
21.91
41.97
0.00
8.41
1.44
9.89
23.57
12.95
120.14
Annual
Returns
($/an yr)
18.56
13.68
14.90
47.14
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
-21.91
-41.97
0.00
- 8.41
- 1.44
- 9.89
-23.57
-12.95
-1-18.56
+13.68
•1-14.90
-73.00
aRegions: cool humid, cold humid, warm humid.
TABLE A-10. ECONOMIC DATA FOR DAIRY, CONFINED FREE STALL, TRACTOR SCRAPE,
PIT STORAGE, PLOWDOWN, 100 ANIMAL UNITSa
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Concrete floor
Trac scraper/cattle
Agitate load pump
Concrete pit
Tank wagon
Nutrients
N
P2°5
* *r
X20
Total
Quantity
626 hrs
563 hrs
0 kw
55 ft /an
1
1
45,000 ft3
1
149 Ib/an yr
80 li>/an yr
158 lb/an yr
Caoi tal
Investment
(S)
7,420.00
700.00
3,200.00
20,800.00
5,400.00
37,520.00
Annual
Cost
(Van yr)
21.91
41.97
0.00
8.41
1.44
9.89
23.57
12.95
120.14
Annual
Returns
($/an yr)
23.84
14.40
15.90
54.04
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
-21.91
-41.97
0.00
- 8.41
- 1.44
- 9.89
-23.57
-12.95
+23.84
+14.40
+15.80
-66.10
aRegions: cool humid, cold humid, warm humid.
179
-------
TABLE A-11. ECONOMIC DATA FOR DAIRY, CONFINED FREE STALL, TRACTOR SCRAPE,
PIT STORAGE, SURFACE SPREAD, 200 ANIMAL UNITS3
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Concrete floor
Trac scraper/cattle
Agitate/load pump
Concrete pit
Tank wagon
Nutrients
N
P205
K20
Total
Quantity
939 hrs
809 hrs
0 kw
55 ft2/an
1
1
90,000 ft3
1
116 Ib/an yr
76 Ib/an yr
149 Ib/an yr
Capital
Investment
(?)
14,840
700
3,200
41,600
5,400
65,740
Annual
Cost
($/an yr)
16.43
30.16
0.00
8.41
0.72
4.94
23.57
6.48
90.70
Annual
Returns
($/an yr)
18.56
13.68
14.90
47.14
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
-16.43
-30.16
0.00
- 8.41
- 0.72
- 4.94
-23.57
- 6.48
+18.56
+13.68
+14.90
-43.56
Regions: cool humid, cold humid, warm humid.
TABLE A-12. ECONOMIC DATA FOR DAIRY, CONFINED FREE STALL, TRACTOR SCRAPE,
PIT STORAGE, PLOWDOWN, 200 ANIMAL UNITS3
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Concrete floor
Trac scraper /cat tie
Agitate/load pump
Concrete pit
Tank wagon
Nutrients
N
P2o5
K20
Total
Quantity
939 hrs
809 hrs
0 kw
55 ft2 /an
1
1
90,000 ft3
1
149 Ib/an yr
80 Ib/an yr
158 Ib/an yr
Capital
Investment
($)
14,840
700
3,200
41,600
5,400
65,740
Annual
Cost
($/an yr)
16.43
30.16
0.00
8.41
0.72
4.94
23.57
6.48
90.70
Annual
Returns
($/an yr)
23.84
14.40
15.80
54.04
Annual Net
System Return
($/an vr)
-16.43
-30.16
0.00
- 8.41
- 0..72
- 4.94
-23.57
- 6.48
+23.84
+14.40
+15.80
-36.66
Regions: cool humid, cold humid, warm humid.
180
-------
TABLE A-13. ECONOMIC DATA FOR DAIRY, CONFINED FREE STALL, SLOTTED FLOOR,
PIT STORAGE, SURFACE SPREAD, 100 ANIMAL UNITS3
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Agitate/load pump
Concrete slats
Concrete pit
Pit ventilation
Tank wagon
Nutrients
N
P205
K20
Total
Quantity
396 hrs
355 hrs
5,000 kw
1
1,450 ft2
33,000 ft3
1
1
116 Ib/an yr
76 Ib/an yr
149 Ib/an yr
Capital
Investment
($)
3,200
3,200
47,200
550
5,400
59,550
Annual
Cost
($/an yr)
13.86
26.47
2.77
9.89
5.27
53.48
1.70
12.95
126.40
Annual
Returns
($/an yr)
18.56
13.68
14.90
47.14
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
-13.86
-26.47
- 2.77
- 9.89
- 5.27
-53.48
- 1.70
-12.95
+18.56
+13.68
+14.90
-79.26
Region: cool humid, cold humid, warm humid.
TABLE A-14. ECONOMIC DATA FOR DAIRY, CONFINED FREE STALL, SLOTTED FLOOR,
PIT STORAGE, PLOWDOWN, 100 ANIMAL UNITS3
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Agitate /load pump
Concrete slats
Concrete pit
Pit ventilation
Tank wagon
Nutrients
N
P2o5
1^0
Total
Quantity
396 hrs
355 hrs
5,000 kw
1
1,450 ft2
33,000 ft3
1
1
149 Ib/an yr
80 Ib/an yr
158 Ib/an yr
Capital
Investment
($)
3,200
3,200
47,200
550
5,400
59,550
Annual
Cost
($/an yr)
13.86
26.47
2.77
9.89
5.27
53.48
1.70
12.95
126.40
Annual
Returns
($/an yr)
23.84
14.40
15.80
54.04
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
-13.86
-26.47
- 2.77
- 9.89
- 5.27
-53.48
- 1.70
-12.95
+23.84
+14.40
+15.80
-72.36
Region: cool humid, cold humid, warm humid.
181
-------
TABLE A-15. ECONOMIC DATA FOR DAIRY, CONFINED FREE STALL, MECHANICAL SCRAPE,
PISTON PUMP, EARTHEN STORAGE, SURFACE SPREAD, 50 ANIMAL UNITS3
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Alleyway scraper
Piston pump/hollow
Agitate /load pump
Storage basin
Concrete floor
Tank wagon
Nutrients
N
P205
KZ20
Total
Regions: cool humid,
Quantity
268 hrs
288 hrs
300 kw
1
1
1
37,000 ft3
55 ft2 /an
1
116 Ib/an yr
76 Ib/an yr
149 Ib/an yr
cold humid,
Capital
Investment
($)
4,470
3,000
3,200
5,100
3,710
4,100
23,580
warm humid.
Annual
Cost
($/an yr)
18.76
49.90
0.33
22.37
14.39
19.78
12.61
8.41
19.67
166.20
Annual
Returns
($/an yr)
18.56
13.68
14.90
47.14
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
-18.76
-49.90
- 0.33
-22.37
-14.39
-19.78
-12.61
- 8.41
-19.67
+18.56
+13.68
+14.90
-119.06
TABLE A-16. ECONOMIC DATA FOR DAIRY CONFINED FREE STALL, MECHANICAL SCRAPE,
PISTON PUMP, EARTHEN STORAGE, PLOWDOWN, 50 ANIMAL UNITS3
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Alleyway scraper
Piston pump/hollow
Agitate/load pump
Storage basin
Concrete floor
Tank wagon
Nutrients
N
P205
K20
Total
Quantity
268 hrs
288 hrs
300 kw
1
1
1
37,000 ft3
55 ft2 /an
1
149 Ib/an yr
80 Ib/an yr
158 Ib/an yr
Capital
Investment
($)
4,470
3,000
3,200
5,100
3,710
4,100
23,580
Annual
Cost
($/an yr)
18.76
49.90
0.33
22.36
14.39
19.78
12.61
8.41
19.67
166.19
Annual
Returns
($/an yr)
23.84
14.40
15.80
54.04
Annual Net
System Return
($/an vr)
-18.76
-49.90
- 0.33
-22.36
-14.39
-19.78
-12.61
- 8.41
-19.67
+23.84
+14.40
+15.80
-112.15
Regions: cool humid, cold humid, warm humid.
182
-------
TABLE A-17. ECONOMIC DATA FOR DAIRY CONFINED FREE STALL, MECHANICAL SCRAPE,
PISTON PUMP, EARTHEN STORAGE, SURFACE SPREAD, 100 ANIMAL UNITS3
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Alleyway scraper
Piston pump/hollow
Agitate/load pump
Storage basin
Concrete floor
tank wagon
Nutrients
N
P2o5
K20
Total
Quantity
408 hrs
445 hrs
600 kw
1
1
1
73,000 ft3
55 ft2/an
1
116 Ib/an yr
76 Ib/an yr
149 Ib/an yr
Capital
Investment
($)
4,970
3,800
3,200
9,100
7,420
5,400
33,890
Annual
Cost
($/an yr)
14.28
38.55
0.33
11.92
8.37
9.89
8.36
6.11
11.75
109.56
Annual
Returns
($/an yr)
18.56
13.68
14.90
47.14
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
-14.28
-38.55
- 0.33
-11.92
- 8.37
- 9.89
- 8.36
- 6.11
-11.75
+18.56
+13.68
+14.90
-62.42
Regions: cool humid, cold humid, warm humid.
TABLE A-18. ECONOMIC DATA FOR DAIRY, CONFINED FREE STALL, MECHANICAL SCRAPE,
PISTON PUMP, EARTHEN STORAGE, PLOWDOWN, 100 ANIMAL UNITS3
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Alleyway scraper
Piston pump/hollow
Agitate/load pump
Storage basin
Concrete floor
Tank wagon
Nutrients
N
P205
Total
a Regions: cool humid
Quantity
408 hrs
445 hrs
600 kw
1
1
1
73,000 ft3
55 ft2/an
1
149 Ib/an yr
80 Ib/an yr
158 Ib/an yr
, cold humid,
Capital
Investment
($)
4,970
3,800
3,200
9,100
7,420
5,400
33,890
warm humid.
Annual
Cost
($/an yr)
14.28
38.55
0.33
11.92
8.37
9.89
8.36
6.11
11.75
109.56
Annual
Returns
($/an yr)
23.84
14.40
15.80
54.04
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
-14.28
-38.55
- 0.33
-11.92
- 8.37
- 9.89
- 8.36
- 6.11
-11.75
+23.84
+14.40
+15.80
-55.52
183
-------
TABLE A-19. ECONOMIC DATA FOR DAIRY, CONFINED FREE STALL, MECHANICAL SCRAPE,
PISTON PUMP, EARTHEN STORAGE, SURFACE SPREAD, 200 ANIMAL UNITS3
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Alleyway scraper
Piston pump/hollow
Agitate/load pump
Storage basin
Concrete floor
Tank wagon
Nutrients
N
P2°5
K20
Total
Quantity
650 hrs
740 hrs
900 kw
1
1
1
146,000 ft3
55 ft2/an
1
116 Ib/an yr
76 Ib/an yr
149 Ib/an yr
Capital
Investment
($)
6,050
3,800
3,200
16,600
14,840
7,000
51,490
Annual
Cost
($/an yr)
11.38
27.58
0.25
7.57
4.56
4.94
10.26
8.41
8.39
83.34
Annual
Returns
($/an yr)
18.56
13.68
14.90
47.14
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
-11.38
-27.58
- 0.25
- 7.57
- 4.56
- 4.94
-10.26
- 8.41
- 8.39
+18.56
+13.68
+14.90
-36.20
Regions: cool humid, cold humid, warm humid.
TABLE A-20. ECONOMIC DATA FOR DAIRY, CONFINED FREE STALL, MECHANICAL SCRAPE,
PISTON PUMP, EARTHEN STORAGE, PLOWDOWN, 200 ANIMAL UNITS3
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Alleyway scraper
Piston pump/hollow
Agitate/load pump
Storage basin
Concrete floor
Tank wagon
Nutrients
N
P205
K20
Total
Quantity
650 hrs
740 hrs
900 kw
1
1
1
146,000 ft3
55 ft2/an
1
149 Ib/an yr
80 Ib/an yr
158 Ib/an yr
Capital
Investment
($)
6,050
3,800
3,200
16,600
14,480
7,000
51,130
Annual
Cost
($/an yr)
11.38
27.58
0.25
7.57
4.56
4.94
10.26
8.27
8.39
83.21
Annual
Returns
($/an yr)
23.84
14.40
15.80
54.04
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
-11.38
-27.58
- 0.25
- 7.57
- 4.56
- 4.94
-10.26
- 8.27
- 8.39
+23.84
+14.40
+15.80
-29.17
Regions: cool humid, cold humid, warm humid.
184
-------
TABLE A-21. ECONOMIC DATA FOR DAIRY, CONFINED FREE STALL, MECHANICAL SCRAPE,
PISTON PUMP, SILO STORAGE, SURFACE SPREAD, 100 ANIMAL UNITS3
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Alleyway scraper
Piston pump /hollow
Agitate/load pump
Above ground tank
Concrete floor
Tank wagon
Nutrients
N
P205
K20
Total
3 Regions: cool humid,
Quantity
408 hrs
345 hrs
600 kw
1
1
1
18,000 ft3
55 ft2/an
1
116 Ib/an yr
76 Ib/an yr
149 Ib/an yr
cold humid
Capital
Investment
($)
4,970
3,800
3,200
16,500
7,420
5,400
41,290
warm humid.
Annual
Cost
($/an yr)
14.28
25.72
0.33
12.43
9.11
9.89
18.69
8.41
12.95
111.82
Annual
Returns
($/an yr)
18.56
13.68
14.90
47.14
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
-14.28
-25.72
- 0.33
-12.43
- 9.11
- 9.89
-18.69
- 8.41
-12.95
+18.56
+13.68
+14.90
-64.68
TABLE A-22. ECONOMIC DATA FOR DAIRY, CONFINED FREE STALL, MECHANICAL SCRAPE,
PISTON PUMP, SILO STORAGE, PLOWDOWN, 100 ANIMAL UNITS3
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Alleyway scraper
Piston pump /hollow
Agitate/load pump
Above ground tank
Concrete floor
Tank wagon
Nutrients
N
P205
K20
Total
Quantity
408 hrs
345 hrs
600 kw
1
1
1
18,000 ft3
55 ft2/an
1
149 Ib/an yr
80 Ib/an yr
158 Ib/an yr
Capital
Investment
($)
4,970
3,800
3,200
16,500
7,420
5,400
41,290
Annual
Cost
($/an yr)
14.28
25.72
0.33
12.43
9.11
9.89
18.69
8.41
12.95
111.82
Annual
Returns
($/an yr)
23.84
14.40
15.80
54.04
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
-14.28
-25.72
- 0.33
-12.43
- 9.11
- 9.89
-18.69
- 8.41
-12.95
+23.84
+14.40
+15.80
-57.78
Regions: cool humid, cold humid, warm humid.
185
-------
TABLE A-23. ECONOMIC DATA FOR DAIRY, CONFINED FREE STALL, MECHANICAL SCRAPE,
PIT STORAGE, SURFACE SPREAD, 100 ANIMAL UNITS3
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Alleyway scraper
Concrete floor
Agitate/load pump
Concrete pit
Pit ventilation
Tank wagon
Nutrients
N
P2°5
K20
Total
Quantity
408 hrs
345 hrs
32,000 kw
1
55 ft2 /an
1
33,000 ft3
1
1
116 Ib/an yr
76 Ib/an yr
149 Ib/an yr
Capital
Investment
($)
4,970
7.420
3,200
47,200
550
5,400
68,740
Annual
Cost
($/an yr)
14.28
25.72
17.76
12.43
8.41
9.89
53.48
1.70
12.95
156.62
Annual
Returns
($/an yr)
18.56
13.68
14.90
47.14
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
-14.28
-25.72
-17.76
-12.43
- 8.41
- 9.89
-53.48
- 1.70
-12.95
+18.56
+13.68
+14.90
-109.48
Regions: cool humid, cold humid, warm humid.
TABLE A-24. ECONOMIC DATA FOR DAIRY, CONFINED FREE STALL, MECHANICAL SCRAPE,
PIT STORAGE, PLOWDOWN, 100 ANIMAL UNITS3
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Alleyway scraper
Concrete floor
Agitate/load pump
Concrete pit
Pit ventilacion
Tank wagon
Nutrients
N
P205
K20
Total
Quantity
408 hrs
345 hrs
32,000 kw
1
55 ft2 /an
1
33,000 ft3
1
1
149 Ib/an yr
80 Ib/an yr
158 Ib/an yr
Capital
Investment
($)
4,970
7,420
3,200
47,200
550
5,400
68,740
Annual
Cost
($/an yr)
14.28
25.72
17.76
12.43
8.41
9.89
53.48
1.70
12.95
156.62
Annual
Returns
($/an yr)
23.84
14.40
15.80
54.04
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
-14.28
-25.72
-17.76
-12.43
- 8.41
- 9.89
-53.48
- 1.70
-12.95
+23.84
+14.40
+15.80
-102.58
Regions: cool humid, cold humid, warm humid.
186
-------
TABLE A-25. ECONOMIC DATA FOR DAIRY, CONFINEMENT STALL, GUTTER CLEANER,
DAILY SPREAD, 50 ANIMAL UNITS3
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Concret floor/gutter
Gutter cleaner
Box spdr/daily use
Nutrients
N
P205
K20
Total
Quantity
275 hrs
248 hrs
240 kw
1
1
1
124 Ib/an yr
76 Ib/an yr
149 Ib/an yr
Capital
Investment
(?)
5,625
3,520
2,150
11,295
Annual
Cost
($/an yr)
19.25
27.60
0.27
12.75
14.50 •
13.29
87.65
Annual
Returns
($/an yr)
19.84
13.68
14.90
48.42
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
-19.25
-27.60
- 0.27
-12.75
-14.50
-13.29
+19.84
+13.68
+14.90
-39.23
Regions: cool humid, cold humid.
TABLE A-26. ECONOMIC DATA FOR DAIRY, CONFINEMENT STALL, GUTTER CLEANER,
DAILY SPREAD, 100 ANIMAL UNITS3
' Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Concret floor/gutter
Gutter cleaner
Box spdr/daily use
Nutrients
N
P2°5
K20
Total
Quantity
477 hrs
365 hrs
410 kw
1
1
1
124 Ib/an yr
76 Ib/an yr
149 Ib/an yr
Capital
Investment
($)
11,250
5,500
3,800
20,550
Annual
Cost
($/an yr)
16.69
29.13
0.23
12.75
11.33
11.74
81.87
Annual
Returns
($/an yr)
19.84
13.68
14.90
48.42
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
-16.69
-29.13
- 0.23
-12.75
-11.33
-11.74
+19.84
+13.68
+14.90
-33.45
Regions: cool humid, cold humid.
187
-------
TABLE A-27. ECONOMIC DATA FOR DAIRY, CONFINEMENT STALL, GUTTER CLEANER,
PISTON PUMP, CONCRETE STORAGE, SURFACE SPREAD, 50 ANIMAL UNITSa
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Concret floor/gutter
Gutter cleaner
Covered concret stor
Piston pump/solid hd
Bx spdr/periodic use
Nutrients
N
P205
K20
Total
Quantity
228 hrs
207 hrs
1180 kw
1
1
18,000 ft3
1
I
143 Ib/an yr
76 Ib/an yr
141 Ib/an yr
Capital
Investment
($)
5,625
3,520
12,400
9,600
2,150
27,155
Annual
Cost
($/an yr)
15.96
23.04
1.31
12.75
14.50
28.10
38.40
8.86
142.92
Annual
Returns
($/an yr)
22.88
13.68
14.10
50.66
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
-15.96
-23.04
- 1.31
-12 . 75
-14.50
-28.10
-38.40
- 8.86
+22.88
+13.68
+14.10
-92.26
Regions: cool humid, cold humid.
TABLE A-28. ECONOMIC DATA FOR DAIRY, CONFINEMENT STALL, GUTTER CLEANER, PISTON
PUMP, CONCRETE STORAGE, PLOWDOWN, 50 ANIMAL UNITS3
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Concret floor/gutter
Gutter cleaner
Piston pump/solid hd
Covered concret /star
Bx spdr/periodic use
Nutrients
N
P205
K20
Total
Quantity
228 hrs
207 hrs
1180 kw
1
1
1
18,000 ft3
1
179 Ib/an yr
76 Ib/an yr
149 Ib/an yr
Capital
Investment
($)
5,625
3,520
9,600
12,400
2,150
27,155
Annual
Cost
($/an yr)
15.96
23.04
1.31
12.75
14.50
38.40
28.10
8.86
142.92
Annual
Returns
($/an yr)
28.64
13.68
14.90
57.22
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
-15.96
-23.04
- 1.31
-12.75
-14.50
-38.40
-28.10
- 8.86
+28.64
+13.68
+14.90
-85.70
Regions: cool humid, cold humid.
188
-------
TABLE A-29. ECONOMIC DATA FOR DAIRY, CONFINEMENT STALL, SOLID HANDLING,
GUTTER CLEANER, PISTON PUMP, CONCRETE STORAGE, SURFACE
SPREADING, 100 ANIMAL UNITSa
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Gutter cleaner
Piston pump/solid hd
Covered concret stor
Concret floor /gutter
Bx spdr/periodic use
Nutrients
N
P205
K20
Total
Quantity
329 hrs
105 hrs
1760 kw
1
1
36,000 ft3
1
1
143 Ib/an yr
76 Ib/an yr
141 Ib/an yr
Capital
Investment
($)
5,500
9,600
22,500
11,250
3,800
52,650
Annual
Cost
($/an yr)
11.51
6.95
0.98
11.33
19.20
25.49
12.75
7.83
96.04
Annual
Returns
($/an yr)
22.88
13.68
14.10
50.66
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
-11.51
- 6.95
- 0.98
-11.33
-19.20
-25.49
-12.75
- 7.83
+22.88
+13.68
+14.10
-45.38
Regions: cool humid, cold humid.
TABLE A-30. ECONOMIC DATA FOR DAIRY, CONFINEMENT STALL, GUTTER CLEANER,
PISTON PUMP, CONCRETE STORAGE, PLOWDOWN, 100 ANIMAL UNITS3
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Gutter cleaner
Piston pump/solid hd
Covered cor.cret stor
Concret floor/gutter
Bx spdr/periodic use
Nutrients
N
P2°5
K20
Total
Quantity
329 hrs
105 hrs
1760 kw
1
1
36,000 ft3
1
1
179 Ib/an yr
76 Ib/an yr
1A9 Ib/an yr
Capital
Investment
($)
5,500
9,600
22,500
11,250
3,800
52,650
Annual
Cost
($/an yr)
11.51
6.95
0.98
11.33
19.20
25. A9
12.75
7.83
96.04
Annual
Returns
(S/an vr)
28. 64
13.68
14.90
57.22
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
-11.51
- 6.95
- 0.98
-11.33
-19.20
-25.49
-12.75
- 7.83
+28.64
+13.68
+14.90
-38.82
Regions: cool humid, cold humid.
189
-------
TABLE A-31. ECONOMIC DATA FOR DAIRY, CONFINEMENT STALL, GUTTER CLEANER,
STACKER, PLANK STORAGE, SURFACE SPREAD, 50 ANIMAL UNITS3
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Cone ret floor/gutter
Gutter cleaner
Stacker
Storage/plank
Bx spdr/periodic use
Nutrients
N
P205
K20
Total
Regions: cool humid
Quantity
228 hrs
207 hrs
480 kw
1
1
1
4x75x75 ft
1
143 Ib/an yr
76 Ib/an yr
141 Ib/an yr
, cold humid.
Capital
Investment
($)
5,625
3,520
3,460
6,920
2,150
21,675
Annual
Cost
($/an yr)
15.96
23.04
0.53
12.75
14.50
14.26
24.23
8.86
114.13
Annual
Returns
($/an yr)
22.88
13.68
14.90
51.46
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
-15.96
-23.04
- 0.53
-12.75
-14.50
-14.26
-24.23
- 8.86
+22.88
+13.68
+14.90
-62.67
TABLE A-32. ECONOMIC DATA FOR DAIRY, CONFINEMENT STALL, GUTTER CLEANER,
STACKER, PLANK STORAGE, PLOWDOWN, 50 ANIMAL UNITS3
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Concret floor/gutter
Gutter cleaner
Stacker
Storage /plank
Bx spdr/periodic use
Nutrients
N
P205
K20
Total
Quantity
228 hrs
207 hrs
480 kw
1
1
1
4x75x75 ft
1
170 Ib/an yr
76 Ib/an yr
141 Ib/an yr
Capital
Investment
($)
5,625
3,520
3,460
6,920
2,150
21,675
Annual
Cost
($/an yr)
15.96
23.04
0.53
12.75
14.50
14.26
24.23
8.86
114.13
Annual
Returns
($/an yr)
27.20
13.68
14.10
54.98
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
-15.96
-23.04
- 0.53
-12.75
-14.50
-14.26
-24.23
- 8.86
+27.20
+13.68
+14.10
-59.15
Regions: cool humid, cold humid.
190
-------
TABLE A-33. ECONOMIC DATA FOR DAIRY, CONFINEMENT STALL, GUTTER CLEANER,
STACKER, PLANK STORAGE, SURFACE SPREAD, 100 ANIMAL UNITS3
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Concret floor/gutter
Gutter cleaner
Stacker
Storage/plank
Bx spdr/periodic use
Nutrients
N
^2^5
K20
Total
Quantity
417 hrs
378 hrs
1200 kw
1
1
1
1
1
143 Ib/an yr
76 Ib/an yr
141 Ib/an yr
Capital
Investment
($)
11,250
5,500
4,640
10,800
4,600
36,790
Annual
Cost
($/an yr)
14.59
21.04
0.67
12.75
11.33
9.56
18.91
9.48
98.32
Annual
Returns
($/an yr)
22.88
13.68
14.10
50.66
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
-14.59
-21.04
- 0.67
-12.75
-11.33
- 9.56
-18.91
- 9.48
+22.88
+13.68
+14/10
-47.66
Regions: cool humid, cold humid.
TABLE A-34. ECONOMIC DATA FOR DAIRY, CONFINEMENT STALL, GUTTER CLEANER,
STACKER, PLANK STORAGE, PLOWDOWN, 100 ANIMAL UNITS8
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Concret floor/gutter
Gutter cleaner
Stacker
Storage/plank
Bx spdr/periodic use
Nutrients
N
?205
K20
Total
Quantity
417 hrs
378 hrs
1200 kw
1
1
1
1
1
170 Ib/an yr
76 Ib/an yr
141 Ib/an yr
Capital
Investment
($)
11,250
5,500
4,640
10,800
4,600
36,790
Annual
Cost
($/an yr)
14.59
21.04
0.67
12.75
11.33
9.56
18.91
9.48
98.32
Annual
Returns
($/an yr)
27.20
13.68
14.10
54.98
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
-14.59
-21.04
- 0.67
-12.75
-11.33
- 9.56
-18.91
- 9.48
+27.20
+13.68
+14.10
-43.34
Regions: cool humid, cold humid.
191
-------
TABLE A-35. ECONOMIC DATA FOR DAIRY, FREE STALL, OPEN LOT, TRACTOR SCRAPE,
DAILY SURFACE SPREAD, 50 ANIMAL UNITS3
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Trac scraper/loader
Concrete lot
Bx spdr/daily use
Nutrients
N
P2°5
K20
Total
Quantity
314 hrs
314 hrs
0 kw
1
85 ft2 /an
1
124 Ib/an yr
76 Ib/an yr
149 Ib/an yr
Capital
Investment
($)
2,700
4,050
2,150
8/900
Annual
Cost
($/an yr)
21.98
26.38
0.00
10.01
9.18
13.29
80.83
Annual
Returns
($/an yr)
19.84
13.68
14.90
48.42
Annual Net
System Return
($/an vr)
-21.98
-26.38
0.00
-10.01
- 9.18
-13.29
+19.84
+13.68
+14.90
-32.41
Regions: cool humid, warm humid, hot humid.
TABLE A-36. ECONOMIC DATA FOR DAIRY, FREE STALL, OPEN LOT, TRACTOR SCRAPE,
DAILY SURFACE SPREAD, DIVERSION, SETTLING BASIN, GRASS
INFILTRATION AREA, 50 ANIMAL UNITS3
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Trac scraper/loader
Concrete lot
Bx spdr/daily use
Diversion Terrace
Settlg basin/concret
Infiltration area
Nutrients
N
P205
K20
Total
Quantity
318 hrs
316 hrs
0 kw
1
85 ft2 /an
1
200 ft
200 ft2
10x120 ft
124 Ib/an yr
76 Ib/an yr
149 Ib/an yr
Capital
Investment
($)
2,700
4,050
2,150
50
270
96
9,330
Annual
Cost
($/an yr)
22.26
26.54
0.00
10.01
9.18
13.29
0.17
1.06
0.23
82.73
Annual
Returns
($/an yr)
19.84
13.68
14.90
48.42
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
-22.26
-26.54
0.00
-10.01
- 9.18
-13.29
- 0.17
- 1.06
- 0.23
+19.84
+13.68
+14.90
-34.31
Regions: coo] humid, wsrm humid, hot humid.
192
-------
TABLE A-37. ECONOMIC DATA FOR DAIRY, FREE STALL, OPEN LOT, TRACTOR SCRAPE,
DAILY SURFACE SPREAD, DIVERSION, SETTLING BASIN, DETENTION BASIN,
WASTE WATER IRRIGATION, 50 ANIMAL UNITS3
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Trac scraper/loader
Concrete lot
Bx spdr/daily use
Diversion Terrace
Settlg basin/earth
Detention basin
Wastewater irrig/RO
Nutrients
N
P2°5
K20
Total
3 Regions : cool humid
Quantity
332 hrs
315 hrs
400 kw
1
85 ft2 /an
1
200 ft
200 ft2
5400 ft3
1
124 Ib/an yr
76 Ib/an yr
149 Ib/an yr
, warm humid,
Capital
Investment
($)
2,700
4,050
2,150
50
270
325
1,475
11,020
hot humid.
Annual
Cost
($/an yr)
23.24
26-46
0.44
10.01
9.18
13.29
0.17
1.06
1.18
9.36
94.38
Annual
Returns
($/an vr)
19.84
13.68
14.90
48.42
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
-23.24
-26.46
- 0.44
-10.01
- 9.18
-13.29
- 0.17
- 1.06
- 1.18
- 9.36
+19 . 84
+13.68
+14.90
-45.96
TABLE A-38. ECONOMIC DATA FOR DAIRY, FREE STALL, OPEN LOT, TRACTOR SCRAPE,
DAILY SURFACE SPREAD, 100 ANIMAL UNITS3
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Trac scraper/loader
Concrete lot
Bx spdr/daily use
Nutrients
N
P205
K20
Total
Quantity
507 hrs
507 hrs
0 kw
1 ,
85 ft Van
1
124 Ib/an yr
76 Ib/an yr
149 Ib/an yr
Capital
Investment
($)
2,700
8,100
3,800
14,600
Annual
Cost
($/an yr)
17.74
24.75
0.00
5.01
9.18
11.74
68.42
Annual
Returns
($/an yr)
19.84
13.68
14.90
48.42
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
-17.74
-24.75
0.00
- 5.01
- 9.18
-11.74
+19.84
+13.68
+14.90
-20.00
Regions: cool humid, warm humid, hot humid.
193
-------
TABLE A-39. ECONOMIC DATA FOR DAIRY, FREE STALL, OPEN LOT, TRACTOR SCRAPE,
DAILY SURFACE SPREAD, DIVERSION, SETTLING BASIN, GRASS INFILTRA-
TION AREA, 100 ANIMAL UNITSa
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Trac scraper/loader
Concrete lot
Bx spdr/daily use
Diversion terrace
Settlg basin/concret
Infiltration area
Nutrients
N
P2°5
KjCT
Total
Quantity
512 hrs
510 hrs
0 kw
1
85 ft2 /an
1
300 ft
360 ft2
10x140 ft
124 Ib/an yr
76 Ib/an yr
149 Ib/an yr
Capital
Investment
($)
2,700
8,100
3,800
75
487
110
15,272
Annual
Cost
($/an yr)
17.92
24.90
0.00
5.01
9.18
11.74
0.12
0.96
0.20
70.03
Annual
Returns
($/an yr)
19.84
13.68
14.90
48.42
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
-17.92
-24.90
0.00
- 5.01
- 9.18
-11.74
- 0.12
- 0.96
- 0.20
+19.84
+13.68
+14.90
-21.61
Regions: cool humid, warm humid, hot humid.
TABLE A-40. ECONOMIC DATA FOR DAIRY, FREE STALL, OPEN LOT, TRACTOR SCRAPE,
DAILY SURFACE SPREAD, DIVERSION, SETTLING BASIN, DETENTION BASIN,
WASTE WATER IRRIGATION, 100 ANIMAL UNITS3
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Trac scraper/loader
Concrete lot
Bx spdr/daily use
Diversion terrace
Settlg basin/concret
Detention basin
Wastewatcr irrig/RO
Nutrients
N
P205
Total
Quantity
525 hrs
508 hrs
800 kw
1
85 ft2/an
1
300 ft
360 ft2
10,000 ft3
1
124 Ib/an yr
76 Ib/an yr
149 Ib/an yr
Capital
Investment
($)
2,700
8,100
3,800
75
487
607
1,554
17,323
Annual
Cost
($/an yr)
18.38
24.80
0.44
5.01
9.18
11.74
0.12
0.96
1.10
4.93
76.66
Annual
Returns
($/an yr)
19.84
13.68
14.90
48.42
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
-18.38
-24.80
- 0.44
- 5.01
- 9.18
-11.74
- 0.12
- 0.96
- 1.10
- 4.93
+19.84
+13.68
+14.90
-28.24
Regions: cool humid, warm humid, hot humid.
194
-------
TABLE A-41. ECONOMIC DATA FOR DAIRY, FREE STALL, OPEN LOT, TRACTOR SCRAPE,
DAILY SURFACE SPREAD, 200 ANIMAL UNITS3
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Trac scraper/loader
Concrete lot
Bx spdr/daily use
Nutrients
N
P205
K20
Total
a Regions: cool humid
Quantity
667 hrs
667 hrs
0 kw
1
85 ft2 /an
1
124 Ib/an yr
76 Ib/an yr
149 Ib/an yr
, warm humid,
Capital
Investment
($)
2,700
16,200
4,800
23,700
hot humid.
Annual
Cost
($/an yr)
11.67
18.31
0.00
2.50
9.18
7.42
49.08
Annual
Returns
($/an yr)
19.84
13.68
14.90
48.42
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
-11.67
-18.31
0.00
- 2.50
- 9.18
- 7.42
+19.84
+13.68
+14.90
- 0.66
TABLE A-42. ECONOMIC DATA FOR DAIRY, FREE STALL, OPEN LOT, TRACTOR SCRAPE,
DAILY SURFACE SPREAD, DIVERSION, SETTLING BASIN, GRASS INFILTRA-
TION AREA, 200 ANIMAL UNITS3
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Trac scraper/loader
Concrete lot
Bx spdr/daily use
Diversion terrace
Settle basin/concret
Infiltration area
Nutrients
N
P205
K20
Total
Quantity
673 hrs
669 hrs
0 kw
1
85 ft2 /an
1
400 ft
850 ft2
8x200 ft
124 Ib/an yr
76 Ib/an yr
149 Ib/an yr
Capital
Investment
($)
2,700
16,200
4,800
100
1,670
128
25,598
Annual
Cost
($/an yr)
11.78
18.37
0.00
2.50
9.18
7.42
0.09
1.64
0.12
51.09
Annual
Returns
($/an yr)
19.84
13.68
14.90
48.42
Annual Net
System Return
($/an vr)
-11.78
-18.37
0.00
- 2.50
- 9.18
- 7.42
- 0.09
- 1.64
- 0.12
+19.84
+13.68
+14 . 90
- 2.67
Regions: cool humid, warm humid, hot hucdd.
195
-------
TABLE A-43. ECONOMIC DATA FOR DAIRY, FREE STALL, OPEN LOT, TRACTOR SCRAPE,
DAILY SURFACE SPREAD, DIVERSION, SETTLING BASIN, DETENTION BASIN,
WASTE WATER IRRIGATION, 200 ANIMAL UNITS3
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Trac scraper/loader
Concrete lot
Bx spdr/daily use
Diversion terrace
Settling basin
Detention basin
Wastewater irrig/RO
Nutrients
N
P205
K20
Total
Quantity
703 hrs
671 hrs
1600 kw
1
85 ft2 /an
1
400 ft
850 ft2
8700 ft3
1
124 Ib/an yr
76 Ib/an yr
149 Ib/an yr
Capital
Investment
($)
2,700
16,200
4,800
100
1,670
520
1,710
27,700
Annual
Cost
($/an yr)
12.30
18.42
0.44
2.50
9.18
7.42
0.09
1.64
0.47
2.71
55.18
Annual
Returns
($/an yr)
19.84
13.68
14.90
48.42
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
-12.30
-18.42
- 0.44
- 2.50
- 9.18
- 7.42
- 0.09
- 1.64
- 0.47
- 2.71
+19.84
+13.68
+14.90
- 6.76
Regions: cool humid, warm humid, hot humid.
TABLE A-44. ECONOMIC DATA FOR DAIRY, FREE STALL, OPEN LOT, TRACTOR SCRAPE,PISTON
PUMP, EARTHEN STORAGE, SURFACE SPREAD, 100 ANIMAL UNITS3
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Alleyway scraper
Piston pump/hollow
Concrete lot
Agitate /load pump
Tank wagon
Storage basin
Nutrients
N
P2°5
K20
Total
Quantity
453 hrs
490 hrs
0 kw
1
1
85 ft2 /an
1
1 ,
73,000 ft3
116 Ib/an yr
76 Ib/an yr
149 Ib/an yr
Capital
Investment
($)
700
3,800
11,250
3,200
5,400
9,100
33,450
Annual
Cost
($/an yr)
15.85
36.53
0.00
1.75
9.11
12.75
9.89
12.95
15.93
114.77
Annual
Returns
($/an yr)
18.56
13.68
14.90
47.14
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
-15.85
-36.53
0.00
- 1.75
- 9.11
-12.75
- 9.89
-12.95
-15.93
+18.56
+13.68
+14.90
-67.63
Regions: cool humid, warm humid, hot humid.
196
-------
TABLE A-45. ECONOMIC DATA FOR DAIRY, FREE STALL, OPEN LOT, TRACTOR SCRAPE,
PISTON PUMP, EARTHEN STORAGE, PLOWDOWN, 100 ANIMAL UNITS3
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Alleyway scraper
Piston pump/hollow
Concrete lot
Agitate/load pump
Tank wagon
Storage basin
Nutrients
N
P2°5
K20
Total
Quantity
453 hrs
490 hrs
0 kw
1
1
85 ft2 /an
1
1
73,000 ft3
149 Ib/an yr
80 Ib/an yr
158 Ib/an yr
Capital
Investment
($)
700
3,800
11,250
3,200
5,400
9,100
33,450
Annual
Cost
($/an yr)
15.85
36.53
0.00
1.75
9.11
12.75
9.89
12.95
15.93
114.76
Annual
Returns
($/an yr)
2 3-. 84
14.40
15.80
54.04
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
-15.85
-36.53
0.00
- 1.75
- 9.11
-12.75
- 9.89
-12.95
-15.93
-t-23.84
+14 . 40
+15.80
^60.72
Regions: cool humid, warm humid, hot humid.
TABLE A-46. ECONOMIC DATA FOR DAIRY, FREE STALL, OPEN LOT, TRACTOR SCRAPE,
PISTON PUMP, EARTHEN STORAGE, SURFACE SPREAD, 200 ANIMAL UNITS3
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Alleyway scraper
Piston pump/hollow
Concrete lot
Agitate/load pump
Tank wagon
Storage basin
Nutrients
N
P205
K20
Total
Quantity
730 hrs
820 hrs
0 kw
1
1
85 ft2 /an
1
1
146,000 ft3
116 Ib/an yr
76 Ib/an yr
149 Ib/an yr
Capital
Investment
($)
700
3,800
22,500
3,200
7,000
16,600
33,450
Annual
Cost
($/an yr)
12.77
30.57
0.00
0.88
4.56
12.40
4.94
8.51
10.26
84.89
Annual
Returns
($/an yr)
18.56
13.68
14.90
47.14
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
-12.77
-30.57
0.00
- 0.88
- 4.56
-12.40
- 4.94
- 8.51
-10.26
+18.56
+13.68
+14.90
-37.75
Regions: cool humid, varm humid, hot humid.
197
-------
TABLE A-47. ECONOMIC DATA FOR DAIRY, FREE STALL, OPEN LOT, TRACTOR SCRAPE,
PISTON PUMP, EARTHEN STORAGE, PLOWDOWN, 200 ANIMAL UNITS3
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Alleyway scraper
Piston pump/hollow
Concrete lot
Agitate/load pump
Tank wagon
Storage basin
Nutrients
N
P205
K20
Total
Quantity
730 hrs
820 hrs
0 kw
1
1 ,
85 ft2/an
1
1
146,000 ft3
149 Ib/an yr
80 Ib/an yr
158 Ib/an yr
Capital
Investment
($)
700
3,800
22,500
3,200
7,000
16,600
33,450
Annual
Cost
($/an yr)
12.77
30.57
0.00
0.88
4.56
12.40
4.94
8.51
10.26
84.89
Annual
Returns
($/an yr)
23.84
14.40
15.80
54.04
Annual Net
System Return
($/an vr)
-12.77
-30.57
0.00
- 0.88
- 4.56
-12.40
- 4.94
- 8.51
-10.26
+23.84
+14.40
+15.80
-30.85
Regions: cool humid, warm humid, hot humid.
TABLE A-48. ECONOMIC DATA FOR DAIRY, CONFINED FREE STALL, FLUSH, LAGOON,
WASTEWATER IRRIGATION, 200 ANIMAL UNITS3
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Concrete floor
Gated tank
Lagoons
Recycle pump
Wastewater irrig/w
Nutrients
N
P2o5
K20
Total
a
Regions: warm humid,
Quantity
65 hrs
40 hrs
2200 kw
90 ft2 /an
2
-------
TABLE A-49. ECONOMIC DATA FOR DAIRY, CONFINED FREE STALL, FLUSH, LAGOON,
WASTEWATER IRRIGATION, 500 ANIMAL UNITS*
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Concrete floor
Gated tank
Lagoons
Recycle pump
Wastewater irrig/M
Nutrients
N
P205
K20
Total
Quantity
140 hrs
100 hrs
5500 kw
90 ft2/an
4 @ 2000 gal
1.4 M ft 3
1
1
32 Ib/an yr
42 Ib/an yr
100 Ib/an yr
Capital
Investment
($)
46,500
5,200
28,700
525
13,360
94,285
Annual
Cost
($/an yr)
0.98
1.60
0.61
10.54
2.14
7.09
0.32
6.68
29.97
Annual
Returns
($/an yr)
5.12
7.56
10.00
22.68
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
- 0.98
- 1.60
- 0.61
-10.54
- 2.14
- 7.09
- 0.32
- 6.68
+ 5.12
+ 7.56
+10.00
- 7.29
Regions: warm humid, warm arid, hot humid.
TABLE A-50. ECONOMIC DATA FOR DAIRY, CONFINED FREE STALL, FLUSH, EARTHEN
STORAGE, WASTEWATER IRRIGATION, 200 ANIMAL UNITS3
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Concrete floor
Gated tank
Storage basin
Recycle pump
Wastewater irrig/M
Nutrients
N
P205
K20
Total
Quantity
130 hrs
80 hrs
4400 kw
90 ft2/an
2 @ 2000 gal
110,000 ft3
1
1
116 Ib/an yr
76 Ib/an yr
149 Ib/an yr
Capital
Investment
($)
19,600
2,600
3,360
525
7,010
33,095
Annual
Cost
($/an yr)
2.27
3.19
1.22
11.10
2.68
2.09
0.81
8.77
32.14
Annual
Returns
($/an yr)
18.56
13.68
14.90
47.14
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
- 2.27
- 3.19
- 1.22
-11.10
- 2.68
- 2.09
- 0.81
- 8.77
+18. 56
+13.68
+14.90
+15.00
Regions: warm humid, warm arid, hot humid.
199
-------
TABLE A-51. ECONOMIC DATA FOR DAIRY, CONFINED FREE STALL, FLUSH, EARTHEN
STORAGE, WASTEWATER IRRIGATION, 500 ANIMAL UNITS3
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Concrete floor
Gated tank
Storage basin
Recycle pump
Wastewater irrig/H
Nutrients
N
P2°5
K20
Total
Regions: warm humid
Quantity
280 hrs
200 hrs
11,000 kw
90 ft2/cow
4
-------
TABLE A-53. ECONOMIC DATA FOR DAIRY, CONFINED FREE STALL, FLUSH, SOLIDS
SEPARATION, LAGOON, WASTEWATER IRRIGATION, 500 ANIMAL UNITS3
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Concrete floor
Gated tank
Lagoons
Recycle pump
Wastewater irrig/M
Solids separator
Nutrients
N
P2°5
K2°
Total
a Regions: warm humid
Quantity
190 hrs
100 hrs
11,000 kw
90 ft2 /an
4 @ 2000 gal
1.4 M gal
1
1
1
26 Ib/an yr
34 Ib/an yr
80 Ib/an yr
, hot humid,
Capital
Investment
($)
46,500
5,200
28,700
525
13,360
11,800
106,085
warm arid.
Annual
Cost
($/an yr)
1.33
1.60
1.22
10.54
2.14
7.09
0.32
6.68
5.66
36.59
Annual
Returns
($/an yr)
4.16
6.12
8.00
18.28
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
- 1.33
- 1.60
- 1.22
-10.54
- 2.14
- 7.09
- 0.32
- 6.68
- 5.66
+ 4.16
+ 6.12
+ 8.00
-18.31
TABLE A-54. ECONOMIC DATA FOR DAIRY, PASTURE YEAR AROUND, FLUSH MILKING
FACILITY, LAGOON, WASTEWATER IRRIGATION, 200 ANIMAL UNITS3
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Concrete floor
Gated tank
Lagoon
Wastewater irrig/M
Recycle pump
Nutrients
N
P2°5
K20
Total
Quantity
50 hrs
30 hrs
1100 kw
6 ft2/an
2 (3 1000 gal
180,000 ft3
1
1
7 Ib/an yr
4 Ib/an yr
14 Ib/an yr
Capital
Investment
($)
1,620
2,000
7,200
7,010
525
18,355
Annual
Cost
($/an yr)
0.88
0.83
0.31
0.92
2.06
4.45
8.77
0.81
19.02
Annual
Returns
($/an yr)
1.12
0.72
1.40
3.24
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
- 0.88
- 0.83
- 0.31
- 0.92
- 2.06
- 4.45
- 8.77
- 0.81
+ 1.12
+ 0.72
+ 1.40
-15.78
Regions: warm humid, hot humid.
201
-------
TABLE A-55. ECONOMIC DATA FOR DAIRY, PASTURE YEAR AROUND, FLUSH MILKING
FACILITY, LAGOON, WASTEWATER IRRIGATION, 500 ANIMAL UNITSa
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Concrete floor
Gated tank
Lagoon
Wastewater irrig/M
Recycle pump
Nutrients
N
P2o5
K20
Total
Quantity,
125 hrs
75 hrs
2750 kw
6 ft2/an
2 <§ 2000 gal
450,000 ft3
1
1
7 Ib/an yr
4 Ib/an yr
14 Ib/an yr
Capital
Investment
($)
4,150
3,600
18,000
13,360
525
39,635
Annual
Cost
($/an yr)
0.88
0.83
0.31
0.94
1.48
4.45
6.68
0.32
15.90
Annual
Returns
($/an yr)
1.12
0.72
1.40
3.24
Annual Net
System Return
($/an vr)
- 0.88
- 0.83
- 0.31
- 0.94
- 1.48
- 4.45
- 6.68
- 0.32
+ 1.12
+ 0.72
+ 1.40
-12.66
Regions: warm humid, hot humid.
TABLE A-56. ECONOMIC DATA FOR DAIRY, UNPAVED LOT, SHADE, TRACTOR SCRAPE,
SURFACE STORAGE, TRUCK SPREAD, 300 ANIMAL UNITS3
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Land
Front end loader
Truck spreader/box
Nutrients
N
P2o5
K20
Total
Quantity
686 hrs
343 hrs
0 kw
1
1
1
76 Ib/an yr
71 Ib/an yr
141 Ib/an yr
Capital
Investment
($)
20,660
2,900
17,600
41,160
Annual
Cost
($/an yr)
8.00
9.12
0.00
7.58
1.79
14.68
41.17
Annual
Returns
($/an yr)
12.16
12.78
14.10
39.04
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
- 8.00
- 9.12
0.00
- 7.58
- 1.79
-14.68
+12.16
+12.78
+14.10
- 2.13
Regions: warm arid, hot. arid, hot humid.
202
-------
TABLE A-57. ECONOMIC DATA FOR DAIRY, UNPAVED LOT, SHADE, TRACTOR SCRAPE, SURFACE
STORAGE (6 MONTH).TRUCK SPREAD, DIVERSION, SETTLING BASIN, DETENTION
BASIN, RUNOFF IRRIGATION, 300 ANIHAL UNITSa
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Land
Front end loader
Truck spreader/box
Diversion terrace
Detention basin
Wastewater irrig/M
Concrete sump
Sump pump
Nutrients
N
P2°5
K20
To al
aRegions: warm arid,
Quantity
766 hrs
473 hrs
365 kw
500 ft2/an
1
1
1300 ft
60,000 ft3
1
1
1
76 Ib/an yr
71 Ib/an yr
141 Ib/an yr
hot arid, hot
Capital
Investment
($)
20,660
2,900
17,600
425
3,600
4,011
650
2,980
52,826
humid.
Annual Annual
Cost Returns
($/an yr) ($/an yr)
8.94
12.58
0.07
7.58
1.79
14.68
0.24
2.17
5.42
0.36
4.03
12.16
12.78
14.10
57.85 39.04
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
- 8.94
-12.58
- 0.07
- 7.58
- 1.79
-14.68
- 0.24
- 2.17
- 5.42
- 0.36
- 4.03
+12.16
+12.78
+14.10
-18.81
TABLE A-58. ECONOMIC DATA FOR DAIRY, UNPAVED LOT, SHADE, TRACTOR SCRAPE, SURFACE
STORAGE (6 MONTH), TRUCK SPREAD, 500 ANIMAL UNITSa
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Land
Front end loader
Truck spreader/box
Nutrients
N
P2°5
K20
Total
aRegions: warm arid,
Quantity
1143 hrs
571 hrs
0 kw
500 ft2/an
1
1
76 Ib/an yr
71 Ib/an yr
141 Ib/an yr
hot arid, hot
Capital
Investment
($)
34,433
2,900
17,600
54,933
humid.
Annual
Cost
(S/an yr)
8.00
9.11
0.00
7.58
1.08
8.81
34.57
Annual
Returns
(S/an yr)
12.16
12.78
14.10
39.04
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
- 8.00
- 9.11
0.00
- 7.58
- 1.08
- 8.81
+12.16
+12.78
+14 . 10
+ 4.47
203
-------
TABLE A-59. ECONOMIC DATA FOR DAIRY, UNPAVED LOT, SHADE, TRACTOR SCKAPE, SURFACE
STORAGE (6 MONTH), TRUCK SPREAD, DIVERSION, SETTLING BASIN,
DETENTION BASIN, RUNOFF IRRIGATION, 500 ANIMAL UNITS3
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Land
Front end loader
Truck spreader/box
Diversion terrace
Detention basin
Was tew ate r irrig/M
Concrete sump
Sump pump
Nutrients
N
P2°5
K20
Total
Quantity
1343 hrs
846 hrs
900 Jew
500 ft2/an
1
1
2800 ft
100,000 ft3
T
1
1
76 Ib/an yr
71 Ib/an yr
141 Ib/an yr
Capital
Investment
(?)
34,433
2,900
17,600
710
6,012
4,780
650
3,494
70,579
Annual Annual
Cost Returns
($/an yr) ($/an yr)
9.40
13.50
0.10
7.58
1.08
8.81
0.24
2.18
3.88
0.22
2.83
12.16
12.78
14.10
49.80 39.04
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
- 9.40
-13.50
- 0.10
- 7.58
- 1.08
- 8.81
- 0.24
- 2.18
- 3.88
- 0.22
- 2.83
+12.16
+12.78
+14.10
-10.76
aRegions: warm arid, hot arid, hot humid.
204
-------
TABLE B-l. ECONOMIC DATA FOR FED BEEF, DRYLOT PAVED, PARTIAL SHELTER,
100 ANIMAL UNITS
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Concrete floor/lot
Front end Loader
Land - lot
Bx Spdr/periodic use
Nutrients
N
P20
K|05
Total
Quantity
55 hrs
55 hrs
0 kw
55 ffc2/aii
1
0.07 ac
1
58 lb/an yr
6k lb/an yr
80 lb/an yr
Capital
Investment
($)
5,225
2,300
103
2,150
9,778
Annual
Cost
. ($/an yr)
1.92
3.00
0.00
5.92
if. 26
0.11
6.6k
21.87
Annual
Returns
($/an yr)
9.28
11.52
8.00
28.80
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
-1.92
-3.00
0.00
-5.92
-if. 26
-0.11
-6.61*
+ 9.28
+11.52
+ 8.00
+ 6.93
^Regions: cool humid, cold humid.
TABLE B-2. ECONOMIC DATA FOR FED BEEF, DRYLOT PAVED, PARTIAL SKELTER,
DETENTION/IRRIGATION, 100 ANIMAL UNITSa
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Concrete floor/lot
Front end Loader
Land - lot
Bx Spdr/periodic use
Diversion Terrace
Settlg Basin/concret
Detentn basin/earth
Wastewater irrig/RO
Nutrients
N
P205
KpO
Total
aBegions: cool humid,
Quantity
60 hrs
62 hrs
0 kw
55 ft2/an
1
0.07 ac
1
150 ft
10 x 23 ft
1500 ft3
1
58 lb/an yr
6k lb/an yr
80 lb/an yr
cold humid.
Capital
Investment
($)
5,225
2,300
103
2,150
37
If87
130
2,UlfO
12,872
Annual
Cost
($/an yr.)
2.10
3-38
0.00
5-92
If .26
0.11
6.61*
o.oif
0.69
0.17
It. 78
28.3.0
Annual
Returns
($/an yr)
9.28
11.52
8.00
28.80
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
-2.10
-3.38
0.00
-5.92
-If. 26
-0.11
-6. 6U
-o.oif
-0.69
-0.17
-If. 78
+ 9.28
+11.52
+ 8.00
+ 0.70
205
-------
TABLE B-3. ECONOMIC DATA FOR FED BEEF, DEYLOT PAVED, PARTIAL SHELTER,
GRASS INFILTRATION, 100 HEAD CAPACITY8-
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Concrete floor/lot
Front End Loader
Land - lot
Bx Spdr/periodic use
Diversion terrace
Settlg Basin/concret
Infiltration area
Nutrients
N
p2o5
KgO
Total
Quantity
60 hrs
62 hrs
0 fcw
55 ft^/an
1
0.0? ac
1
Ik8 ft
10 x 23 ft
10.5 x kOO ft
58 Ib/an yr
6k Ib/an yr
80 Ib/an yr
Capital
Investment
($)
5,225
2,300
103
2,150
37
U87
336
10,638
Annual Annual
Cost Returns
($/an yr) ($/an yr)
2.10
3.38
0.00
5-92
U. 26
O.U
6.6k
O.Cfc
0.69
0.1*2
9.28
11.52
8.00
23.57 28.80
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
-2J.O
-3.38
0.00
-5.92
-U.26
-0.11
-6.6U
-o.oi*
-0.69
-O.U2
+ 9.28
+11.52
+ 8.00
+ 5.23
aRegions: cool humid, cold humid.
TABLE B-l*. ECONOMIC DATA FOR FED BEEF, DRYLOT PAVED, PARTIAL SHELTER,
1*00 HEAD CAPACITY*1
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Concrete floor/lot
Front End Loader
Land - lot
Bx Spdr/periodic use
Nutrients
S
P205
K20
Total
Quantity
193 hrs
193 hrs
0 kw
55 ft2/an
1
0.28 ac
1
58 Ib/an yr
6k Ib/an yr
80 Ib/an yr
Capital
Investment
20,900
2,700
1*12
2,600
26,612
Annual
Cost
($/an yr)
1.69
2.63
0.00
5.92
1.25
0.11
2.01
13.62
Annual
Returns
($/an yr)
9.28
11.52
8.00
28.80
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
-1.69
-2.63
0.00
-5.92
-1.25
-0.11
-2.01
+ 9.28
+11.52
+ 8.00
+15.18
Regions: cool humid, cold humid.
206
-------
TABLE B-5. ECONOMIC DATA FOR FED BEEF, DRYLOT PAVED, PARTIAL SHELTER,
DETENTION/IRRIGATION, 1*00 ANIMAL UNITSa
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Concrete floor/lot
Front End Loader
Land - lot
Bx Spdr/periodic use
Diversion Terrace
Settlg Basin/concret
Detentn basin/earth
Wastewater irrig/RO
Nutrients
N
P205
K20
Total
Quantity
200 hrs
202 hrs
0 kw
55 ffYan
1
0.28 ac
1
280 ft
15 x 1*0 ft
6000 ft3
1
58 Ib/an yr
61* Ib/an yr
80 Ib/an yr
Capital
Investment
($)
20,900
2,700
1*12
2,600
70
1,150
1*1*0
2,1*1*0
30,712
Annual
Cost
($/an yr)
1.75
2.76
0.00
5.92
1.25
0.11
2.01
0.02
0.1*0
0.15
1-19
15-57
Annual
Returns
($/an yr)
9.28
11.52
8.00
28.80
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
-1.75
-2.76
0.00
-5.92
-1.25
-0.11
-2.01
-0.02
-0.1*0
-0.15
-1.19
+ 9.28
+11.52
+ 8.00
+13.23
Regions: cool humid, cold humid.
TABLE B-6. ECONOMIC DATA FOR FED BEEF, DRYLOT PAVED, PARTIAL SHELTER,
GRASS INFILTRATION, 1*00 ANIMAL UNITSa
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Concrete floor/lot
Front End Loader
Land - lot
Bx Spdr/periodic use
Diversion terrace
Settlg Basin/concret
Infiltration area
Nutrients
N
P205
Y^O
Total
Regions: cool humid,
Quantity
200 hrs
202 hrs
0 kw
55 ft2/an
1
0.28 ac
1
280 ft
15 x 1*0 ft
10.5 x 700 ft
58 Ib/an yr
6U Ib/an yr
80 Ib/an yr
cold humid.
Capital
Investment
($)
20,900
2,700
1*12
2,600
70
1,150
588
28,1*20
Annual
Cost
($/an yr)
1.75
2.76
0.00
5.92
1.25
0.11
2.01
0.02
0.1*0
0.18
11*. 1*1
Annual
Returns
($/an yr)
9.28
11.52
8.00
28.80
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
-1.75
-2.76
a. oo
-5.92
-1.25
-0.11
-2.01
-0.02
-0.1*0
-0.18
+ 9.28
+11.52
+ 8.00
+ll*.39
207
-------
TABLE B-7. ECONOMIC DATA FOR FED BSEF, DRYLOT PAVED, PARTIAL SHELTER,
700 ANIMAL UNITS3-
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Concrete floor/lot
Front End Loader
Land - lot
Bx Spdr/periodic use
Nutrients
N
i|o5
Total
Quantity
300 hrs
300 hrs
0 tor
55 ffYan
1
0.1*8 ac
1
58 Ib/an yr
61* Ib/an yr
80 Ib/an yr
Capital
Investment
($)
36,575
2,900
721
3,800
1*3,996
Annual
Cost
($/an yr)
1.50
3.35
0.00
5-92
0.77
0.11
1.68
13-33
Annual
Returns
($/an yr)
9.28
11.52
8.00
28.80
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
-1.50
-3.35
0.00
-5.92
-0.77
-0.11
-1.68
+ 9.28
+11.52
+ 8.00
+15.1*7
aRegions: cool hurnid, cold humid.
TABLE B-8. ECONOMIC DATA FOR FED BEEF, DRYLOT PAVED, PARTIAL SHELTER,
DETENTION/IRRIGATION, 700 ANIMAL UMTGa
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Concrete floor/lot
Front End Loader
Land - lot
Bx Spdr/periodic use
Diversion Terrace
Settlg Basin/earth
Detentn Basin
Wastewater irrig/RO
Nutrients
N
P2o5
KgO
Total
Quantity
312 hrs
315 hrs
0 kw
55 ft^/an
1
O.lt8 ac
1
360 ft
20 x 53 it
10500 f tj
1
58 Ib/an yr
6k Ib/an yr
80 Ib/an yr
Capital
Investment
($)
36,575
2,900
721
3,800
90
1,7^8
530
2,890
^9,25^
Annual
Cost
($/an yr)
1.56
3-52
0.00
5-92
0.77
0.11
1.68
0.01
0.35
0.10
0.81
ik.ek
Annual
Returns
($/an yr)
9.28
11.52
8.00
28.80
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
-1.56
-3.52
-0.00
-5.92
-0.77
-0.11
-1.68
-0.01
-0.35
-0.10
-0.81
+ 9.28
+11.52
+ 8.00
+13.96
Jtegions: cool humid, cold humid.
208
-------
TABLE B-9. ECONOMIC DATA FOR FED BSEF, DRYLOT PAVED, PARTIAL SHELTER,
GRASS INFILTRATION, 700 ANIMAL UNITSa
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Concrete floor/lot
Front End Loader
Land - lot
Bx Spdr/periodic use
Diversion Terrace
Settlg Basin/concret
Infiltration area
Nutrients
N
P205
y^o
Total
Quantity
312 hrs
315 hrs
0 kw
55 ft /an
1
O.hQ ac
1
360 ft
20 x 53 ft
11 x 900 ft
58 Ib/an yr
6k Ib/an yr
80 It/an yr
Capital
Investment
(*)
36,575
2,900
721
3,800
90
1.7U8
792
U6,626
Annual
Cost
($/an yr)
1.56
3-52
0.00
5.92
0.77
0.11
1.68
0.01
0.35
O.Ik
lU.07
Annual
Returns
($/an yr)
9.28
11.52
8.00
28.80
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
-1.56
-3.52
0.00
-5-92
-0.77
-0.11
-1.68
-0.01
-0.35
-O.llf
+ 9.28
+11.52
+ 8.00
+1^.73
aRegions: cool humid, cold humid.
TABLE B-10. ECONOMIC DATA FOR FED BEEF, DRYLOT UNPAVED, PARTIAL SHELTER,
100 ANIMAL UNITSa
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Front End Loader
Concrete floor
Land - lot
Bx Spdr/periodic use
Nutrients
N
P205
K20
Total
aRegions: cool humid,
Quantity
35 hrs
35 hrs
0 kw
12,
25 fiT /an
0^3k ac
1
53 Ib/an yr
6^ Ib/an yr
80 Ib/an yr
Capital
Investment
(*)
2,300
2,375
516
2,150
7,3^1
cold humid, cool arid, cold
Annual
Cost
($/an yr)
1.22
1.91
0.00
U.26
2.69
0.57
3.59
1^.25
arid.
Annual
Returns
($/an yr)
8.U8
11.52
8.00
28.00
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
-1.22
-1.91
0.00
-U.26
-2.69
-0.57
-3.59
+ 8.U8
+11.52
+ 8.00
+13-75
209
-------
TABLE B-ll. ECONOMIC DATA FOR FED BEEF, DRYLOT UNPAVED, PARTIAL SHELTER,
DETENTION/IRRIGATION, 100 ANIMAL UNITSa
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Front End Loader
Concrete floor
Land - lot
Bx Spdr/periodic use
Diversion Terrace
Settlg Basin/earth
Detentn Basin/earth
Wastewater irrig/RO
Nutrients
N
P205
KaO
Total
aRegions: cool hu-nid,
Quantity
42 hrs
Ul». hrs
0 kw
i r,
25 ft /an
0.34 ac
1
32p ft
10 x 75 ft
7500 ft
1
53 Ib/an yr
64 Ib/an yr
80 Ib/an yr
cold humid.
Capital
Investment
($)
2,300
2,375
516
2,150
8l
280
470
2,890
11,062
cool arid, cold
Annual
Cost
($/an yr)
1.47
2.UO
0.00
4.26
2.69
0.57
4.42
0.09
0.39
0.63
5.66
22.58
arid
Annual
Returns
($/an yr)
8.48
11.52
8.00
28.00
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
-1.47
-2.40
0.00
-If. 26
-2.69
-0.57
-4.42
-0.09
-0.39
-0.63
-5.66
+ 8.48
+11.52
+ 8.00
+ 5. 42
TABLE B-12. ECONOMIC DATA FOR FED BEEF, DRYLOT UNPAVED, PARTIAL SHELTER,
GRASS INFILTRATION, 100 ANIMAL UNITSa
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Front End Loader
Concrete floor
Land - lot
Bx Splr/perodic use
Diversion Terrace
Settlg Basin/earth
Infiltration Area
Nutrients
N
P205
K20
Total
Quantity
38 hrs
38 hrs
0 kw
1 o
25 ft /an
0.34 ac
1
325 ft
10 x 75 ft
8 x 200 ft
53 Ib/an yr
64 Ib/an yr
80 Ib/an yr
Capital
Investment
($)
2,300
2,375
516
2,150
81
280
128
7,830
Annual
Cost
($/an yr)
1.47
2.UO
0.00
4.26
2.69
0.57
4.U2
0.09
O.U2
0.16
16.49
Annual
Returns
($/an yr)
8.48
11.52
8.00
28.00
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
-1.4?
-2.40
0.00
-4.26
-2.69
-0.57
-4.42
-0.09
w.v/y
-0.42
-0.16
+ 8.48
+11.52
+ 8.00
+11.51
aRegions: cool humid, cold humid, cool arid, cold arid.
210
-------
TABLE B-13. ECONOMIC DATA FOR FED BKEF, DRYLOT UHPAVED, PARTIAL SHELTER
1*00 ANIMAL UHITSa
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Front End Loader
Concrete floor
Land - lot
Bx Spdr/periodic use
Nutrients
N
p?°5
K|O?
Total
Quantity
113 hrs
113 hrs
0 kw
1 ?
25 ft /an
1.38 ac
1
53 Ib/an yr
61* Ib/an yr
80 Ib/an yr
Capital
Investment
(*)
2,700
9,500
2,06*
2,600
16,861*
Annual
Cost
($/an yr)
0.99
1.51*
0.00
1.25
2.69
0.57
1.3*
8.38
Annual
Returns
($/an yr)
8.*8
11.52
8.00
28.00
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
-0.99
-1.5*
0.00
-1.25
-2.69
-0.57
-1.3*
+ 8.*8
+11.52
+ 8.00
+19.62
*Regions: cool huTiid, cold humid, cool arid, cold arid.
TABLE B-ll*. ECONOMIC DATA FOR FED BEEF, DRYLOT "JNPAVED, PARTIAL SHELTER,
DETENTION/IRRIGATION, 1*00 ANIMAL UNITSa
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy-
Front End Loader
Concrete floor
Land - lot
Bx Spdr/periodic use
Diversion Terrace
Settlg Basin/earth
Detentn Basin/earth
Wastewater irrig/RO
Nutrients
N
P205
^0
Total
Quantity
133 hrs
ll*3 hrs
0 kw
1 2
25 ftVan
1.38 ac
1
550 ft
20 x 150 ft
21+000 ft3
1
53 Ib/an yr
61* Ib/an yr
80 Ib/an yr
Capital
Investment
($)
2,700
9,500
2,061*
2,600
157
650
920
3,290
21,881
Annual
Cost
($/an yr)
1.16
1-95
0.00
1.25
2.69
0.57
1.3*
o.oU
0.25
0.28
1.6l
11.15
Annual
Returns
($/an yr)
8.1*8
11.52
8.00
28.00
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
-1.16
-1.95
0.00
-1.25
-2.69
-0 57
-1.34
-0 oh
-0.25
-0.28
-1.61
+ 8.1*8
+11.52
+ 8.00
+16.85
^Regions: cool humid, cold humid, cool arid, cold arid.
211
-------
TABLE B-15. ECONOItTC DATA FOR FED BEEF, DRYLOT UNPAVED, PARTIAL SHELTER,
GRASS INFILTRATION, ^00 ANIMAL UJIITSa
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Front End Loader
Concrete floor
Land - lot
Bx Spdr/psriodic use
Diversion Terrace
Settlg Basin/earth
Infiltration area
Nutrients
N
P2°5
4>5
Total
Quantity
123 hrs
123 hrs
0 kw
1 „
25 ft^/an
1.38 ac
1
550 ft
20 x 150 ft
12 x hOO ft
53 Ib/an yr
6h Ib/an yr
80 Ib/an yr
Capital
Investment
($)
2,700
9,500
2,o6U
2,600
157
650
38U
18,055
Annual
Cost
($/an yr)
1.07
1.95
0.00
1.25
2.69
0.57
1.3^
o.ot
0.25
0.12
9.47
Annual
Returns
($/an yr)
Q.hd
11.52
8.00
28.00
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
-1.07
-1.95
0.00
-1.25
-2.69
-0.57
-1.31*
-0.0^
-0.25
-0.12
+ 8.U8
+11.52
+ 8.00
+18.53
aRegions: cool humid, cold humid, cool arid, cold arid.
TABLE B-l6. ECONOMIC DATA FOR FED BEEF, DRYLOT UNPAVED, PARTIAL SHELTER,
700 ANIMAL UNITSa
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Front End Loader
Concrete floor
land - lot
3x Spdr/periodie use
Nutrients
N
P?°<5
4>
Total
Quantity
159 hrs
159 hrs
0 Irv
1
25 ft2/an
2.Ul ac
1
53 Ib/an yr
6h Ib/an yr
80 Ib/an yr
Capital
Investment
($)
2,900
16,625
3,616
3,800
26,9'+l
Annual
Cost
($/an yr)
0.79
1.78
0.00
0.77
2.69
0.57
1.12
7.72
Annual
Returns
($/an yr)
8.U8
11.52
8.00
28.00
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
-0.79
-1.78
0.00
-0.77
-2.69
-0.57
-1.12
+ 8.U8
+11.52
+ 8.00
+20.28
aRegions: cool humid, cold humid, cool arid, cold arid.
212
-------
TABLE B-17. ECONOMIC DATA FOR FED BEEF, DRYLOT UNPAVED, PARTIAL SHELTER,
DETENTION/IRRIGATION, 700 ANIMAL UNITSa
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Front End. Loader
Concrete floor
Land - lot
Ex Sprdr/periodic use
Diversion Terrace
Settlg Basin/earth
Detentn Basin/earth
Wastewater irrig/RO
Nutrients
N
P205
K20
Total
Quantity
203 Ibs
225 Ibs
0 kw
i ?
25 ft* /an
2.1*1 ac
1
880 ft
25 x 210 ft
53000 ft3
1
53 Ib/an yr
6k Ib/an yr
80 Ib/an yr
Capital
Investment
($)
2,900
16,625
3,616
3,8oo
220
1,055
1,670
U,090
33,976
Annual
Cost
($/an yr)
1.01
2.52
0.00
0.77
2.69
0.57
1.12
O.Ol*
0.23
0.29
l.ll*
10.38
Annual
Returns
($/an yr)
8.U8
11.52
8.00
28.00
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
-1.01
-2.52
0.00
-0.77
-2.69
-0.57
-1.12
-0.01+
-0.23
-0.29
-l.ll*
+ 8.W
+11.52
+ 8.00
+17.62
Regions: cool humid, cold humid, cool arid, cold arid.
TABLE B-18. ECONOMIC DATA FOR FED BEEF, DRYLOT UNPAVED, PARTIAL SHELTER,
GRASS INFILTRATION, 700 ANIMAL UNITSa
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Front End Loader
Concrete Floor
Land - lot
Bx spdr/periodic use
Diversion Terrace
Settlg Basin/earth
Infiltration area
Nutrients
N
P2°5
Total
Regions: cool humid,
Quantity
181 hrs
l8l hrs
0 kw
O ,
25 ftVan
2.1*1 ac
1
880 ft
25 x 210 ft
15 x 550 ft
53 Ib/an yr
61* Ib/an yr
80 Ib/an yr
Capital
Investment
2,900
16,625
3,616
3,800
220
1,055
660
28,876
cold humid, cool arid, cold
Annual
Cost
($/an vr)
1.01
2.52
0.00
0.77
2.69
0.57
1.12
O.Ol*
0.23
0.12
9.06
arid.
Annual
Returns
($/an yr)
8.1*8
11.52
8.00
28.00
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
-1.01
-2.52
0.00
-0.77
-2.69
-0-57
-1.12
-o.oi*
-0.23
-0.12
+ 8.1*8
+11.52
+ 8.00
+18.9!*
213
-------
TABLE B-19. ECONOMIC DATA FOR FED BEEF, TOTAL SHELTER, FULLY SLOTTED,
90 DAY STORAGE, 100 ANIMAL UNITSa
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Concrete slats
Concrete pit
Tank wagon
Agitate/load pump
Nutrients
N
P205
Total
Quantity
70 hrs
97 hrs
0 kw
20 ftT/an
21000 ft^
1
1
68 lb/an yr
82 lb/an yr
95 lb/an yr
Capital
Investment
«)
4,4oo
10,500
5,400
3,200
23,500
Annual
Cost
($/an yr)
2.45
7.69
0.00
4.99
11.90
12.95
9.89
49.86
Annual
Returns
($/an yr)
10.88
14.76
9.50
35-14
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
- 2.45
- 7.69
0.00
- 4.99
-11.90
-12.95
- 9.89
+10.88
+14.76
+ 9-50
-14.72
Ttegions: cool humid, cold humid.
TABLE B-20. ECONOMIC DATA FOR FED BEEF, TOTAL SHELTER, FULLY SLOTTED,
90 DAY STORAGE, PLOWDOWN, 100 ANIMAL UNITSa
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Concrete slats
Concrete pit
Tank wagon
Agitate/load pump
Injector/soil,incorp
Nutrients
N
P20
Itf?
Total
regions: cool humid,
Quantity
77 hrs
104 hrs
0 kw
20 ft2/an
21000 ft3
1
1
1
88 lb/an yr
86 lb/an yr
101 lb/an yr
cold humid.
Capital
Investment
($)
4,4oo
10,500
5,400
3,200
24,923
Annual
Cost
($/an yr)
2.69
8.25
0.00
If .99
11.90
12.95
9-89
3.56
54.22
Annual
Returns
($/an yr)
14.08
15.48
10.10
39-66
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
- 2.69
- 8.25
0.00
- 4.99
-11.90
-12.95
— s *
- 9.89
- 3.56
+14.08
+15.48
+10.10
-14.56
— —
214
-------
TABLE B-21. ECONOMIC DATA FOR FED BEEF, TOTAL SHELTER, FULLY SLOTTED,
90 DAY STORAGE, hOO ANIMAL UNITSa
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Concrete slats
Concrete pit
Tank wagon
Agitate/load pump
Nutrients
N
P2°5
K|05
Total
Quantity
280 hrs
376 hrs
Okw
20 ftfyan
8UOOO ft3
1
1
68 Ib/an yr
82 Ib/an yr
95 Ib/an yr
Capital
Investment
($)
17,600
1*2,000
5,UOO
3,200
68,200
Annual
Cost
($/an yr)
2.1*5
7.1*6
0.00
U.99
11.90
3.2l*
2.1*7
32.50
Annual
Returns
($/an yr)
10.88
ll*.76
9-50
35- lU
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
- 2.1*5
- 7.U6
0.00
- U.99
-11.90
- 3.2U
- 2.U7
+10.88
+1U.76
+ 9-50
+ 2.6U
Regions: cool humid,
cold humid.
TABLE B-22. ECONOMIC DATA FOR FED BEEF, TOTAL SHELTER, FULLY SLOTTED,
90 DAY STORAGE, PLOWDOWN, 1*00 ANIMAL UNITSa
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Concrete slats
Concrete pit
Tank wagon
Agitate/load Pump
Injector/soil incorp
Nutrient
N
P2°5
K2°
Total
Regions: cool humid,
Quantity
308 hrs
l*0l* hrs
0 kw
20 ftS/an
81*000 ft3
1
.1
1
88 rb/an yr
86 Ib/an yr
101 Ib/an yr
cold humid.
Capital
Investment
($)
17,600
U2,000
5,1*00
3,200
1,^23
69,623
Annual
Cost
($/an yr)
2.69
8.01
0.00
U.99
11.90
3.21*
2.1*7
0.89
3H.19
Annual
Returns
($/an yr)
Il*.o8
15.1*8
10.10
39.66
Annual Het
System Return
($/an yr)
- 2.69
- 8.01
0.00
- ^-99
-11.90
- 3.21*
- 2.1*7
- 0.89
+ll*.08
+15. U8
+10.10
+ 5-U7
215
-------
B-23. ECONOMIC DATA FOR FED BEEF, TOTAL SHELTER,FULLY SLOTTED,
90 DAY STORAGE, 700 ANIMAL UNITSa
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Concrete slats
Concrete pit
Tank wagon
Agitate/load pump
Nutrients
N
P2°5
K2°5
Total
Quantity
U90 hrs
679 hrs
0 kw
20 ft2/an
1U70OO ft3
1
1
68 It/an yr
82 Ib/an yr
95 It/an yr
Capital
Investment
($)
30,800
73,500
7,000
3,200
llU,500
Annual
Cost
($/an yr)
3.71
7.69
0.00
U. 99
11.90
2.50
l.Ul
32.20
Annual
Returns
($/an yr)
10.88
1U.76
9-50
35. 11*
Annual Met
System Return
($/an yr)
- 3.71
- 7.69
0.00
- ^-99
-11.90
- 2.50
- l.M
+10.88
+1U.76
+ 9-50
+ 2.9!;
Regions: cool humid, cold humid
B-2U. ECONOMIC DATA FOR FED BEEF, TOTAL SHELTER, FULLY SLOTTED,
90 DAY STORAGE, PLOWDOWN, 700 ANIMAL UNITS8-
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Concrete slats
Concrete pit
Tank wagon
Agitate/load pump
Injector/soil incorp
Nutrients
N
P~Cv
K|>5
Total
Quantity
539 hrs
728 hrs
0 kw
20 ft2/an
1^7000 ft-*
1
1
1
88 Ib/an yr
86 Ib/an yr
101 Ib/an yr
Capital
Investment
($)
30,800
73,500
7,000
3,200
1,U23
115,923
Annual
Cost
($/an yr)
It. 08
8.25
0.00
IK 99
11.90
2.50
i.Ui
0.51
33.63
Annual
Returns
($/an yr)
1U.08
15. U8
10.10
39.66
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
- k.QQ
- 8.25
0.00
- ^.99
*'*'
-11.90
- 2.50
c>* xv
- l.Ul
- 0.51
•t-lU.08
+15. W
+10.10
+ 6.03
*Regions: cool humid, cold humid.
216
-------
TABLE B-25. ECONOMIC DATA FOR FED BEEF, UNPAVED LOT, NO SHELTER,
100 ANIMAL UNITSa
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Front End Loader
Land -lot
Bx spdr/periodic use
Nutrients
N
P2°5
T^O
Total
Quantity
58 hrs
58 hrs
0 kw
1 9
1*00 ft /an
1
1*5 lb/an yr
1*6 lb/an yr
6U lb/an yr
Capital
Investment
($)
2,300
1,370
2,150
5,820
Annual
Cost
($/an yr)
2.03
I*. 51*
0.00
1*.26
1.10
l*.l*3
16.36
Annual
Returns
($/an yr)
7.20
8.28
6.1*0
21.88
Annual Ret
System Return
($/an yr)
-2.03
-U.5^
0.00
-U.26
-1.10
-l*.l*3
+7.20
+8.28
+6.1*0
+5-52
Ttegions: cool, warn, and hot arid.
TABLE B-26. ECONOMIC DATA FOR FED BEEF, UNPAVED LOT, NO SHELTER,
DETENTION/IRRIGATION, 100 ANIMAL UNITSa
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Front End Loader
Land - lot
Bx Spdr/periodic use
Diversion Terrace
Settlg Basin/earth
Detentn Basin/earth
Wastewater irrig/RO
Nutrients
N
P205
KgO
Total
Quantity
62 hrs
63 hrs
0 kw
1 ,,
1+00 ftVan
1
1*1*0 ft
10 x 200 ft
20000 ft3
1
1*5 lb/an yr
1*6 lb/an yr
6U lb/an yr
Capital
Investment
($)
2,300
1,370
2,150
no
290
862
2,890
9,972
Annual
Cost
($/an yr)
2.17
1*.93
0.00
U.26
1.10
1*.1*3
0.12
0.1*1*
1.07
5.66
2U.17
Annual
Returns
($/an yr)
7.20
8.28
6.1*0
21.88
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
-2.17
-U.93
0.00
-1*.26
-1.10
-1*.1*3
-0.12
-0.1*1*
-1.07
-5-66
+7.20
+8.28
+6.1*0
-2.29
aRegions: cool, warm, and hot humid.
217
-------
TABLE B-27. ECONOMIC DATA FOR FED BEEF, UNPAVED LOT, NO SH2LTER,
400 ANIMAL UNITSa
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Front End Loader
Land -lot
Bx Spdr/periodic use
Nutrients
N
P2°5
Total
Quantity Capital
Investment
173 hrs
173 hrs
0 kw
1 j> 2,700
400 ft /an 5,510
1 2,600
45 Ib/an yr
46 Ib/an yr
64 Ib/an yr
10,810
Annual Annual
Cost Returns
($/an yr) ($/an yr)
1.51
1.14
0.00
1.25
1.52
1.34
7.20
8.28
6.4o
6.75 21.88
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
- 1.51
0.00
- 1.25
- 1.52
- 1.34
+ 7.20
+ 8.28
+ 6.40
'+15.13
Regions: cool, warm, and hot humid.
TABLE B-28. ECONOMIC DATA FOR FED BEEF, UN.PAVED LOT, NO SHELTER,
DETENTION/IRRIGATION, 400 ANIMAL UNITSa
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Front End Loader
Land - lot
Bx Spdr/periodic use
Diversion Terrace
Settlg Basin/earth
Detentn Basin/earth
Wastewater irrig/RO
Nutrients
N
P205
K20
Total
aRegions: cool, warm,
Quantity
183 hrs
188 hrs
0 kw
1 _
400 ft? /an
1
920
20 x 4oO./t
80000 rtr
1
45 Ib/an yr
46 Ib/an yr
6U Ib/an yr
and hot arid.
Capital
Investment
($)
2,700
5,510
2,600
230
1,060
2,320
3,290
17,710
Annual
Cost
($/an yr)
1.60
1.43
G.OO
1.25
1.52
1.34
0.07
o.4o
0.72
1.61
9.94
Annual
Returns
($/an yr)
7.20
8.28
6.40
21.88
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
-1.60
-1.43
0.00
-1.25
•*- • b_^/
-1.52
— * * ^^
-1.34
-0.07
**••*(
-0.4o
-0.72
-1.61
+ 7.20
+ 8.28
+ 6.4o
•HI. 94
218
-------
TABLE B-29. ECONOMIC DATA. FOR FED BEEF, UNPAVED LOT, NO SHELTER
700 ANIMAL UNITSa '
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Front End Loader
Land - lot
Bx Spdr/periodic use
Nutrients
N
P205
K2°
Total
Quantity
290 hrs
290 hrs
0 few
1 ,,
1*00 ft /an
1
1*5 Ib/an yr
1*6 Ib/an yr
6U Ib/an yr
Capital
Investment
(*)
2,900
9,61*2
3,800
l£,3U2
Annual
Cost
($/an yr)
1.1*5
3. 21*
0.00
0.77
1.1*7
1.12
8.05
Annual
Returns
($/an yr)
7.20
8.28
6.1*0
21.88
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
-1.1*5
-3.2l*
0.00
-0.77
-1.1*7
-1.12
+ 7.20
+ 8.28
+ 6.1*0
+13.83
Regions: cool, warm, and hot arid.
TABLE B-30. ECONOMIC DATA FOR FED BEEF, UNPAVED LOT, NO SHELTER,
DETENTION/IRRIGATION, 700 ANIMAL UNITSa
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Front End Loader
Land - lot
Bx Spdr/periodic use
Diversion Terrace
Settlg Basin/earth
Detentn Basin/earth
Wastewater irrig/RO
Nutrients
N
PgOj
K2°
Total
Quantity
312 hrs
323 hrs
0 kw
1 o
1*00 ft /an
1
lll*0 ft
25 x 560 ft
ll*0000 ft-3
1
1*5 Ib/an yr
1*6 Ib/an yr
61* Ib/an yr
Capital
Investment
(*)
2,900
9,61*2
3,800
285
1,705
3,765
1*,090
26,187
Annual
Cost
1.56
3.61
0.00
0.77
1.51
1.12
0.05
0.37
0.66
l.ll*
10.79
Annual
Returns
($/an yr)
7.20
8.28
6.1*0
21.88
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
-1.56
-3.61
0.00
-0.77
-1.51
-1.12
-o 05
-0.37
-0.66
-l.ll*
+ 7.20
+ 8.28
+ 6.1*0
+11.08
Regions: cool, warm, and hot arid.
219
-------
TABLE B-31. ECONOMIC DATA FOR BEEF COW-CALF, PAVED LOT,
kO ANIMAL UNITSa
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Land - lot
Front End Loader
Ex Spdr/periodic use
Nutrients
N
P205
K20
Total
aRegions: cool humid,
Quantity
13 hrs
13 hrs
Otar
30 fir/an
1
1
80 lb/an yr
85 lb/an yr
100 lb/an yr
cold humid.
Capital
Investment
(*)
Ui
2,300
2,150
M91
Annual
Cost
($/an yr)
l.lH
1.56
0.00
0.11
10.66
11.09
2U.55
Annual
Returns
($/an yr)
12.80
15.30
10.00
38.10
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
- 1.1U
- 1.56
0.00
- 0.11
-10.66
-11.09
+12.80
+15.30
+10.00
+13.55
TABLE B-32. ECONOMIC DATA FOR BEEF COW-CALF, PAVED LOT,
GRASS INFILTRATION, ^0 ANIMAL UNIT3a
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Land - lot
Front End Loader
Bx Spdr/periodic use
Diversion Terrace
Settlg Basin/earth
Infiltration area
Nutrients
N
P2o5
KgO'
Total
Quantity
15 hrs
15 hrs
0 kw
30 f fyan
1
1
100 ft
10 x 23 ft
12 x ^00 ft
80 lb/an yr
85 lb/an yr
100 lb/an yr
Capital
Investment
($)
fcl
2,300
2,150
25
487
38U
5,387
Annual
Cost
($/an yr)
1.31
1.80
0.00
0.11
10.66
11.09
0.07
1.71
1.19
27. 9^
Annual
Returns
($/an yr)
12.80
15.30
10.00
38.10
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
- 1.31
- 1.80
0.00
- 0.11
-10.66
-11.09
- 0.07
- 1.71
- 1.19
+12.80
+15.30
+10.00
+10.16
Ttegions: cool humid, cold humid.
220
-------
TABLE B-33- ECONOMIC DATA FOR BEEF COW-CALF, PAVED LOT.
100 ANIMAL UNITS
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Land - lot
Front End Loader
Bx Spdr/periodic use
Nutrients
N
P205
K20
Total
Regions: cool humid,
Quantity
25 hrs
25 hrs
Okw
30 ft2/an
1
1
80 lb/an yr
85 lb/an yr
100 lb/an yr
cold humid.
a
Capital
Investment
($)
103
2,300
2,150
^,553
Annual
Cost
($/an yr)
0.88
1.2k
0.00
0.11
U.26
UA3
10.92
Annual
Returns
($/an yr)
12.80
15.30
10.00
38.10
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
-0.88
-1.2U
0.00
-0.11
-It. 26
-U.U3
+12.80
+15.30
+10.00
+27.18
TABLE 3-$l. ECONOMIC DATA FOR BEEF COW-CALF, PAVED LOT,
GRASS INFILTRATION, 100 ANIMAL UNITSa
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Land - lot
Front End Loader
Bx Spdr/periodic use
Diversion Terrace
Settlg Basin/earth
Infiltration area
Nutrients
N
P2o5
KgO
Total
Quantity Capital
Investment
($)
28 hrs
28 hrs
Ok*
30 ft2/an
1
1
150 ft
10 x 23 ft
12 x ^50 ft
80 lb/an yr
85 lb/an yr
100 lb/an yr
103
2,300
2,150
37
1*8?
^32
5,509
Annual Annual
Cost Returns
($/an yr) ($/an yr)
0.98
1.38
0.00
0.11
1*. 26
k.k3
O.OU
0.69
0.53
12.80
15-30
10.00
12.1*3 38.10
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
-0.98
-1.38
0.00
-0.11
-U 26
" • C,\J
-k.k3
-O.OU
-0.69
w •»-'.7
-0.53
+12.80
+15-30
+10.00
+25.67
Regions: cool humid, cold humid.
221
-------
TABLE B-35. ECONOMIC DATA FOR BEEP COW-CALF, PAVED LOT,
200 ANIMAL UNITSa
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Land - lot
Front End Loader
Bx Spdr/periodic use
Nutrients
N
P2o5
Total
Quantity
UU hrs
hk hrs
Okw
30 ft /an
1
1
80 Ib/an yr
85 Ib/an yr
100 Ib/an yr
Capital
Investment
(*)
207
2,700
2,600
5,507
Annual
Cost
($/an yr)
0.77
1.09
0.00
0.12
2.50
2.60
7.08
Annual
Returns
($/an yr)
12.80
15.30
10.00
38.10
Annual Net
System Return
(Van yr)
-0.77
-1.09
0.00
-0.12
-2.50
-2.60
+12.80
+15.30
+10.00
+31.02
Regions: cool humid, cold humid.
TABLE B-36. ECONOMIC DATA FOR BEEF COW-CALF, PAVED LOT,
GRASS INFILTRATION, 200 ANIMAL UNITSa
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Land - lot
Front End Loader
Bx Spdr/periodic use
Diversion Terrace
Settlg Basin/earth
Infiltration area
Nutrients
N
P2°5
K|O?
Total
Quantity
51 hrs
51 hrs
Okw
30 ft2/an
1
1
190 ft
10 x 30 ft
12 x 800 ft
80 Ib/an yr
85 Ib/an yr
100 Ib/an yr
Capital
Investment
($)
207
2,700
2,600
1*8
670
768
6,993
Annual
Cost
($/an yr)
0.89
1.26
0.00
0.11
2.50
2.68
0.03
0.1*7
O.Vf
8.1*2
Annual
Returns
($/an yr)
12.80
15-30
10.00
38.10
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
-0.89
-1.26
0.00
-0.11
-2 SO
-2.68
-0.03
-0.1*7
-0.1*7
+12.80
+15.30
+10.00
+29.68
«egion
s: cool humid, cold humid.
222
-------
TABLE B-37. ECONOMIC DATA FOR BEEF COW-CALF, UNPAVED LOT
kO ANIMAL UNITSa
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Land - lot
Front End Loader
Bx Spdr/periodic use
Nutrients
N
P2o5
KgO7
Total
Quantity Capital
Investment
($)
10 hrs
10 hrs
Okw
150 ftYan 200
1 2,300
1 2,150
75 Ib/an yr
85 Ib/an yr
100 Ib/an yr
U,650
Annual Annual
Cost Returns
($/an yr) ($/an yr)
0.88
1.2U
0.00
0.55
10.66
11.07
12.32
15-30
10.00
2U.39 37.62
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
- 0.88
- 1.2k
0.00
- 0.55
-10.66
-11.07
+12.32
+15.30
+10.00
+13.23
HRegions: cool and cold arid, cool, cold, and warm humid.
TABLE B-38. ECONOMIC DATA FOR BEEF COW-CALF, UNPAVED LOT
DETENTION/IRRIGATION, kO ANIMAL UNITSa '
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Land - lot
Front End Loader
Bx Spdr/periodic use
Diversion Terrace
Settlg Basin/earth
Detentn Basin/earth
Wastewater irrig/RO
Nutrients
N
P2°5
K2°
Total
Quantity Capital
Investment
($)
Ih hrs
15 hrs
Okw
150 ft2/an
1
1
190 ft
10 x 30 ft
3000 ft3
1
75 Ib/an yr
85 Ib/an yr
100 Ib/an yr
200
2,300
2,150
kQ
80
260
2,1*0
7,1*78
Annual Annual
Cost Returns
($/an yr) ($/an yr)
1.22
1.85
0.00
0.55
10.66
11. 06
O.lU
0.30
0.80
11.94
12.32
15.30
10.00
38.53 37.62
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
- 1.22
- 1.85
0 00
- 0 55
-10.66
-11.06
- O lit
- 0.30
- o fin
.11 oU
+12.32
+15.30
+10.00
- 0.91
Regions: cool and cold arid, cold, cool and warm humid.
223
-------
TABLE B-39. ECONOMIC DATA FOR BEEF COW-CALF, UNPAVED LOT,
GRASS INFILTRATION, kO ANIMAL UNITSa
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Land - lot
Front End Loader
Bx Spdr/periodic use
Diversion Terrace
Settlg Basin/earth
Infiltration area
Nutrients
N
K£>
Total
Quantity Capital
Investment
($)
12 hrs
12 hrs
Okg
150 ft /an
1
1
190 ft
10 x 30 ft
10 x 150 ft
75 Ib/an yr
85 Ib/an yr
100 Ib/an yr
200
2,300
2,150
U8
80
120
it, 898
Annual
Cost
($/an yr)
1.05
l.W
0.00
0.55
10.66
11.06
O.lU
0.30
0.37
25.61
Annual Annual Net
Returns System Return
($/an yr) ($/an yr)
- 1.05
- l.W
0.00
- 0.55
-10.66
-11.06
- O.lU
- 0.30
- 0.37
12.32 +12.32
15-30 +15-30
10.00 +10.00
37-62 +12.01
Regions: cool and cold arid, cold, cool and warm humid.
TABLE B-lfO. ECONOMIC DATA FOR BEEF COW-CALF, UNPAVED LOT,
100 ANIMAL UNITSa
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Land - lot
Front End Loader
Bx Spdr/periodic use
Nutrients
N
P205
K20
Total
Quantity
20 hrs
20 hrs
Ok*
150 ftr/an
1
1
75 Ib/an yr
85 Ib/an yr
100 Ib/an yr
Capital
Investment
on
520
2,300
2,150
^,970
Annual
Cost
($/an yr)
0.70
1.03
0.00
0.57
If. 26
k.kl
11.00
Annual
Returns
($/an yr)
12.32
15.30
10.00
37.62
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
-0.70
-1.03
0.00
-0,57
-U.26
-if.ua
+12.32
+15.30
+10.00
+26.62
Regions: cool and cold arid, cool, cold, and warm humid.
224
-------
TABLE B-l*l. ECONOMIC DATA FOR BEEF COW-CALF, UNPAVED LOT,
DETENTION/IRRIGATION, 100 ANIMAL UNITSa
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Land - lot
Front End Loader
Bx Spdr/periodic use
Diversion Terrace
Settlg Basin/earth
Detentn Basin/earth
Wastewater irrig/RO
Nutrients
N
P205
K2°
Total
Quantity
27 hrs
29 hrs
Okw
150 ffyan
1
1
320 ft
10 x 75 ft
7500 ft0
1
75 lb/an yr
85 lb/an yr
100 lb/an yr
Capital
Investment
(*)
520
2,300
2,150
80
280
1*70
2,890
8,690
Annual
Cost
($/an yr)
0.91*
1.1*9
0.00
0.57
1*.26
1*.1*3
0.09
0.1*2
0.58
5.66
18.1*5
Annual
Returns
($/an yr)
12.32
15.30
10.00
37.62
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
-0.9U
-1.1*9
0.00
-0.57
-1*.26
-0.09
-0.1*2
-0.58
-5-66
+12.32
+15-30
+10.00
+19-17
Regions: cool and cold arid, cool, cold and warm humid.
TABLE B-l*2. ECONOMIC DATA FOR BEEF COW-CALF, UNPAVED LOT,
GRASS INFILTRATION, 100 ANIMAL UNITSa
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Land.- lot
Front End Loader
Bx Spdr/periodic use
Diversion Terrace
Settlg Basin/earth
Infiltration area
Nutrients
N
P205
K20
Total
Quantity Capital
Investment
($)
23 hrs
23 hrs
Okw
150 ft/yan
1
1
320
10 x 75 ft
10 x 150 ft
75 lb/an yr
85 lb/an yr
100 lb/an yr
520
2,300
2,150
80
280
220
5,550
Annual Annual
Cost Returns
($/an yr) ($/an yr)
0.80
1.18
0.00
0.57
I*. 26
1*.1*3
0.09
0.1*2
0.27
12.32
15.30
10.00
12.01* 37.62
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
-0.80
-1.18
0.00
-0.57
-1* 26
-1*.1*3
-0.09
-0.1*2
-0.27
+12.32
+15-30
+10.00
+25-58
aRegions: cool and cold arid, cold, cool and warm humid.
225
-------
TABLE B-U3. ECONOMIC DATA FOR BEEF COW-CALF, UNPAVED LOT,
200 ANIMAL UNITSa
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Land - lot
Front End Loader
Bx Spdr/periodic use
Nutrients
N
P2°5
£f?
Total
Quantity Capital
Investment
($)
35 hrs
35 hrs
0 few
150 ft 2/an 1,0^0
1 2,700
1 2,600
75 lb/an yr
85 lb/an yr
100 lb/an yr
6,3to
Annual Annual
Cost Returns
($/an yr) ($/an yr)
0.61
0.90
0.00
0.57
2.50
2.68
12.32
15-30
10.00
7.27 37.62
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
-0.61
-0.90
0.00
-0.57
-2.50
-2.68
+12.32
+15.30
+10.00
+30.35
Regions: cool and cold arid, cold, cool and warm humid.
TABLE B-Mf. ECONOMIC DATA FOR BEEF COW-CALF, UNPAVED LOT,
DETENTION/IRRIGATION, 200 ANIMAL UNITSa
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Land - lot
Front End Loader
Bx Spdr/periodic use
Diversion Terrace
Settlg Basin/earth
Detentn Basin/earth
Wastewater irrig/RO
Nutrients
N
P2o5
Yi^Q
Total
Quantity
^9 hrs
53 hrs
0 kw
150 ftVan
1
1
380 ft
15 x 100 ft
15000 ft3
1
75 lb/an yr
85 lb/an yr
100 lb/an yr
Capital
Investment
($)
i,c4o
2,700
2,600
95
255
530
3,090
10,310
Annual Annual
Cost Returns
($/an yr) ($/an yr)
0.86
1.36
0.00
0.57
2.50
2.68
0.05
0.19
0.33
3.02
12.32
15.30
10.00
11.57 37.62
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
-0.86
-1.36
0.00
-0.57
-2.50
-2.68
-0.05
-0.19
-0.33
-3.02
+12.32
+15.30
+10.00
+26.05
aRegions: cool and cold arid, cold, cool, and warm humid.
226
-------
TABLE B-U5- ECONOMIC DATA FOR BESF COW-CALF, UNPAVED LOT,
GRASS INFILTRATION, 200 ANIMAL UNITSa
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Land - lot
Front End Loader
Bx Spdr/periodic use
Diversion Terrace
Settlg Basin/earth
Infiltration area
Nutrients
N
P2°5
K^O
Total
Quantity Capital
Investment
($)
U2 hrs
1*2 hrs
Ok?i
150 ft2/an
1
1
380 ft
15 x 100 ft
12 x 1*00 ft
75 Ib/an yr
85 Ib/an yr
100 Ib/an yr
i,oi*o
2,700
2,600
95
255
381*
7,07^
Annual Annual
Cost Returns
($/an yr) ($/an yr)
0.86
1.36
0.00
0.57
2.50
2.68
0.05
0.19
0.2l*
12.32
15-30
10.00
8.1*6 37.62
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
-0.86
-1.36
0.00
-0.57
-2.50
-2.68
-0.05
-0.19
-0.2U
+12.32
+15.30
+10.00
+29.16
^Regions: cool and cold arid, cold, cool and warm humid.
227
-------
TABLE C-l. ECONOMIC DATA FOR FED SWINE, PAVED LOT WITH SHELTER,
SOLID HANDLING, 50 ANIMAL UNITS3
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Concrete floor
Bx spdr/periodic use
Front-end loader
Nutrients
N
P2°5
K20
Totals
Quantity Capital
Investment
($)
16 hrs
16 hrs
0 kw
12 ft Van 690.00
1 2,150.00
1 2,300.00
7 Ib/an yr
12 Ib/an yr
13 Ib/an yr
5,140.00
Annual
Cost
(S/an yr)
1.12
1.43
0.00
1.56
8.86
8.53
21.50
Annual Annual Net
Returns System Return
(S/an yr) ($/an yr)
-1.12
-1.43
0.00
-1.56
-8.86
-8.53
1.12 +1.12
2.16 +2.16
1.30 +1.30
4.58 -16.92
aRegions: cool, cold, warm and hot humid.
TABLE C-2. ECONOMIC DATA FOR FED SWINE, PAVED LOT WITH SHELTER,
SOLID HANDLING, DETENTION/IRRIGATION, 50 ANIMAL UNITS3
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Concrete floor
Bx spdr/periodic use
Front-end loader
Settling basin/earth
Detentn basin/earth
Wastewater irrig/PD
Nutrients
N
K205
Totals
Quantity
18 hrs
19 hrs
0 kw
12 ft2/an
1
1
90 ft2
300 ft3
1
7 Ib/an yr
12 Ib/an yr
13 Ib/an yr
Capital
Investment
($)
690.00
2,150.00
2,300.00
307.00
130.00
2,440.00
8,017.00
Annual
Cost
($/an yr)
1.26
1.69
0.00
1.56
8.86
8.53
0.82
0.32
9.55
32.60
Annual
Returns
($/an yr)
1.12
2.16
1.30
4.58
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
-1.26
-1.69
0.00
-1.56
-8.86
-8.53
-0.82
-0.32
-9.55
+1.12
+2.16
+1.30
-28.02
Regions: cool, cold, warm, and hot humid.
228
-------
TABLE C-3.
ECONOMIC DATA FOR FED SWINE, PAVED LOT WITH SHELTER,
SOLID HANDLNG, GRASS INFILTRATION, 50 ANIMAL UNITSa
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Concrete floor
Bx spdr/periodic use
Front-end loader
Settlg basin/concret
Infiltration area
Nutrients
N
P2°5
K20
Totals
Quantity
18 hrs
16 hrs
0 kw
12 ft2/an
1
1
90 ft2
12x300 ft
7 Ib/an yr
12 Ib/an yr
13 Ib/an yr
Capital
Investment
(S)
690.00
2,150.00
2,300.00
307.00
288.00
Annual Annual Annual Net
Cost Returns System Return
($/an yr) ($/an vr) fS/ar. vr>
1.26
1.43
0.00
1.56
8.86
8.53
0.82
0.71
-1 26
-1 43
0.00
-1.56
— fi flfi
-8.53
-0 82
-0.71
1.12 +1 12
2.16 +2.16
1.30 +1.30
5,735.00
23.17 4.58 -18.59
•Regions: cool, cold, warm and hot humid.
TABLE C-4.
ECONOMIC DATA FOR FED SWtNE, PAVED LOT, WITH SHELTER,
SOLID HANDLING, 200 ANIMAL UNITS3
Component
i -
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Concrete floor
Bx spdr/periodic use
front-end loader
Nutrients
N
P205
K20
Totals
Quantity
64 hrs
64 hrs
0 kw
12 ft2/an
1
1
7 Ib/an yr
12 Ib/an yr
13 Ib/an yr
Capital Annual Annual Annual Net
Investment cost Returns System Return
($) ($/an yr) ($/an yrl fyan yr)
•12 -1.12
•43 -1.43
o no „ ~_
•uu o.oo
2,760.00 1.56 , ,,
2,150.00 2.21 _2 21
2,300.00 2.13 _2;13
1-12 +1.12
2-16 +2.16
1.30 +1.30
7'210 8.46 4.58 -3.88
cool, cold, warn and hot humid.
229
-------
TABLE C-5. ECONOMIC DATA FOR FED SWINE, PAVED LOT WITH SHELTER,
SOLID HANDLING, DETENTION/IRRIGATION, 200 ANIMAL UNITS3
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Concrete floor
Bx spdr/periodic use
Front-end loader
Settling basin/earth
Detentn basin/earth
Wastewater irrig/PO
Nutrients
N
P2°5
K20
Totals
Quantity
67 hrs
70 hrs
0 kw
12 ft2/an
1
1
140 ft2
1200 ft3
1
7 Ib/an yr
12 Ib/an yr
13 Ib/an yr
Capital
Investment
($)
2,760.00
2,150.00
2,300.00
460.00
170.00
2,400.00
10,280.00
Annual
Cost
<$/an yr)
1.17
1.56
0.00
1.56
2.21
2.13
0.31
0.11
2.39
11.44
Annual
Returns
<$/an yr)
1.12
2.16
1.30
4.58
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
-1.17
-1.56
0.00
-1.56
-2.21
-2.13
-0.31
-0.11
-2.39
+1.12
+2.16
+1.30
-6.86
Regions: cool, cold, warm and hot humid.
TABLE C-6. ECONOMIC DATA FOR FED SWINE, PAVED LOT WITH SHELTER, SOLID
HANDLING, GRASS INFILTRATION, 200 ANIMAL UNITSa
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Concrete floor
Bx spdr/periodic use
Front-end loader
Settling basin/earth
Infiltration area
Nutrients
N
P2°5
K2°
Totals
Quantity
67 hrs
64 hrs
0 kw
12 ft2 /an
1
1
140 ft2
12x350 ft
7 Ib/an yr
12 Ib/an yr
13 Ib/an yr
Capital
Investment
($)
2,700.00
2,150.00
2,300.00
460.00
336.00
7,946.00
Annual
Cost
($/an yr)
1.17
1.43
0.00
1.56
2.21
2.13
0.31
0.21
9.02
Annual
Returns
($/an yr)
1.12
2.16
1.30
4.58
•
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
-1.17
-1.43
0.00
-1.56
-2.21
-2.13
-0.31
-0.21
+1.12
+2.16
+1.30
-4.44
Regions: cool, cold, warm and hot humid.
230
-------
TABLE C-7. ECONOMIC DATA FOR FED SWINE, PAVED LOT WITH SHELTER,
SOLID HANDLING, 600 ANIMAL UNITS3
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Concrete floor
Bx spdr/periodic use
Front-end loader
Nutrients
N
P2°5
K2°
Totals
Quantity
192 hrs
192 hrs
0 lew
12 ft2/an
1
1
7 Ib/an yr
12 Ib/an yr
13 Ib/an yr
Capital
Investment
($)
8,280.00
2,600.00
2,700.00
13,580.00
Annual
Cost
($/an yr)
1.12
1.43
0.00
1.56
0.89
0.83
5.84
Annual
Returns
($/an yr)
1.12
2.16
1.30
4.58
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
-1.12
-1.43
0.00
-1.56
-0.89
-0.83
+1.12
+2.16
+1.30
-1.26
^Regions: cool, cold, warm, and hot humid.
TABLE C-8. ECONOMIC DATA FOR FED SWINE, PAVED LOT WITH SHELTER,
DETENTION/IRRIGATION, 600 ANIMAL UNITS*
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Concrete floor
Bx spdr/periodic use
Front-end loader
Settlg basin/concret
Detentn basin/earth
Wastewater irrig/RO
Nutrients
N
P2°5
K2O
Totals
Quantity Capital
Investment
'($)
196 hrs
199 hrs
0 kw
12 ft2/an
1
1
170 ft2
3600 ft3
1
7 Ib/an yr
12 Ib/an yr
13 Ib/an yr
8,280.00
2,600.00
2,700.00
568.00
252.00
2,440.00
16,840.00
Annual Annual
Cost Returns
($/an yr) (S/an yr)
1.14
1.48
0.00
1.56
0.89
0.83
0.11
0.05
0.80
1.12
2.16
1.30
6.87 4.58
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
-1.14
-1.48
0.00
-1.56
-0.89
-0.83
-0.11
-0.05
-0.80
+1.12
+2.16
+1.30
-2.29
aRegions: cool, cold, warm, and hot humid.
231
-------
TABLE C-9. ECONOMIC DATA FOR FED SWINE, PAVED LOT WITH SHELTER,
SOLID HANDLING, GRASS INFILTRATION, 600 ANIMAL UNITS3
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Concrete floor
Bx spdr/periodic use
Front-end loader
Settlg basin/concret
Infiltration area
Nutrients
N
P2°5
Totals
Quantity
199 hrs
192 hrs
0 kw
12 ft2/an
1
1
170 ft2
12x600 ft
7 Ib/an yr
12 Ib/an yr
13 lb/an yr
Capital
Investment
($)
8,280.00
2,600.00
2,700.00
568.00
576.00
14,724.00
Annual
Cost
($/an yr)
1.16
1.43
0.00
1.56
0.89
0.83
0.11
0.12
6.10
Annual
Returns
($/an yr)
1.12
2.16
1.30
4.58
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
-1.16
-1.43
0.00
-1.56
-0.89
-0.83
-0.11
-0.12
+1.12
+2.16
+1.30
-1.52
aRegions:cool, cold, warm and hot humid.
TABLE C-10. ECONOMIC DATA FOR FED SWINE, PAVED LOT WITH SHELTER,
SOLID HANDLING, 1000 ANIMAL UNITS3
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Concrete floor
Bx spdr/periodic use
Front-end loader
Nutrients
N
P2°5
K2°
Totals
Quantity
320 hrs
320 hrs
0 kw
12. ft2 /an
1
1
7 Ib/an yr
12 Ib/an yr
13 Ib/an yr
Capital
Investment
($)
13,800.00
3,800.00
2,900.00
20,500.00
Annual
Cost
($/an yr)
1.12
1.43
0.00
1.56
0.78
0.54
5.43
Annual
Returns
($/an yr)
1.12
2.16
1.30
4.58
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
-1.12
-1.43
0.00
-1.56
-0.78
-0.54
+1.12
+2.16
+1.30
-0.85
Regions: cool, cold, warm and hot humid.
232
-------
TABLE C-ll. ECONOMIC DATA FOR FED SWINE, PAVED LOT WITH SHELTER,
SOLID HANDLING, DETENTION/IRRIGATION, 1000 ANIMAL UNITS3
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Concrete! floor
Bx spdr/periodic use
Front-end loader
Settlg basin/concret
Detentn basin/earth
Wastewater irrig/RO
Nutrients
N
P2°5
K20
Totals
Quantity
325 hrs
328 hrs
0 kw
12 ft2/an
1
1 ,
300 ft^
6000 ft3
1
7 Ib/an yr
12 Ib/an yr
13 Ib/an yr
Capital
Investment
($)
13,800.00
3,800.00
2,900.00
903.00
490.00
2,440.00
24,333.00
Annual
Cost
($/an yr)
1.14
1.46
0.00
1.56
0.78
0.54
0.10
0.06
0.48
6.12
Annual
Returns
($/an yr)
1.12
2.16
1.30
4.58
Annual Net
System Return
(S/an yr)
-1.14
-1.46
0.00
-1.56
-0.78
-0.54
-0.10
-0.06
-0.48
+1.12
+2.16
+1.30
-1.54
^Regions: cool, cold, warm and hot humid.
TABLE C-12. ECONOMIC DATA FOR FED SWINE, PAVED LOT WITH SHELTER, SOLID
HANDLING, GRASS INFILTRATION, 1000 ANIMAL UNITSa
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Concrete floor
Bx spdr/periodic use
Front-end loader
Settlg basin/concret
Infiltration area
Nutrients
N
P2°5
K2°
Totals
Quantity
329 hrs
320 hrs
0 kw
12 ft2 /an
1
1 ,
300 ft2
12x700 ft
7 Ib/an yr
12 Ib/an yr
13 Ib/an yr
Capital
Investment
($)
13,800.00
3,800.00
2,900.00
903.00
672.00
22,075.00
Annual
Cost
($/an yr)
1.15
1.43
0.00
1.56
0.78
0.54
0.10
0.08
5.65
Annual
Returns
($/an yr)
1.12
2.16
1.30
4.58
Annual Net
System Return
(5/an yr)
-1.15
-1.43
0.00
-1.56
-0.78
-0.54
-0.10
-0.08
+1.12
+2.16
+1.30
-1.07
•Regions: cool, cold, warm and hot humid.
233
-------
TABLE C-13. ECONOMIC DATA FOR FED SWINE, UNPAVED LOT WITH SHELTER,
SOLID HANDLING, 50 ANIMAL UNITS3
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Land
Bx spdr/periodic use
Front-end loader
Nutrients
N
P2°S
K2°
Totals
Quantity
8 hrs
8 hrs
0 kw
125 ft2/an
1
1
5 Ib/an yr
8 Ib/an yr
11 Ib/an yr
Capital
Investment
($1
215.00
2,150.00
1,600.00
3,965.00
Annual
Cost
($/an yr)
0.56
0.73
0.00
0.47
8.86
5.93
16.55
Annual
Returns
($/an yr)
0.80
1.44
1.10
3.34
j
Annual Net
System Return
($/an vr)
-0.56
-0.73
0.00
-0.47
-8.86
-5.93
+0.80
+1.44
+1.10
-13.21
ajtegions: Cool, cold, warm, and hot humid.
TABLE C-14. ECONOMIC DATA FOR FED SWINE, UNPAVED LOT WITH SHELTER, SOLID
HANDLING, DETENTION/IRRIGATION, 50 ANIMAL UNITS*
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Land
Bx spdr/periodic use
Front-end loader
Diversion terrace
Settling basin/earth
Detentn basin/earth
Wastewarer irrig/RO
Nutrients
N
P2°5
Totals
Quantity
13 hrs
16 hrs
0 kw
125 ft /an
1
1
160 ft2
310 ft2
620 ft3
1
5 Ib/an yr
8 Ib/an yr
11 Ib/an yr
Capital
Investment
(5)
215.00
2,150.00
1,600.00
40.00
161.00
365.00
2,440.00
6,971.00
Annual
Cost
($/an yr)
0.91
1.45
0.00
0.47
8.86
5.93
0.09
0.43
0.90
9.55
28.60
Annual
Returns
($/an yr)
0.80
1.44
1.10
3.34
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
-0.91
-1.45
0.00
-0.47
-8.86
-5.93
-0.09
-0.43
-0.90
-9.55
+0.80
+1.44
+1.10
-25.26
*Regions: cool, cold, warm, and hot humid.
234
-------
TABLE C-15. ECONOMIC DATA FOR FED SWINE, UNPAVED LOT WITH SKELTER, SOLID
HANDLING, GRASS INFILTRATION, 50 ANIMAL UNITSa
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Land
Bx spdr/periodic use
Front-end loader
Diversion terrace
Settling basin/earth
Infiltration area
Nutrients
N
P2o5
K2°
Totals
Quantity Capital
Investment
($)
12 hrs
8 hrs
0 kw
125 ft2/an
1
1
160 ft
310 ft2
10x50 ft
5 Ib/an yr
5 Ib/an yr
11 Ib/an yr
215.00
2,150.00
1,600.00
40.00
161.00
41.00
4,207.00
Annual Annual
Cost Returns
($/an yr) ($/an yr)
0.84
0.73
0.00
0.47
8.86
5.93
0.09
0.43
0.10
0.80
1.44
1.10
17.45 3.34
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
-0.84
-0.73
0.00
-0.47
-8.86
-5.93
-0.09
-0.43
-0.10
+0.80
+1.44
+1.10
-14.11
"Regions: cool, cold, warm, and hot humid.
TABLE C-16. ECONOMIC DATA FOR FED SWINE, UNPAVED LOT WITH SHELTER,
SOLID HANDLING, 200 ANIMAL UNITS*
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Land
Front-end loader
Bx spdr/periodic use
Nutrients
N
P2°5
KjO
Totals
Quantity
30 hrs
30 hrs
0 kw
125 ft2/an
1
1
5 Ib/an yr
8 Ib/an yr
11 Ib/an yr
Capital
Investment
($)
861.00
1,600.00
2,150.00
4,611.00
Annual
Cost
(5/an yr)
0.52
0.68
0.00
0.47
1.48
2.21
5.38
Annual
Returns
($/an yr)
0.80
1.44
1.10
3.34
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
-0 . 52
-0.68
0.00
-0.47
-1.48
-2.21
+0.80
+1.44
+1.10
-2.04
*Regions: cool, cold, warm, and hot humid.
235
-------
TABLE C-17. ECONOMIC DATA FOR FED SWINE, UNPAVED LOT WITH SHELTER,SOLID
HANDLING, DETENTION/IRRIGATION, 200 ANIMAL UNITS3
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Land
Front-end loader
Bx spdr/periodic use
Diversion terrace
Settling basin/earth
Detentn basin/earth
Wastewater irrig/RO
Nutrients
N
P2°5
K20
Totals
Quantity Capital
Investment
($)
50 hrs
62 hrs
0 kw
125 ftVan
1
1
320 ft
1250 ft2
25,000 ft3
1
5 Ib/an yr
8 Ib/an yr
11 Ib/an yr
861.00
1,600.00
2,150.00
80.00
393.00
880.00
2,890.00
8,854.00
Annual Annual
Cost Returns
($/an yr) ($/an yr)
0.88
1.40
0.00
0.47
1.48
2.21
0.05
0.26
0.54
2.83
0.80
1.44
1.10
10.13 3.34
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
-0.88
-1.40
0.00
-0.47
-1.48
-2.21
-0.05
-0.26
-0.54
-2.83
+0.80
+1.44
+1.10
-6.79
^Regions: cool, cold, warm, and hot humid.
TABLE C-18. ECONOMIC DATA FOR FED SWINE, UNPAVED LOT WITH SHELTER, SOLID
HANDLING, GRASS INFILTRATION, 200 ANIMAL UNITS3
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Land
Front-end loader
Bx spdr/periodic use
Diversion terrace
Settling basin/earth
Infiltration area
Nutrients
N
P2°5
K2O
Totals
Quantity Capital
Investment
($)
38 hrs
30 hrs
0 i?w
125 ftVan
1
1
320 ft
1250 ft2
10x100 ft
5 Ib/an yr
8 Ib/an yr
11 Ib/an yr
861.00
1,600.00
2,150.00
80.00
393.00
84.00
5,168.00
Annual Annual
Cost Returns
($/an yr) ($/an yr)
0.66
0.68
0.00
0.47
1.48
2.21
0.05
0.26
0.05
0.80
1.44
1.10
5.88 3.34
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
-0.66
-0.68
0.00
-0.47
-1.48
-2.21
-0.05
-0.26
-0.05
+0.80
+1.44
+1.10
-2.54
ategions: cool, cold, warm, and hot humid.
236
-------
TABLE C-19. ECONOMIC DATA FOR FED SWINE, UNPAVED LOT WITH SKELTER,
SOLID HANDLING, 600 ANIMAL UNITS3
Component
Labor
Traptor
Energy
Land
^x spdr/periodic use
Front'-end loader
Nutrients
ty
P2°5
Totals
Quantity
90 hrs
90 hrs
0 kw
125 ft2/an
1
1
5 Ib/an yr
8 Ib/an yr
11 Ib/an yr
Capital
Investment
($)
2,580.00
2,150.00
1,600.00
6,330.00
Annual
Cost
($/an yr)
0.52
0.68
0.00
0.47
0.74
0.49
2.91
Annual
Returns
($/an yr)
0.80
1.44
1.10
3.34
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
-O.S2
-0.68
0.00
-0.47
-0.74
-0.49
+0.80
+1.44
+1.10
+0.43
aRegions: cool, cold, warm and hot humid.
TABLE C-20.ECONOMIC DATA FOR FED SWINE, UNPAVED LOT WITH SHELTER, SOLID
HANDLING, DETENTION/IRRIGATION, 600 ANIMAL UNITSa
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Land
Bx spdr/periodic use
{front-end loader
Diversion terrace
Settling basin/earth
Detentn basin/earth
Wastewater irrig/RO
Nutrients
N
P2°5
K20
Totals
Quantity
150 hrs
186 hrs
0 kw
125 ft2/an
1
1
550 ft
3,750 ft2
75,000 ft3
1
5 Ib/an yr
8 Ib/an yr
11 Ib/an yr
Capital
Investment
($)
2,580.00
2,150.00
1,600.00
140.00
718.00
2,080.00
3,290.00
12,558.00
Annual Annual
Cost Returns
($/an yr) ($/an yr)
0.88
1.40
0.00
0.47
0.74
0.49
0.03
0.16
O.43
1.07
0.80
1.44
1.10
5.67 3.34
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
-0.88
-1.40
0.00
-0.47
-0.74
-0.49
-0.03
-0.16
-0.43
-1.07
+0.80
+1.44
+1.10
-2.33
Regions: cool, cold, warm and hot humid.
237
-------
TABLE C-21. ECONOMIC DATA FOR FED SWINE, UNPAVED LOT WITH SHELTER, SOLID
HANDLING, GRASS INFILTRATION, 600 ANIMAL UNITS3
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Land
Bx spar/periodic use
Front-end loader
Diversion terrace
Settling basin/earth
Infiltration area
Nutrients
N
P2°5
K2O
Totals
Quantity
106 hrs
90 hrs
0 kw
125 ft2/an
1
1
550 ft
3,750 ft2
11x200 ft
5 Ib/an yr
8 Ib/an yr
11 Ib/an yr
Capital
Investment
(5)
2,580.00
2,150.00
1,600.00
140.00
718.00
168.00
7,356.00
Annual
Cost
($/an yr)
0.62
0.68
0.00
0.47
0.74
0.49
0.03
0.16
0.03
3.22
Annual
Returns
($/an yr)
0.80
1.44
i.io
3.34
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
-0.62
-0.68
0.00
-0.47
-0.74
-0.49
-0.03
-0.16
-0.03
+0.80
+1.44
+1.10
+0.12
aRegions: cool, cold, warm and hot humid.
TABLE C-22. ECONOMIC DATA FOR FED SKINE, UNPAVED LOT WITH SHELTER,
SOLID HANDLING, 1000 ANIMAL UNITSa
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Land
Bx spdr/poriodic use
Front-end loader
Nutrients
N
P2°5
Totals
Quantity
115 hrs
115 hrs
0 kw
125 ft2/an
1
1
5 Ib/an yr
8 Ib/an yr
11 Us/an yr
Capital
Investment
($)
4,300.00
2,600.00
2,000.00
8,900.00
Annual
Cost
($/an yr)
0.40
0.52
0.00
0.47
0.54
0.37
2.30
Annual
Returns
($/an yr)
0.80
1.44
1.10
3.34
Annual Net
System Return
($/an vr)
-0.40
-0.52
0.00
-0.47
-0.54
-0.37
+0.80
+1.44
+1.10
+1.04
aRegions: cool, cold, warm and hot humid.
238
-------
TABLE C-23. ECONOMIC DATA FOR FED SWINE, UNPAVED LOT WITH SHELTER, SOLID
HANDLING, DETENTION/IRRIGATION, 100C ANIMAL UNITSa
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Land
Bx spdr/pericdic use
Front-end loader
Diversion terrace
Settling basin/earth
Detentn basin/earth
Wastewater irrig/RO
Nutrients
N
P2°5
Totals
Quantity
215 hrs
275 hrs
0 Jew
125 ft2/an
1
1
710 ft
6,250 ft2
125,000 ft3
1
5 Ib/an yr
8 Ib/an yr
11 Ib/an yr
Capital
Investment
($)
4,300.00
2,600.00
2,000.00
178.00
1,043.00
3,290.00
4,090.00
17,501.00
Annual
Cost
($/an yr)
0.?5
1.25
0.00
0.47
0.54
0.37
0.02
0.14
0.41
0.80
4.75
Annual
Returns
($/an yr)
0.80
1.44
1.10
3.34
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
-0.75
-1.25
0.00
-0.47
-0.54
-0.37
-0.02
-O.14
rO.41
-0.80
+0.80
+1.44
+1.10
-1.41
SRegions: cool, cold, warm and hot humid.
TABLE C-24. ECONOMIC DATA FOR FED SWINE, UNPAVED LOT WITH SHELTER,
SOLID HANDLING, GRASS INFILTRATION, 1000 ANIMAL UNITS3
Coitponent
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Land
Bx spdr/periodic use
Front-end loader
Diversion terrace
Settling basin/earth
Infiltration area
Nutrients
N
P2O5
K20
Totals
Quantity
135 hrs
115 hrs
0 kw
125 ft2/an
1
1
710 ft
6,250 ft2
10x325 ft
5 Ib/an yr
8 Ib/an vr
11 Ib/an yr
Capital
Investment
($)
4,300.00
2,600.00
2,000.00
178.00
1,043.00
275.00
10,396.00
Annual
Cost
(S/an yr)
0.47
0.52
0.00
0.47
0.54
0.37
0.02
0.14
0.03
2.57
Annual
Returns
($/an yr)
0.80
1.44
1.10
3.34
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
-0.47
-0.52
0.00
-0.47
-0.54
-0.37
-0.02
-0.14
-0.03
+0.80
+1.44
+1.10
+0.77
^Regions: cool, cold, warm and hot humid.
239
-------
TABLE C-25. ECONOMIC DATA FOR FED SWINE, UNPAVED LOT,
NO SHELTER, 50 ANIMAL UNITSa
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Land
Nutrients
N
P 0_
K20
Totals
Quantity Capital
Investment
($)
0
0
0
250 ft2/an 215.00
0
0
0
215.00
Annual
Cost
($/an yr)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.47
0.47
Annual
Returns
($/an yr)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
0.00
0.00
0.00
-0.47
0.00
0.00
0.00
-0.47
aRegions: warm and hot humid.
TABLE C-26. ECONOMIC DATA FOR FED SWINE, UNPAVED LOT, NO SHELTER,
DETENTION/IRRIGATION, 50 ANIMAL UNITSa
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Land
Diversion terrace
Detentn basin/earth
Nutrients
N
K2?
Totals
Quantity Capital Annual Annual
Investment Cost Returns
{$) ($/an yr) ($/an yr)
0
0
0
250 ft2/an
225 ft
5,200 ft3
0
0
0
0.00
0.00
e.oo
215.00 0.47
56.00 0.13
140.00 0.35
0.00
0.00
0.00
411.00 0.95 0.00
Annual Net
System Return
(S/an yr)
0.00
0.00
0.00
-0.47
-0.13
-0.35
0.00
0.00
0.00
-0.95
*Regions: warm and hot humid.
240
-------
TABLE C-27. ECONOMIC DATA FOR FED SWINE, UNPAVED LOT, NO SHELTER,
200 ANIMAL UNITS3
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Land
Nutrients
N
P2°5
X20
Totals
Quantity
0
0
0
250 ft2/an
0
0
0
Capital
Investment
($)
861.00
861.00
Annual
Cost
($/an yr)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.47
0.47
Annual
Returns
($/an yr)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
0.00
0.00
0.00
-0.47
0.00
0.00
0.00
-0.47
Regions: warm and hot humid.
TABLE C-28. ECONOMIC DATA FOR FED SWINE, UNPAVED LOT, NO SHELTER,
DETENTION/IRRIGATION, 200 ANIMAL UNITS3
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Land
Diversion terrace
Detentn basin/earth
Nutrients
N
P2°5
K20
Totals
Quantity Capital
Investment
0
0
0
250 ft2/an 861.00
450 ft 112.00
21,000 ft3 560.00
0
0
0
1,533.00
Annual Annual
Cost Returns
(S/an yr) ($/an yr)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.47
0.06
0.35
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.88 0.00
Annual Net
System Return
(S/an yr)
0.00
0.00
0.00
-0.47
-0.06
-0.35
0.00
0.00
0.00
-0.88
^Regions: warm and hot humid.
241
-------
TABLE C-29. ECONOMIC DATA FOR FED SWINE, UNPAVED LOT, NO SHELTER,
600 ANIMAL UNITS3
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Land
Nutrients
N
P2°5
Totals
Quantity Capital
Investment
(S)
0
0
0
250 ft2/an 2,580.00
0
0
0
2,580.00
Annual
Cost
(S/an vr)
0.00
a. oo
0.00
0.47
0.47
Annual
Returns
(S/an vr)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Annual Net
System Return
(S/an vr)
0.00
0.00
0.00
-0.47
0.00
0.00
0.00
-0.47
aRegions: warm and hot humid.
TABLE C-30. ECONOMIC DATA FOR FED SWINE, UNPAVED LOT, NO SHELTER,
DETENTION/IRRIGATION, 600 ANIMAL UNITS3
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Land
Diversion terrace
Detentn basin/earth
Nutrients
N
P2°5
K20
Totals
Quantity
0
0
0
250 ft2/an
800 ft
62,500 ft3
0
0
0
Capital
Investment
(S)
2,580.00
200.00
1,680.00
4,460.00
Annual
Cost
(S/an vr)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.47
0.03
0.35
0.85
Annual
Returns
(S/an vr)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Annual Net
System Return
(S/an yr)
0.00
0.00
0.00
-0.47
-0.03
-0.35
0.00
0.00
0.00
-0.85
aRegions: warm and hot humid.
242
-------
TABLE C-31. ECONOMIC DATA FOR FED SWINE, UNPAVED LOT,
NO SHELTER, 1000 ANIMAL UNITS3
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Land
Nutrients
N
P2°5
K,0
Quantity
0
0
0
250 ft2/an
0
0
0
Capital
Investment
($)
4,300.00
Annual
Cost
($/an yr)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.47
Annual
Returns
($/an yr)
0.00
0.00
0.00
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
0.00
0.00
0.00
-0.47
0.00
0.00
0.00
Totals
4,300
0.47
0.00
-0.47
^Regions: warm and hot humid.
TABLE C-32. ECONOMIC DATA FOR FED SWINE, UNPAVED LOT, NO SHELTER,
DETENTION/IRRIGATION, 1000 ANIMAL UNITS*
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Land
Diversion terrace
Detentn basin/earth
Nutrients
N
P2°5
K20
Totals
Quantity
0
0
0
250 ft2/an
1,000 ft
104,000 ft3
0
0
0
Capital
Investment
($)
4,300.00
250.00
2,800.00
7,350.00
Annual
Cost
($/an yr)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.47
0.03
0.35
0.85
Annual
Returns
($/an yr)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
0.00
0.00
0.00
-0.47
-0.03
-0.35
0.00
0.00
0.00
-0.85
^Regions: warm and hot humid.
243
-------
TABLE C-33. ECONOMIC DATA FOR FED SWINE, TOTAL SHELTER, TOTAL SLATS,
PIT STORAGE (6 MO), LIQUID HANDLING, 200 ANIMAL UNITSa
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Concrete slats
Concrete pit
Tank wagon
Nutrients
N
P205
K2°
Totals
Quantity
30 hrs
30 hrs
0 kw
7 ft2/ an
56 f t3/an
1
8 Ib/an yr
15 Ib/an yr
16 Ib/an yr
Capital
Investment
(S)
3,080.00
3,360.00
4,400.00
10,840.00
Annual
Cost
($/an yr)
0.52
1.17
0.00
2.54
1.90
5.28
11.42
Annual
Returns
($/an yr)
1.28
2.70
1.60
5.58
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
-0.52
-1.17
0.00
-2.54
-1.90
-5.28
+1.28
+2.70
+1.60
-5.84
aRegions: cool, cold, warm, and hot humid.
TABLE C-34. ECONOMIC DATA FOR FED SWINE, TOTAL SHELTER, TOTAL SLATS,
PIT STORAGE (6 MO), LIQUID HANDLING, INJECTION, 200
ANIMAL UNITSa
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Concrete slats
Concrete pit
Tank wagon
Injector/soil incorp
Nutrients
N
P2°5
Totals
Quantity
35 hrs
35 hrs
0 kw
7 ft2/an
56 ft3/an
1
1
11 Ib/an
17 Ib/an
18 Ib/an
Capital
Investment
($)
3,080.00
3,360.00
4,400.00
1,400.00
V3T
VJT
yr
12,240.00
Annual
Cost
($/an yr)
0.56
1.25
0.00
2.54
1.90
5.28
1.75
13.28
Annual
Returns
($/an yr)
1.76
3.06
1.80
6.62
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
-0.56
-1.25
0.00
-2.54
-1.90
-5.28
-1.75
+1.76
+3.06
+1.80
-6.66
aRegions: cool, cold, warm, and hot humid.
244
-------
TABLE C-35. ECONOMIC DATA FOR FED SWINE, TOTAL SHELTER, TOTAL SLATS, PIT
STORAGE (6 MO), LIQUID HANDLING, 600 ANIMAL UNITS3
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Concrete slats
Concrete pit
Tank wagon
Nutrients
N
P2°5
K20
Totals
Quantity
55 hrs
55 hrs
0 kw
7 ft2/an
56 ftVan
1
8 Ib/an yr
15 Ib/an yr
16 Ib/an yr
Capita 1
Investment
($)
9,240.00
10,080.00
6,000.00
25,320.00
Annual
Cost
($/an yr)
0.32
0.72
0.00
2.58
1.90
2.09
7.62
Annual
Returns
($/an yr)
1.28
2.70
1.60
5.58
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
-0.32
-0.72
0.00
-2.58
-1.90
-2.09
+1.28
+2.70
+1.60
-2.04
aRegions: cool, cold, warm, and hot humid.
TABLE C-36. ECONOMIC DATA FOR FED SWINE, TOTAL SHELTER, TOTAL SLATS, PIT
STORAGE (6 MO), LIQUID HANDLING, INJECTION, 600 ANIMAL UNITS3
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Concrete slats
Concrete pit
Tank wagon
Injector/soil incorp
Nutrients
N
P2°5
K20
Totals
Quantity Capital
Investment
($>
58 hrs
58 hrs
0 kw
7 ft2/an 9,240.00
56 ft3/an 10,080.00
1 6,000.00
1 1,400.00
11 Us/an yr
17 Ub/an yr
18 Ib/an yr
26,720.00
Annual Annual
Cost Returns
(S/an yrl (S/an vr)
0.34
0.76
0.00
2.58
1.90
2.09
0.58
1.76
3.06
1.80
8.26 6.62
Annual Net
System Return
-0.34
-0.76
0.00
-2.58
-1.90
-2.09
-0.58
+1.76
+3.06
+1.80
-1.64
"Regions: cool, cold, warm, and hot humid.
245
-------
TABLE C-37. ECONOMIC DATA FOR FED SWINE, TOTAL SHELTER, TOTAL SLATS, PIT
STORAGE (6 MO), LIQUID HANDLING, 1000 ANIMAL UNITS3
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Concrete slats
Concrete pit
Tank wagon
Nutrients
N
P2°5
KjO
Totals
Quantity
90 hrs
90 hrs
0 kw
7 ftVan
56 ft3/an
1
8 Ib/an yr
12 US/an yr
16 Ib/an yr
Capital
Investment
($)
15,400.00
16,800.00
6,000.00
38,200.00
Annual
Cost
($/an yr)
0.31
0.70
0.00
2.54
1.90
1.44
6.90
Annual
Returns
($/an yr)
1.28
2.70
1.60
5.58
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
-0.31
-0.70
0.00
-2.54
-1.90
-1.44
+1.28
+2.70
+1.60
-1.32
aRegions: cool, cold, warm and hot humid.
TABLE C-38. ECONOMIC DATA FOR FED SWINE, TOTAL SHELTER, TOTAL SLATS, PIT
STORAGE (6 MO) , LIQUID HANDLING, INJECTION, 1000 ANIMAL UNITSa
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Concrete slats
Concrete pit
Tank wagon
Injector/soil incorp
Nutrients
N
P2°5
Totals
Quantity
92 hrs
92 hrs
0 kw
7 ft2/an
56 ft3/an
1
1
11 Ib/an yr
17 Ib/an yr
18 Ub/an yr
Capital
Investment
($)
15,400.00
16,800.00
6,000.00
1,400.00
39,600.00
Annual
Cost
($/an yr)
0.33
0.74
0.00
2.54
1.90
1.44
0.35
7.31
Annual
Returns
($/an yr)
1.76
3.06
1.80
6.62
Annual Net
System Return
($/an vr)
-0.33
-0.74
0.00
-2.54
-1.90
-1.44
-0.35
+1.76
+3.06
+1.80
-0.69
*Regions: cool, cold, warm and hot humid.
246
-------
TABLE C-39. ECONOMIC DATA FOR FED SWINE, TOTAL SHELTER, PARTIAL SLATS,
SHALLOW PIT DISCHARGE TO LAGOON, WASTEWATEA DISPOSAL,
200 ANIMAL UNITS*
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Concrete slats
Concrete pit
Concrete floor
Lagoon
Wastewtr irrig/manur
Nutrients
N
P2°5
A V
K20
Totals
Quantity Capital
Investment
($)
22 hrs
14 hrs
0 kw
f\
3 ft2/an
12 ft3/an
4 ft2/an
54,000 ft3
1
2 Ib/an yr
8 Ib/an yr
11 Ib/an yr
1,080.00
720.00
1,320.00
3 , 400 . 00
2,440.00
8,960.00
Annual Annual
Cost Returns
($/an yr) ($/an yr)
0.39
0.29
0,00
0.89
0.41
1.09
2.10
3.05
0.32
1.44
1.10
8.22 2.86
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
-0.39
-0.29
0.00
-0.89
-0.41
-1.09
-2.10
-3.05
+0.32
+1.44
+1.10
-5.36
warm and hot humid.
TABLE C-40. ECONOMIC DATA FOR FED SWINE, TOTAL SHELTER, PARTIAL SLATS,
SHALLOW PIT DISCHARGE TO LAGOON, WASTEWATER DISPOSAL,
600 ANIMAL UNITS*
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Concrete slats
Concrete pit
Concrete floor
Lagoon
Wastewtr irrig/manur
Nutrients
N
P2°5
K20
Totals
Quantity
38 hrs
42 hrs
0 kw
3 ft2/an
12 ft3/an
4 ft2/an
162,000 ft3
1
2 Ib/an yr
8 Ib/an yr
11 Ib/an yr
Capital
Investment
($)
3,240.00
2,160.00
3,960.00
10,000.00
2,890.00
22,250:00
Annual
Cost
($/an yr)
0.22
0.29
0.00
0.89
0.41
1.09
2.06
1.20
6.16
Annual
Returns
($/an yr)
0.32
1.44
1.10
2.86
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
-0.22
-0.29
0.00
-0.89
-0.41
-1.09
-2.06
-1.20
+0.32
+1.44
+1.10
-3.30
aRegions: warm and hot humid.
247
-------
TABLE C-41. ECONOMIC DATA FOR FED SWINE, TOTAL SHELTER, PARTIAL SLATS,
SHALLOW PIT DISCHARGE TO LAGOON, WASTEWATER DISPOSAL,
1000 ANIMAL UNITSa
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Concrete slats
Concrete pit
Concrete floor
Lagoon
Wastewtr irrig/manur
Nutrients
N
P2°5
K2O
Totals
Quantity
52 hrs
70 hrs
0 kw
3 ft2/an
12 ft3/an
4 ft2/an
270,000 ft3
1
2 Ib/an yr
8 Ib/an yr
11 Ib/an yr
Capital
Investment
(?)
5,400.00
3,600.00
6,600.00
16,800.00
3,290.00
35,690.00
Annual
Cost
($/an yr)
0.18
0.29
0.00
0.89
0.41
1.09
2.08
0.82
5.75
Annual
Returns
($/an yr)
0.32
1.44
1.10
2.86
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
-0.18
-0.29
0.00
-0.89
-0.41
-1.09
-2.08
-0.82
+0.32
+1.44
+1.10
-2.89
aRegions: warm and hot humid.
TABLE C-42. ECONOMIC DATA FOR FED SWINE, TOTAL SHELTER, FLUSH GUTTER
TO LAGOON, WASTEWATER DISPOSAL, 200 ANIMAL UNITS3
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Concrete floor
Siphon tank
Recycle pump/pipe
Lagoon
Wastewtr irrig/manur
Nutrients
N
P2°5
K2°
Totals
Quantity
18. hrs
14 hrs
0 kw
8 ft2/an
1
1
54,000 ft3
1
2 Ib/an yr
8 Ib/an yr
11 Ib/an yr
Capital
Investment
(S)
2,164.00
300.00
425.00
3,200.00
2,440.00
8,529.00
Annual
Cost
($/an yr)
0.32
0.29
0.00
1.23
0.38
0.66
1.98
3.05
7.90
Annual
Returns
($/an yr)
0.32
1.44
1.10
2.86
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
-0.32
-0.29
0.00
-1.23
-0.38
-0.66
-1.98
-3.05
+0.32
+1.44
+1.10
-5.04
Regions: cool, warm and hot humid.
248
-------
TABLE C-43. ECONOMIC DATA FOR FED SWINE, TOTAL SHELTER, FLUSH GUTTER
TO LAGOON, WASTEWATER DISPOSAL, 6UO ANIMAL UNITSa
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Concrete floor
Siphon tank
Recycle pump/pipe
Lagoon
Wastewtr irrig/manur
Nutrients
N
P2o5
K20
Totals
Quantity
26 hrs
42 hrs
0 lew
8 ft2/an
2
1
162,000 ft3
1
2 Ib/an yr
8 Ib/an yr
11 Ib/an yr
Capital
Investment
($)
6,492.00
500.00
475.00
9,600.00
2,890.00
19,957.00
Annual
Cost
($/an yr)
0.15
0.29
0.00
1.23
0.21
0.24
1.98
1.20
5.30
Annual
Returns
($/an yr)
0.32
1.44
1.10
2.86
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
-0.15
-0.29
0.00
-1.23
-0.21
-0.24
-1.98
-1.20
-tO. 32
+1.44
+1.10
-2.44
aRegions: cool, warm and hot humid.
TABLE C-44. ECONOMIC DATA FOR FED SWINE, TOTAL SHELTER, FLUSH GUTTER
TO LAGOON, WASTEWATER DISPOSAL, 1000 ANIMAL UNITSa
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Concrete floor
Siphon tank
Recycle pump/pipe
Lagoon
Wastewtr irrig/manur
Nutrients
N
P2°5
K2O
Totals
Quantity
34 hrs
70 hrs
0 kw
8 £t2/an
4
1
^
270,000 ft3
1
2 Ib/an yr
8 Ib/an yr
11 Ib/an yr
Capital
Investment
(?)
10,820.00
800.00
525.00
16,000.00
3,290.00
31,435.00
Annual
Cost
($/an yr)
0.12
0.29
0.00
1.23
0.17
0.16
1.98
0.82
4.77
Annual
Returns
(S/an yr)
0.32
1.44
1.10
2.86
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
-0.12
-0.29
0.00
-1.23
-0.17
-0.16
-1.98
-0.82
+O.32
+1.44
+1.10
-1.91
^Regions: cool., warm
hot humid.
249
-------
TABLE C-45. ECONOMIC DATA FOR FED SWINE, TOTAL SHELTER, NARROW GUTTER
DISCHARGE TO STORAGE BASIN, LIQUID HANDLING, 200 ANIMAL UNITS*
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Concrete floor
Tank wagon
Storage basin
Nutrients
N
P2°5
K2°
Totals
Quantity
55 hrs
30 hrs
0 kw
7 ft2/anb
1
56 ft3/an
8 Ib/an yr
15 Ib/an yr
16 Ib/an yr
Capital
Investment
($)
2,106.00
4,400.00
734.00
7,240.00
Annual
Cost
($/an yr)
0.96
1.17
0.00
1.19
5.28
0.45
9.06
Annual
Returns
($/an yr)
1.28
2.70
1.60
5.58
Annual Net
System Return
(S/an yr)
-0.96
-1.17
0.00
-1.19
-5.28
-0.45
+1.28
+2.70
+1.60
-3.48
=^==^==— —
aRegions: cool and cold humid.
Gutter at $4.00 per linear foot.
TABLE C-46. ECONOMIC DATA FOR FED SWINE, TOTAL SHELTER, NARROW GUTTER
DISCHARGE TO STORAGE BASIN, LIQUID HANDLING, INJECTION,
200 ANIMAL UNITSa
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Concrete floor
Tank wagon
Storage basin
Injector/soil incorp
Nutrients
N
P 0
KjO
Totals
Quantity
58 hrs
33 hrs
0 kw
7 ft2/anb
1
56 ft3/an
1
11 Ib/an yr
17 Ib/an yr
18 Ib/an yr
Capital
Investment
(S)
2,106.00
4,400.00
734.00
1,400.00
8,640.00
Annual
Cost
($/an yr)
1.01
1.29
0.00
1.19
5.28
0.45
i.75
10.98
Annual
Returns
($/an yr)
1.76
3.06
1.80
6.62
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
-1.01
-1.29
0.00
-1.19
-5.28
-0.45
-1.75
+1.76
+3.06
+1.80
-4.36
aRogions: cool and cold humid.
bGutter at $4.00 per linear ft.
250
-------
TABLE C-47. ECOKOMIC DATA FOR FED SWINE, TOTAL SHELTER, NARROW GUTTER
DISCHARGE TO STORAGE BASIN, LIQUID HANDLING, 600 ANIMAL UNITSa
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Concrete floor
Tank wagon
Storage basin
Nutrients
N
P205
K2°
Totals
Quantity
80 hrs
55 hrs
0 kw
7 ft2/anb
1
56 ft3/an
8 Ib/an yr
15 li>/an yr
16 Ib/an yr
Capital
Investment
($)
6,318.00
6,000.00
1,200.00
13,518.00
Annual
Cost
($/an yr)
0.47
0.72
0.00
1.20
2.40
0.25
5.03
Annual
Returns
($/an yr)
1.28
2.70
1.60
5.58
Annual Net
System Return
<$/an vr)
-0.47
-0.72
0.00
-1.20
-2.40
-0.25
+1.28
+2.70
+1.60
+0.55
aRegions: cool and cold humid.
bGutter at $4.00 per linear ft.
TABLE C-48. ECONOMIC DATA FOR FED SWINE, TOTAL SHELTER, NARROW GUTTER
DISCHARGE TO STORAGE BASIN, LIQUID HANDLING, INJECTION,
600 ANIMAL UNITS3
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Concrete floor
Tank wagon
Storage basin
Injector/soil incorp
Nutrients
N
P2°5
K2O
Totals
Quantity Capital
Investment
($)
86 hrs
61 hrs
°2kWK
7 ftVanb 6,318.00
1 6,000.00
56 ft3/an 1,200.00
1 1,400.00
11 Ib/an yr
17 Ib/an yr
18 Ib/an yr
14,918.00
Annual Annual
Cost Return
($/an yr) ($/an yr)
0.50
0.80
0.00
1.20
2.40
0.25
0.58
1.76
3.06
1.80
5.73 6.62
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
-0.50
-0.80
0.00
-1.20
-2.40
-0.25
-0.58
+1.76
+3.06
+1.80
+0.89
aRegions: cool and cold humid.
bGutter at $4.00 per linear ft.
251
-------
TABLE C-49. ECONOMIC DATA FOR FED SWINE, TOTAL SHELTER, NARROW GUTTER
DISCHARGE TO STORAGE BASIN, LIQUID HANDLING, 1000 ANIMAL UNITS3
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Concrete floor
Tank wagon
Storage basin
Nutrients
N
P2°5
Totals
Quantity
115 hrs
90 hrs
0 kv
7 ft2/anb
1
56 ft3/an
8 Ib/an yr
15 Ib/an yr
16 Ib/an yr
Capital
Investment
($)
10,530.00
6,000.00
1,670.00
18,200.00
Annual
Cost
($/an yr)
0.40
0.70
0.00
1.19
1.44
0.21
3.95
Annual
Returns
(5/an yr)
1.28
2.70
1.60
5.58
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
-0.40
-0.70
0.00
-1.19
-1.44
-0.21
+1.28
+2.70
+1.60
+1.63
aRegions: ccol and cold humid.
Gutter at $4.00 per linear ft.
TABLE C-50. ECONOMIC DATA FOR FED SWINE, TOTAL SHELTER, NARROW GUTTER DIS-
CHARGE TO STORAGE BASIN, LIQUID HANDLING, INJECTION, 1000
ANIMAL UNITS3
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Concrete floor
Tank wagon
Storage basin
Injector/soil incorp
Nutrients
N
P205
K2O
Totals
Quantity
121 hrs
96 hrs
0 kw
7 ft2/anb
56 ft3/an
1
11 Ib/an yr
17 Ib/an yr
18 Ib/an yr
Capital
Investment
($)
10,530.00
6,000.00
1,670.00
1,400.00
19,600.00
Annual
Cost
($/an yr)
0.42
0.75
0.00
1.19
1.44
0.21
0.35
4.36
Annual
Re turns
($/an yr)
1.76
3.06
1.80
6.62
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
-0.42
-0.75
0.00
-1.19
-1.44
-0.21
-0.35
+1.76
+3.06
+1.80
t-2.26
'Regions: cool and cold humid.
b
Gutter at $4.00 per linear ft.
252
-------
TABLE C-51. ECONOMIC DATA FOR SWINE BREEDING, PAVED LOT, FARROWING
HOUSE, SOLID HANDLING, 20 ANIMAL UNITS4
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Concrete floor
Bx spdr/daily use
Nutrients
N
P.O
K^O5
Totals
Quantity
26 hrs
10 hrs
0 kw
100 ft2/an
1
6 Ib/an yr
3 Ib/an yr
7 Ib/an yr
Capital
Investment
(S)
950.00
2,150.00
3,100.00
Annual
Cost
($/an yr)
4.55
2.73
0.00
5.38
33.22
45.88
Annual
Returns
(S/an yr)
0.96
0.54
0.70
2.20
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
-4.55
-2.73
0.00
-5.38
-33.22
+0.96
+0.54
+0.70
-43.68
•Regions: cool, cold, warm and hot humid.
TABLE C-52. ECONOMIC DATA FOR SWINE BREEDING, PAVED LOT, FARROWING
HOUSE, SOLID HANDLING, GRASS INFILTRATION, 20 ANIMAL UNITS*
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Concrete floor
Bx spdr/daily use
Settlg basin/concret
Infiltration area
Nutrients
N
P2°5
*2°
Totals
Quantity
26 hrs
10 hrs
0 lew
100 ft2/an
1
180 ft2
12x150 ft
6 Ib/an yr
3 Ib/an yr
7 Ib/an yr
Capital
Investment
(?)
950.00
2,150.00
459.00
144.00
3,703.00
Annual
Cost
($/an yr
4.55
2.73
0.00
5.38
33.22
2.60
0.89
49.37
Annual
Returns
($/an yr)
0.96
0.54
0.70
2.20
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
-4.55
-2.73
0.00
-5.38
-33.22
-2.60
-0.89
+0.96
+0.54
+0.70
-47.17
aRegions: cool, cold, warm and hot humid.
253
-------
TABLE C-53. ECONOMIC DATA FOR SWINE BREEDING, PAVED LOT, FARROWING HOUSE,
SOLID HANDLING, 50 ANIMAL UNITSa
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Concrete floor
Bx spdr/daily use
Nutrients
N
P2°5
Totals
Quantity
50 hrs
10 hrs
0 kw
100 ft2/an
1
6 Ib/an yr
3 Ib/an yr
7 Ib/an yr
Capital
Investment
($)
2,375.00
2,150.00
4,525.00
Annual
Cost
($/an yr)
3.50
1.09
0.00
5.38
13.29
23.26
Annual
Returns
($/an yr)
0.96
0.54
0.70
2.20
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
-3.50
-1.09
0.00
-5.38
-13.29
+0.96
+0.54
+0.70
-21.06
aRegions: cool, cold, warm and hot humid.
TABLE C-54. ECONOMIC DATA FOR SWINE BREEDING, PAVED LOT, FARROWING HOUSE,
SOLID HANDLING, GRASS INFILTRATION, 50 ANIMAL UNITS3
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Concrete floor
Bx spdr/daily use
Settlg basin/concret
Infiltration area
Nutrients
N
P2°5
K2°
Totals
Quantity
50 hrs
10 hrs
0 kw
100 ft2/an
1
230 ft2
12x225 ft
6 Ib/an yr
3 Ib/an yr
7 Ib/an yr
Capital
Investment
($)
2,375.00
2,150.00
591.00
216.00
5,332.00
Annual
Cost
($/an yr)
3.50
1.09
0.00
5.38
13.29
1.34
0.53
25.13
Annual
Returns
($/an yr)
0.96
0.54
0.70
2.20
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
-3.50
-1.09
0.00
-5.38
-13.29
-1.34
-0.53
+0.96
+0.54
+0.70
-22.93
Regions: cool, cold, warm and hot humid.
254
-------
TABLE C-55.
ECONOMIC DATA FOR SWINE BREEDING, PAVED LOT, FARROWING
HOUSE, SOLID HANDLING, 100 ANIMAL UNITS3
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Concrete floor
Bx spdr /daily use
Nutrients
N
P2°5
K20
Totals
Quantity
90 hrs
10 hrs
0 kw
100 ft2 /an
1
6 Ib/an yr
3 Ib/an yr
7 Ib/an yr
Capital
Investment
($)
4,750.00
2,150.00
6,900.00
Annual
Cost
($/an yr)
3.15
0.55
0.00
5.38
6.64
15.72
Annual
Returns
($/an yr)
0.96
0.54
0.70
2.20
Annual Net
System Return
(5/an yr)
-3.15
-0.55
Oon
• vsu
-5.38
— fi fid
V » Vt
+0.96
+0.54
+0.70
-J.3.52
cool, cold, warm and hot humid.
TABLE C-56.
ECONOMIC DATA FOR SWINE BREEDING, PAVED LOT, FARROWING
HOUSE, SOLID HANDLING, GRASS INFILTRATION, 100 ANIMAL UNITS3
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Concrete floor
Bx spdr /daily use
Settlg basin/concret
Infiltration area
Nutrients
N
P2o5
K2O
Totals
90 hrs
10 hrs
0 kw
100 ft2/an
1
25 ft2
12x300 ft
6 Ib/an yr
3 Ib/an yr
8 Ib/an yr
Capital
Investment
(Si
4,750.00
2,150.00
668.00
288.00
7,856.00
Annual
Cost
(S/an Vr)
3.15
0.55
0.00
5.38
6.64
0.76
0.36
16.83
Annual Annual Net
Returns System Return
-3 15
-0.55
0.00
— •> ift
-6.64
-0.76
— O 7fi
0.96 +0.96
0.54 +0.54
0.70 +0.70
2.20 -14.63
cool, cold, warm and hot humid.
255
-------
TABLE C-57. ECONOMIC DATA FOR SWINE BREEDING, TOTAL SHELTER, CONCRETE
FLOOR, SOLID HANDLING, 20 ANIMAL UNITS3
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Concrete floor
Bx spdr/daily use
Nutrients
N
P2°5
K20
Totals
Quantity
52 hrs
20 hrs
0 kw
35 ft2/an
1
8 Ib/an yr
4 Ib/an yr
8 Ib/an yr
Capital
Investment
($)
675.00
2,150.00
2,825.00
Annual
Cost
($/an yr)
9.10
5.46
0.00
3.82
33.22
51.60
Annual
Returns
($/an yr)
1.28
0.72
0.80
2.80
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
-9.10
-5.46
0.00
-3.82
-33.22
+1.28
+0.72
+0.80
-48.80
aRegions: cool, cold, warm and hot humid.
TABLE C-58. ECONOMIC DATA FOR SWINE BREEDING, TOTAL SHELTER, CONCRETE
FLOOR, SOLID HANDLING, 50 ANIMAL UNITSa
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Concrete floor
Bx spdr/daily use
Nutrients
N
P2°5
£, j
Totals
Quantity
100 hrs
20 hrs
0 kw
35 ft2/an
1
8 Ib/an yr
4 Ib/an yr
6 Ib/an yr
Capital
Investment
($)
1,688.00
2,150.00
3,838.00
Annual
Cost
($/an yr)
7.00
2.18
0.00
3.83
13.29
26.30
Annual.
Returns
(S/an yr)
1.28
0.72
0.80
2.80
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
-7.00
-2.18
0.00
-3.83
-13.29
+1.28
+0.72
+0.80
-23.50
aRegions: cool, cold, warm and hot humid.
256
-------
TABLE C-59.
ECONOMIC DATA FOR SWINE BREEDING, TOTAL SHELTER, PARTIAL
SIATS, PIT STORAGE (3 MO), LIQUID HANDLING, 20 ANIMAL UNITSa
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Concrete floor
Concrete slats
Concrete pit
Vacuum tank wagon
Nutrients
N
P205
K20
Totals
Quantity
22 hrs
2 hrs
0 kw
40 ftVan
20 ft2/an
40 ft3/an
1
7 Ib/an yr
4 Ib/an yr
8 Ib/an yr
Capital
Investment
($)
1,080.00
880.00
230.00
4,400.00
6,590.00
Annual
Cost
($/an yr)
3.85
0.78
0.00
6.12
7.25
1.30
55.03
74.34
Annual
Returns
($/an yr)
1.12
0.72
0.80
2.64
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
-3.85
-0.78
0.00
-6.12
-7.25
-1.30
-55.03
+1.12
+0.72
+0.80
-71.70
cool, cold, warm and hot humid.
TABLE C-60.
ECONOMIC DATA FOR SWINE BREEDING, TOTAL SHELTER, PARTIAL SLATS,
PIT STORAGE (3 MO), LIQUID HANDLING, INJECTION, 20 ANIMAL UNITS3
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Concrete floor
Concrete slats
Concrete pit
Vacuum tank wagon
Injector/soil incorp
Nutrients
N
P2°5
KjO
Totals
Quantity
23 hrs
3 hrs
0 kw
40 ft2/an
20 ft2/an
40 ft3/an
1
1
9 Ib/an yr
5 Ib/an yr
9 Ib/an yr
Capital
Investment
($)
1,080.00
880.00
230.00
4,400.00
1,400.00
7,990.00
Annual
Cost
($/an yr)
4.02
1.17
0.00
6.12
7.25
1.30
55.03
17.51
92.41
Annual
Returns
($/an yr)
1.44
0.90
0.90
3.24
Annual Met
System Return
(§/an yr)
-4.02
-1.17
0.00
-6.12
-7.25
-1.30
-55.03
-17.51
+1.44
+0.90
+0.90
-89.17
cool, cold, warm and hot humid.
257
-------
TABLE C-61. ECONOMIC DATA FOR SWINE BREEDING, TOTAL SHELTER, PARTIAL SLATS,
PIT STORAGE (3 MO), LIQUID HANDLING, 50 ANIMAL UNITS3
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Concrete floor
Concrete slats
Concrete pit
Vacuum tank wagon
Nutrients
N
P205
K2O
Totals
Quantity
53 hrs
3 hrs
0 kw
40 ft2/an
20 ft2 /an
40 ft3/an
1
7 Ib/an yr
4 Ib/an yr
8 Ib/an yr
Capital
Investment
(?)
2,700.00
2,200.00
575.00
4,400.00
9,875.00
Annual
Cost
($/an yr)
3.71
0.47
0.00
6.12
7.25
1.30
22.01
40.86
Annual
Returns
(S/an yr)
1.12
0.72
0.80
2.64
Annual Net
System Return
(S/an yr)
-3.71
-0.47
0.00
-6.12
-7.25
-1.30
-22.01
+1.12
+0.72
+0.80
-38.22
'Regions: cool, cold, warm and hot humid.
TABLE C-62. ECONOMIC DATA FOR SWINE BREEDING, TOTAL SHELTER, PARTIAL SLATS,
PIT STORAGE (3 MO) , LIQUID HANDLING, INJECTION, 50 ANIMAL UNITS*
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Concrete floor
Concrete slats
Concrete pit
Vacuum tank wagon
Injector/soil incorp
Nutrients
N
P2°5
Totals
Quantity
54 hrs
4 hrs
0 kw
40 ft2/an
20 ft2/an
40 ft3/an
1
1
9 Ib/an yr
5 Ib/an yr
9 Ib/an yr
Capital
Investment
(S)
2,700.00
2,200.00
575.00
4,400.00
1,400.00
11,275.00
Annual
Cost
(S/an vr)
3.78
0.63
0.00
6.12
7.25
1.30
22.01
7.00
48.10
Annual
Returns
(S/an vr)
1.44
0.90
0.90
3.24
Annual Net
System Return
(S/an vr) .
-3.78
-0.63
0.00
-6.12
-7.25
-1.30
-22.01
-7.00
+1.44
+0.90
+0.90
-44.86
*Regions: cool, cold, warm and hot humid.
258
-------
TABLE C-63.
ECONOMIC DATA FOR SWINE BREEDING, TOTAL SHELTER, PARTIAL SLATS,
PIT STORAGE (3 MO), LIQUID HANDLING, 100 ANIMAL UNITS3
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Concrete floor
Concrete slats
Concrete pit
Vacuum tank wagon
Nutrients
N
P2°5
K20
Totals
Quantity
105 hrs
5 hrs
0 kw
40 ft2/an
20 ft2/an
40 ft3/an
1
7 Ib/an yr
4 Ib/an yr
8 Ib/an yr
Capital
Investment
($)
5,400.00
4,400.00
1,150.00
4,400.00
15,350.00
Annual
Cost
($/an yr)
3.67
0.39
0.00
6.12
7.25
1.30
11.01
29.75
Annual
Returns
($/an yr)
1.12
0.72
0.80
2.64
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
-3.67
-0.39
0.00
-6.12
-7.25
-1 30
X • JW
-11.01
+1.12
+0.72
+0.80
-27.11
TABLE C-64. ECONOMIC DATA FOR SWINE BREEDING, TOTAL SHELTER, PARTIAL SLATS,
PIT STORAGE (.3 MO) , LIQUID HANDLING, INJECTION, 100 ANIMAL UNITS3
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Concrete floor
Concrete slats
Concrete pit
Vacuum tank wagon
Injector/soil incorp
Nutrients
N
P205
K20
Totals
106 hrs
6 hrs
0 kw
40 ft2/an
20 ft2/an
40 ft3/an
1
1
9 Ib/an yr
5 Ib/an yr
9 ib/an yr
Capital
Investment
($)
5,400.00
4,400.00
1,150.00
4,400.00
1,400.00
•
16,750.00
Annual
Cost
($/an yr)
3.71
0.47
0.00
6.12
7.25
1.30
11.01
3.50
33.37
Annual
Returns
($/an yr)
1.44
0.90
0.90
3.24
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
-3.71
-0.47
0.00
-6.12
-7.25
-1.30
-11.01
-3 SO
•J • JV
+1.44
+0.90
+0.90
-30.13
cool, cold, warm and hot humid.
259
-------
TABLE C-65. ECONOMIC DATA FOR SWINE BREEDING, TOTAL SHELTER, PARTIAL SLATS,
SHALLOW PIT, LAGOON, KASTEWATER IRRIGATION, 20 ANIMAL UNITS3
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Concrete slats
Concrete pit
Concrete floor
Lagoon
Wastewtr irrig/manur
Nutrients
N
P205
K20
Totals
Quantity Capital
Investment
($)
2 hrs
2 hrs
0 kw
17.5 ft2/ an 770.00
13 ft /an 80.00
17.5 ft2/an 473.00
3,800 ft3 500.00
1 2,440.00
2 Ib/an yr
2 Ib/an yr
5 Ib/an yr
4,263.00
Annual Annual
Cost Returns
($/an yr) ($/an yr)
0.35
0.41
0.00
6.34
0.45
2.68
3.09
30.52
0.32
0.36
0.50
43.85 1.18
Annual Net
System Return
(S/an yr)
-0.35
-0.41
0.00
-6.34
-0.45
-2.68
-3.09
-30.52
+0.32
+0.36
+0.50
-42.67
*Fegions: cold, cool, warm and hot humid.
TABLE C-66. ECONOMIC DATA FOR SWINE BREEDING, TOTAL SHELTER, PARTIAL SLATS,
SHALLOW PIT, LAGOON, WASTEWATER IRRIGATION, 50 ANIMAL UNITSa
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Concrete slats
Concrete pit
Concrete floor
Lagoon
Wastewtr irrig/manur
Nutrients
N
P2°5
KjO
Quantity
2 hrs
2 hrs
0 kw
17.5 ft2/an
13 ft3/an
17.5 ft2/an
9,400 ft3
1
2 Ib/an yr
2 Ib/an yr
5 Ib/an yr
Capital
Investment
($)
1,925.00
195.00
1,181.00
1,100.00
2,440.00
•
Annual
Cost
($/an yr)
0.14
0.16
0.00
6.34
0.44
2.68
2.72
12.22
Annual
Returns
(5/an yr)
0.32
0.36
0.50
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
-0.14
-0.16
0.00
-6.34
-0.44
-2.68
-2.72
-12.22
+0.32
+0.36
+0.50
Totals
6,841.00
24.70
1.18
-23.52
aRegions: cold, cool, warm, and hot humid.
260
-------
TABLE C-67.
ECONOMIC DATA FOP. SWINE BREEDING, TOTAL SHELTER, PARTIAL SLATS,
SHALLOW PIT, LAGOON, WASTEWATER IRRIGATION, lOO ANIMAL UNITS3
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Concrete slats
Concrete pit
Concrete floor
Lagoon
Wastewtr irrig/manur
Nutrients
N
?2°5
K2O
Totals
Quantity Capital
Investment
($)
3 hrs
3 hrs
0 kw
17.5 ft2/an 3,850.00
13 ft3/an 390.00
17.5 ft2/ an 2,363.00
19,000 ft3 2,000.00
1 2,440.00
2 Ib/an yr
2 Ib/an yr
5 Ib/an yr
9,118.00
===========
Annual Annual
Cost Returns
($/an yr) (?/an w)
01 n
. J.W
0.12
0.00
6.16
0.44
2.68
2.47
6.11
0.32
0.36
0.50
18.08 i.is
•
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
—o i n
W . ,L\J
-0 12
w • A£
0.00
-6.16
-0.44
-2.68
-2.47
-6.11
+O 1?
I W . J ft
-I-O Ifi
TW • J\J
+0.50
-16.90
Ttegions:cold, cool, warm, and hot humid.
TABLE C-68.
ECONOMIC DATA FOR SWINE BREEDING, TOTAL SHELTER, PARTIAL SLATS,
FLUSH, LAGOON, WASTEWATER IRRIGATION, 20 ANIMAL UNITSa
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Concrete floor
Concrete slats
Siphon tank
Concrete pit
Lagoon
Recycle pump/pipe
Wastewtr irrig/manur
Nutrients
N
*2°5
K2°
Totals
========================
Quantity Capital
Investment
($)
2 hrs
2 hrs
0 kw
17.5 ft2/an
17.5 ft2/an
1
13 ft3/an
3,000 ft3
1
1
2 Ib/an yr
2 Ib/an yr
5 Ib/an yr
473.00
770.00
100.00
80.00
384.00
500.00
2,446.00
4,747.00
•
Annual
Cost
($/an yr)
OOC
• JD
0.41
0.00
2.63
6.34
0.93
0.41
2.37
7.72
30.52
51.74
=================================
Annual Annual Net
Returns System Return
(S/an yr) ($/an yr)
-0.35
—0 41
\j . ^t j.
Oon
. \j\j
-2.68
—A 1A
O • o4
-0.93
-0.41
-2.37
-7.72
-30.52
0.32 +0.32
0.36 +0.36
0-50 +0.50
1-18 -50.56
SRegions:cold, cool, warm, and hot humid.
261
-------
TABLE C-69. ECONOMIC DATA FOR SWINE BREEDING, TOTAL SHELTER, PARTIAL SLATS,
FLUSH, LAGOON, WASTEWATER IRRIGATION, 50 ANIMAL UNITS3
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Concrete floor
Concrete slats
Siphon tank
Concrete pit
Lagoon
Recycle pump /pipe
Wastewtr irrig/manur
Nutrients
N
P205
Totals
aRegions: cold, cool,
Quantity
2 hrs
2 hrs
0 kw
17.5 ft2/an
17.5 ft2 /an
1
13 ft3/an
7,900 ft3
1
1
2 Ib/an yr
2 Ib/an yr
5 Ib/an yr
warm and hot
Capital
Investment
(5)
1,181.00
1,925.00
100.00
195.00
918.00
600.00
2,440.00
7,359.99
humid.
Annual Annual
Cost Returns
($/an yr) ($/an yr)
0.14
0.16
0.00
2.68
6.34
0.37
0.45
2.27
3.71
12.21
0.32
0.36
0.50
28.33 1.18
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
-0.14
-0.16
0.00
-2.68
-6.34
-0.37
-0.45
-2.27
-3.71
-12.21
+0.32
+0.36
+0.50
-27.15
TABLE C-70. ECONOMIC DATA FOR SWINE BREEDING, TOTAL SHELTER, PARTIAL SLATS,
FLUSH, LAGOON, WASTEWATER IRRIGATION, 100 ANIMAL UNITSa
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Concrete floor
Concrete slats
Siphon tank
Concrete pit
Lagoon
Recycle pump/pipe
Wastewtr irrig/manur
Nutrients
N
P2°5
K20
Totals
aRegions: cold, cool
Quantity
3 hrs
3 hrs
0 kw
17.5 ft2 /an
17.5 ft2/an
2
13 ft3/an
17,000 ft3
1
1
2 Ib/an yr
2 Ib/an yr
5 Ib/an yr
, warm, and hot
Capital
Investment
($)
2,363.00
3,850.00
150.00
390.00
1,786.00
750.00
2,440.00
9,804.00
humid.
Annual Annual
Cost Returns
($/an yr) ($/an yr)
0.10
0.12
0.00
2.68
6.16
0.28
0.44
2.21
2.32
6.11
0.32
0.36
0.50
20.42 1.18
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
-0.10
-0.12
0.00
-2.68
-6.16
-0.28
-0.44
-2.21
-2.32
-6.11
+0.32
+0.36
+0.50
-19.24
262
-------
TABLE D-l.
ECONOMIC DATA FOR EWES AND LAMBS, UNPAVED LOT, SHELTER
150 ANIMAL UNITS3 SHELTER,
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Land
Concrete floor
Quantity
30 hrs
30 hrs
0 kw
30 ft2/an
20 ft2/an
Front-end loader 1
Bx spdr/periodic use 1
Nutrients
N
P2°5
K2O
Totals
*Regions: cool and
8 Ib/an yr
5 Ib/an yr
13 Ib/an yr
cold arid, cool
•™ •' "g=^^^B=agg!^™- ...
Capital
Investment
($)
155.00
1,680.00
2,300.00
2,150.00
6,285.00
=======
and cold humid.
•
Annual
Cost
($/an yr)
0.70
1.57
0.00
0.07
1.27
2.84
4.43
10.88
=====
=====
Annual
Returns
($/an yr)
1.28
0.90
1.30
3.48
==========:
=======
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
— n *7A
u . /u
— 1 S7
A . O /
Ofin
. \t\j
-0.07
— 1 97
A. ft 1
-2.84
-4 43
^t • *m^
•4-1 5ft
« A • AO
+0.90
+1.30
-7.40
«======
TABLE D-2. ECONOMIC DATA FOR EWES AND LAMBS, UNPAVED LOT, SHELTER,
DETENTION/IRRIGATION, 150 ANIMAL UNITS3
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Land
Concrete floor
Front-end loader
Box spdr/periodic use
Diversion terrace
Settling basin/earth
Detention basin/earth
Wastewater irrig/RO
Nutrients
N
*2°5
K2O
Totals
Quantity
33 hrs
35 hrs
0 kw
30 ft2/an
20 ft2/an
1
1
160 ft
225 ft2
2250 ft3
1
8 Ib/an yr
5 Ib/an yr
13 Ib/an yr
Capital
Investment
($)
1*5.00
1,680.00
2,300.00
2,150.00
40.00
137.00
205.00
2,440.00
9,107,00
AT\rpial
Cost
($/an yr)
0.77
1.83
0.00
0.07
1.27
2.84
4.43
0.03
0.12
0.17
3.18
14.71
Annual
Returns
($/an yr)
1.28
0 90
1.30
3.48
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
— n TJ
— 1 P7
Of\r\
-0.07
— 1 *5T
_ «> Q A
-4.43
-0.03
-0.12
-0.17
-3.18
+ 1 9ft
+1.30
-11.23
cool and cold arid, cool and cold humid.
263
-------
TABLE D-3. ECONOMIC DATA FOR EWES AND LAMBS, UNPAVED LOT, SHELTER,
GRASS INFILTRATION, 150 ANIMAL UNITS3
Component
labor
Tractor
Energy
Land
Concrete floor
Front-end loader
Quantity
30 hrs
30 hrs
0 kw
30 ft2/an
20 ft2/an
1
Box spdr/periodic use 1
Diversion terrace
Settling basin/earth
Infiltration area
Nutrients
N
P2°5
K2°
Totals
aFegions : cool and
160 ft
225 ft2
8x100 ft
8 Ib/an yr
5 Ib/an yr
13 It/an yr
cold arid, cool
Capital
Investment
($)
155.00
1,680.00
2,300.00
2,150.00
40.00
137.00
64.00
6,526.00
and cold humid
Annual
Cost
($/an yr)
0.70
1.57
0.00
0.07
1.27
2.84
4.43
0.03
0.12
0.05
11.08
Annual
Returns
($/an yr)
1.28
0.90
1.30
3.48
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
-0.70
-1.57
0.00
-0.07
-1.27
-2.84
-4.43
-0.03
-0.12
-0.05
+1.28
4-0.90
+1.30
-7.60
TABLE D-4. ECONOMIC DATA FOR EWES AND LAMBS, UNPAVED LOT, SHELTER,
750 ANIMAL UNITSa
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Land
Concrete floor
Front-end loader
Bx spdr/periodic use
Nutrients
N
P205
K20
Totals
Quantity
110 hrs
110 hrs
0 kw
30 ft2/an
20 ft2/an
1
1
8 Ib/an yr
5 Ib/an yr
13 Ib/an yr
Capital
Investment
($)
775.90
8,400.00
2,700.00
2,600.00
14,475.00
Annual
Cost
($/an yr)
0.51
1.15
0.00
0.07
1.27
0.67
0.71
4.38
Annual
Returns
($/an yr)
1.28
0.90
1.30
3.48
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
-0.51
-1.15
0.00
-0.07
-1.27
-0.67
-0.71
+1.28
+0.90
+1.30
-0.90
aRegions: cool and cold arid, cool and cold humid.
264
-------
TABLE D-5. ECONOMIC DATA FOR EWES AND LAMBS, UNPAVED LOT, SHELTER,
DETENTION/IRRIGATION, 750 ANIMAL UNITSa
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Land
Concrete floor
Front- end loader
Bx spdr/periodic use
Diversion terrace
Settling basin/earth
Detention basin/earth
Wastewater irrig/RO
Nutrients
N
P205
K20
Totals
Quantity
121 hrs
125 hrs
0 kw
30 ft2/an
20 ft2/an
1
1
320 ft
1125 ft2
11,250 ft3
1
8 Ib/an yr
5 Ib/an yr
13 Ib/an yr
aRegions: Cool and cold arid, cool
TABLE D-6.
ECONOMIC DATA
Capital
Investment
($)
775.00
8,400.00
2,700.00
2,600.00
80.00
353.00
625.00
2,440.00
17,973,00
and cold humid
Annual
Cost
($/an yr)
0.56
1.30
0.00
0.07
1.27
0.67
1.07
0.01
0.07
0.10
0.64
5.77
•
FOR EWES AND LAMBS, UNPAVED
Annual
Returns
($/an yr)
1.28
0.90
1.30
3.48
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
-0.56
-1.30
0.00
-0.07
-1.27
-0.67
-1.07
-0.01
-0.07
-0.10
-0.64
+1.28
+0.90
+1.30
-2.29
LOT, SHELTER,
GRASS INFILTRATION, 750 ANIMAL UNITS3
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Land
Concrete floor
Front- end loader
Bx spdr/periodic use
Diversion terrace
Settling basin/earth
Infiltration area
Nutrients
N
P2°5
K2205
Totals
Quantity
110 hrs
110 hrs
0 kw
30 ft2/an
20 ft2/an
1
1
320 ft
1125 ft2
9x200 ft
8 Ib/an yr
5 Ib/an yr
13 Ib/an yr
Capital
Investment
($)
775.00
8,400.00
2,700.00
2,600.00
80.00
353.00
144.00
15,322.00
Annual
Cost
($/an yr)
0.51
1.15
0.00
0.07
1.27
0.67
0.71
0.01
0.07
0.02
4.48
Annual
Returns
($/an yr)
1.28
0.90
1.30
3.48
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
-0,51
-1.15
0.00
~0.07
-1.27
-0.67
-0.71
-0.01
-0.07
-0.02
+1.28
+0.90
+1.30
-1.00
*Regions: cool and cold humid, cool and cold arid.
265
-------
TABLE D-7. ECONOMIC DATA FOR EWES AND LAMBS, UNPAVED LOT, NO SHELTER,
150 ANIMAL UNITS3
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Land
Front-end loader
Bx spdr/periodic use
Nutrients
N
P2°5
Totals
Quantity
30 hrs
30 hrs
0 few
45 ft2/an
1
1
6 Ib/an yr
3 Ib/an yr
10 It/an yr
Capital
Investment
($)
233.00
2,300.00
2,150.00
12,040.00
Annual
Cost
($/an yr)
0.70
1.52
0.00
0.11
2.84
4.29
9.46
Annual
Returns
($/an yr)
0.96
0.54
1.00
2.50
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
-0.70
-1.52
0.00
-0.11
-2.84
-4.29
+0.96
+0.54
+1.00
-6.96
aRegions: warm and hot arid.
TABLE D-8. ECONOMIC DATA FOR EWES AND LAMBS, UNPAVED LOT, NO SHELTER,
DETENTION/IRRIGATION, 150 ANIMAL UNITSa
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Land
Front-end loader
Bx spdr/periodic use
Diversion terrace
Settling basin/earth
Detention basin/earth
Pump /inject irrig
Nutrients
N
P2°5
K20
Totals
Quantity Capital
Investment
($)
30 hrs
30 hrs
0 lew
45 ft2/an
1
1
200 ft
340 ft2
3400 ft3
1
6 Ib/an yr
3 Ib/an yr
10 Ib/an yr
233.00
2,300.00
2,150.00
25.00
145.00
230.00
1,500.00
12,040.00
Annual Annual
Cost Returns
($/an yr) ($/an yr)
0.70
1.52
0.00
0.11
2.84
4.29
0.02
0.10
0.18
2.00
0.96
0.54
1.00
11.76 2.50
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
-0.70
-1.52
0.00
-0.11
-2.84
-4.29
-0.02
-0.10
-0.18
-2.00
+0.96
+0.54
+1.00
-9.26
i —
aRegions: warm, hot arid.
266
-------
TABLE D-9.
ECONOMIC DATA FOR EWES Atto LAMBS, UNPAVED LOT, NO SHELTER,
750 ANIMAL UNITS*
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Land
Front-end loader
Bx spdr/periodic use
Nutrients
N
P2o5
K2O
Totals
Quantity
110 hrs
110 hrs
0 kw
45 ft2/an
1
1
6 Ib/an yr
3 Ib/an yr
10 Ib/an yr
Capital
Investment
($)
1,163.00
2,700.00
2,150.00
43,250.00
Annual
Cost
($/an yr)
0.51
0.80
0 00
0.11
0.67
0.86
2.95
Annual
Returns
($/an yr)
0.96
0.54
1.00
2.50
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
-0.51
0.00
-0.11
-0.67
-0.86
+0.96
+0.54
+ 1.00
-0.45
•Regions: warm, hot arid.
TABLE D-10.
ECONOMIC DATA FOR EWES AND LAMBS, UNPAVED LOT, NO SHELTER,
DETENTION/IRRIGATION, 750 ANIMAL UNITS3
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Land
Front-end loader
Bx spdr/periodic use
Diversion terrace
Settling basin/earth
Detention basin/earth
Pump/inject irrig
Nutrients
N
P2°5
K20
Totals
=======
Quantity
110 hrs
110 hrs
0 kw
45 ft2/an
1
1
400 ft
1700 ft2
1700 ft3
1
6 Ib/an yr
3 Ib/an yr
10 Ib/an yr
Capital Annual Annual
Investment Cost Returns
($) ($/an yr) ($/an vr)
1,163.00
2,700.00
2,150.00
100.00
378.00
853.00
1,500.00
43,250.00
— — — — — - _^_
.51
.80
Of\(\
0.11
0.67
0.86
0.01
0.06
0.14
0.40
0.96
0.54
1.00
3-55 2.50
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
-0.51
-0.80
0.00
-0.11
-0.67
-0.86
-0.01
-0.06
-0.14
-0.40
+0.96
+0.54
+1.00
-1.05
267
-------
TABLE D-ll. ECONOMIC DATA FOR FED LAMBS, PAVED LOT, SHELTER,
200 ANIMAL UNITS3
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Concrete lot
Concrete floor
Front-end loader
Bx spdr/periodic use
Nutrients
N
P2°5
KjO5
Totals
Quantity
28 hrs
28 hrs
0 kw
6 ft2/an
6 ft2/an
1
1
5 Ib/an yr
3 Ib/an yr
8 Ib/an yr
Capital
Investment
($)
1,140.00
1,620.00
2,300.00
2,150.00
7,210.00
Annual
Cost
($/an yr)
0.49
1.10
0.00
0.65
0.92
2.13
2.21
7.50
Annual
Returns
($/an yr)
0.80
0.54
0.80
2.14
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
-0.49
-1.10
0.00
-0.65
-0.92
-2.13
-2.21
+0.80
+0.54
+0.80
-5.36
aRegions: cool and cold humid.
TABLE D-12. ECONOMIC DATA FOR FED LAMBS, PAVED LOT, SHELTER, GRASS
INFILTRATION, 200 ANIMAL UNITS.3
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Concrete lot
Concrete floor
Front-end loader
Bx spdr/periodic use
Diversion terrace
Settling basin/earth
Infiltration area
Nutrients
N
P205
K20
Totals
aRegions : cool and
Quantity
28 hrs
28 hrs
0 kw
6 ft2/an
6 ft2 /an
1
1
100 ft
230 ft2
12x150 ft
5 Ib/an yr
3 Ib/an yr
8 Ib/an yr
cold humid
Capital
Investment
($)
1,140.00
1,620.00
2,300.00
2,150.00
25.00
499.00
144.00
7,878.00
Annual
Cost
($/an yr)
0.49
1.10
0.00
0.65
0.92
2.13
2.21
0.01
0.35
0.07
7.94
Returns
($/an yr)
0.80
0.54
0.80
2.14
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
-0.49
-1.10
0.00
-0.65
-0.92
-2.13
-2.21
-0.01
-0.35
-0.07
+0.80
+0.54
+0.80
-5.80
268
-------
TABLE D-13.
ECONOMIC DATA FOR FED LAMBS, PAVED LOT, SHELTER,
1000 ANIMAL UNITS*
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Concrete lot
Concrete floor
Front-end loader
Bx spdr/periodic use
Nutrients
N
P205
K2O
Totals
Quantity
100 hrs
100 hrs
0 Jew
6 ft2/an
6 ft2/an
1
1
5 Ib/an yr
3 Ib/an yr
8 Ib/an yr
Capital
Investment
($)
5,700.00
8,100.00
2,300.00
2,600.00
18,700.00
Annual
Cost
0.35
0.78
0.00
0.65
0.92
0.43
0.54
3.66
Annual
Returns
($/an yr)
0.80
0.54
0.80
2.14
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
-0 35
-0 78
0.00
-n A*;
— fi QO
-0.43
-0.54
+0 BO
+0 54
+0.80
-1.52
•Regions: cool and cold humid.
TABLE D-14.
ECONOMIC DATA FOR FED LAMBS, TAVED LOT, SHELTER, GRASS
INFILTRATION, 1000 ANIMAL UNITS8
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Concrete lot
Concrete floor
Front-end loader
Bx spdr /period use
Diversion terrace
Settling Basin/earth
Infiltration area
Nutrients
N
?2°5
K20
Totals
Quantity
100 hrs
100 hrs
0 kw
6 ft2/an
6 ft2/an
1
1
180 ft
300 ft2
12x300 ft
5 Ib/an yr
3 Ib/an yr
8 Ib/an yr
Capital
Investment
(S)
5,700.00
8,100.00
2,300.00
2,600.00
45.00
670.00
288.00
19,703.00
Annual Annual
Cost Returns
($/an yr) ) $/an yr)
0.35
0.78
0.00
0.65
0.92
0.43
0.54
0.01
0.09
0.04
0.80
0.54
0.80
3.79 2.14
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
— n ^
-0.78
Ono
-0.65
— fl
-------
TABLE D-15. ECONOMIC DATA FOR FED LAMBS, PAVED LOT, SHELTER,
5000 ANIMAL UNITS3
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Concrete lot
Concrete floor
Front-end loader
Bx spdr/periodic use
Nutrients
N
P205
K2O
Totals
Quantity
207 hrs
207 hrs
0 Jew
6 ft2/an
6 ft2/an
1
1
5 Ib/an yr
3 Ib/an yr
8 Ib/an yr
Capital
Investment
($)
28,500.00
40,500.00
2,700.00
3,800.00
75,500.00
Annual
Cost
($/an yr)
0.14
0.32
0.00
0.65
0.92
0.10
0.16
2.29
Annual
Returns
($/an yr)
0.80
0.54
0.80
2.14
Annual Net
System Return
(S/an yr)
-0.14
-0.32
0.00
-0.65
-0.92
-0.10
-0.16
+0.80
+0.54
+0.80
-0.15
aRegions: cool and cold humid.
TABLE D-16. ECONOMIC DATA FOR FED LAMBS, PAVED LOT, SHELTER,
DETENTION/IRRIGATION, 500 ANIMAL UNITS8
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Concrete lot
Concrete floor
Front-end loader
Bx spdr/periodic use
Diversion terrace
Settling basin/earth
Detention basin/earth
Wastewater irrig/RO
Nutrients •
N
P2°5
K2°
Totals
Quantity
218 hrs
222 hrs
0 kw
6 ft2/an
6 ft2/an
1
1
360 ft
1500 ft2
1500 ft3
1
5 Ib/an yr
3 Ib/an yr
8 Ib/an yr
Capital
Investment
<$)
28,500.00
40,500.00
2,700.00
3,800.00
90.00
180.00
820.00
2,890.00
79,480.00
Annual
Cost
(S/an yr)
0.16
0.35
0.00
0.65
0.92
0.10
0.16
0.00
0.01
0.02
0.11
2.47
Annual Annual Net
Returns System Return
($/an yr) ($/an yr)
-0.16
-0.35
0.00
-0.65
-0.92
-0.10
-0.16
0.00
-0.01
-0.02
-0.11
0.80 +0.80
0.54 +0.54
0.80 +0.80
2.14 -0.33
aRegions: cool and cold humid.
270
-------
TABLE D-17.
ECONOMIC DATA FOR FED LAMBS, PAVED LOT, SHELTER, GRASS
INFILTRATION, 5000 ANIMAL UNITS3
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Concrete lot
Concrete floor
Front-end loader
Bx spdr/periodic use
Diversion terrace
Settling basin/earth
Infiltration area
Nutrients
N
P205
K20
Totals
Quantity
207 hrs
207 hrs
0 kw
6 ft2/an
6 ft2/an
1
1
380 ft
1500 ft2
12x600 ft
5 Ib/an yr
3 Ib/an yr
8 Ib/an yr
Capital
Investment
($)
28,500.00
40,500.00
2,700.00
3,800.00
95.00
2,445.00
576.00
78,616.00
»^-imcx3=s:
Annual
Cost
($/an vr)
^ss^sseas^Sss^ssE
0.14
0.32
0.00
0.65
0.92
0.10
0.16
0.00
0.07
0.01
2.37
»— «=— r— =— «:
Annual
Returns
_ (S/an yr)
0.80
0.54
0.80
2.14
i r'i =»=i
Annual Net
System Return
($/an vr)
—0 1 4
V • ±*±
— 0 "\")
v . O£
Ortrt
. UU
-0.65
-0.92
_ n in
u . xu
-0.16
OrtA
• UU
— A ft 7
U »U /
—A AT
w «UX
+0.80
+0 S4
• \J • J"B
+0.80
-0.23
=«===c.«3=I:
Regions: cool and cold humid.
TABLE D-18.
ECONOMIC DATA FOR FED LAMBS, UNPAVED LOT, SHELTER,
200 ANIMAL UNITS3
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Land
Concrete floor
Front-end loader
Bx spdr/periodic use
Nutrients
N
P2°5
K20
Totals
Quantity
29 hrs
29 hra
0 lew
20 ft2/an
6 ft*/an
1
1
5 Ib/an yr
3 Ib/an yr
8 Ib/an yr
ss^s^zs^s^^s^s^
Capital
Investment
($)
138.00
1,620.00
2,300.00
2,150.00
6,208.00
-
Annual
Cost
($/an yr)
0.51
1.14
0.00
0.08
0.92
2.13
2. '21
6.98
Annual
Returns
($/an yr)
0.80
0.54
0.80
2.14
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
—0 SI
—i i A
OOfi
-0.08
-0.92
-2.13
-2.21
+0.80
+0 54
+0.80
-4.84
271
-------
TABLD D-19. ECONOMIC DATA FOR FED LAMBS, UNPAVED LOT, SHELTER,
DETENTION/IRRIGATION, 200 ANIMAL UNITSa
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Land
Concrete floor
Front-end loader
Bx spdr/periodic use
Diversion terrace
Settling basin/earth
Detention basin/earth
Wastewater irrig/RO
Nutrients
N
P2°5
K20
Totals
Quantity
32 hrs
34 hrs
0 kw
20 ft2/an
6 ft2/an
1
1
160 ft
200 ft2
2000 ft3
1
5 Ib/an yr
3 Ib/an yr
8 Ib/an yr
Capital
Investment
($)
138.00
1,620.00
2,300.00
2,150.00
40.00
66.00
160.00
2,440.00
8,914.00
Annual Annual
Cost Returns
($/an yr) ($/an yr)
0.56
1.33
0.00
0.08
0.92
2.13
2.21
0.02
0.05
0.10
2.39
0.80
0.54
0.80
9.79 2.14
Annual Net
System Peturn
($/an yr)
-0.56
-1.33
0.00
-0.08
-0.92
-2.13
-2.21
-0.02
-0.05
-0.10
-2.39
+0.80
+0.54
+0.80
-7.65
aRegions: cool and cold arid.
TABLE D-20. ECONOMIC DATA FOR FED LAMBS, UNPAVED LOT, SHELTER,
GRASS INFILTRATION, 200 ANIMAL UNITSa
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Land
Concrete floor
Front-end loader
Bx spdr/periodic use
Diversion terrace
Settling basin/earth
Infiltration area
Nutrients
N
P2°5
K2O
Totals
Quantity
29 hrs
29 hrs
0 kw
20 ft2/an
6 ft2/an
1
1
160 ft
200 ft2
12x75 ft
5 Ib/an yr
3 Ib/an yr
8 Ib/an yr
Capital
Investment
($)
138.00
1,620.00
2,300.00
2,150.00
40.00
66.00
72.00
6,386.00
Annual
Cost
($/an yr)
0.51
1.14
0.00
0.08
0.92
2.13
2.21
0.02
0.05
0.04
7.10
Annual
Returns
($/an yr)
0.80
0.54
0.80
2.14
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
-0.51
-1.14
0.00
-0.08
-0.92
-2.13
-2.21
-0.02
-0.05
-0.04
+0.80
+0.54
+0.80
-4.96
aRegions: cool and cold arid.
272
-------
TABLE D-21. ECONOMIC DATA FOR FED IAMBS, UNPAVED LOT, SHELTER,
1000 ANIMAL UNITS3
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Land
Concrete floor
Front-end loader
Bx spdr/periooic use
Nutrients
N
P2o5
K20
Totals
Quantity
103 hrs
103 hrs
0 kw
20 ft2/an
6 ft2/an
1
1
5 Ib/an yr
3 Ib/an yr
8 Ib/an yr
Capital
Investment
($)
690.00
8,100.00
2,300.00
2,600.00
13,690.00
Annual
Cost
($/an vr)
0.36
0.81
0.00
0.08
0.92
0.43
0.54
3.12
Annual
Returns
($/an vr)
0.80
0.54
0.80
2.14
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
-0.36
-0.81
0.00
-0.08
-0.92
-O A"*
V . ^t J
— O SA
w . J*t
+0.80
+0.54
+0.80
-0.98
aRegions: Cool and cold arid.
TABLE D-22. ECONOMIC DATA FOR FED LAMBS, UNPAVED LOT, SHELTER,
DETENTION/IRRIGATION, 1000 ANIMAL UNITS3
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Land
Concrete floor
Front-end loader
Bx spdr/periodic use
Diversion terrace
Settling basin/earth
Detention basin/earth
Was tew ate r irrig/RO
Nutrients
N
P2°5
K20
Totals
Quantity
114 hrs
118 hrs
0 kw
20 ft2/an
6 ft2/an
1
1
320 ft
1000 ft2
10,000 ft2
1
5 Ib/an yr
3 Ib/an yr
8 Ib/an yr
Capital
Investment
($)
690.00
8,100.00
2,300.00
2,600.00
80.00
195.00
580.00
2,890.00
17,435.00
Annual
Cost
($/an yr)
0.40
0.92
0.00
0.08
0.92
0.43
0.54
0.01
0.03
0.07
0.57
3.95
Annual Annual Net
Returns System Return
($/an yr) (S/anyr)
-0.40
-0.92
0.00
-0.08
-0.92
-0 43
W • *t J
-O S4
w • ^»t
-0.01
-0 03
V • VO
-0.07
-0.57
0.80 +0.80
0.54 +0.54
0.80 +0.80
2.14 -1.81
tons: cool and cold arid.
273
-------
TABLE D-23. ECONOMIC DATA FOK FED LAMBS, UNPAVED LOT, SHELTER,
GRASS INFILTRATION, 1000 ANIMAL UNITS3
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Land
Concrete floor
Front-end loaaer
Bx spdr/period use
Diversion terrace
Settling basin/earth
Infiltration area
Nutrients
N
P2°5
K2O
Totals
Quantity
103 hrs
103 hrs
0 lew
20 ft2/an
6 ft2/an
1
1
320 ft
1000 ft2
11x150 ft
5 Ib/an yr
3 Ib/an yr
8 Ib/an yr
Capital
Investment
($)
690.00
8,100.00
2,300.00
2,600.00
80.00
195.00
1-32.00
14,097.00
Annual
Cost
($/an yr)
0.36
0.81
0.00
0.08
0.92
0.43
0.54
0.01
0.03
0.02
3.18
Annual
Returns
(S/an yr)
0.80
0.54
0.80
2.14
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
-0.36
-0.81
0.00
-0.08
-0.92
-0.43
-0.54
-0.01
-0.03
-0.02
+0.80
+0.54
+0.80
-1.04
aRegions: cool and cold arid.
TABLE D-24. ECONOMIC DATA FOR FED IAMBS, UNPAVED LOT, SHELTER,
5000 ANIMAL UNITS*
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Land
Concrete floor
Front-end loader
Bx spdr/periodic use
Nutrients
N
P2°5
K20
Totals
Quantity
222 hrs
222 hrs
0 kw
20 ft2/an
6 ft2/an
1
1
5 Ib/an yr
3 Ib/an yr
8 Ib/an yr
Capital
Investment
($)
3,450.00
40,500.00
2,700.00
3,800.00
50,450.00
Annual
Cost
($/an yr)
0.16
0.35
0.00
0.08
0.92
0.10
0.16
1.75
Annual
Returns
($/an yr)
0.80
0.54
0.80
2.14
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
-0.16
-0.35
0.00
-0.08
-0.92
-0.10
-0.16
+0.80
+0.54
+0.80
+0.39
aHegions: cool and cold arid.
274
-------
TABLE D-25. ECONOMIC DATA FOR FED LAMBS, UNPAVED LOT, SHELTER,
DETENTION/IRRIGATION, 5000 ANIMAL UNITS3
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Land
Concrete floor
Front-end loader
Bx spdr/periodic use
Diversion terrace
Settling basin/earth
Detention basin/earth
Wastewater irng/RO
Nutrients
N
P2°5
*2°
Totals
Quantity
272 hrs
290 hrs
0 kw
20 ft2/an
6 ft2/an
1
1
680 ft
5,000 ft2
50,000 ft3
1
5 Ib/an yr
3 Ib/an yr
8 Ib/an yr
Capital
Investment
($)
3,450.00
40,500.00
2,700.00
3,800.00
• 170.00
725.00
1,570.00
4,090.00
57,005.00
Annual
Cost
($/an yr)
0.19
0.45
0.00
0.08
0.92
0.10
0.16
0.00
0.02
0.04
0.16
2.12
Annual
Returns
($/an yr)
0.80
0.54
0.80
2.14
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
-0.19
-0.45
0.00
-0.08
-0.92
-0.10
-0.16
O.OQ
-0.02
-0.04
-0.16
+0.80
+0.54
+0.80
+0.02
•Regions: cool and cold arid.
TABLE D-26. ECONOMIC DATA FOR FED LAMBS, UNPAVED LOT, SHELTER,
GRASS INFILTRATION, 5000 ANIMAL UNITS*
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Land
Concrete floor
Front-end loader
Bx spdr/periodic use
Diversion terrace
Settling basin/earth
Infiltration area
Nutrients
N
P2°5
KjO
Totals
Quanti ty
222 hrs
222 hrs
0 kw
20 ft2/an
6 ft2/an
1'
1
680 ft
5000 ft2
12x400 ft
5 Ib/an yr
3 Ib/an yr
8 Ib/an yr
Capital
Investment
($)
3,450.00
40,500.00
2,700.00
3,800.00
170.00
725.00
384.00
51,729.00
Annual
Cost
($/an yr)
0.16
0.35
0.00
0.08
0.92
0.10
0.16
0.00
0.02
0.01
1.79
Annual
Returns
($/an yr)
0.80
0.54
0.80
2.14
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
-0.16
-0.35
0.00
-0.08
-0.92
-0.10
-0.16
0.00
-0.02
-0.01
+0.80
+0.54
+0.80
+0.35
•Regions: cool and cold arid.
275
-------
TABLE D-27. ECONOMIC DATA FOR FED LAMBS, UNPAVED LOT, NO SHELTER,
200 ANIMAL UNITS3
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Land
Front-end loader
Bx spdr/periodic use
Nutrients
N
P2°5
K2O
Totals
aRegions: warm, hot
Quantity Capital Annual
Investment Cost
($) (?/an yr)
28 hrs 0.49
28 hrs 1.10
0 kw 0.00
Annual
Returns
($/an yr)
30 ft2/an 204.00 0.11
4
2
5
and
1 2,300.00 2.13
1 2,150.00 2.21
Ib/an yr
Ib/an yr
Ib/an yr
4,852.00 6.04
cool arid.
0.64
0.36
0.60
1.60
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
-0.49
-1.10
0.00
-0.11
-2.13
-2.21
+0.64
+0.36
+0.60
-4.44
TABLE D-28. ECONOMIC DATA FOR FED LAMBS, UNPAVED LOT, NO SHELTER,
DETENTION/IRRIGATION, 200 ANIMAL UNITS3
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Land
Front-end loader
Bx spdr/periodic use
Diversion terrace
Settling basin/earth
Detention basin/earth
Pump/inject irrig
Nutrients
N
P205
K20
Totals
Quantity
31 hrs
33 hrs
0 kw
30 ft2/an
1
1
180 ft
300 ft2
3000 ft3
1
4 Ib/an yr
2 Ib/an yr
6 Ib/an yr
Capital
Investment
(?)
204.00
2,300.00
2,150.00
45.00
158.00
220.00
1,500.00
5,275.00
Annual
Cost
($/an yr)
0.54
1.29
0.00
0.11
2.13
2.21
0.03
0.11
0.14
1.50
8.06
Annual
Returns
($/an yr)
0.64
0.36
0.60
1.60
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
-0.54
-1.29
0.00
-0.11
-2.13
-2.21
-0.03
-0.11
-0.14
-1.50
+0.64
+0.36
+0.60
-6.46
aRegions: warm, hot, and cool arid.
276
-------
TABLE D-29. ECONOMIC DATA FOR FED IAMBS, UNPAVEID LOT, NO SHELTER,
GRASS INFILTRATION, 200 ANIMAL UNITS*
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Land
Front-end loader
Bx spdr/periodic use
Diversion terrace
Settling basin/eartn
Infiltration area
Nutrient
N
P2°5
K20
Totals
Quantity
28 hrs
28 hrs
0 kw
30 ft2/an
1
1
130 ft
300 tt2
10x100 ft
4 Ib/an yr
2 Ib/an yr
6 Ib/an yr
Capital
Investment
($)
204.00
2,300.00
2,150.00
45.00
158.00
80.00
5,135.00
Annual
Cost
($/an yr)
0.49
1.10
Onn
0.11
2.13
2.21
0.03
0.11
0.05
6.23
Annual
Returns
($/an yr)
0.64
0.36
0.60
1.60
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
0.00
-2.13
-2.21
-0.03
-0.11
-0.05
+0.36
+0.60
-4.63
"Regions: cool, warm and hot arid.
D-30.
ECONOMIC DATA FOR FED LAMBS, UNPAVED LOT, NO SHELTER, 1000
ANIMAL UNITS3
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Land
Front-end loader
Bx spdr/periodic use
Nutrients
N
P205
K2O
Totals
Quantity
101 hrs
101 hrs
0 kw
30 ft2/an
1
1
4 Ib/an yr
2 Ib/an yr
6 Ib/an yr
^=^=====5
Capital
Investment
(S)
1,040.00
2,300.00
2,600.00
5,940.00
^— SESS^S^^ESBSSSSS
Annual
Cost
($/an vr)
0.35
0.79
0.00
0.11
0.43
0.54
2.22
Annual
Returns
($/an yr)
0.64
0.36
0.60
1.60
=====
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
-o T;
-O 79
0.00
-0.11
-0.43
-0.54
+0.64
+0.36
+0.60
-0.62
277
-------
TABLE D-31. ECONOMIC DATA FOR FED LAMBS, UNPAVED LOT, NO SHELTER,
DETENTION/IRRIGATION, 1000 ANIMAL UNITS3
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Land
Front-end loader
Bx spdr/periodic use
Diversion terrace
Settling basin/earth
Detention basin/earth
Pump/inject in irrig
Nutrients
N
P2°5
K20
Totals
aRegions: cool/ warm,
Quantity
112 hrs
116 hrs
0 kw
30 ft2/an
1
1
360 ft
1500 ft2
15,000 ft3
1
4 Ib/an yr
2 Ib/an yr
6 Ib/an yr
and hot arid.
Capital
Investment
($)
1,040.00
2,300.00
2,600.00
90.00
398.00
740 . 00
1,500.00
7,168.00
Annual Annual
Cost Returns
(S/an yr) ($/an yr)
0.39
0.91
0.00
0.11
0.43
0.54
0.01
0.05
0.09
0.30
0.64
0.36
0.60
2.83 1.60
Annual Net
System Return
(S/an yr)
-0.39
-0.91
0.00
-0.11
-0.43
-0.54
-0.01
-0.05
-0.09
-0.30
+0.64
+0.36
+0.60
-1.23
TABLE D-32. ECONOMIC DATA FOR FED LAMBS, UNPAVED LOT, NO SHELTER,
GRASS INFILTRATION, 1000 ANIMAL UNITS*
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Land
Front-end loader
Bx spdr/periodic use
Diversion terrace
Settling basin/earth
Infiltration area
Nutrients
N
Po°c
K?,05
Totals
aRegions: cool, warm
Quantity
101 hrs
101 hrs
0 kw
30 ftVan
1
1
160 ft
1500 ft2
12x200 ft
4 Ib/an yr
2 Ib/an yr
6 Ib/an yr
and hot arid.
Capital
Investment
($)
1,040.00
2,300.00
2,600.00
90.00
398.00
192.00
6,620.00
Annual
Cost
(S/an yr)
0.35
0.79
0.00
0.11
0.43
0.54
0.01
0.05
0.02
2.31
Annual
Returns
(S/an yr)
0.64
0.36
0.60
1.60
Annual Net
System Return
(S/an vr)
-0.35
-0.79
0.00
-0.11
-0.43
-0.54
-0.01
-0.05
-0.02
+0.64
+0.36
+0.60
-0.71
278
-------
TABLE D-33. ECONOMIC DATA FOR FED LAMBS, UNPAVED LOT, NO SHELTER
5000 ANIMAL UNITS*
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Land
Front-end loader
Bx spdr/periodic use
Nutrients
N
P205
K20
Totals
Quantity
214 hrs
214 hrs
0 kw
30 ft2/an
1
1
4 Ib/an yr
2 Ib/an yr
6 Ib/an yr
Capital
.Investment
($)
5,100.00
2,700.00
3,800.00
11,600.00
Annual
Cost
($/an yr)
0.15
0.34
0.00
0.11
0.10
0.16
0.85
Annual
Returns
($/an yr)
0.64
0.36
0.60
1.60
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
-0.15
-0.34
0.00
-0.11
-0.10
-0.16
+0.64
+0.36
+0.60
+0.75
*Regions: cool, warm, hot arid.
TABLE D-34. ECONOMIC DATA FOR FED LAMBS, UNPAVED LOT, NO SHELTER
DETENTION/IRRIGATION, 5000 ANIMAL UNITS*
Laoor
Tractor
Energy
Land
Front-end loader
Bx spdr/periodic use
Diversion terrace
Settling basin/earth
Detention basin/earth
Pump/inject in irrig
Nutrients
N
P2°5
K2205
Totals
264 hrs
282 hrs
0 kw
30 ftVan
1
1
820 ft
7500 ft2
75,000 ft3
1
4 Ib/an yr
2 Ib/an yr
6 Ib/an yr
Investment
(S)
5,100.00
2,700.00
3,800.00
205.00
1,215.00
2,160.00
1,500.00
15,180.00
Annual
Cost
($/an yr)
0.18
0.44
0.00
0.11
0.10
0.16
0.00
0.03
0.05
0.06
1.13
Annual
Returns
(S/an yr)
0.64
0.36
0.60
1.60
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
-0.18
-0.44
0.00
-0.11
-0.10
-0.16
0.00
-0.03
-0.05
-0.06
+0.64
+0.36
+0.60
+0.47
aHegionsi cool, warn, hot arid.
279
-------
TABLE D-35. ECONOMIC DATA FOR FED LAMBS, UNPAVED LOT, NO SHELTER,
GRASS INFILTRATION, 5000 ANIMAL UNITS*
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Land
Front-end loader
Bx spdr/periodic use
Diversion terrace
Settling basin/earth
Infiltration area
Nutrients
N
P2°5
Quantity
214 hrs
214 hrs
0 kw
30 ft2/an
1
1
820 ft
7500 ft2
13x600 ft
4 Ib/an yr
2 Ib/an yr
6 Ib/an yr
Capital
Investment
($)
5,100.00
2,700.00
3,800.00
205.00
1,215.00
624.00
Annual
Cost
($/an yr)
0.15
0.34
0.00
0.11
0.10
0.16
0.00
0.03
0.02
Annual
Returns
($/an yr)
0.64
0.36
0.60
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
-0.15
-0.34
0.00
-0.11
-0.10
-0.16
0.00
-0.03
-0.02
+0.64
+0.36
+0.60
Totals
13,644.00
0.91
1.60
+0.69
Regions: cool, warm, hot arid.
280
-------
TABLE E-l. ECONOMIC DATA FOR POULTRY, LAYERS, UNDERCAGE STORAGE, TRACTOR
SCRAPE, SOLID HANDLING, 10,000 ANIMAL UNITS3
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Cage scraper/tractoe
Concrete floor
Trac scraper/ loader
Box spdr/daily use
Nutrients
N
P2°5
K20
Totals
Quantity Capital
Investment
($)
75 hrs
23 hrs
0 lew
1 3,000.00
0.8 ft2/an 7,600.00
1 1,600.00
1 2,150.00
0.49 Ib/an yr
0.82 Ib/an yr
0.48 Ib/an yr
14,350.00
Annual
Cost
($/an yr)
0.03
0.01
0.00
0.06
0.09
0.03
0.07
0.28
Annual Annual Net
Returns System Return
($/an yr) ($/an yr)
-0.03
-0.01
0.00
-0.06
-0.09
-0.03
-0.07
0.08 +0.08
0.15 +0.15
0.05 +0.05
0.28 0.00
'Regionsi cold, cool, warm, and hot humid, warm arid.
TABLE E-2. ECONOMIC DATA FOR POULTRY, LAYERS, UNDERCAGE STORAGE, TRACTOR
SCRAPE, STORAGE (3 MO), SOLID HANDLING, 10,000 ANIMAL UNITS3
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Cage scraper/tractor
Concrete floor
Trac scraper/loader
Box spdr /daily use
Nutrients
N
P2°5
KjO5
Totals
Quantity
25 hrs
13 hrs
0 Xw
1
0.8 ft2/an yr
1
1
0.49 Ib/an yr
0.82 Ib/an yr
0.48 Ib/an yr
Capital
Investment
($)
3,000.00
10,000.00
1,600.00
2,600.00
17,200.00
Annual
Cost
($/an yr)
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.06
0.11
0.03
0.05
0.27
Annual
Returns
($/an yr)
0.08
0.15
0.05
0.28
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
-0.01
-0.01
0.00
-0.06
-0.11
-0.03
-0.05
+0.08
+0.15
+0.05
+0.01
*Regionsi cold, cool, warm, and hot humid, warm arid.
281
-------
TABLE E-3. ECONOMIC DATA FOR POULTRY, LAYERS, UNDERCAGE STORAGE, TRACTOR
SCRAPE, SOLID HANDLING, 25,000 ANIMAL UNITS4
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Cage Scraper/tractor
Concrete floor
Trac scraper/loader
Box spdr/daily use
Nutrients
N
P2°5
K20
Totals
Quantity
171 hrs
41 hrs
0 kw
1
0.8 ft2/an
1
1
0.49 Ib/an yr
0.82 Ib/an yr
0.48 Ib/an yr
Capital
Investment
($)
3,000.00
19,000.00
1,600.00
2,600.00
26,200.00
Annual Annual
Cost Returns
(S/an yr) (S/an yr)
0.02
0.01
0.00
0.02
0.09
0.01
0.03
0.08
0.15
0.05
0-19 0.28
Annual Net
System Return
(S/an yr)
-0.02
-0.01
0.00
-0.02
-0.09
-0.01
-0.03
+0.08
+0.15
•+0.05
+0.09
aRegions: cold, cool, warm, and hot humid, warm arid.
TABLE E-4. ECONOMIC DATA FOR POULTRY, LAYERS, UNDERCAGE STORAGE, TRACTOR
SCRAPE, STORAGE (3 MO), SOLID HANDLING, 25,000 ANIMAL UNITS*
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Cage scraper/tractor
Concrete floor
Trac scraper/loader
Box spdr/daily use
Nutrients
N
P2°5
K20
Totals
Quantity
53 hrs
23 hrs
0 kv
1 ,
0.8 ftVan
1
1
0.49 Ib/an yr
0.82 Ib/an yr
0.48 Ib/an yr
Capital
Investment
($)
3,000.00
25,000.00
1,600.00
2,600.00
32,200.00
Annual
Cost
(S/an yr)
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.02
0.11
0.01
0.03
0.18
Annual
Returns
(S/an yr)
0.08
0.15
0.05
0.28
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
-0.01
-0.01
0.00
-0.02
-0.11
-0.01
-0.02
+0.08
+0.15
+0.05
+0.10
aRegions: cold, cool, warm, and hot humid, warm arid.
282
-------
TABLE E-5. ECONOMIC DATA FOR POULTRY, LAYERS, UNDERCAGE STORAGE, TRACTOR
SCRAPE. SOLID HANDLING, 80,000 ANIMAL UNITSa
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Cage scraper/tractor
Concrete floor
Trac scraper /loader
Box spdr/daily use
Nutrients
N
P205
K20
Totals
Quantity
493 hr3
77 hrs
0 lew
1
•>
0.8 ftVan
1
1
0.49 Ub/an yr
0.82 Ib/an yr
0.48 Ib/an yr
Capital
Investment
($)
6,000.00
60,800.00
1,600.00
3,800.00
72,200.00
Annual
Cost
($/an yr)
0.02
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.09
0.00
0.01
0.15
Annual
Returns
($/an yr)
0.08
0.15
0.05
0-.28
Annual Net
System Return
(S/an yr)
-0.02
-0.01
0.00
-0.01
-0.09
0.00
-0.01
+0.08
+0.15
K).05
+0.13
•Regionsi cold, cool, warn, and hot humid, warm arid.
TABLE E-6. ECONOMIC DATA FOR POULTRY, LAYERS, UNDERCAGE STORAGE, TRACTOR
SCRAPE, STORAGE (3 MO), SOLID HANDLING, 80,000 ANIMAL UNITS*
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Cage scraper/tractor
Concrete floor
Trac semper/loader
Box spdr/daily use
Nutrients
N
*2°5
K20
Totals
fcusntity Capital
Investment
(S)
138 hrs
42 hrs
0 kw
1 6,000.00
0.8 ft2/an 80,000.00
1 1.600.00
1 3,800.00
0.49 Ib/an yr
0.82 Ib/an yr
0.48 U>/«n yr
91,400.00
Annual Annual
Cost Returns
($/an yr) ($/«n yr)
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.11
0.00
0.01
0.08
0.15
0.05
0.15 0.28
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
-0.01
0.00
0.00
-0.02
-0.11
0.00
-0.01
+0.08
+0.15
+0.05
+0.13
aRegions: Cold, cool, warn, and hot humid, warm arid.
283
-------
TABLE E-7. ECONOMIC DATA FOR POULTRY, LAYERS, SHALLOW PIT, MECHANICAL
SCRAPE, SOLID HANDLING, JO,000 ?NIMAL UNITS*
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Cage scraper/cable
Concrete floor
Box spdr/daily use
Nutrients
N
P205
KjO
Totals
Quantity
38 hrs
23 hrs
2000 kw
1
0.8 ft2/ an
1
0.49 Ib/an yr
0.82 Ib/an yr
0.48 Ib/an yr
Capital
Investment
($)
6,000.00
7,600.00
2,150.00
15,750.00
Annual
Coat
($/an yr)
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.15
0.09
0.07
0.34
Annual
Returns
(S/an yr)
0.08
0.15
0.05
0.28
Annual Net
System Return
(S/an yr)
-0.01
-0.01
-0.01
-0.15
-0.09
-0.07
*0.08
+0.15
1-0.05
-0.06
Regions: cold, cool, warm, and hot humid, warm arid.
TABLE E-8. ECONOMIC DATA FOR POULTRY, LAYERS, SHALLOW PIT, MECHANICAL
SCRAPE, SOLID HANDLING, 25,000 ANIMAL UNITS*
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Cage scraper/ cable
Concrete floor
Box spdr/daily use
Nutrients
N
P2°5
K2°
Totals
Quantity
71 hrs
41 hrs
5000 kw
1
0.8 ft2/ an
1
0.49 Ib/an yr
0.82 Ib/an yr
0.48 Ib/an yr
Capital
Investment
($)
12,000.00
19,000.00
2,600.00
33,600.00
Annual
Cost
(5/an yr)
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.12
0.09
0.03
0.27
Annual
Return
(S/an yr)
0.08
0.15
0.05
0.28
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
-0.01
-0.01
-0.01
-0.12
-0.09
-0.03
+0.08
+0.15
+0.05
+0.01
aRe9~ions: . cool, cold, warm, and hot humid, warm arid.
284
-------
TABLE E-9. ECONOMIC DATA FOR POULTRY, LAYERS, SHALLOW PIT, MECHANICAL SCRAPE,
SOLID HANDLING, 80,000 ANIMAL UNITS3
Component
Labor
Tractor
» Energy
Cage scraper/c^ile
Concrete floor
Box spdr/daily use
Nutrients
N
P2°5
K<0
Totals
Quantity
233 hrs
77 hrs
16,000 kw
1
0.8 ft2/an
1
0.49 Ib/an
0.82 Ib/an
0.48 Ib/an
Capital
Investment
($)
36,000.00
60,800.00
3,800.00
yr
yr
yr
100,600.00
Annual
Cost
(S/an yr)
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.11
0.09
0.01
0.24
Annual
Returns
($/an yr)
0.08
0.15
0.05
0.28
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
-0.01
-0.01
-0.01
-0.11
-0.09
-0.01
+0.08
+0.15
+0.05
+0.03
*Regionsi cold, cool, warm, anc! hot humid, warm arid.
TABLE E-10. ECONOMIC DATA FOR POULTRY, LAYERS, HIGH RISE BUILDING, TRACTOR
LOADER, SOLID HANDLING, 10.00U ANIMAL UNITS*
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Concrete pit
Concrete floor
BX apdr/periodic use
Trac scraper/leader
Nutrionts
N
P205
K20
Totals
Quantity Capital
Investment
($)
23 hrs
23 hrs
0 kw
1 7,060.00
0.38 ft2/an 3,610.00
1 2,150.00
1 2 , 300 . 00
0.52 Ib/an yr
0.02 Ib/an yr
0.48 lb/*n yr
15,120.00
Annual Annual
Cost Returns
($/an yr) ($/an yr)
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.08
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.08
0.15
0.05
0.23 0.28
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
-0.01
-0.01
0.00
-0.08
-0.04
-0.04
-0.04
+0.08
+0.15
+0.05
+0.05
'Regions: cool humid, warm humid, warm arid.
285
-------
TABLE E-ll. ECONOMIC DATA FOR POULTRY, LAYERS, HIGH RISE BUILDING, TRACTOR
LOADED, SOLID HANDLING, FLOWDOWN, 10,000 ANIMAL UNITS3
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Concrete pit
Concrete floor
Bx spdr/periodic use
Trac scraper/loader
Nutrients
N
P205
K2O
Totals
aRegions: cool hunid,
Quantity
23 hrs
23 hrs
0 kw
2.4 ft3/an
0.38 ft2 /an
1
1
0.63 Ib/an yr
0.86 Ib/an yr
0.50 Ib/an yr
Capital
Investment
($)
7,060.00
3,610.00
2,150.00
2,300.00
15,120.00
Annual
Cost
($/an yr)
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.08
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.23
Annual
Returns
($/an yr)
0.10
0.15
0.05
0.31
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
-0.01
-0.01
0.00
-0.08
-0.04
-0.04
-0.04
+0.10
+0.15
+0.05
+0.08
warm humid, warm arid.
TABLE E-12. ECONOMIC DATA FOR POULTRY, LAYERS, HIGH RISE BUILDING, TRACTOR
LOADER, SOLID HANDLING, 25,000 ANIMAL UNITS3
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Concrete pit
Concrete floor
Bx spdr/periodic use
Trac Scraper/loader
Nutrients
N
P2°5
K2°
Totals
aRegions: cool humid,
Quantity Capital
Investment
($)
40 hrs
40 hrs
C lew
2.4 ft3/an
0.38 ft2/an
1
1
0.52 Ib/an yr
0.82 Ib/an yr
0.48 Ib/an yr
warm humid, warm
17,600.00
9,025.00
2,600.00
2,300.00
31,525.00
arid.
Annual
Cost
(S/an yr)
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.08
0.06
0.02
0.02
0.20
Annual Annual Net
Returns System Return
($/an yr) (S/an yr)
-0.01
-0.01
0.00
-0.08
-0.06
-0.02
-0.02
0.08 +0.08
0.15 +0.15
0.05 +0.05
0-28 +0.08
286
-------
TABLE E-13.
ECONOMIC DATA FOR POULTRY, LAYERS, HIGH RISE BUILDING, TRACTOR
LOADER, SOLID HANDLING, PLOWDOWN, 25,000 ANIMAL UNITSa
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Concrete pit
Concrete floor
Bx spdr/periodic use
Trac scraper/loader
Nutrients
N
P205
K20
Totals
Quantity
40 hrs
40 hrs
0 lew
2.4 ft3/an
0.38 ft2/an
1
1
0.63 Ib/an yr
0.86 Ib/an yr
0.50 Ib/an yr
Capital
Investment
($)
17,600.00
9,025.00
2,600.00
2,300.00
31,525.00
Annual
Cost
($/an vr)
0.01
0.01
0 00
0.08
0.04
0.02
0.02
0.17
Annual
Returns
($/an vr)
0.10
0.15
0.05
0.31
Annual Net
System Return
9/an yr)
— n m
— n m
0.00
-0.08
-0.04
-0.02
-0.02
+0.10
+0.15
+0.05
+0.13
TABLE E-14.
ECONOMIC DATA FOR POULTRY, LAYERS, HIGH RISE BUILDING, TRACTOR
LOADER, SOLID HANDLING, 80,000.ANIMAL UNITS3
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Concrete pit
Concrete floor
Bx spdr/periodic use
Trac scraper/loader
Nutrients
N
p2os
K2°
Totals
•Regions: cool humid,
Quantity
73 hrs
73 hrs
0 Jew
2.4 ft3/an
0.38 ft2/an
1
1
0.52 Ib/an yr
0.82 Ib/an yr
0.48 Ib/an yr
=»==•=:
Capital
Investment
($)
56,430.00
28,880.00
3,800.00
2,300.00
91,410.00
=niK=>B^K±±m=
Annual
Cost
(5/an vr)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.08
0.04
0.01
0.01
0.14
===«
Annual
Returns
(Van yr)
0.08
0.15
0.05
0.28
.
Annual Met
System Return
( $/an vr}
0.00
0.00
OOO
. w
-0 08
V • VO
-0.04
-0 01
w • W J.
— o m
V • WX
+0.08
+0.15
+0.05
+0.14
warm humid, warm arid. '~
287
-------
TABLE E-15. ECONOMIC DATA FOR POULTRY, LAYERS, HIGH RISE BUILDING, TRACTOR
LOADER, SOLID HANDLING, PLOWDOWN, 80,000 ANIMAL UNITS3
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Concrete pit
Concrete floor
Bx spdr/periodic use
Trac scraper/loader
Nutrients
N
P205
K20
Totals
Quantity
73 hrs
73 hrs
0 Jew
2.4 ft3/an
0.38 ft2/ an
1
1
0.63 Ib/an yr
0.86 Ib/an yr
0.50 Ib/an yr
Capital
Investment
($)
56,430.00
28,880.00
3,800.00
2,300.00
91,410.00
Annual
Cost
(5/an yr)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.08
0.04
0.01
0.01
0.14
Annual
Returns
($/an yr)
0.10
0.15
0.05
0.31
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
0.00
0.00
0.00
-0.08
-0.04
-0.01
-0.01
+0.10
+0.15
+0.05
+0.16
*Pegions: cool humid, warm humid, warm arid.
TABLE E-16. ECONOMIC DATA FOR POULTRY, LAYERS, FLUSH SHALLOW PIT TO
STORAGE BASIN, PUMP TO IRRIGATION SYSTEM, 10,000
ANIMAL UNITS*
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Concrete floor
Recycle pump /pipe
Storage basin
Wastewtr irrig/manur
Nutrients
N
P2°5
K20
Totals
Quantity Capital
Investment
($)
5 hrs
11 hrs
5,000 lew
0.8 ft2/an 7,600.00
1 2,400.00
31,500 ft3 1,290.00
1 3,000.00
0.58 Ib/an yr
0.82 Ib/an yr
0.48 Ib/an yr
14,290.00
Annual Annual
Cost Returns
($/an yr) ($/an yr)
0.00
0.01
0.03
0.09
0.07
0.02
0.08
0.09
0.15
0.05
0.29 0.29
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
0.00
-0.01
-0,03
-0.09
-0.07
-0.02
-0.08
+0.09
+0.15
+0.05
0.00
aRegions: warm arid.
288
-------
TABLE E-17. ECONOMIC DATA FOR POULTRY, LAYERS, FLUSH SHALLOW PIT TO STORAGE
BASIN, PUMP TO IRRIGATION SYSTEM, 25,000 ANIMAL UNITS*
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Concrete floor
Gated tank
Recycle pump/pipe
Storage basin
Was tew tr irrig/manur
Nutrients
N
P205
K20
Totals
Quantity
5 hrs
10 hrs
10,000 kw
0.8 ft2/an
8
1
80,000 ft3
1
0.58 Ib/an yr
0.82 Ib/an yr
0.48 Ib/an yr
Capital
Investment
(5)
19,000.00
4,000.00
1,000.00
2,740.00
3,000.00
29,740.00
Annual
Cost
($/an yr)
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.09
0.03
0.01
0.01
0.03
0.20
Annual
Returns
($/an yr)
0.09
0.15
0.05
0.29
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
0.00
0.00
-0.02
-0.09
-0.03
-0 01
W • V J.
-0 01
w • V^
-0.03
+0.09
+0.15
+0.05
+0.09
warm arid
TABLE E-18. ECONOMIC DATA FOR POULTRY, LAYERS, FLUSH SHALLOW PIT TO STORAGE
BASIN, PUMP TO IRRIGATION SYSTEM, 80,000 ANIMAL UNITS3
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Concrete floor
Gated tank
Recycle pump/pipe
Storage basin
Was tew tr irrig/manur
Nutrients
N
P2°5
K20
Totals
28 hrs
56 hrs
30,000 kw
0.8 ft2/an
24
1
250,000 ft3
1
0.58 Ib/an yr
0.82 Ib/an yr
0.48 Ib/an yr
Investment
($)
60,800.00
12,000.00
3,000.00
7,540.00
4,400.00
87.740.00
Cost
($/an yr)
0.00
0.01
0.02
0.09
0.03
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.18
Annual
Returns
($/an yr)
0.09
0.15
0.05
0.29
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
0.00
-0.01
-0.02
-0.09
-0.03
-0.01
-0.01
w * V JL
-0.01
+0.09
+0.15
+0.05
+0.11
*Regions: warm arid.
289
-------
TABLE E-19. ECONOMIC DATA FOR POULTRY, LAYERS, FLUSH SHALLOW PIT TO
LAGOON, WASTEWATER DISPOSAL, 10,000 ANIMAL UNITS3
Components
Laabor
Tractor
Energy
Concrete floor
Recycle pump/pipe
Lagoon
Wastewtr irrig/manur
Nutrients
N
P205
K2O
Totals
Quantity • Capital
Investment
(5)
56 hrs
72 hrs
5,000 lew
0.8 ft2/an 7,600.00
1 2,400.00
300,000 ft3 9,100.00
1 3,090.00
0..16 Ib/an yr
0.46 Ib/an yr
0.32 Ib/an yr
22,190.00
Annual Annual
Cost Returns
($/an yr) ($/an yr)
0.02
0.04
0.03
0.09
0.07
0.11
0.08
0.03
0.08
0.03
0.43 0.14
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
-0.02
-0.04
-0.03
-0.09
-0.07
-0.11
-0.08
+0.03
+0.08
+0.03
-0.29
*Regions: warm humid, hot humid.
TABLE E-20. ECONOMIC DATA FOR POULTRY, LAYERS, FLUSH SHALLOW PIT TO
LAGOON, WASTEWATER DISPOSAL, 25,000 ANIMAL UNITS*
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Concrete floor
Recycle pump/pipe
Lagoon
Wastewtr irrig/manur
Nutrients
N
P205
K20
Totals
Quantity
120 hrs
180 hrs
10,000 kw
0.8 ft2/an
1
750,000 ft3
1
0.16 Ib/an yr
0.46 Ib/an yr
0.32 Ib/an yr
Capital
Investment
($)
19,000.00
2,900.00
21,500.00
3,690.00
47,090.00
Annual
Cost
($/an yr)
0.02
0.04
0.02
0.09
0.04
0.11
0.04
0.34
Annual
Returns
($/an yr)
0.03
0.08
0.03
0.14
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
-0.02
-0.04
-0.02
-0.09
-0.04
-0.11
-0.04
+0.03
+0.08
+0.03
-0.20
*Regions: warm humid, hot humid.
290
-------
TABLE E-21.
ECONOMIC DATA FOR POULTRY, LAYERS, FLUSH SHALLOW PIT TO
LAGOON, WASTEWATER DISPOSAL, 80,000 ANIMAL UNITS3
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Concrete floor
Recycle pump/pipe
Lagoon
Was tew tr irrig/manur
Nutrients
N
P2°5
K20
Totals
480 hrs
720 hrs
30,000 kw
0.8 ft2/an
2
2.4 x 106 ft3
1
0.16 Ib/an yr
0.46 Ib/an yr
0.32 Ib/an yr
Capital
Investment
($)
60,800.00
6,800.00
50,000.00
6,600.00
124,200.00
Annual
Cost
($/an yr)
0.02
0.07
0.02
0.09
0.03
0.08
0.02
0.32
Annual
Return
($/an yr)
0.03
0.08
0.03
0.14
Annual Net
System Return
(5/an yr)
-0.02
-0.07
— O M
V . \JA
-0.09
-0.03
-0.08
-0.02
+0.03
+0.08
+0.03
-0.18
TABLE E-22. ECONOMIC DATA FOR POULTRY, BROILERS, LITTER, SOLID
HANDLING, 25,000 ANIMAL UNITSa
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Concrete floor
Trac scraper /loader
Bx spdr/periodic use
Bedding
nutrients
N
P205
K20
Totals
Quantity Capital
Inves talent
($)
30 hrs
30 hrs
0 kw
0.9 ft2/«n 21,375.00
1 2,300.00
1 2,150.00
0.16 ft3/an yr 0.00
0.35 lb/an yr
0.41 lb/an yr
0.30 lb/an yr
25,825.00
Annual Annual
Cost Returns
($/an yr) (§/an yr)
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.10
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.06
0.07
0.03
0.17 0.16
=====
Annual Net
System Return
(5/an yr)
0.00
-0.01
0.00
-0.10
-0.02
-0.02
-0.03
+0.06
+0.07
+0.03
-0.01
•Regions:
291
-------
TABLE E-23. ECONOMIC DATA FOR POULTRY, BROILERS, LITTER, SOLID HANDLING,
PLOWDOWN, 25,000 ANIMAL UNITS3
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Concrete floor
Trac scraper/loader
Bx spdr /periodic use
Bedding
Nutrients
N
P2°5
K2O
Totals
Quantity Capital
Investment
($)
0.9
0.16
0.42
0.43
0.31
30 hrs
30 hrs
0 kw
ft2/an
1
1
ft3/an yr
Ib/an yr
Ib/an yr
Ib/an yr
Annual Annual
Cost Returns
(S/an yr) ($/an yr)
0.
0.
00
01
0.00
21,375
.00
2,300.00
2,150
0
25,825
.00
.00
.00
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
10
02
02
03
0.07
0.08
0.03
17 0.18
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
0
-0
0
-0
-0
-0
-0
+0
+0
+0
+0
.00
.01
.00
.10
.02
.02
.03
.07
.08
.03
.01
aRegions: warm humid, hot humid, warm arid.
TABLE E-24. ECONOMIC DATA FOR POULTRY, BROILERS, LITTER, SOLID
HANDLING, 80,000 ANIMAL UNITS3
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Concrete floor
Trac scraper/loader
Bx spdr/periodic use
Bedding
Nutrients
N
P2°5
K20
Totals
Quantity Capital
Investment
($)
65 hrs
65 hrs
0 kw
0.9 ft2/an 68,400.00
1 2,300.00
1 2,600.00
0.16 ft3/an yr 0.00
0.35 Ib/an yr
0.41 Ib/an yr
0.30 Ib/an yr
73,300.00
Annual Annual
Cost Returns
($/an yr) ($/an yr)
0.00
0.00
0.00
O.iO
0.01
0.01
0.03
0.06
0.07
0.03
0.15 0.16
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
0.00
0.00
0.00
-0.10
-0.01
-0.01
-0.03
+0.06
+0.07
+0.03
+0.01
Regions: warm humid, hot humid, warm arid.
292
-------
TABLE E-25. ECONOMIC DATA FOR POULTRY, BROILERS, LITTER, SOLID HANDLING,
PLOWDOWN, 80,000 ANIMAL UNITS3
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Concrete floor
Trac scraper/loader
Bx spdr /periodic use
Bedding
Nutrients
N
P205
K20
Totals
65 hrs
65 hrs
0 kw
0.9 ft2/an
1
1
0.16 ft3/an yr
0.42 Ib/an yr
0.43 Ib/an yr
0.31 Ib/an yr
Investment
($)
68,400.00
2,300.00
2,600.00
0.00
73,300.00
Annual
Cost
($/an yr)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.10
0.01
0.01
0.03
0.15
Annual
Returns
(§/an yr)
0.07
0.08
0.03
0.18
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
0.00
0.00
0.00
-0.10
-0.01
-0.01
-0.03
+0.07
+0.08
+0.03
+0.03
•Regions: warm humid, hot humid, warm arid.
TABLE E-26. ECONOMIC DATA FOR POULTRY, CHICKEN/BROODING, LITTER, SOLID
HANDLING, 6,000 ANIMAL UNITS3
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Concrete floor
Trac scraper/loader
Bx spdr /periodic use
Bedding
Nutrients
N
P2°5
4>
Totals
Investment
($)
37 hrs
37 hrs
0 kw
2 ft2/an
1
1
•j
0.3 ft3/an yr
0.42 Ib/an yr
0.82 Ib/an yr
0.48 Ib/an yr
11,400.00
2,300.00
2,150.00
0.00
15,850.00
Annual Annual
Cost Returns
($/an yr) ($/an yr)
0.02
0.03
0.00
0.22
0.07
0.07
0.06
0.07
0.15
0.05
0.41 0.26
Annual Net
System Return
(S/an yr)
-0.02
-0.03
0.00
-0.22
-0.07
-0.07
-0.06
+0.07
+0.15
+0.05
-0.21
*Regions: warm humid, hot humid, cold humid, warm arid, cool humid.
293
-------
TABLE E-27. ECONOMIC DATA FOR POULTRY, CHICKEN/BROODING, LITTER, SOLID
HANDLING, 12,000 ANIMAL UNITS*
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Concrete floor
Trac scraper/loader
Bx spdr/periodic use
Bedding
Nutrients
N
P2o5
K20
Totals
Quantity Capital
Investment
($)
74 hrs
74 hrs
0 kw
2 ft2/an 22,800.00
1 2,300.00
1 2,150.00
0.3 ft3/an yr 0.00
0.42 Ib/an yr
0.-82 Ib/an yr
0.48 Ib/an yr
27,250.00
Annual Annual
Cost Returns
($/an yr) ($/an yr)
0.02
0.03
0.00
0.22
0.04
0.04
0.06
0.07
0.15
0.05
0.40 0.26
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
-0.02
-0.03
0,00
-0.22
-0.04
-0.04
-0.06
+0.07
+0.15
+0.05
-0.14
aRegions: warm humid, hot humid, cold humid, warm arid, cool humid.
TABLE E-28. ECONOMIC DATA FOR POULTRY, TURKEY/BROODING,
HANDLING, 3,000 ANIMAL UNITS3
SOLID
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Concrete floor
Trac scraper/loader
Bx spdr/periodic use
Bedding
Nutrients
N
P2°5
K20
Totals
Quantity Capital
Investment
($)
36 hrs
36 hrs
0 kw
3 ft2/an
1
1
0.5 ft3/an yr
0.84 Ib/an yr
1.64 Ib/an yr
0.96 Ib/an yr
8,550.00
2,300.00
2,150.00
0.00
13,000.00
Annual Annual
Cost Returns
(5/an yr) (S/an yr)
0.04
0.07
0.00
0.32
0.14
0.15
0.10
0.13
0.30
0.10
0.82 0.53
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
-0.04
-0.07
0.00
-0.32
-0.14
-0.15
-0.10
+0.13
+0.30
+0.10
-0.29
aRegions: warm humid, hot humid, cold humid, warm arid, cool humid.
294
-------
TABLE E-29. ECONOMIC DATA FOR POULTRY, TURKEY/BROODING, SOLID
HANDLING, 6000 ANIMAL UNITS*
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Concrete floor
Trac scraper/loader
Bx spdr /periodic use
Bedding
Nutrients
N
P2°5
K20
Totals
Quantity
72 hrs
72 hrs
0 kw
3 ft2/an
1
1
0.5 ft3/an yr
0.84 Ib/an yr
1.64 Ib/an yr
0.96 Ib/an yr
Capital
Investment
($)
17,100.00
2,300.00
2,150.00
0.00
21,550.00
Annual
Cost
(5/an yr)
0.04
0.07
0.00
0.32
0.07
0.07
0.10
0.67
Annual
Returns
(§/an yr)
0.13
0.30
0.10
0.53
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
-0.04
-0.07
0.00
-0.32
-0.07
-0.07
-0.10
+0.13
+0.30
+0.10
-0.15
•Regions: warm humid, hot humid, cold humid, warm arid, cool humid.
TABLE E-30. ECONOMIC DATA FOR POULTRY, TURKEY, LITTER, SOLID HANDLING,
10,000 ANIMAL UNITSa
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Concrete floor
Trac scraper/loader
Bx spdr /periodic use
Bedding
Nutrients
N
P2°5
*2°
Totals
Quantity
43 hrs
43 hrs
0 kw
3 ft2/an
1
1
0.21 ftVan yr
1.0 Ib/an yr
1.4 Ib/an yr
1.4 Ib/an yr
Capital
Investment
($)
28,500.00
2,300.00
2,150.00
0.00
32,950.00
Annual
Cost
($/an yr)
0.02
0.02
0.00
0.32
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.49
Annual
Returns
($/an yr)
0.16
0.25
0.14
0.55
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
-0.02
-0.02
0.00
-0.32
-0.04
-0.04
-0.04
+0.16
+0.25
+0.14
+0.07
aRegions: warm humid, hot humid, cold humid, warm arid, cool humid.
295
-------
TABLE E-31. ECONOMIC DATA FOR POULTRY, TURKEY, LITTER, SOLID HANDLING
PLOWDOWN, 10,000 ANIMAL UllITSa
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Concrete floor
Trac scraper/loader
Bx spdr/periodic use
Bedding
Nutrients
N
*205
K20
Totals
Quantity
75 hrs
75 hrs
0 kw
3 ft2/an
1
1
0.21 ft3/an yr
1.2 Ib/an yr
1.5 Ib/an yr
1.4 Ib/an yr
Capital
Investment
($)
28,500.00
2,300.00
2,150.00
0.00
32,950.00
Annual Annual
Cost Returns
($/an yr) ($/an yr)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.02
.02
.00
.32
.04
.04
.04
0.19
0.27
0.14
.49 0.60
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
-0.02
-0.02
0.00
-0.32
-0.04
-0.04
-0.04
+0.19
+0.27
+0.14
+0.12
aRegions: warm humid, hot humid, cold humid, warm arid, cool humid.
TABLE E-32. ECONOMIC DATA FOR POULTRY, TURKEY, LITTER, SOLID HANDLING
25,000 ANIMAL UNITSa
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Concrete floor
Trac scraper/ loader
Bx spdr/periodic use
Bedding
Nutrients
N
P2°5
K2°
Totals
Quantity
75 hrs
75 hrs
0 kw
3 ft2/an
1
1
0.21 ft3/an yr
1.0 Ib/an yr
1.4 Ib/an yr
1.4 Ib/an yr
Capital
Investment
(V
71,250.00
2,300.00
2,600.00
0.00
76,150.00
Annual Annual
Cost Returns
($/an yr) ($/ar. yr)
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.32
0.02
0.02
0.04
0.16
0.25
0.14
0.43 0.55
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
-0.01
-0.01
0.00
-0.32
-0.02
-0.02
-0.04
+0.16
+0.25
+0.14
+0.12
^Regions: warm humid, hot humid, cold humid, warm arid, cool humid.
296
-------
TABLE E-33. ECONOMIC DATA FOR POULTRY, TURKEY, LITTER, SOLID HANDLING
PLOWDOWN, 25,000 ANIMAL UNITS3
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Concrete floor
Trac scraper/loader
Bx spdr /periodic use
Bedding
Nutrients
N
*2°5
K20
Totals
Quantity Capital
Investment
($)
75 hrs
75 hrs
0 kw
3 ft2/an 71,250.00
1 2,300.00
1 2,600.00
0.21 ft3/an yr 0.00
1.2 Ib/an yr
1.5 Ib/an yr
1.4 Ib/an yr
76,150.00
Annual Annual
Cost Return
($/an yr) ($/an yr)
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.32
0.02
0.02
0.04
0.19
0.27
0.14
0.43 0.60
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
-0.01
-0.01
0.00
-0.32
-0.02
-0.02
-0.04
+0.19
+0.27
+0.14
+0.17
aRegions: Warm humid, hot humid, cold humid, warm arid, cool humid.
TABLE E-34. ECONOMIC DATA FOR POULTRY, TURKEY, VEGETATED LOT,
10,000 ANIMAL UNITS3
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Land
Nutrients
N
P2°5
K,0
Quantity
0 hrs
0 hrs
0 kw
750 an/acre
0
0
0
Capital
Investment
($)
16,000.00
Annual
Cost
($/an yr)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.18
Annual
Returns
<$/an yr)
0.00
0.00
0.00
Annual Net
System Return
($/an yr)
0.00
0.00
0.00
-0.18
0.00
0.00
0.00
Totals
16,000.00
0.18
0.00
-0.18
•Regions: cold, cool, warm and hot humid, warm arid.
297
-------
TABLE E-35. ECONOMIC DATA FOR POULTRY, VEGETATED LOT, REDUCED STOCKING,
MOVED WEEKLY, 10,000 ENIMAL UNITS3
Component
Labor
Tractor
Energy
Land
Nutrients
N
P2°5
K20
Totals
Quantity Capital
Investment
($)
0 hrs
0 hrs
0 kw
250 an/acre 48,000.00
0
0
0
48,000.00
Annual
Cost
($/an yr)
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.53
0.55
Annual
Returns
($/an yr)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Annual Net
System Return
(§/an yr)
-0.01
-0.01
0.00
-0.53
0.00
0.00
0.00
-0.55
ttegions: cold humid.
298
-------
To Convert From
acre (AC)
square foot (ft2)
foot (ft)
inch (in)
pound (Ib)
kilowatt (kw)
ton (2000 Lb)
APPENDIX F
ENGLISH TO METRIC CONVERSION
To
hectare
metre2 (m2)
metre (m)
centimetre (cm)
kilogram (kg)
watt (w)
kg
Multiply by
0.404
0.093
0.304
2.540
0.454
1000
907
299
-------
GLOSSARY OF TERMS
Agitation: The turbulent mixing of liquid and solids. Agitation is neces-
sary to remove settled solids from manure storage.
Agricultural Wastes: Wastes normally associated with the production and
processing of food and fiber on farms, feedlots, ranches, ranges, and
forests which may include animal manure, crop residues, and dead ani-
mals; also, agricultural chemicals, fertilizers and pesticides, which
may find their way into the soil and subsequently into the surface and
subsurface water.
Composting: Biological degradation of organic matter to a relatively stable
humus-like material called compost. Usually this is an aerobic semi-
dry process, but may be anaerobic.
Dehydration: The chemical or physical process whereby water in chemical or
physical combination with other matter is removed.
Detention Pond: An earth structure constructed to store runoff water and
other wastewater until such time as the liquid may be recycled onto
land. Sometimes called holding ponds.
Earth Manure Storage Basin: An earth basin constructed to store liquid or
semi-solid manure.
Effluent: Wastewater or other liquid, treated or untreated, flowing from
reservoir, basin, treatment plant, or part thereof.
Flushing Channel (gutter): A shallow trough (normally 2-5 inches deep),
wide enough for livestock to stand in it, into which water is dis-
charged for the purpose of hydraulicly transporting accumulated manure
to storage or treatment.
Grassed Infiltration Area: An area with vegetative cover where runoff water
infiltrates into the soil.
Holding Pond: See Detention Pond.
Infiltration: The process whereby a liquid enters the soil or other filter-
ing medium.
300
-------
Influent: Water, wastewater, or other liquid flowing into a reservoir,
basin, or treatment plant, or any unit thereof.
Lagoon: An earth structure for the biological treatment for liquid organic
wastes. Lagoons can be aerobic, anaerobic, or facultative depending
on their loading and design, and can be used in series to produce a
higher quality effluent.
Liquid Manure: A mixture of water and manure which can be pumped. It is
usually less than 15% solids.
Litter: The bedding material used for poultry and livestock.
Livestock Waste: A term cometimes applied to manure which may contain such
matter as bedding, water and soil. It also includes wastes such as
milking center or washing wastes not particularly associated with
manure, and includes hair, feathers, and other debris.
Manure: The fecal and urinary excretions of livestock and poultry. Manure
may also contain some spilled feed and water, bedding or litter, and
is often referred to as animal or livestock waste.
Manure Storage: A storage unit and/or management practice to keep manure
contained for some period of time prior to its ultimate disposal.
Manure storages are usually classified by type and form of manure
stored and/or construction of the storage; i.e., concrete liquid
manure tank, earth storage basin, solid manure storage, plank walled
storage.
Manure Tank: A storage unit in which accumulations of manure are collected
before subsequent handling or treatment, or both, and ultimate utili-
zation or disposal. Water may be added in the tank to promote lique-
faction.
Odor Nuisance: That condition where odors emanating from a facility, con-
tinuously and unreasonably interfere with a person's (neighbor's)
enjoyment of his land.
Oxidation Ditch: A modified form of the activated sludge process. An aera-
tion device supplies oxygen and circulates the liquid in a looped open
channel ditch.
Porous Dam: A runoff control structure which reduces the flow of runoff so
the solids settle out in the settling terrace or settling basin. It
may consist of such things as rock, expanded metal, narrow wood
slot, etc.
Settling Basin: A concrete or earth bottomed settling structure where the
solids in runoff settle out.
301
-------
Settleable Solids: That matter in wastewater which will not stay in suspen-
sion during a preselected settling period, such as one hour.
Slotted Floor: The floor surface of a building which has open spaces or
grooves to allow manure and other waste material to pass through
the floor.
Solid Manure: A mixture of manure and bedding which cannot be pumped. It
is normally more than 15% solids.
Solid Manure Storage: A storage unit in which accumulations of manure with
or without bedding are collected before subsequent handling or treat-
ment or both, and ultimate utilization or disposal. The liquid portion
including urine and precipitation may or may not be drained from the
unit. Sometimes called a manure stack.
Solids Content: (1) The residue remaining when the water is evaporated
away from a sample of water, sewage, other liquids, or semi-solid
masses of material and the residue is then dried at a specified temper-
ature (usually 103°C for 24 hours); usually stated in milligrams per
liter or percent solids. (2) It is the sum of the dissolved and sus-
pended constituent in water or wastewater.
Supernatant: The liquid standing above a sediment or precipitate after
settling of centrifuging.
Suspended Solids: Solids that are in water, wastewater, or other liquids,
and which are largely removable by laboratory filtering.
Wastewater: Water that contains agricultural wastes generated by production
facilities which must be disposed of in a non-polluting manner.
Wastewater Irrigation: A process using a sprinkler, flooding or overland
flow method of applying rainfall runoff, lagoon effluent, manure
slurry, agricultural process wastewater as other wastewaters to land.
302
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
REPORT NO.
EPA-600/2-78-102
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION-NO.
TITLE AND SUBTITLE
A Manual on: EVALUATION AND ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF
LIVESTOCK WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
REPORT DATE
May 1978 issuing date
PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
AUTHOR(S)
R. K. White and D. L. Forster
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center
Wooster, Ohio 44691
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
1BB770
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
R-804548
2. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory - Ada,O
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Ada, OK
Ada, Oklahoma 74820
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final (6/21/76 - 11
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA-600/15
5. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
6. ABSTRACT
This manual was developed to describe and evaluate alternative systems and/or
technologies currently used to handle wastes from livestock facilities of less than
1,000 animal units. The systems are evaluated with regard to controlling water
pollution and odor nuisance. An economic analysis of alternative livestock waste
management systems for dairy, beef, swine, sheep and poultry facilities is provided.
The economic impact of water pollution control technologies is discussed. This
manual is intended to be used by environmental planners, regulatory personnel, and
livestock producers.
The discussion and evaluation of waste management systems are related to the
regional concentration of livestock species and to climatic constraints. The economic
analysis of alternative waste systems is done for each species separately and con-
siders fertilizer nutrient return as a benefit. Detailed economic analysis of waste
management options are provided in the Appendices for each species. All cost data
are in 1977 dollars.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
COS AT I Field/Group
Livestock; Agricultural Wastes; Economic
Analysis; Water Pollution; Odor Control;
Fertilizers; Farm Management
91A
91J
98B
18. DISTRIBUTION
RELEASE TO PUBLIC
19. SECURITY CLASS (ThisReport)
UNCLASSIFIED
21. NO. OF PAGES
317
20. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)
UNCLASSIFIED
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
303
» U.S GOVEHMFJIT ntMTMG OFFICE; 197»_
757-140/U24
------- |