EPA-600/2-76-188
September 1976
Environmental Protection Technology Series
               ANIMAL  WASTE  MANAGEMENT IN  THE
                               NORTHERN  GREAT PLAINS
                                Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory
                                         Office of Research and Development
                                        U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                                                 Ada, Oklahoma  74820


-------
                RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES

Research reports of the Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, have  been grouped  into five series. These five  broad
categories were established to facilitate further development and application of
environmental technology. Elimination of traditional grouping was consciously
planned to foster technology transfer and a maximum interface in related fields.
The five series are:

     1.    Environmental Health Effects Research
     2.    Environmental Protection Technology
     3.    Ecological Research
     4.    Environmental Monitoring
     5.    Socioeconomic Environmental Studies

This report  has been  assigned  to the ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
TECHNOLOGY series. This series describes research performed to develop and
demonstrate  instrumentation, equipment, and methodology to repair or prevent
environmental degradation from point and non-point sources of pollution. This
work provides the new  or improved technology required for the control  and
treatment of pollution sources to meet environmental quality standards.
This document is available to the public through the National Technical Informa-
tion Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.

-------
                                         EPA-600/2-76-188
                                         September 1976
             ANIMAL WASTE MANAGEMENT

                     IN THE

              NORTHERN GREAT PLAINS
                       by

                Maurice L. Horton
                 John L. Wiersma
               James L. Halbeisen
            Water Resources Institute
          South Dakota State University
         Brookings, South Dakota  57006
              Grant Number S-802532
                 Project Officer

                  Douglas Kreis
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 publica-
tion.  Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the
views and policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, nor does
mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or
recommendation for use.
                                     ii

-------
                             ABSTRACT
The effect of salt level of the ration for beef steers upon salinity
of the waste and the effects of the applied waste upon the soil and
upon crop production was investigated.  In addition, the study was
conducted in both covered and open feedlot pens to study the effect
of shelter in a northern climate upon animal performance and waste
characteristics.

The field portion of the study included four rates of waste up to
179 MT/ha. applied to plots 0.02 ha. in size.  Detailed soil analyses
were made which included salinity, nutrients, cations, and the dis-
persion hazard as indicated by the level of exchangeable sodium.

The levels of salt used in the ration appeared to have little or no
effect on animal performance; however, the salinity and sodium levels
of the waste were directly affected.  The salinity level of the sur-
face 30 cm of soil where high rates of waste were applied was suf-
ficiently high to affect the growth of corn.  The lack of leaching
water caused a maximum effect of the applied waste in the surface layer.

This report was submitted in fulfillment of Grant Number S-802532
by the Water Resources Institute, South Dakota State University,
Brookings, South Dakota, under the partial sponsorship of the Environ-
mental Protection Agency.  Work was completed as of December, 1974.
                                  iii

-------
                             CONTENTS






Sections                                                    Page




I       Conclusions                                           1




II      Recommendations                                       3




III     Introduction                                          4




IV      Facilities                                           !0




V       Climatic Data and Animal Environment                 12




VI      Materials and Methods                                19




VII     Results and Discussion                               31




VIII    Literature Cited                                     52




IX      Glossary of Abbreviations and Symbols                55




X       Appendix                                             57

-------
                          LIST OF FIGURES


Number                                                  Page

  1        Feedlot facilities                            11

  2        Temperature variation in open and covered     18
             pens

  3        Waste incorporation and plot preparation      21

  4        Field plots showing relative elevations       23

  5        Soils map of plot area                        24

  6        Soil sampling                                 27

  7        Field installation for runoff                 30
                              vi

-------
                          LIST OF TABLES


Number                                                  Page

  1        Temperature and precipitation records         13
             for the Southeast South Dakota
             Experiment Farm

  2        Monthly precipitation summary for the         17
             Southeast South Dakota Experiment Farm
             during the period October 1973 through
             September 197A

  3        Detailed profile description of the Egan      25
             silty clay loam soil

  4        Animal performance                            32

  5        Dry matter waste production                   33

  6        Waste analyses                                34

  7        Waste rates from the low NaCl ration          35
             applied to field plots

  8        Waste rates from the high NaCl ration         36
             applied to field plots

  9        Bacteriological characteristics of beef       37
             waste

  10       Leaf analyses of corn plants harvested        38
             at silking from plots receiving the
             indicated amounts of waste

  11       Yield of ear corn and silage from plots       39
             receiving four rates of applied beef
             waste

  12       Soil analyses:  Chlorides, electrical         40
             conductivity and pH

  13       Soil analyses:  Nitrogen and phosphorus       41


                              vii

-------
Number                                                  Page

  14       Soil analyses for plots receiving the         42
             indicated amounts of waste

  15       Analysis of variance for exchangeable         43
             Na in soil

  16       The mean values for exchangeable Na           44
             (meq/lOOg) for the main effects and
             interactions which are significant

  17       Equations developed for exchangeable Na       45
             from the multiple regression analysis
             and significance of the equations

  18       Analysis of variance results for exchange-     46
             able K in soil

  19       The mean values for exchangeable K (meq/lOOg)  47
             for the main effects which are signifi-
             cant at the .01 level

  20       Equations developed for exchangeable K        48
             from the multiple regression analysis
             and significance of the equations

  21       Analysis of variance results for EC in        49
             soil

  22       The mean values for EC (pmhos/cm)  for         50
             the main effects and interactions which
             are significant

  23       The equations developed for  EC from the       50
             multiple regression analysis and  sig-
             nificance of the equations
                             viii

-------
                         ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This study was made possible through the assistance and cooperation
of a number of individuals and departments.  The services of the South
Dakota Agricultural Experiment Station through the Departments of
Agricultural Engineering, Animal Science, Microbiology, and Plant
Science are gratefully acknowledged.  The services of the staff of
the Southeast South Dakota Experiment Farm were essential and greatly
appreciated.  The assistance of the Environmental Protection Agency
is gratefully acknowledged.

The dedicated services of the following individuals are acknowledged
with sincere thanks:

  Ron Beyer — Agricultural engineer with the Water Resources Institute.

  Albert Dittman — Research associate with the Agricultural Engineering
  Department who made a major contribution to the project.

  Delwyn Dearborn — Dean of the College of Agriculture and Biological
  Sciences, who was Head of the Animal Science Department when the
  project was initiated.

  Douglas Kreis — Ecologist with the Environmental Protection Agency
  and Project Officer for this project.

  Richard Luther — Professor of Animal Science and Research Manager
  of the Experiment Farm during the first year of the project.

  Paul Middaugh — Professor of Microbiology in charge of bacteriological
  analyses.

  Shirley Mittan — Technician in charge of Water Quality Laboratory
  analyses.

  Dan Ronning — Student and technician in Animal Science.

  Fred Shubeck — Research Manager of the Southeast Experiment Farm.

  William Schneider — Extension beef nutritionist in charge of ration
  formulation and livestock performance.

  Alan Vogel — Animal scientist with the Southeast Experiment Farm.

In addition to the above individuals, the assistance of secretaries,
part-time labor employees, and student employees is gratefully ac-
knowledged .


                                   ix

-------
                             SECTION I

                            CONCLUSIONS
1.  The amount of sodium (Na) in waste from steers fed a common ration,
    except for the amount of salt (NaCl) added to the ration,  varied
    directly with the level of added salt.   Steers receiving no added
    NaCl produced waste with a Na content of 0.3% to 0.5%,  while steers
    receiving a ration with 0.75% added NaCl produced wastes containing
    1.2% to 1.6% Na on a dry weight basis.

2.  The amount of wastes produced by beef steers will vary from feedlot
    to feedlot depending upon the composition of the ration, feed intake,
    weather, and management variables.  During one feeding cycle, steers
    on a high roughage (corn silage) ration produced an average of
    2.65 kg of dry waste per head per day.   The same steers on a high
    concentrate (corn grain) ration produced only 1.79 kg of waste per
    head per day.  These values are less than was expected for compa-
    rable size steers.

3.  Steers fed a ration containing no added salt (NaCl) up to a level
    of 0.75% of the ration on a dry weight basis showed little or no
    difference in rate of gain or feed efficiency.

4.  During two separate feeding periods, beef steers in open pens gave
    slightly higher daily rates of gain (0.08 kg/day) than similar
    steers housed in covered pens.  During periods of extreme cold
    and inclement weather, rates of gain and feed efficiencies of
    cattle in both open and covered pens were drastically reduced.
    The chemical and physical properties of waste was comparable for
    open and covered pens except for the water content which varied
    with weather conditions.

5.  Many of the soils of the Northern Great Plains contain large quan-
    tities of salts and high levels of salinity within the profile.
    Where the depth of leaching is shallow (30 to 60 cm), addition
    of large quantities of animal waste that contain appreciable
    quantities of salt will further limit the productivity of these
    soils.  During 1974, salts in waste applied to field plots remained
    in the 0- to 30-cm layer and increased the salinity level, as

-------
    indicated by electrical conductivity (EC), to values in excess
    of 5,000 ymhos/cm.  These values exceed the salt tolerance levels
    for proper germination and growth of many common agronomic plants.

6.  Chemical analyses of corn leaf samples taken from waste disposal
    plots showed an increase in total N and a decrease in Mg with
    increased rates of applied waste.

7.  Precipitation amounts and patterns were such that no runoff occurred
    from the field plots during the course of the study.

-------
                            SECTION II

                          RECOMMENDATIONS
The combination of soils and climate found in the Northern Great Plains
presents a number of problems in animal waste management.  The high
natural levels of salinity combined with small quantities of leaching
water may well establish a limit on applied waste based on the increase
in salinity which can be tolerated.

Recognizing that one year of data on soil effects and crop response
due to applied waste is a limited data base from which to make recom-
mendations, the following suggestions are offered:

1.  The addition of salt (NaCl) to the ration for beef steers should
    be kept at a minimum in order to reduce the soil dispersion and
    salinity hazard due to the applied waste.  The addition of 0.25%
    NaCl to the ration on a dry weight basis appears adequate under
    most circumstances.

2.  Housing for cattle in feedlots in the Northern Great Plains may
    be of questionable value in improving performance except for the
    purpose of keeping the cattle dry.

3.  The salinity and dispersion hazard of animal waste applied to high
    clay soils receiving a minimum of leaching water should be con-
    tinually monitored to prevent damage to crop production land.

    It is recommended that additional detailed investigation of the
    salinity buildup, soil dispersion, crop production, and runoff
    characteristics under several rates of applied waste be continued.

-------
                             SECTION  III

                            INTRODUCTION
PURPOSE OF THE PROJECT

The climate and soils of  the Northern Great Plains present some unique
problems  to the livestock feeder who uses the  land for waste disposal.
The importance of housing to protect the animals from the cold or to
improve animal performance and disposal of the wastes are areas of con-
cern.  The nature of the  soils — large amounts of clay and large quan-
tities of salts — together with a variable but low quantity of leaching
water raises questions regarding waste application rates which can be
tolerated on crop production land.  Concentration of waste components
at or near the soil surface increases the pollution potential due to
surface runoff or erosion.

The climate, soils, and feedlots of South Dakota exhibit a good cross
section of the waste management problems of the Northern Great Plains.
In an attempt to develop  solutions to the waste management problems,
a project was initiated at the Cornbelt Research and Extension Center
near Beresford, South Dakota.

The purpose of the project was to develop guidelines relating climate,
waste, soils,  and crops to assist livestock feeders in cold regions
in developing waste management techniques that are environmentally
acceptable while retaining crop production capabilities.

The specific objectives of the project were:

1.  Evaluate the effects of roughage content and salt content of the
    ration upon amount and composition of wastes from beef cattle in
    confined feedlots.

2.  Evaluate the influence of covered versus open pens upon the chem-
    ical and physical properties of wastes to be removed from the pens.

3.  Determine  the maximum application rates for disposal of wastes
    on the land compatible with maintaining reasonable levels of crop
    production with pollution control.

-------
4.  Determine the concentration and movement of chemical and bacte-
    riological waste components by surface runoff or leaching through
    the soil under the prevailing climatic conditions.

GENERAL BACKGROUND

Various authors have studied differing feedlot conditions in an attempt
to establish those conditions which affect the chemical characteristics
of beef cattle waste.  Gilbertson, McCalla, Ellis, and Woods (1971)
have examined feedlot slope and animal densities in relation to the
chemical characteristics of the waste concluding that these two factors
have no definite relationship with the quality of the waste.  Yet, these
studies have suggested that climatic conditions influenced the vari-
ability of the chemical characteristics of beef cattle waste.  Frye
et al. (1972) have found that the grams of NaCl fed per day per head
of beef cattle directly influence the relative salinity of the feedlot
waste and runoff water.  They have shown that the relative salinity
of the runoff water was almost linearly related to the grams of NaCl
in the beef cattle ration.  Research has indicated that the chemical
analyses of beef cattle waste varies considerably from feedlot to feed-
lot and the characteristics are unique for each feedlot.  This uniqueness
indicates that a chemical analysis is needed to characterize the beef
cattle waste of any given feedlot.

According to Martin  (1970), 85% of the ingested K appears in the beef
cattle waste; therefore, a large application of beef cattle waste to
the soil adds a large quantity of K which may disturb the nutrient
balance in the soil and eventually affect the crops grown on the soil.

When K is present in the soil in excessive amounts, plants may consume
more K than is needed for normal growth  (luxury consumption).  The K
to Mg ratio of forages grown on soils is important due to hypomagnesemia
(grass tetany).  Beef cattle receiving forage high in K and low in Mg
may develop hypomagnesemia which causes death to the animal.

Vitosh, Davis, and Knezek (1972) harvested corn silage which contained
a K to Mg ratio capable of causing hypomagnesemia.  The corn silage
was grown on soil receiving beef cattle waste for nine consecutive
years at 67.2 MT/ha. (20 t/a.) (wet weight basis with the last year's
waste containing 70% water).  Vitosh et al.  (1972) suggested that forage
grown on soils receiving large amounts of beef cattle may have a large
enough K to Mg ratio to warrant an addition of Mg to the feed if this
forage is fed to beef or dairy animals.

The Relationship of Applied Beef Cattle Waste to Salt and Sodium Content

The cations Ca, Mg, Na, and K and the salts of these cations are the
most abundant in beef cattle waste and the most important in affecting
salinity and dispersion of soil.  Soil salinity is affected by the salts
which are added by waste.  Soil colloids are influenced by  the relative

-------
 amounts of Ca,  Mg, Na,  and K added by the waste.   In turn,  the amount
 of salt and cation proportions in the waste are influenced  by the con-
 tents of the forage used in the ration,  by the feed supplements,  and
 by any extra salt added to the feed.

 The early literature of Salter and Schollenberger (1939)  reported
 that salt fed to beef animals appears in their wastes in  sufficient
 quantities at times to  injure the quality of potatoes grown on land
 receiving large quantities of the waste.   They attributed the bulk
 of the injury to the chloride in the  waste.

 To monitor soil salinity as affected  by  beef cattle waste application,
 Murphy et al.  (1972); Mathers et al.  (1972); Evans, Goodrich and  Munter
 (1972);  and Reddell,  Egg,  and Smith (1974)  have used EC of  the saturated
 soil extract; while Evans  et al.  (1972)  and Reddell et al.  (1974)  have
 also examined chloride  content in the soil.

 Mathers  et al.  (1972) measured EC to  a depth of 91.4 cm (36.0 in.)  in
 the  soil after  three  annual beef  cattle waste applications  at varying
 rates.   The increase  in the soil's EC was  directly  related  to the  amount
 of beef  waste applied to the soil.  The  increase  in EC was  found  to
 be greater at the  soil  surface than at the  91.4-cm  (36.0  in.)  depth;
 although,  a waste  rate  of  123.2 MT/ha. (55  t/a.)  (dry weight basis)
 per  year increased the  EC  slightly at the  91.4-cm (36.0 in.)  depth.

 A  linear relationship was  established by Murphy et  al.  (1972)  between
 surface  soil EC  and the amount of waste applied to  that soil.   As  soon
 as waste application was discontinued, soil  EC was  reduced  by nutrient
 removal  through  actively growing  plants and  by continued  leaching  of
 salts  into lower portions  of the  soil profile.

 After  only one beef cattle waste  application of 70.2 MT/ha.  (31.3  t/a.)
 (dry weight basis), Evans  et al.  (1972) found only  a small  increase
 (200 pmhos/cm) in  EC  for the top  15 cm (5.9  in.)  of the soil profile.
 Evans  et  al.  (1972) also examined the chloride content  in the soil
 profile  after this waste application  finding an increase  in chloride
 concentration at all soil  depths  (0-15 cm,  15-30  cm,  30-61  cm,  61-91  cm,
 and 91-122  cm)  (0-5.9 in.,  5.9-11.8 in., 11.8-24  in.,  24-36 in., and
 36-48  in.) with  the largest  increase  (14 ppm to 155 ppm chloride)
 occurring  at the 61 to  91-cm (24-36 in.) depth.

A direct relationship was  also  shown  by Reddell et  al.  (1974) between
 the EC of  the saturated soil extract  of surface soil and  the  rate of
applied beef cattle waste.   The EC  increased in the surface soil imme-
diately after beef  cattle waste application  and decreased once  the annual
applications were  discontinued.   The  chloride  concentration increased
 in the entire soil  profile  after  application of waste and dissipated
gradually once waste application was  stopped.

-------
With the possibility of Na or K at high concentrations dispersing
soil colloids, Na and K have been examined in relation to reduced
plant growth on soils that have received large applications of beef
cattle waste.  Both water soluble and exchangeable Na or water soluble
and exchangeable K are used to monitor the accumulation of either Na
or K in soil after heavy waste applications.

Reddell et al. (1974) have shown that water soluble Na and K increase
directly in the top 30 cm (11.8 in.) of soil with the amount of beef
cattle waste application.  Murphy et al. (1972) have demonstrated the
same relationship for both extractable Na and exchangeable K.

Cross, Mazurak, and Chesin (1971) used soil columns to study soil
hydraulic conductivity as affected by the application of beef cattle
wastes.  The leachate collected from columns contained increasing
amounts of Na and K as the waste application was increased.  Cross
et al. (1971) concluded that the amounts of Na and K added in the beef
cattle waste when applied to soil caused dispersion of colloids which
reduced the soil's hydraulic conductivity.

The ratio of Na to Ca and Mg in beef cattle waste has been suggested
by Mathers et al. (1972) as being a critical property when waste is
applied to the soil.  Dispersion hazard ratios which are found by
dividing the relative weight of Na and K in beef cattle waste by the
relative weight of Na, K, Ca, and Mg in that same waste have been pub-
lished by Powers et al. (1974).  Dispersion ratios can be useful as
guidelines in monitoring the effect of waste applied to soil.

The investigators listed in the above discussion have measured various
chemical properties of the soil to monitor an increase in soil salinity
or a change in exchangeable bases which may cause soil dispersion.
Scientists generally agree that dispersion reduces plant growth by
disturbing the air and water relations of the soil profile.  However,
reduced plant growth on saline soils has remained a subject of serious
debate among scientists.  Some authors have suggested that increased
osmotic pressures caused by the salts in the soil prohibit adequate
water uptake by the plant.  Other authors have suggested that plants
grown on saline soils are subjected to nutrient imbalances which reduce
plant growth by forcing the plant to absorb an excessive amount of
improper nutrients.

The stage of plant growth at which saline soils are most injurious
depends on the plant species.  Ayers and Hayward (1948) found corn
to be less susceptible to soil salinity at germination than barley
or sugar beets; however, as plant growth continues corn shows less
tolerance to saline soils than barley or sugar beets.

Beef Cattle Waste Application Rates on the Soil

Waste application studies are conducted to arrive at an application

-------
 rate which will permit  crop growth without  causing either  excessive
 nutrient  accumulation in the soil or  soil damage.   This  section  lists
 the beef  cattle waste application rates  suggested  by various  authors.
 Although  many  different units are used in waste  management studies,
 the rates discussed  here will be  in units of  MT/ha.  (t/a.) on a  dry
 weight basis.

 After reviewing the  literature, Aldrich  (1973) concluded that one-
 or two-year applications of 168 to 225 MT/ha.  (75  to 100.4 t/a.)  of
 beef cattle waste  seldom causes an adverse  effect  on yields of corn,
 sorghum,  or forage grasses.

 Evans et  al. (1972)  reported that an  application of  70.2 MT/ha.  (31.3  t/a.)
 for one year resulted in corn grain yield of  6,502 kg/ha.  (5,800  Ib/a.)
 for the plot receiving  beef cattle waste  compared  with a check plot
 yield of  6,076  kg/ha. (5,420 lb/a.).

 According to Cross et al.  (1971),  for  corn  under irrigation a beef
 cattle waste application of 269 MT/ha. (120 t/a.)  for one  year increased
 corn yields  while  a  higher  application of 582 MT/ha.  (259.8 t/a.) for
 one year  decreased corn yields significantly.

 The investigations of Reddell et  al.  (1974) concluded that beef  appli-
 cation rates of  86.9 and 134.4 MT/ha.  (38.8 and  60 t/a.) for  three
 consecutive  years  to irrigated crops did  not decrease crop yields
 or cause  damage  to the  soil.

Mathers and  Stewart  (1974)  recommended 9  MT/ha.  (4 t/a.) for  a con-
 tinued yearly application of  beef  cattle  waste without any nutrient
 accumulations in irrigated  soils.   Any application rate  exceeding
 9 MT/ha.  (4  t/a.) established  a nutrient  accumulation in the  soil.
However,  such results are highly  dependent  upon  soil and weather con-
ditions.

Vitosh et al. (1972) recommends a  yearly  dry-land  beef cattle waste
application  of between  6 and  18 MT/ha. (2.7 and  8  t/a.)  without any
unnecessary nutrient accumulation  in the  soil.   The  recommended rate
depends considerably on  the soil  texture, the weather, and the use
 to be made of the crop.

Powers et al. (1974) have completed a  comprehensive  guide  for  beef
cattle waste application rates.  By using nomograms,  the reader can
arrive at the continuous rate which is safe for  his  particular situa-
tion.   The different nomograms represent  beef cattle waste application
to irrigated or dry-land soils; soils  of  fine, medium, or  coarse tex-
tures;  and soils resulting  in medium or low soil salinity.

The literature indicates that the  disposal  of wastes  on  soil may change
the chemical properties of  the soil enough  to alter  plant  growth.  The

-------
two hazards considered to be closely related to the disposal of wastes
on soil are soil dispersion and soil salinity.  Thus, chemical tests
which are directly related to dispersion and salinity are useful for
monitoring the changes in soil chemistry.

Until some more economical use is found for animal wastes, the soil
will continue to be the primary disposal site.  In order to protect
the crop production capacity of the soil and to minimize pollution,
regular waste and soil monitoring programs should be established.

-------
                             SECTION  IV

                             FACILITIES
The Southeast South Dakota Experiment Farm was selected as the site
to conduct the studies under this project.  The farm is located near
Beresford, South Dakota, and is operated by South Dakota State Univer-
sity and  the South Dakota Agricultural Experiment Station.

In addition to a barn and other farm buildings, the farm has a modern
office and laboratory building.  The farm has its own weather station
and maintains a complete written record of weather data.

The open  feedlot and covered lot facilities were inadequate to handle
this project; therefore, construction and remodeling of facilities
were necessary.  The barn was remodeled to handle eight covered pens
with separate feeding and waste collection for each pen.  New water
fountains, feed bunks, and feed handling facilities were installed.

A new open pen feedlot consisting of eight concrete-surfaced pens was
constructed.  Appropriate alleyways and holding pens were constructed
to permit handling of the cattle during waste cleaning and animal
weighing periods.

Figure 1 is two views of the feedlot showing the open pens and the barn
where the covered pens were located.  Although not shown in the photo-
graphs, ventilation panels were installed in the sides and roof of the
barn at the end of the first feeding cycle.  The added ventilation
improved the odor and eliminated part of the water vapor buildup
inside the barn.

Other facilities used in this study include the field plot and waste
handling equipment, the Soil Testing Laboratory facilities,  the Water
Quality Laboratory facilities,  and the Computing and Data Processing
facilities located on the South Dakota State University campus.
                                 10

-------
Figure 1.  Feedlot facilities
              11

-------
                              SECTION V

                CLIMATIC DATA AND ANIMAL ENVIRONMENT
 The feedlot and field plots used In this study were located on the
 Southeast South Dakota Experiment Farm located in Clay County near
 Beresford, South Dakota.   The topography of the region is flat to
 gently rolling.

 THE CLIMATE

 The climate of Clay County is classed as sub humid and is of the con-
 tinental type with large  contrasts in temperature from summer to win-
 ter and from day to day.

 The maximum (Tmax)  and minimum (Train)  temperatures and the daily
 precipitation (Pptn)  are  given in Table 1 for each day during the
 months  of  October  1973 through September 1974.   The historical highest
 and lowest recorded temperatures  for  each month are also given.

 The historical average number of  days  with temperatures above 0° C is
 153.  The  average  date for the 0° C reading in  the spring is May 4 and
 the first  date in  the  fall is October  5.

 A summary  of  monthly precipitation for the period October 1973 through
 September  1974 is  given in Table  2.  The  actual precipitation is com-
 pared with the annual  average to  show  a deficit of 18.75 cm during the
 period  of  measurement.

Winds in this  region of South Dakota average  about 18  km/hr during
 the winter with  a prevailing  direction from the northwest.   Winds  in
 the summer average  about  16 km/hr with a  prevailing  direction from
south-southwest.

This area  receives  an  annual  average of 64% of  possible  sunshine.  The
greatest amount  of  possible sunshine,  75%,  is received  in July, with
the least  amount, 52%, received during December.

The average annual  Class A pan evaporation  for  this  region  is  137  cm
                                   12

-------
Table 1.  TEMPERATURE AND PRECIPITATION RECORDS FOR




          THE SOUTHEAST SOUTH DAKOTA EXPERIMENT FARM

Day
Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
Long-term
weather
record
for the
month
October 1973
Tmax, Train, Pptn,
(°C) <°C) (cm)
20
16
22
16
18
21
22
26
26
25
12
21
16
19
26
19
9
21
23
20
22
24
25
27
22
19
14
6
8
14
11
37




10
7 T
10 T
0
2
6
13
13
17 T
3 1.07
2 0.61
1 0.13
1
3
5
-2
-2
1
2
2
3
7 T
6
7
3 1.19
3
-1
-1 T
-5
-4 T
0
-16




November
Tmax, Train,
<°C) (°C)
11
3
6
3
1
1
5
4
-1
1
6
12
18
19
13
5
5
13
3
8
5
1
8
5
7
4
8
4
4
14

28




-3
-2
-4
-5
-9
-7
-2
-7
-13
-11
-5
-3
4
2
3
-3
-2
-1
-2
-1
-6
-6
-6
-4
-3
-2
-3
-8
-7
-4

-31




1973 December 1973
Pptn, Tmax, Train, Pptn,
(cm) (°C) (°C) (cm)
T 4
0.08 4
3
T -1
-1
-7
-2
7
12
-4
-5
2
4
-4
1.37 -7
0.05 -8
-7
-2
-4
1.07 -11
1.35 -7
-4
4
T -2
-2
T -4
-3
-3
-7
-9
-21
19




-7
-6
-4
-7
-12
-15
-15
—9
-8
-16
-14
-11
-11
-11
-21
-21
-18
-11
-19
-24
-22
-12
-11
-9
-11
-11
-10
-12
-18
-28
-32
-36








T
T


T



T
0.38
0.08
0.03


T




0.28
0.89

0.13









                                 13

-------
Table 1 Cent.  TEMPERATURE AND PRECIPITATION RECORDS FOR




               THE SOUTHEAST SOUTH DAKOTA EXPERIMENT FARM

Day
Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
Long-term
weather
record
for the
month
January 1974 February 1974
Tmax, Train, Pptn, Tmax Train, Pptn,
(°C) CO (cm) CO CO (cm)
-21
-14
-12
-11
-9
-13
-14
-14
-14
-17
-14
-20
-14
-7
6
8
10
6
1
2
1
2
2
3
6
9
5
2
6
11
13
19




-35
-33
-25
-22
-26
-23
-30
-28
-33
-33
-29
-32
-28
-20
-12
-9
-3
-3
-15
-13
-6
-7
-12
-12
-12
-4
-9
-9
-8
-4
-17
-39




-8
0.08 -6
-1
-12
-4
0.23 -3
-7
T -4
0.20 -1
3
11
T 15
T 14
-1
-2
4
11
15
7
11
8
0
1
-3
-3
8
14
16



21




-17
-11 T
-18 T
-19
-16
-11
-18 T
-16 T
-17 T
-17
-7
-12
-7
-7 T
-8 T
-11 T
-7
-2
-8
-4
-1 0.10
-10
-9
-17
-15
-11
-4
-4



-36




March 1974
Tmax, Train, Pptn,
CO CO (cm)
5
20
24
12
9
17
18
9
14
11
11
2
10
10
13
1
-1
12
4
4
-6
2
-3
-7
2
12
4
8
14
15
17
33




-6
0
0
— 1
-6
-6
-5
_q
-1
-8
-8
-1
_2
-3
-3
-7
-8
-7
-9
-12
-20
-17
-18
-21
-13
-4
-4
-3
-2
-3
-6
-30












T

0.53
0.38

T


T
T
0.18
1.35
T
T







T
T





                                     14

-------
Table 1 Cont.  TEMPERATURE AND PRECIPITATION RECORDS FOR




               THE SOUTHEAST SOUTH DAKOTA EXPERIMENT FARM

Day
Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30

Long-term
weather
record
for the
month
April 1974
Tmax, Train, Pptn,
(»C) (°C) (cm)
9
16
14
0
7
11
17
11
16
21
20
13
9
11
13
10
16
22
21
24
21
12
13
16
20
26
27
28
24
24

37




0 0.23
-1
-1 0.30
-6 0.20
-7
-5
0
-4
-2 T
0
6
5 0.71
2 0.08
-2
-1 T
-6 T
_i
1
2
4 0.08
6 T
1
5
-3
2
11
12 0.05
8
5
-2

-17




May 1974
Tmax, Train, Pptn,
CO (°C) (cm)
22
26
26
19
22
22
19
23
14
21
14
18
14
16
11
17
23
23
17
22
30
22
21
19
20
23
23
28
28
25
22
41




4
8
-3
3
8
2
3
4
2
6
6
2
1
4
-2
-1
7
8
8
10
14
9
6
2
6
9
12
14
15
10
4
-6






T



T
0.61
T
1.42
1.98
0.05
2.44
T
T
0.05

0.69
T

1.40




T



1.19
T





June 1974
Tmax, Train, Pptn,
CC) CO (cm)
21
21
26
32
31
31
23
24
22
15
22
19
25
28
28
21
21
24
34
33
34
36
26
24
23
26
28
29
32
33

41




7
6
11
16
16
13
8
11
9
8
9
6
12
14
11
6
5
11
13
17
19
15
13
11
11
11
13
16
16
8

2





T

T

1.73


1.35
1.88
0.13


0.48






0.10
2.21














                                     15

-------
Table 1 Cont.  TEMPERATURE AND PRECIPITATION RECORDS FOR




               THE SOUTHEAST SOUTH DAKOTA EXPERIMENT FARM

Day
Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
Long-term
record
for the
month
July 1974 August 1974 September
Tmax, Train, Pp.tn, Tmax, Tmin, Pptn, Tmax, Train,
(°C) (°C) (cm) (°C) (°C) (cm) (°C) (°C)
31
32
33
26
27
33
35
37
37
29
33
30
38
38
31
31
34
38
37
37
37
37
33
36
36
33
33
31
30
28
29
46


•
16
22
18
13
14
18
18
21
22
19
19
19
20
18
13
14
16
19
21
20
20
16
15
19
15
16
13
13
7
7
12
5



19
27
0.94 22
0.05 23
26
27
27
26
0.56 22
0.05 22
0.86 24
0.10 27
27
0.74 26
31
27
0.15 30
27
32
31
36
26
26
26
0.33 29
T 34
0.69 32
24
25
22
28
44



12
13
7
6
9
9
12
13
16
16
13
13
12
15
16
16
13
11
11
18
17
8
10
12
14
12
10
7
8
8
1
1



1.42 20
0.30 13
T 17
21
25
22
28
31
1.63 31
0.56 28
0.05 32
21
12
25
26
T 24
28
0.91 28
0.43 32
22
0.25 19
21
22
27
27
28
0.69 34
19
16
21

40



2
5
-2
1
6
7
6
9
8
14
10
6
0
3
1
7
9
7
9
5
-2
-1
-2
6
2
3
7
-1
-1
-3

-5



1974
Pptn,
(cm)

0.23





0.23



1.93
T






















                                     16

-------
     Table 2.   MONTHLY PRECIPITATION SUMMARY FOR THE

               SOUTHEAST SOUTH DAKOTA EXPERIMENT FARM

               DURING THE PERIOD OCTOBER 1973 THROUGH

               SEPTEMBER 1974

u.
Amount
Month

October
November
December
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
Year

1973
1973
1973
1974
1974
1974
1974
1974
1974
1974
1974
1974
received,
(cm)
3.00
3.91
1.78
0.51
0.10
2.44
1.65
9.83
7.87
4.47
6.25
2.38
(in.)
(1.18)
(1.54)
(0.70)
(0.20)
(0.04)
(0.96)
(0.65)
(3.87)
(3.10)
(1.76)
(2.46)
(0.94)
S. Weather Bureau
Average for
the month,
(cm)
3.66
2.41
1.68
1.50
2.41
3.45
5.69
9.07
10.97
7.75
7.54
6.81
(in.)
(1.44)
(0.95)
(0.66)
(0.59)
(0.95)
(1.36)
(2.24)
(3.57)
(4.32)
(3.05)
(2.97)
(2.68)
Amount
received minus
the average,
(cm)
-0.66
1.50
0.10
-0.99
-2.31
-1.01
-4.04
0.76
-3.10
-3.28
-1.29
-4.43
(in.)
(-0.26)
( 0.59)
( 0.04)
(-0.39)
(-0.91)
(-0.40)
(-1.59)
( 0.30)
(-1.22)
(-1.29)
(-0.51)
(-1.74)
Total
44.19  (17.40)   62.94  (24.78)   -18.75  (-7.38)
with 78% (107 cm) of the evaporation occurring during the period May
to October.

ANIMAL ENVIRONMENT

In order to compare the environment of the covered pens with the environ-
ment of the pens in the open, a 13-week period of measurement was con-
ducted from January 15, 1974, to April 16, 1974.  The temperature of
the open pens was taken from the farm weather station and the tempera-
ture of the covered pens was measured using a thermograph located cen-
trally in the barn.  A comparison of dry bulb temperatures of the open
and covered pens is shown in Figure 2.  Maximum temperature differences
occurred in January with the covered pens averaging approximately 5.6° C
warmer than the open pens.
The relative humidity in the covered pens averaged approximately
over the 13-week period which was about 6% higher than the relative
humidity of the open pens.
                                  17

-------
   12
D
<
  -6h
  -12 h
  -18
/A
            covered  penso-
               open  pens
     O    2    4    6    8    1O   12
              TIME , weeks

   Figure 2. Temperature variation in open and covered pens
                    18

-------
                            SECTION VI

                       MATERIALS AND METHODS
BEEF ANIMALS AND RATION

In August 1973, sixteen pens with eleven steers in each were established
at the Southeast South Dakota Experiment Farm.   Eight pens with dimen-
sions of 7.62 by 4.88 m (25 by 16 ft) were located in an unheated
covered environment while eight pens with dimensions of 13.11 by 4.88 m
(43 x 16 ft) were located in an open environment.  All pens were sur-
faced with concrete.  Treated wood partitions were placed between each
pen to prevent any mixing of waste from one pen to another and at the
end of each pen to retain all solids and liquids in the waste.

Four different rations were composed by varying the NaCl content in the
feed.  The four levels of NaCl were 0.00%, 0.25%, 0.50%, and 0.75% NaCl
added to the ration by weight on a dry-weight basis.  Each NaCl level
was fed to four pens of animals, two in the covered environment and
two in the open environment, for the duration of the feeding trial.
Concrete partitions were built in the feed bunks between each pen to
prevent any mixing of rations or animal consumption of the wrong ration.
Thus, the feeding phase consisted of four NaCl levels, two environments,
and two replications.

Beef steers averaging 201.1 kg (443.4 Ib) were delivered to the feedlot
on July 27, 1973.  The animals were fed baled alfalfa hay until August 6,
1973, at which time they were gradually adjusted to a corn silage, alfal-
fa hay, antibiotic, and supplemented-molasses ration.  The feeding trial
was started on September 4, 1973, with the ration containing corn silage,
antibiotic, supplemented-molasses, and ground limestone with the NaCl
level varying among treatments.  On December 29, 1973, the corn silage
in the ration was replaced with chopped alfalfa hay and ground corn.
This ration was used until the steers were marketed on May 20, 1974,
at an average weight of 447.7 kg (987.2 Ib).  The amounts of the ingre-
dients in the ration were shifted during the feeding trial to fulfill
the nutritional needs of beef steers being finished for market.
                                   19

-------
 A second feeding trial was initiated on September 11,  1974.   The feedlot
 arrangement was similar to the first feeding trial except an improved
 ventilation system was installed in the barn.   The average initial
 weight of the steers for the second feeding trial was  232.8  kg (513.3
 lb).  The formulation of the ration and NaCl levels was unchanged for  the
 second feeding trial except that soybean oil meal was  used for the
 supplement in place of the molasses.  The second feeding trial will
 continue until the steers reach market weight.

 WASTE HANDLING,  SAMPLING, AND ANALYSES

 The wastes were  removed from the feedlot pens  and spread directly on  the
 field plots except during periods of snow cover and frozen soils.  When
 the weather did  not permit spreading the wastes on the land,  the pens
 were  cleaned and the waste stored in open enclosures built on concrete
 pads  or  on plastic-covered earth pads.

 The wastes were  hauled  and spread in the field  using conventional manure
 spreaders  except for  a  period of time  in the spring when the  high liquid
 content  required the  use  of  a tank spreader.  Near the time  of spreading,
 wastes were  incorporated  into the soil  using a  chisel  plow.   After the
 wastes were  incorporated,  ridges were  established around the  plots to
 control  runoff.   Waste  incorporation and plot preparation  are illus-
 trated in  Figure 3.

 All wastes were  weighed on a commercial-type scale at  the  time of  hauling
 to the field.  At  the same time,  samples were collected  for  chemical and
water content  analyses  in  the laboratory.   From the waste  weight,  water
 content, and  chemical analyses,  accurate rates  of  application could be
 determined.

The water  content  of  the waste was  determined from a sample  that was
 freeze-dried  for  other  analyses.   An extract for  cation  determination
was obtained  by  ashing  a  sample  at  450°  C,  extraction  with 6N HC1  twice,
and dilution  of  the extract  to 100  ml with  distilled water as described
by Chapman and Pratt  (1961).  The  cations — Ca, Mg, K,  and Na —  were
determined from  the extract  by atomic adsorption.   The pH  and  electrical
conductivity  of  waste samples was  determined by  instrument on a  1:20
dilution sample  based on dry  weight.

Total N was determined by  the Kjeldahl procedure as described  in the EPA
Manual, Methods  for Chemical  Analysis of Water and  Wastes, Analytical
Quality Control  Laboratory  (1971).   Nitrate nitrogen was determined by a
steam distillation procedure  as  described by Bremner and Keeney  (1966).
The cellulose  content of the  waste  was determined  by the Crampton-
Maynard Method (1938).
                                    20

-------
Figure 3.  Waste incorporation and plot preparation
                         21

-------
 Bacteriological analyses were made on five sets of  samples for  Total
 Coliform,  Fecal Coliform and Fecal Streptococcus bacteria.   The Most
 Probable Number Index Method using five fermentation tubes per  sample
 was used as described in Section 400 of the Standard Methods for  the
 Analysis of Water and Waste Water, American Public  Health  Association  et
 al (1971).

 LAND DISPOSAL  PLOTS,  SOIL SAMPLING,  AND ANALYSES

 Field plots with dimensions of 36.6 by 6.1 m (120 by 20  ft)  were  estab-
 lished on  Egan silty  clay loam soil at the Southeast South Dakota
 Experiment  Farm.   The soils map and topography map  for the plot area are
 given in Figures 4 and 5.   A detailed description of the soil is  given
 in Table 3.  The field design was  a randomized complete  block with
 treatments  consisting of four waste rates,  44.8,  134.4,  and  179.2 MT/ha.
 (20,  40, 60, and 80 t/a.)  dry matter,  and  two  types of waste. One type
 was a combination of  the waste from the pens receiving 0.00% and  0.25%
 NaCl (low  salt)  in the ration and  the other type was a combination of
 the waste  from the pens receiving  0.50% and 0.75% NaCl (high salt) in
 the ration.  Since the animals were housed  in  an open environment and  a
 covered  environment,  nearly equal  amounts  of waste  from  each environment
 were applied to  each  plot.   The design contained  four replications with
 one check plot in each replication.   Therefore,  the experiment  consisted
 of four  replications,  four waste rates,  two types of waste,  and four
 check plots for  a total of 36 plots.

 In October  1973,  soil samples were taken from  all plots  using a Giddings
 soil sampler with a 3.3 cm (1.3 in.)  diameter  probe.  Three  sub-samples
 collected in each plot  were pooled to form  one sample.   Samples were
 collected at depth increments of 0 to 30.5  cm,  (0 to 12  in.), 30.5 to
 61.0 cm  (12 to 24 in.),  61.0 to 91.4 cm (24 to 36 in.),  and  91.4  to
 152.4 cm (36 to  60 in.).   In September,  1974,  all 36 plots were again
 sampled  in  the manner  described above  which is  illustrated in Figure 6.

 Soil  samples taken in October 1973 and September  1974 were analyzed for
 pH and for  both  extractable and water  soluble  Ca, Mg, Na, and K.  Water
 soluble  Ca, Mg, Na, and  K were obtained  from analysis of the saturated
 extract  (Bower and  Wilcox,  1965) by  atomic  adsorption (Isaac  and  Kerber,
 1971).  Extractable Ca,  Mg,  Na,  and  K  were  determined by an  atomic
 adsorption  analysis (Isaac  and  Kerber,  1971) of an  NltyAc extract  (U.S.
 Salinity Laboratory Staff,  1954).  Electrical conductivity was determined
using the saturated extract.  Soil  pH determinations were made on  the
 soil's saturated  paste.  Chlorides were  obtained  by analysis  of the
 saturated extract  (American  Public Health Association, American Water
Works Association,  and Water  Pollution Control Federation, 1971).   Soil
 analyses were  also made  for  available  P  (NH^F extractable),  organic
matter, and total N (Jackson,  1958).
                                   22

-------
                                        90   105  120  135
  /   /     I//
                             KEY TO PLOTS

37-72     Plot number                   20
  H       High NaCl treatment           40
  L       Low NaCl treatment            60
  C       Check                         80
  RO      Runoff devices
 -15-     Relative elevations in 15 cm intervals
44.8 MT/ha.
89.6 MT/ha.
134 MT/ha.
179.2 MT/ha.
Figure 4.   Field plots showing relative elevations
                                  23

-------
55
H
-,
"
H
;
57
H
60
*
58
L
20
59
L
60
/
60
H
60
X
61
H
4px
RO
62
C
RO
r
/
40
RO
64
H
80
RO
65
H
40
RO
66
L
20
67
L
40
/
68
L
80,
RO
69
L
y
t
70

80
RO
k
H
80
RO
72
C

                  E2A
                                                  E2A
37
H
?0


38
L
20


39
C



40
H
60


41
H
20


42
H
40

RO
43
H
80

RO
44
H
80

RO
45
L
80

RO
46
L
60


\
\
L
20


48
\
80

RO
49
L
40

RO
50
L
4>

RO
51
H
«U


52
H
40
N
RO
53
L
60

N
54
C



                               KEY TO  SOILS

     E1A     Egan silty clay loam, 0-2%  slopes  (deep ABC II profiles)
     E2A     Egan sllty clay loam, 0-2%  slopes  (deep AB II profiles)
     E2A*    Egan silty clay loam, 0-2%  slopes  (deep AB II profiles),
             carbonates at 20 to  38 cm - not typical for the series.
Figure 5.   Soils map of plot  area
                                  24

-------
          Table 3.   DETAILED PROFILE DESCRIPTION OF THE

                    EGAN SILTY CLAY LOAM SOIL3
Location:  Southeast Agricultural Experiment Farm,  Centerville,  South
           Dakota.

Classification:  Typic Haplustoll; fine silty, mixed mesic.

Parent Material:  Loess over glacial till.

Physiography:  Nearly level plain with low broad ridges.

Salt or Alkali:  None.                      Land Use:  Cropland.

Stoniness:  None above 68.6 cm (27 in.).    Erosion:  Slight.

Slope:  1% convex.                           Permeability:  Moderate.

Drainage:  Well drained.                    Ground Water:  Deep.
Horizon


Ap




B21

Depth,
cm
(in.)
0-17.8
(0-7)



17.8-38.1
(7-15)
Description


Dark grayish brown (10YR 4/2) silty clay
loam, very dark brown (10YR 2/2) moist;
weak fine granular structure; soft, very
friable, slightly sticky; slightly acid;
abrupt smooth boundary.
Brown (10YR 5/3) silty clay loam, very
dark grayish brown (10YR 3/2) moist,
                            crushing to dark brown (10YR 3/3), moist,
                            weak medium prismatic structure; parting
                            to weak coarse and medium subangular blocky
                            structure; slightly hard, friable slightly
                            sticky; neutral; gradual wavy boundary.
     aThis is an approved soil series description from the State Soil
Scientist's office.
                                   25

-------
           Table 3  Cont.
              DETAILED  PROFILE  DESCRIPTION  OF

              THE  EGAN  SILTY  CLAY  LOAM SOIL
Horizon
  Depth,
     cm
    (in.)
                Description
B22
B3ca
IIC1
 38.1-61.0
   (15-24)
 61.0-78.7
   (24-31)
 78.7-106.7
  (31-42)
IIC2
106.7-152.4
  (42-60)
 Grayish  brown  (2.5Y  5/2)  silty  clay  loam,
 dark grayish brown  (2.5Y  4/2) moist;  weak
 coarse prismatic  structure  parting to
 weak coarse and medium subangular blocky
 structure; slightly  hard, friable, slightly
 sticky;  neutral,  clear smooth boundary.

 Light brownish gray  (2.5Y 6/2)  silty  clay
 loam, grayish brown  (2.5Y 5/2)  moist;
 common fine distinct strong brown (7.5YR
 5/8) mottles, weak coarse subangular
 blocky structure, hard, friable, slightly
 sticky;  common fine  distinct accumulations;
 many medium soft  lime  segregations; strong
 effervescence; moderately alkaline; grad-
 ual wavy boundary.

 Light brownish gray  (2.5Y 6/2)  clay loam,
 olive brown (2.5Y 4/4) moist; common  fine
 distinct strong brown  (7.SYR 5/8) mottles;
 moderate coarse prismatic structure parting
 to moderate coarse subangular blocky  struc-
 ture; hard, firm, slightly  sticky; common
 fine brown accumulations; many  fine soft
 lime segregations; strong effervescence;
moderately alkaline; gradual wavy boundary.

Light brownish gray  (2.5Y 6/2)  clay loam,
dark grayish brown (2.5Y 4/2) moist;  many
fine distinct strong brown  (7.SYR 5/8) and
yellowish red (SYR 4/8) mottles; moderate
coarse subangular blocky structure;  hard,
firm, slightly sticky; common fine and
medium brown accumulations;  common lime
segregations;  strong effervescence;  strongly
alkaline.
                                   26

-------
Figure 6.   Soil sampling

-------
 The  initial  soil  analyses  revealed extremely  high  values  for  extract-
 able Ca and  Mg  for  most  plots below 30.5  cm (12  in.)  and  for  some
 plots at the 0- to  30.5-cm (0 to 12 in.)  depth.  The  soils  on which
 the  plots are located  have free  CaC03 and related  salts in  the  profile.
 Thus,  it was concluded that the  free CaC03 and related salts  were
 responsible  for the high and erroneous values for  extractable Ca and
 Mg.   When free  CaC03 is  present  in the soil profile,  analysis for  Ca
 using NH^Ac  results in measurement of Ca  activity  above the true activity
 in the soil  (Heald, 1965).

 Cation exchange capacity (U.S. Salinity Laboratory Staff, 1954) was
 determined for  selected  plots which were  representative of  the  particu-
 lar  soil area and which  may have a varying cation  exchange  capacity
 due  to the large  amount  of added waste.

 Statistical  analyses included several analyses of  variance  of a fac-
 torial experiment in a randomized complete block design.  Also, mul-
 tiple regression  analyses  were used to isolate the specific effects
 of NaCl level and waste  rates on yield, exchangeable  Na,  exchangeable
 K, and EC.

 After  waste  hauling and  moldboard plowing were finished,  all  plots were
 disked and harrowed to establish a seedbed.   The plots were planted
 on May 24, 1974,  to corn (Zea mays L.'Funks G-4252')  at about 47,000
 plants per hectare  (19,000 plants per acre).  A  recommended herbicide
 was  applied  in  bands over  the corn for weed control.  Due to  poor  ger-
 mination related  to seedbed quality and low rainfall, seven plots were
 replanted by hand on June  19,  1974.

 PLANT  SAMPLING, CORN YIELDS,  AND ANALYSES

 Leaf  samples to be  used  for  chemical  analysis were  collected  from  all
 plots  during the  final week of July,  1974.  The  leaves sampled were
 taken  from opposite and  below ears  which  had white  silks  showing.
 Samples  were dried  at  100°  C, ground  through  a stainless  steel  screen,
 and  analyzed for  Ca, Mg, Na,  K,  P,  Mn, Fe, B, Cu, Zn, Al, Sr, and Mo
 by spark-emission spectroscopy according  to the  analytical  procedures
 of the Ohio  Plant Analysis  Laboratory, Wooster,  Ohio.  Samples were
 analyzed  for N  by the  Kjeldahl Method  and  for S  by  the Spectrophoto-
metric Method using  BaCl2-

The corn  from each  plot was harvested  as  silage  on  September  9,  1974,
by removing  all the  forage  from  two rows with a  spacing of  76.2-cm
 (30 in.)  and a  length  of 9.14 m  (30 ft).  The silage was weighed and
subsamples for moisture  analysis were  taken by removing grab  samples
of the forage after  it passed through  the  chopper.   The dry matter
yields were  calculated from the  total  forage weight and moisture analysis
of the subsamples.  From these subsamples  smaller subsamples were col-
 lected, dried at  70° C, and analyzed  for N03~N.
                                    28

-------
On September 18, 1974, ear corn yields were obtained by picking the
ears from two rows with a spacing of 76.2-cm (30 in.) and a length
of 9.14 m (30 ft).  All ears were weighed and the centers of 12 ears
were removed to obtain the moisture content.

All forage was removed from the plots on September 26, 1974, in order
that waste hauling could begin.

RUNOFF

Seventeen plots as identified in the plot diagram, Figure 4, were
instrumented for measuring the quantity of runoff and for collecting
samples for water quality analyses.  The runoff plots slope gently
in a northwesterly direction.  An earth ridge was formed around each
plot to divert runoff waters to a collection point.  A Type H  flume
with a stilling well was installed in the ridge at the collection point.
A horizontal drum water-stage recorder with float-activated clock was
installed to measure runoff waters passing through the flume.

A water collection reservoir was installed on the exit side of the
flume to provide a pick-up volume for the automatic water sampler.
The water sampler consisted of a pick-up tube, collection bottles,
and a tripping mechanism that was activated by the stage recorder.
Water was drawn into  the collection bottles by a 20  psi vacuum created
in the bottles.

Figure 7 illustrates  the runoff measuring instruments  in the  field
installation.

Water collected during  a runoff event was transported  within  a few
hours to the Water Quality Laboratory  on the  South Dakota  State Uni-
versity campus  for analysis.
                                   29

-------
Figure 7.  Runoff field installation
                 30

-------
                            SECTION VII

                      RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
ANIMAL PERFORMANCE

Animal performance data during two periods of approximately three months
each are given in Table 4.  Although feed consumption and rates of gain
were different during the two periods, salt levels and pen environment
appeared to have little effect on the results.  The data show a trend
toward higher rates of gain and slightly higher feed efficiencies for
cattle housed in the open pens.  The cattle fed a ration low in salt
(0.25%) tended to gain as well as the cattle receiving a high salt
(0.75%) ration.

It should be emphasized that cattle receiving another ration or using
a different source of water might perform differently.

WASTE CHARACTERISTICS

Waste Production

The average amount of dry matter produced per animal per day during
the first feeding cycle is shown in Table 5.  The values reflect  the
change  in ration in January, 1974, from  a high  roughage  to a low  rough-
age content with a reduction in the amount of waste produced.  The
variability in waste production within environment and salt-level
treatments appears as great as between treatments.

Water Content  and Handling Characteristics

The water content of the  waste samples ranged from a  low of 57%  to
a high  or 87%  depending upon weather  conditions prior  to handling.
Waste that exceeded approximately  85% water  content were too fluid
to handle with a  conventional  spreader and were hauled with a  tank
spreader.  Although little difference  could  be  observed  in water  con-
tent, wastes  from the pens receiving  the two highest  levels of NaCl
in the  ration  were more fluid  in handling  characteristics.  The wastes
from  the high  salt rations contained  more  Na and  apparently tended  to
                                   31

-------
                    Table 4.  ANIMAL PERFORMANCE
Added
salt
Covered Pens
Daily Feed
gain, amount
(kg/day) (kg/day)
Open Pens
Daily Feed
gain, amount
(kg/day) (kg/day)
Overall Average
Daily Feed
gain, amount
(kg/day) (kg/day)
 Period I   January 1, 1974 to April 16, 1974
 0.00%
 0.25%
 0.50%
 0.75%
0.68
0.89
0.68
0.88
6.02
4.69
7.48
5.33
0.93
0.83
0.77
0.91
5.41
5.66
5.22
5.28
0.80
0.86
0.72
0.90
5.72
5.18
6.35
5.31
 Period II  September 11, 1974 to December 5, 1974
0.00%
0.25%
0.50%
0.75%
0.96
1.03
0.99
1.00
3.59
3.37
3.51
3.47
1.06
1.14
1.09
1.08
3.42
3.18
3.31
3.36
1.01
1.08
1.04
1.03
3.50
3.27
3.41
3.41
be more dispersed.  Since no bedding was added  to  the wastes, the handling
characteristics were directly related to water  content and degree of
dispersion.

Analyses

Waste analysis data are summarized in Table 6.  Additional detailed
analysis data are given in Appendix A.  The composition of the waste
reflects the salt (NaCl) content of the ration  in  Cl, Na, and EC.  The
amounts of K, P, N (total), and cellulose present  in the waste are
influenced by the roughage content and type.

Differences in waste composition due to the covered or open environment
are small to negligible.  However, the waste from  the two environments
were handled or stored in the same manner for the  equivalent time periods.

Waste Application Rates on Field Plots

The amounts of waste applied to field plots from pens receiving the low
salt ration are shown in Table 7.   Rates of waste  applied to plots from
pens receiving the high salt ration are shown in Table 8.  Although the
proposed rates were not completely achieved due to a lower-than-predicted
waste production, the rates achieved do give separate treatments that
approach the proposed rates.
                                    32

-------
              Table 5.   DRY MATTER WASTE PRODUCTION3

1973
Added
salt
%b
0.00



0.25



0.50



0.75



Envi-
onment
C
C
0
0
C
C
0
0
C
C
0
0
C
C
0
0
Pen
number
4
9
6
13
1
12
7
16
2
10
8
15
3
11
5
14
Sept.
and
Oct. ,
(kg)
2.54
2.42
2.84
2.34
2.61
2.41
2.14
2.22
2.56
2.58
2.13
2.43
2.77
2.67
2.49
2.57
Oct.
and
Nov. ,
(kg)
2.98
2.78
—
2.76
2.87
2.60
—
—
2.73
2.62
—
—
2.82
2.78
2.95
3.91
1974
Feb.
and
Mar.,
(kg)
1.36
2.00
1.81
1.86
2.22
1.45
2.09
1.95
1.45
1.72
2.09
2.00
1.32
1.68
2.22
2.09
Mar.
and
Apr.,
(kg)
1.61
1.51
—
1.96
1.66
1.76
—
2.09
1.39
1.45
1.71
1.72
1.60
1.67
1.97
2.20
  Based on  average waste  produced  per head per day
 ^Percent of  dry  matter in  total ration
Bacteriological Characteristics

The most probable number (MPN) Index for the intestinal bacteria—total
coliform, fecal coliform, and fecal streptococci—found in the waste on
five sampling dates is shown in Table 9.  As expected, the MPN for fecal
streptococci exceeded the estimate for total coliform and fecal coliform
on all sampling dates.  Over the range of salt levels used in the ration,
the NaCl content of the feed produced no observable effect upon the MPN
for any of the bacterial estimates made.  If an effect of salt were to
be noted, it would have been expected to be observed in the numbers of
total coliform or fecal coliform.

The MPN Indexes for most of the first sampling estimates  (10-17-73) are
lower than the Indexes on other sampling dates.  The low values may have
                                  33

-------
   Table  6.  WASTE ANALYSES




PERIOD  I  HIGH ROUGHAGE RATION


B
Ca
K
Mg
Na
N-Total
P
Cellulose
Units No salt
ppm 0.19
% 0.94
% 3.24
% 0.74
% 0.30
% 3.00
% 0.61
% 26.50
0.25%
0.17
0.96
3.34
0.74
0.60
3.07
0.62
25.90
0.50%
0.18
0.96
3.45
0.74
0.93
3.11
0.63
25.60
0.75%
0.17
0.91
3.40
0.73
1.24
3.00
0.63
25.60
Avg.
0.18
0.94
3.36
0.74
0.77
3.05
0.62
25.90
PERIOD II  LOW ROUGHAGE RATION

B
Ca
K
Mg
Na
N-Total
P
Cellulose
Units No salt
ppm 0 . 19
% 1.39
% 2.98
% 0.75
% 0.51
% 3.95
% 1.08
% 12.13
0.25%
0.19
1.38
2.91
0.76
0.89
3.99
1.09
11.71
0.50%
0.18
1.42
2.97
0.77
1.20
3.93
1.09
11.62
0.75%
0.18
1.34
2.99
0.73
1.58
4.02
1.08
11.23
Avg.
0.19
1.38
2.96
0.75
1.05
3.97
1.09
11.68
              34

-------
              Table 7.   WASTE RATES FROM THE LOW NaCl

                        RATION APPLIED TO FIELD PLOTS
Proposed
  rate,
 MT/ha
Replication
Total
waste,
MT/ha
  44.8
  89.6
 134.4
 179.2
      I
     II
    III
     IV
      I
     II
    III
     IV
      I
     II
    III
     IV
      I
     II
    III
     IV
                                       Average
                                       Average
                                       Average
                                       Average
 96.86
 96.47
 99.05
113.46
 139.37
 129.37
 147.08
 124.99
 165.70
 176.26
 169.03
 167.22
                                       38.52
                                      101.46
                                      135.20
                                       169.55
 been due  to  the  initiation  of  the  project  in a clean feedlot with  less
 than favorable conditions for  bacterial  population buildup.
 CROP  RESPONSE

 Corn  Leaf  Analyses

 Summary data for analyses of  corn leaf  samples taken from the waste
 treatment  plots  are shown in  Table 10.   More complete leaf analysis
 data  are given in Appendix Tables A8 and A9.  According to Jones (1967)
 the Ca values  shown in Table  10 are in  the sufficient-to-high range,
 while all  the  K values are in the excessive range.   The N values
 increased, as  expected, with  increased  waste rates  and the Mg content
                                   35

-------
              Table 8.   WASTE RATES FROM THE HIGH NaCl

                        RATION APPLIED TO FIELD PLOTS
 Proposed
   rate,
  MT/ha
Replication
Total
waste,
MT/ha
   44.8
   89.6
 134.4
 179.2
      I
     II
    III
     IV
      I
     II
    III
     IV
      I
     II
    III
     IV
      I
     II
   III
     IV
                                       Average
                                       Average
                                       Average
 44.38
 18.26
 26.54
 18.52
100.69
 72.20
 80.55
 88.66
124.81
114.07
120.68
119.24
166.59
155.97
169.48
198.73
                                       Average
                                       26.92
                                       85,32
                                      119.70
                                      172.69
of the leaves decreased with increasing waste rates.  Although the
Mg contents reported are considered sufficient, if the Mg content of
total forage shows the same trend in other grasses, the possibility
of hypomagnesemia exists for cattle grazing on the forage.

Although the N content of the leaves increased with waste rate, a
nitrate analysis of whole plants removed for silage showed no evidence
of nitrate accumulations in the plant due to the drought conditions.

Corn Silage and Grain Yields

The average yields of silage and ear corn harvested from the waste
treatment plots are given in Table 11.  Complete yield data are given
in Appendix Table A10.  The silage and ear corn yields were variable.
                                   36

-------
Table 9.  BACTERIOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF BEEF WASTES

Salt
level
of
ration

0%
0.25%
0.50%
0.75%
Average
all salt
levels
MPN/lOOml x 106
Sampling dates
10-17-73

54
32
55
61
51


10-30-73
TOTAL
33
71
179
185
142


12-17-73
COLIFORM
332
219
117
196
216


3-6-74

62
68
80
359
142


4-16-74

194
182
128
162
167


Average
all
dates

155
114
112
193



FECAL STREPTOCOCCUS
0%
0.25%
0.50%
0.75%
Average
all salt
levels

0%
0.25%
0.50%
0.75%
Average
all salt
levels
1077
409
727
874
772



37
23
162
35
64


1609
1609
1609
1436
1566


FECAL
91
66
34
175
92


1610
620
1258
2488
1494


COLIFORM
148
80
81
134
111


1020
1573
3338
810
1685



49
67
67
184
92


2213
3815
2810
2040
2720



194
214
128
130
167


1506
1605
1948
1530




104
90
94
132



                             37

-------
    Table 10.   LEAF ANALYSES OF CORN PLANTS HARVESTED AT SILKING

               FROM PLOTS RECEIVING THE INDICATED AMOUNTS OF WASTE8

Waste
rate,
(MT/ha.)
Check
38.5
26.9
101.5
85.3
135.2
119.7
169.6
172.7
Salt
level

Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Nb

2.70
2.97
2.80
3.05
3.06
3.18
3.08
3.25
3.12
P

0.27
0.35
0.34
0.35
0.35
0.36
0.36
0.35
0.35
K

2.61
2.61
2.59
2.58
2.68
2.61
2.65
2.69
2.52
% Ca

0.55
0.53
0.55
0.51
0.53
0.48
0.52
0.47
0.46
Mg

0.54
0.39
0.44
0.36
0.34
0.32
0.30
0.32
0.26
 aAll Na  analyses were  less  than  0.01%
 bN was determined by Kjeldahl


The silage yields for the waste  treatments are not significantly dif-
ferent.  Although the ear corn yields are significantly different at
the 5% level, a multiple regression analysis using ear corn yield as
the dependent variable and waste rate and amount of applied Na as inde-
pendent variables established an equation which explained only 16% of
the variation.

The early season corn growth appeared to favor the plots receiving the
lower waste rates.  However, as the corn roots grew deeper and the
corn reached maturity, visible early-season differences disappeared.
The randomness of yields indicated that other factors, such as weather
and time of waste application, were influencing results.  Closer examina-
tion of the data could not establish the causes of the variable yields.
                                 38

-------
   Table  11.  YIELD OF EAR CORN  AND  SILAGE FROM PLOTS RECEIVING

             FOUR RATES  OF APPLIED  BEEF WASTE

Waste
rate,
(MT/ha.)
Check
38.5
26.9
101.5
85.3
135.2
119.7
169.6
172.7
Salt
treatment

Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Ear corn yield
(15.5% water),
(hl/ha.) (bu/a.)
39.22
55.19
35.27
62.32
54.50
52.77
61.00
62.19
53.89
45.08
63.43
40.54
71.64
62.65
60.65
70.11
71.48
61.94
Silage yield
(Dry weight) ,
(MT/ha.) (t/a.)
5.67
8.47
6.72
7.54
7.86
5.98
6.68
7.68
6.37
2.53
3.78
3.00
3.37
3.51
2.67
2.98
3.43
2.85
SOIL EFFECTS

The results reported here will concentrate on the changes which occurred
in the soil as a result of the first year of waste application to the
field plots.  The Fall 1973 soils data represent the beginning of the
waste treatment phase of the project and the Fall 1974 data represent
the completion of one year of study.

As can be seen in Tables 12 and 13, the effects of the applied wastes
are evident in the changes which occurred in the surface layer, 0- to
30-cm depth.  The chlorides (Cl) and the electrical conductivity (EC)
showed manyfold increases.  The increase in EC is of special signifi-
cance due to the already high EC values below the 60-cm depth in the
profile.  Also, to be noted from Table 13 is the lack of movement of
waste constituents into the underlying layers.  The rainfall deficit
of approximately 19 cm resulted in  little or no leaching water.

Since the effects of the waste treatments are restricted to the surface
layer, discussions of analyses and  statistical treatments will be con-
fined to results in the surface layer.
                                  39

-------
 Table  12.   SOIL  ANALYSES:  CHLORIDES,  ELECTRICAL  CONDUCTIVITY AND pH£
Applied
waste,
(MT/ha.)
Check



38.52 L



26.92 H



101.46 L



85.32 H



135.20 L



119.70 H



169.55 L



172.69 H



Soil
depth,
(cm)
0-30
30-61
61-91
91-152
0-30
30-61
61-91
91-152
0-30
30-61
61-91
91-152
0-30
30-61
61-91
91-152
0-30
30-61
61-91
91-152
0-30
30-61
61-91
91-152
0-30
30-61
61-91
91-152
0-30
30-61
61-91
91-152
0-30
30-61
61-91
91-152

Clb,
(ppm)
37.5
29.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
33.4
20.3
22.9
43.8
25.0
25.0
25.0
35.4
36.1
35.4
25.0
33.3
29.2
27.8
25.0
31.2
30.6
38.9
25.0
37.5
33.3
33.3
29.2
32.3
31.9
18.8
25.0
37.5
32.3
35.4
16.7
Fall 1973
EC,
(pmhos/cm)
630b
2889b
2480b
4768b
682
1124
3364
6090
461
747
3018
5045
724
2044
3941
5464
713
1247
3434
7828
684
1784
5437
5704
738
949
2518
5067
923
2802
6309
5837
830
1840
4748
6076

PH
6.96b
7.62b
7.81b
7.67b
6.47
7.39
7.58
7.59
6.54
7.61
7.47
7.65
6.43
7.36
7.62
7.59
6.51
7.24
7.42
7.66
6.22
7.24
7.51
7.55
6.44
7.25
7.30
7.63
6.14
7.48
7.66
7.51
6.27
7.40
7.68
7.64

Cl,
(ppm)
10.4
18.8
9.4
9.4
208.3
21.9
21.9
16.7
176.1
35.5
31.3
33.3
328.1
37.5
12.5
4.2
422.9
37.5
16.7
11.5
552.1
66.6
29.2
15.7
689.6
49.0
36.5
6.3
469.8
51.1
18.8
6.3
824.1
132.3
27.1
15.6
Fall 1974
EC,
(ymhos/cm)
1116
2451
4007
5506
2418
1284
3653
5678
1929
636
4474
5917
4873
1584
4892
6152
3947
1409
4082
5360
5886
1513
4952
5852
5456
1711
4196
5725
5020
2289
4954
6308
6017
1899
4573
5782

PH
6.47
7.14
7.46
7.46
6.16
7.21
7.37
7.40
6.22
7.05
7.21
7.41
6.18
7.22
7.32
7.45
6.28
7.16
7.38
7.42
5.98
7.09
7.36
7.37
6.28
7.18
7.25
7.37
6.27
7.07
7.39
7.53
6.13
7.01
7.29
7.50
aAverage of four replications
bLess than four replications
                                   40

-------
       Table 13.   SOIL ANALYSES:   NITROGEN AND PHOSPHORUS
Applied
waste,
(MT/ha.)
Check
38.52 L



26.92 H



101.46 L



85.32 H



135.20 L



119.70 H



169.55 L



172.69 H



Soil
depth,
(cm)
0-30.5
30.5-61.0
61.0-91.4
91.4-152.4
0-30.5
30.5-61.0
61.0-91.4
91.4-152.4
0-30.5
30.5-61.0
61.0-91.4
91.4-152.4
0-30.5
30.5-61.0
61.0-91.4
91.4-152.4
0-30.5
30.5-61.0
61.0-91.4
91.4-152.4
0-30.5
30.5-61.0
61.0-91.4
91.4-152.4
0-30.5
30.5-61.0
61.0-91.4
91.4-152.4
0-30.5
30.5-61.0
61.0-91.4
91.4-152.4
0-30.5
30.5-61.0
61.0-91.4
91.4-152.4
Fall
Total N,
(%)
0.20b
0.08b
0.05b
0.03b
0.20
0.09
0.06
0.04
0.20
0.10
0.06
0.04
0.21
0.10
0.04
0.03
0.21
0.11
0.05
0.03
0.20
0.11
0.05
0.03
0.21
0.10
0.06
0.04
0.21
0.09
0.05
0.05
0.19
0.10
0.04
0.03
1973
NH4FP,
(ppm)
4.0b
1.5b
1.8b
2.0b
7.3
3.0
4.1
5.9
6.6
2.8
2.1
1.9
6.1
2.5
2.6
2.6
6.5
2.3
1.8
2.1
7.9
3.0
3.1
4.0
7.0
3.6
4.9
6.4
8.8
2.9
2.4
2.8
8.6
2.4
2.3
2.5
Fall
Total N,
(%)
0.20
0.09
0.22
0.10


0.21
0.10


0.26
0.09


0.24
0.09


0.27
0.11


0.25
0.10


0.25
0.11


0.25
0.10


1974
NHAFP,
(ppm)
4.5
1.3
22.5
1.4


17.8
2.3


>70
1.8


48.8
1.6


>70
2.6


38.3
1.6


>70
2.1


>70
2.6


aAverage of four replications
bLess than four replications
                                   41

-------
            Table 14.   SOIL ANALYSES  FOR PLOTS  RECEIVING

                       THE INDICATED  AMOUNTS  OF WASTE

Waste
rate,
(MT/ha.)
38.5
26.9
101.5
85.3
135.2
119.7
169.6
172.7
Fall 1973
Salt
level
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Na, K,
(meq/lOOg)
0.25
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.10
0.06
0.08
0.06
0.48
0.46
0.82
0.76
0.80
0.77
0.84
0.71
Fall 1974
EC, Na, K,
(iamhos/cm) (meq/lOOg)
682
460
724
713
683
745
923
830
0.15
0.18
0.27
0.36
0.38
0.54
0.33
0.56
0.85
0.88
1.86
1.47
2.46
1.76
2.18
1.93
EC,
(ymhos/cm)
2418
1928
4873
3956
5886
5456
4903
6016
Exchangeable Na, Exchangeable K, and EC in Soil Samples

Table 14 lists the mean values for exchangeable Na, exchangeable K,
and EC for the waste treatments applied during the year.  The increase
in exchangeable Na within plots receiving high salt waste and high
rates can be readily observed.

The results from the analysis of variance for exchangeable Na are given
in Table 15.  The results show that the main effects of waste rate
and NaCl treatment are nonsignificant.  However, since the seasonal
change, Fall 1973 to Fall 1974, represents the change in soil condi-
tions due to the application of waste, the variable of season is needed
in the main effect or interaction.   The significance of the season main
effect, the season by waste rate interaction, and the season by NaCl
treatment interaction suggest that a real difference exists for ex-
changeable Na with varying rates of waste.  The mean values given in
Table 16 for the significant tests show a larger increase in exchange-
able Na for higher waste rates and high salt treatments.

After determining the significance of the various effects by the
analysis of variance, a multiple regression analysis was performed
                                  42

-------
   Table 15.  ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR EXCHANGEABLE Na IN SOIL

Source
Season (S)
Waste rate (W)
Salt treatment (N)
Replication (R)
S x W
S x N
W x N
S x W x N
S x R
W x R
S x W x R
N x R
S x N x R
W x N x R
Error
df
1
3
1
3
3
1
3
3
3
9
9
3
3
9
9
Mean square
1.0686b
0.4576 NS
0.1723 NS
0.0126
0.1281b
0.1434a
0.0211 NS
0.0043 NS
0.0162
0.0186
0.0083
0.0186
0.0076
0.0137
0.0112
Significant at the .05 level
bSignificant at the .01 level
NS nonsignificant at the .05 level
                               43

-------
  Table 16.   THE MEAN VALUES FOR EXCHANGEABLE Na  (meq/lOOg)  FOR THE

             MAIN EFFECTS  AND INTERACTIONS  WHICH  ARE  SIGNIFICANT



                        Season  x waste  rate

 Proposed  rate                                                ,
 MT/ha.  (t/a.)                Fall 1973a               Fall  1974°

   44.8 (20)                   0.16                    0.16

   89.6 (40)                   0.05                    0.32

  134.4 (60)                   0.08                    0.46

  179.2 (80)                   0.07                    0.45


                      Season x  salt treatment

   Salt
 treatment                    Fall 1973                Fall  1974

   Low                       0.12                    0.28

   High                       0.06                    0.41
aSeason mean value = 0.09
"Season mean value =0.35
to predict the change in exchangeable Na.  The dependent variable
was defined as the change in exchangeable Na from the Fall 1973 sam-
pling to the Fall 1974 sampling, while the independent variables
were defined as the actual amount of applied waste and the amount
of applied Na.

The results of the multiple regression analysis are given in Table
17.  The antount of applied Na was more strongly related to the change
in exchangeable Na than was waste rate.  The addition of waste rate
to the equation failed to increase the precision of the equation.
This is a logical result since the amount of applied Na is not inde-
pendent of the waste rate; however, by using the multiple regression
analysis the independent variable which best predicts the change in
exchangeable Na was determined.
                                  44

-------
    Table 17.   EQUATIONS  DEVELOPED FOR EXCHANGEABLE Na FROM THE

               MULTIPLE REGRESSION ANALYSIS  AND SIGNIFICANCE  OF

               THE EQUATIONS


                                          Percent of variation
Equation
Y =
Y =
Y =
Y =
0.
0.
0.
0.
05044
05007
05062
05008
+
+
+
+
0
0
0
0
explained by equation rz
.00024 Zx - 0.00001 Z2 NS
.00024 Z-f
.00027 XL - 0.00003 X2 NS
.00026 Xia
70.
70.
70.
70.
0
0
0
0

.69

.69
Y is the change in exchangeable Na (meq/lOOg)

Z^ is the kilograms of applied Na (kg/ha.)

2.2 is the waste rate (MT/ha.)

X1 is the pounds of applied Na (Ib/a.)

X  is the waste rate (t/a.)
Significant at the .01 level
NS nonsignificant at the .05 level


The multiple regression analysis indicates that the simple linear
regression equation using the weight of applied Na to predict the
change in exchangeable Na is significant and explains a  large part
of the variation.  Using this equation it is possible to predict the
potential for dispersion of soil based on chemical analyses of  the
soil and waste.  It is also necessary to make  some assumptions  con-
cerning the type of clay present in the soil before predicting  the
possibility of soil dispersion.  The critical  value of 15% exchange-
able Na for classification as a sodic soil may be beyond the dispersion
point.  Some soil scientists believe that the  critical value for dis-
persion varies with the type of clay that is present  in  the soil and
with the presence of other ions.
                                   45

-------
               Table 18.   ANALYSIS  OF  VARIANCE  RESULTS

                          FOR EXCHANGEABLE K  IN SOIL

Source
Season (S)
Waste rate (W)
Salt treatment (N)
Replication (R)
S x W
S x N
W x N
S x W x N
S x R
W x R
S x W x R
N x R
S x N x R
W x N x R
Error
df
1
3
1
3
3
1
3
3
3
9
9
3
3
9
9
Mean square
14.9286a
2.0893a
0.6064 NS
0.0958
0.7536 NS
0.2876 NS
0.0945 NS
0.0958 NS
0.1701
0.1442
0.2010
0.1164
0.1655
0.0824
0.0408
aSignifleant at the .01 level
NS nonsignificant at the .05 level
The results from the analysis of variance for exchangeable K are given
in Table 18 and the means for the significant main effects are given in
Table 19.  The waste rate is the variable which influences the amount of
K added to the soil and, thus, affects any change in exchangeable K.
However, since the application of K is directly related to season, the
season variable needs to be present in the effect.  Thus, the important
effect is the season by waste rate interaction which is nonsignificant
for exchangeable K.
                                  46

-------
   Table 19.  THE MEAN VALUES FOR EXCHANGEABLE K

              (meq/lOOg) FOR THE MAIN EFFECTS WHICH

              ARE SIGNIFICANT AT THE .01 LEVEL.


                    Season
Year
1973
1974
Mean value
meq/lOOg
0.71
1.67
Waste
Proposed rate,
MT/ha. (t/a.)
44.8 (20)
89.6 (40)
134.4 (60)
179.2 (80)
rate
Mean value
meq/lOOg
0.67
1.23
1.45
1.41
The multiple regression analysis with the change in exchangeable K from
the Fall 1973 sampling to the Fall 1974 sampling as the dependent
variable and waste rate and the amount of applied K as the independent
variables was performed.  The results in Table 20 show waste rate as the
best single parameter for predicting the change in exchangeable K.  Even
though the simple linear regression equation is significant at the .01
level it explains very little of the variation making the equation
unsuitable for prediction in the field.

The inability of the data to detect a significant change in exchangeable
K for the season by waste rate interaction may be related to the presence
of large amounts of illite in South Dakota soils.  The illitic type
clays make it difficult to accurately measure exchangeable K.

The analysis of variance results for EC are given in Table 21.  The
significance of the season by waste rate interaction shows that there is
a significant difference among the waste rate treatments with the change
in season.  The mean values given in Table 22 show the EC seasonal
change is greater for the higher waste rates.
                                   47

-------
          Table  20.  EQUATIONS DEVELOPED FOR EXCHANGEABLE

                     K FROM THE MULTIPLE REGRESSION ANALYSIS

                     AND SIGNIFICANCE OF THE EQUATIONS


                                           Percent of variation
Equation                                   explained by equation
Y *
Y -
Y -
Y =
0.
0.
0.
0.
22394 H
19782 ^
22331 H
19777 H
h 0
h 0
h 0
h 0
.02423
.00723
.05422
.01620
Z
Z
X
X
1 ~
a
1
1 ~
a
0.00055 Z2 NS

0.00061 X2 NS

40.
38.
40.
38.
0
3
0
3

.38

.38
Y is the change in exchangeable K (meq/lOOg)

Zj is the waste rate (MT/ha.)

Z2 is the kilograms of applied K (kg/ha.)

X, is the waste rate (t/a.)

X2 is the pounds of applied K (Ib/a.)
Significant at the .01 level
NS nonsignificant at the .05 level
The nonsignificance of the season by salt treatment interaction indi-
cates that even though the variation in the total cation contents of
waste is influenced by the Na content (Appendix Table A7), the change
due to the Na content is small when compared to the total cations.

With the significance of the season by waste rate interaction, a mul-
tiple regression analysis (Table 23) was performed to develop a regres-
sion equation for predicting the change in EC.  The analysis included
the change in EC, based on the change in EC from the Fall 1973 sampling
to the Fall 1974 sampling, as the dependent variable and waste rate and
amount of total cations applied as the independent variables.  The waste
rate was found to be a better parameter for predicting a change in EC
than amount of total cations applied.
                                  48

-------
     Table 21.  ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE RESULTS FOR EC IN SOIL

Source
Season (S)
Waste rate (W)
Salt treatment (N)
Replication (R)
S x W
S x N
W x N
S x W x N
S x R
W x R
S x W x R
N x R
S x N x R
W x N x R
Error
df
1
3
1
3
3
1
3
3
3
9
9
3
3
9
9
Mean square
2.2016 x 108S
1.1624 x 10?a
2.4292 x 105 NS
1.4291 x 106
9.0130 x lO6*
5.2498 x 104 NS
7.6699 x 105 NS
8.4562 x 105 NS
1.1470 x 106
1.0773 x 106
7.1483 x 105
4.4046 x 105
4.2689 x 105
3.9206 x 105
3.8936 x 105
Significant at the .01 level
NS nonsignificant at the .05 level
Although the simple linear regression equation for predicting a change
in EC by using the waste rate is significant at the .01 level, it is
able to only explain approximately one-half of the variation. Thus, the
equation is unacceptable for making field predictions for a change in EC
due to a waste application.

-------
      Table 22.   THE MEAN VALUES FOR EC (ymhos/cm)  FOR THE MAIN

                 EFFECTS AND INTERACTIONS WHICH ARE SIGNIFICANT

Waste rate
Proposed rate
MT/ha. (t/a.)
44.8 (20)
89.6 (40)
134.4 (60)
179.2 (80)

(ymhos/cm)
1372
2566
3193
3168
Season
Fall 1973
y mhos /cm
571
718
714
877
x waste rate
Fall 1974
y mhos /cm
2173
4415
5671
5460
Table 23.  THE EQUATIONS DEVELOPED  FOR EC  FROM THE MULTIPLE REGRES-

           SION ANALYSIS AND  SIGNIFICANCE  OF  THE  EQUATIONS
Equation
                                      Percent  of  variation
                                      explained by  equation
Y - 1220.38 x 14.74 Z{ + 0.14 Z2  NS

Y - 1219.26 + 23.44 Z]_a

Y = 1220.19 + 32.76 Xx + 0.16 X2  NS

Y - 1218.90 + 52.50 X]8
53.2

53.0

53.2

53.0
                                                                .53
                                                                .53
Y is the change in EC  (ymhos/cm)

Z-L is the waste rate (MT/ha.)

Z2 is the kilograms of applied cations  (kg/ha.)

X-j^ is the waste rate (t/a.)

X2 is the pounds of applied cations  (Ib/a.)


Significant at the .01 level
NS nonsignificant at the .05 level
                                 50

-------
After a single year of waste disposal, the salinity of the surface
30 cm of soil within plots receiving high rates of waste has increased
to a level normally expected to cause reduced growth for many crops.
Since the soil below 60 cm in this area is naturally saline, the plots
where the heavy waste applications have been made are saline through-
out most of the crop rooting zone.

The corn production data for the first year are variable.  The less
than normal rainfall resulted in reduced water for crop growth and
almost no water for leaching.  Seasons with higher rainfall could be
expected to result in more leaching of salts deeper into the soil pro-
file and could be expected to give quite different crop production
results.  However, the precipitation patterns of the sub-humid Plains
are naturally variable and variable leaching or runoff patterns can
be expected.
 RUNOFF

 Although  the runoff sampling and measuring  instruments were  maintained
 during  the non-frozen  soil  cycle, precipitation  amounts  and  patterns
 were  such that no  runoff  occurred during  the  investigation period.
                                    51

-------
                            SECTION VIII

                         LITERATURE  CITED
Aldrich,  S. R.   1973.  Determining  application rates  of  livestock
     wastes to the  land.  Proceedings  of  1973 Livestock  Waste Manage-
     ment Conference.  University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.

American Public  Health Association, American Water Works Association,
     and Water Pollution Control Federation.  1971.   Standard Methods
     for the Examination of Water and  Waste Water.  American Public
     Health Association, New York.  874 p.

Analytical Quality  Control Laboratory.  1971.  Methods for Chemical
     Analysis of Water and Wastes,  1971.  U.S. Environmental Pro-
     tection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio.  EPA-16020	07/71.

Anderson, F. N.  and G. A. Peterson.  1973.  Effects of continuous
     corn (Zea mays L.), manuring,  and nitrogen fertilization on
     yield and protein content of the  grain and on soil nitrogen
     content.  Agronomy Journal 65:697-700.

Ayers, A. D. and H. E. Hayward.  1948.  A method for measuring the
     effects of  soil salinity on seed  germination with observations
     on several  crop plants.  Soil  Science Society of America Pro-
     ceedings 13:224-226.

Bower, C. A. and L. V. Wilcox.  1965.  Soluble salts,  p. 933-951.
     In;  C. A. Black (ed.)  Methods of Soil Analysis.  American
     Society of Agronomy, Madison, Wisconsin.

Bremner, J.  M. and D. R.  Keeney.  1966.  Determination and isotope-
     ration analysis of different forms of nitrogen in soils:  3.
     Exchangeable ammonium, nitrate, and nitrite by extraction-
     distillation methods.   Soil Science Society of America Pro-
     ceedings 30:577-582.

Chapman, H.  D. and P. F.  Pratt.  1961.   Methods of Analysis for Soils,
     Plants  and Waters.   University of California, Division of Agri-
     cultural Sciences,  Riverside.
                                  52

-------
Crampton,  E.  W.  and L.  A.  Maynard.   1938.   The relationship of cellu-
     lose  and lignin content to the nutritive value of animal feeds.
     Journal of  Nutrition 15:383.

Cross, 0.  E., A. P. Mazurak, and L. Chesnin.   1971.  Animal waste
     utilization for pollution abatement.   Transactions of the Ameri-
     can Society of Agricultural Engineers 16:160-163.

Evans, S.  D., P. R. Goodrich, and R. C. Hunter.  1972.  Effect of
     heavy applications of animal manure on corn growth and yield
     and on soil properties.  Division A-5.  Presented at the Winter
     Meeting of the American Society of Agronomy, Miami Beach, Florida.

Frye, A. L., R. W. Hansen, M. G. Petit, R. P. Martin, J. K. Matsushima,
     S. M. Morrison, B. R. Sabey, J. L. Smith, J. C. Ward, and R. C.
     Ward.  1972.  Animal waste management with pollution  control.
     Annual Report of Colorado Contributing Project to NC  93.  Colorado
     State University, Fort Collins.

Gilbertson, C.  B., T. M. McCalla,  J. R. Ellis, and W. R. Woods.   1971.
     Characteristics of manure accumulations  removed  from  outdoor,
     unpaved beef  cattle  feedlots.  pp. 56-59.  In;   Proceedings,
      International Symposium on Livestock Wastes.  American Society
      of Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph,  Michigan.

Heald, W.  R.  1965.  Calcium and magnesium,   pp.  999-1010.   In;
      C. A. Black (ed.)  Methods of Soil Analysis.  American Society
      of Agronomy,  Madison,  Wisconsin.

 Issac,  R.  A.  and J.  D. Kerber.   1971.   Atomic absorption and flame
      photometry:   Techniques and  uses  in  soil, plant, and water analysis.
      pp.  17-37.  In;   L.  M. Walsh (ed.)  Instrumental Methods for
      Analysis of Soils and Plant  Tissue.   Soil Science Society of
      America, Madison, Wisconsin.

 Jackson,  M.  L.   1958.   Soil Chemical Analysis.  Prentice-Hall Inc.,
      Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.

 Jones, J. B.  1967.  Interpretation of plant analysis for several
      agronomic crops,   pp. 49-58.  In;  Soil Testing and Plant Analysis
      Part II.  Soil Science Society of America, Madison, Wisconsin.

 Martin, N. P.  1970.  Soil as an animal waste disposal medium.  Journal
      of Soil and Water Conservation 25:43.

 Mathers, A. C. and B.  A. Stewart.  1974.   Corn silage yield  and soil
      chemical properties as affected by  cattle feedlot manure.  Journal
      of Environmental Quality 3:143-147.
                                     53

-------
Mathers,  A.  C.,  B.  A.  Stewart,  J.  D.  Thomas,  and B. J. Blair.   1972.
      Effects of  cattle feedlot  manure on  crop yields and soil con-
      ditions.  Texas A &  M University, Agricultural Experiment  Station
      Research Center,  College Station.  Technical Report No. 11.

Murphy, L. S., G. W. Wallingford,  W.  L. Powers, and H. L. Manges.
      1972.   Effects of solid beef  feedlot wastes on soil conditions
      and  plant growth,  pp. 449-464.   In:  Waste Management Research,
      Proceedings of the 1972 Cornell  Agricultural Waste Management
      Conference.  Cornell University,  Ithaca, New York.

Powers, W. L., G. W. Wallingford,  L.  S. Murphy, D. A. Whitney,  H. L.
      Manges,  and H. E.  Jones.   1974.   Guidelines for applying beef
      feedlot manure to fields.  Kansas State  University.  Manhattan.
      Cooperative Extension Service Bulletin C-502.

Reddell,  D. L., R. C.  Egg,  and V. L.  Smith.   1974.  Chemical changes
      in soils used for  beef manure disposal.  Paper No. 74-4060.
      Presented at the Annual Meeting  of the American Society of Agri-
      cultural Engineers,  Chicago,  Illinois.

Salter, R. M. and C. J. Schollenberger.  1939.  Farm manure.  Ohio
      State University, Agricultural Experiment Station, Wooster.
      Bulletin No. 605.

U.S.  Salinity Laboratory.   1954.  Methods for soil characterization.
      pp.  83-126.   In:   L.  A. Richards  (ed.)  Agricultural Handbook
     No.  60.   U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, B.C.

Vitosh, M. L., J. F. Davis, and B. D. Knezek.  1972.  Long-term effects
      of fertilizer, manure, and plowing depth on corn.   Michigan State
     University,  Agricultural Experiment Station, Lansing.   Research
     Report No. 198.
                                  54

-------
                            SECTION  IX




               GLOSSARY OF ABBREVIATIONS  AND SYMBOLS






Al     -  Chemical symbol for aluminum




B      -  Chemical symbol for boron




bu/a   -  Bushels per acre




C      -  Symbol for centigrade temperature




Ca     -  Chemical symbol for calcium




Cl     -  Chemical symbol for chlorine




cm     -  Centimeter




Cu     -  Chemical symbol for copper




EC     -  Electrical conductivity expressed  in micromhos/cm




ft     -  Foot or feet




g     -  Gram




H     -  High as used to indicate  salt  level  (0.50%  -  0.75%)




hl/ha -  Hectoliters  per hectare




 in     -  Inch




K     -  Chemical  symbol for potassium




 kg      -  kilograms




 km/hr  -  Kilometers per hour




 L      -  Low as used to indicate salt level (0.0% - 0.25%)
                                 55

-------
 Ib      -   Pound




 m      -   Meter




 meq     -   Milliequivalents




 Mg      -   Chemical symbol for magnesium




 Mn      -   Chemical symbol for manganese




 Mo      -   Chemical symbol for molybdenum




 MPN     -  Most probable number




 MT/ha   -  Metric tons per hectare




 N       -  Chemical symbol for nitrogen




 Na      -  Chemical symbol for sodium




 OM      -  Organic matter




 P       -  Chemical symbol for phosphorus




 ppm     -  Parts per million




 S       -  Chemical symbol for sulfur




 Sr      -  Chemical symbol for strontium




T       -  Trace




 t/a     -  Tons per acre




ymhos  -  Micromhos




WS     -  Water soluble




Zn     -  Chemical symbol for zinc
                                56

-------
SECTION X




APPENDIX
    57

-------
Table Al.  WASTE ANALYSES FOR SEPTEMBER 1973
Salt added
to the
ration
%
0.00



0.25



0.50



0.75



Environment
Covered
Covered
Open
Open
Covered
Covered
Open
Open
Covered
Covered
Open
Open
Covered
Covered
Open
Open
Pen
No.
4
9
6
13
1
12
7
16
2
10
8
15
3
11
5
14
Ca

1.23
1.23
1.31
1.28
1.35
1.29
1.16
1.26
1.43
1.42
1.43
1.19
1.26
1.15
1.27
1.20
Mg

0.75
0.72
0.65
0.68
0.74
0.69
0.72
0.68
0.77
0.75
0.79
0.65
0.70
0.73
0.70
0.67
Na
%.

0.51
0.48
0.41
0.40
0.80
0.83
0.80
0.76
1.15
1.52
1.19
1.10
1.81
1.63
1.44
1.57
K

2.83
3.02
2.27
2.61
2.68
2.50
2.68
2.61
2.84
3.08
2.73
2.45
2.84
2.91
2.63
2.75
Total of
cations

5.32
5.45
4.64
4.97
5.57
5.31
5.36
5.31
6.19
6.77
6.14
5.39
6.61
6.42
6.04
6.19
                      58

-------
Table A2.  WASTE ANALYSES FOR OCTOBER 1973
Salt added
to the
ration
%
0.00



0.25



0.50



0.75



Environment
Covered
Covered
Open
Open
Covered
Covered
Open
Open
Covered
Covered
Open
Open
Covered
Covered
Open
Open
Pen
No.
4
9
6
13
1
12
7
16
2
10
8
15
3
11
5
14
Ca

0.76
0.79
0.76
0.91
0.98
0.86
1.00
0.86
0.82
0.84
0.81
0.77
0.92
0.81
0.76
0.80
Mg

0.72
0.66
0.77
0.89
0.80
0.77
0.88
0.74
0.77
0.75
0.79
0.73
0.79
0.72
0.74
0.76
Na

0.30
0.18
0.24
0.20
0.51
0.64
0.42
0.39
0.82
0.70
0.69
0.55
0.96
0.88
0.84
0.78
Total of
K cations

3.44
2.62
3.76
3.37
3.75
3.84
4.08
3.66
4.02
3.86
3.73
3.05
3.46
3.39
3.30
3.79

5.22
4.25
5.53
5.37
6.04
6.11
6.38
5.65
6.43
6.15
6.02
5.10
6.13
5,80
5.64
6.13
                        59

-------
Table A3.  WASTE ANALYSES FOR DECEMBER 1973
Salt added
to the
ration
%
0.00



0.25



0.50



0.75



Environment
Covered
Covered
Open
Open
Covered
Covered
Open
Open
Covered
Covered
Open
Open
Covered
Covered
Open
Open
Pen
No.
4
9
6
13
1
12
7
16
2
10
8
15
3
11
5
14
Ca

0.77
0.82
0.74
0.66
0.75
0.72
0.66
0.62
0.75
0.79
0.61
0.65
0.76
0.71
0.63
0.61
Mg

0.72
0.79
0.79
0.75
0.74
0.73
0.67
0.71
0.72
0.78
0.72
0.70
0.73
0.76
0.70
0.73
Na
%_

0.25
0.25
0.23
0.15
0.44
0.75
0.32
0.50
0.93
1.08
0.68
0.73
1.55
1.56
0.70
1.21
K

3.62
3.87
4.01
3.43
3.43
3.98
3.47
3.44
3.67
4.06
4.39
3.47
3.98
4.27
3.32
4.19
Total of
cations

5.36
5.73
5.77
4.99
5.36
6.18
5.12
5.27
6.07
6.71
6.40
5.55
7.02
7.30
5.35
6.74
                     60

-------
Table A4.  WASTE ANALYSES FOR FEBRUARY 1974
Salt added
to the
ration
%
0.00



0.25



0.50



0.75



Environment
Covered
Covered
Open
Open
Covered
Covered
Open
Open
Covered
Covered
Open
Open
Covered
Covered
Open
Open
Pen
No.
4
9
6
13
1
12
7
16
2
10
8
15
3
11
5
14
Ca

1.45
1.37
1.42
1.34
1.44
1.64
1.24
1.36
1.49
1.49
1.55
1.25
1.27
1.62
1.35
1.25
Mg

0.77
0.76
0.68
0.72
0.73
0.76
0.73
0.71
0.76
0.76
0.76
0.67
0.69
0.77
0.69
0.67
Na

0.51
0.47
0.43
0.39
0.81
0.96
0.78
0.76
1.18
0.47
1.19
1.11
1.59
1.54
1.37
1.50
Total of
K cations

2.96
3.03
2.50
2.67
2.72
2.84
2.81
2.65
2.90
3.03
2.78
2.54
2.78
2.81
3.64
2.75

5.69
5.63
5.03
5.12
5.70
6.20
5.56
5.48
6.33
5.75
6.28
5.57
6.33
6.74
7.05
6.17
                        61

-------
Table A5.  WASTE ANALYSES FOR MARCH 1974
Salt added
to the
ration
%
0.00



0.25



0.50



0.75



Environment
Covered
Covered
Open
Open
Covered
Covered
Open
Open
Covered
Covered
Open
Open
Covered
Covered
Open
Open
Pen
No.
4
9
6
13
1
12
7
16
2
10
8
15
3
11
5
14
Ca

1.30
1.26
1.39
1.38
1.41
1.32
1.24
1.34
1.37
1.58
1.48
1.19
1.26
1.14
1.22
1.24
Mg

0.79
0.74
0.69
0.74
0.77
0.71
0.77
0.72
0.73
0.83
0.81
0.65
0.71
0.72
0.70
0.69
Na
%_

0.54
0.49
0.43
0.43
0.83
0.85
0.86
0.80
1.10
1.69
1.23
1.10
1.81
1.62
1.39
1.62
K

2.99
3.10
2.42
2.81
2.81
2.57
2.86
2.77
2.70
3.44
2.82
2.46
2.84
2.90
2.54
2.85
Total of
cations

5.62
5.59
4.93
5.36
5.82
5.45
5.73
5.63
5.90
7.54
6.34
5.40
6.62
6.38
5.85
6.40
                    62

-------
Table A6.  WASTE ANALYSES FOR APRIL 1974
Salt added
to the
ration
%
0.00



0.25



0.50



0.75



Environment
Covered
Covered
Open
Open
Covered
Covered
Open
Open
Covered
Covered
Open
Open
Covered
Covered
Open
Open
Pen
No.
4
9
6
13
1
12
7
16
2
10
8
15
3
11
5
14
Ca

1.65
1.49
1.32
1.29
1.57
1.57
1.25
1.18
1.46
1.64
1.29
1.20
1.56
1.49
1.42
1.23
Mg

0.80
0.83
0.71
0.77
0.84
0.85
0.78
0.76
0.81
0.87
0.78
0.75
0.81
0.80
0.74
0.72
Na
°L

0.80
0.60
0.55
0.51
1.00
1.00
0.72
1.26
1.40
1.46
1.25
1.21
1.75
1.69
1.56
1.50
Total of
K cations

3.49
3.48
3.12
3.22
3.47
3.16
3.05
3.19
3.40
3.28
3.20
3.12
3.31
3.09
3.22
3.12

6.74
6.40
5.70
5.79
6.88
6.58
5,80
6.39
7.07
7.25
6.52
6.28
7.43
7.07
6.94
6.57
                      63

-------
Table A7.  AVERAGE WASTE ANALYSES FOR ALL SIX COLLECTION DATES

Salt added
to the
ration
%
0.00



0.25



0.50



0.75



Environment
Covered
Covered
Open
Open
Covered
Covered
Open
Open
Covered
Covered
Open
Open
Covered
Covered
Open
Open
Pen
No.
4
9
6
13
1
12
7
16
2
10
8
15
3
11
5
14
Ca

1.19
1.16
1.16
1.14
1.25
1.23
1.09
1.10
1.22
1.29
1.20
1.04
1.17
1.15
1.11
1.06
Mg

0.76
0.75
0.76
0.76
0.77
0.75
0.76
0.72
0.76
0.79
0.78
0.69
0.74
0.75
0.71
0.71
Na
7

0.49
0.41
0.38
0.35
0.73
0.84
0.65
0.75
1.10
1.15
1.04
0.97
1.58
1.49
1.22
1.36
K

3.22
3.19
3.01
3.02
3.14
3.15
3.16
3.05
3.26
3.46
3.28
2.85
3.20
3.23
3.11
3.24
Total of
cations

5.66
5.51
5.31
5.27
5.89
5.97
5.66
5.62
6.34
6.69
6.30
5.55
6.69
6.62
6.15
6.37
                               64

-------
Table A8.  LEAF ANALYSIS RESULTS FOR LEAVES SAMPLED AT SILKING3
Proposed
rate,
(MT/ha.) Salt
(t/a.) treatment
Check



44.8 Low
(20)


High



89.6 Low
(40)


High



134 . 4 Low
(60)


High



Replicatioi
I
II
III
IV
I
II
III
IV
I
II
III
IV
I
II
III
IV
I
II
III
IV
I
II
III
IV
I
II
III
IV
N

2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
3.
2.
3.
2.
2.
2.
2.
3.
2.
3.
3.
3.
2.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
2.
2.
3.
3.
3.
b

37
69
86
87
86
05
93
05
71
82
77
91
16
88
06
11
02
99
08
13
38
22
17
95
76
20
32
03
P

0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.


29
28
26
24
33
34
37
35
34
35
39
29
34
39
35
31
36
39
27
36
37
39
35
32
29
39
37
37
K

2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
3.
2.
Ca
»/

49
82
59
54
56
35
74
77
47
81
60
46
67
99
30
37
77
87
59
48
54
78
54
56
39
70
17
32

0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.

71
57
47
43
54
49
51
58
44
63
54
60
48
48
51
57
46
58
43
65
53
52
41
45
60
52
47
50
Mg

0.54
0.62
0.42
0.56
0.45
0.39
0.34
0.36
0.53
0.41
0.42
0.39
0.39
0.40
0.29
0.36
0.26
0.38
0.33
0.38
0.34
0.32
0.27
0.34
0.28
0.33
0.28
0.32
Sb

0.098
0.170
0.153
0.205
0.115
0.133
0.133
0.133
0.115
0.123
0.140
0.140
0.140
0.133
0.145
0.145
0.125
0.145
0.125
0.140
0.150
0.150
0.160
0.140
0.113
0.150
0.160
0.153
                                 65

-------
          Table A8 (continued).  LEAF ANALYSES RESULTS FOR

                                 LEAVES SAMPLED AT SILKING3
Proposed
 rate,
(MT/ha.)    Salt
 (t/a.)   treatment  Replication
Nb
K
Ca
Mg
179.2 Low
(80)


High



I
II
III
IV
I
II
III
IV
3.
3.
2.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
28
31
90
50
01
17
06
24
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
29
37
37
35
35
37
33
35
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
.74
.73
.70
.59
.71
.50
.52
.34
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
36
49
54
49
42
41
54
46
0.25
0.30
0.39
0.33
0.26
0.25
0.25
0.26
0.140
0.160
0.153
0.173
0.145
0.140
0.160
0.173
aAll Na analyses were less than 0.01%
bThe tests for these elements were performed by the Soil Testing
 Laboratory at South Dakota State University
                                  66

-------
 Table A9.  LEAF ANALYSIS RESULTS FOR LEAVES SAMPLED AT SILKING

Proposed
rate,
(MT/ha.)
(t/a.)


Salt
treatment


Mn Fe
T» -i j *_ j
Replication


B Cu Zn Al Sr Mo

PP
Check                     I       75  223  21  11  30  213  35  1.00
                         II       67  242  25  12  26  231  39  0.97
                        III       47  233  23  13  27  207  36  0.48
                         IV       66  188  26  11  25  165  34  0.83

 44.8      Low            I      152  218  21  11  31  196  34  0.81
 (20)                    II      210  250  29  12  35  188  34  0.82
                        III      167  245  25  11  39  221  36  0.46
                         IV      104  237  24  11  24  216  32  0.55

           High           I      129  216  25  11  26  200  35  1.15
                         II      104  233  21  11  29  212  33  0.59
                        III       74  258  29  11  26  235  31  0.44
                         IV      150  218  23  11  33  179  34  0.44

 89-6      LOW            I      127  232  21  11  32  193  36  0.49
                         II       97  236  22  11  30  212  35  0.53
                        III      118  250  29  11  30  216  33  0.62
                         IV      140  229  25  10  30  206  34  0.38

           Hi8h           I      189  246  26  11  37  196  31  0.38
                         II      137  267  24  11  33  219  36  0.52
                        III       91  174  29   9  23  138  36  0.42
                         IV      112  253  25  11  26  251  34  0.82

134.4      Low            i      304  280  37  12  48  222  35  0.54
                         II      202  250  27  11  41  193  35  0.57
                        III      183  234  38  12  34  167  36  0.47
                         IV      112  252  25  11  27  244  31  0.47

           High           I      119  194  21  11  34  175  29  0.40
                         II      224  270  30  11  47  226  34  0.50
                        III      337  252  30  11  50  196  34  0.38
                         IV      263  282  47  12  41  205  37  0.48
                                 67

-------
Table A9 (continued).  LEAF ANALYSIS RESULTS FOR

                       LEAVES SAMPLED AT SILKING

Proposed
rate,
(MT/ha.)
(t/a.)
179.2
(80)
Salt
treatment
Low
Replication
I
II
Mn
Fe
B
Cu Zn
Al
Sr
Mo
Ft""
202
225
195
264
28
33
10
12
31
47
142
204
32
34
0.33
0.65
                III      146  250  26  11  32  214  36  0.77
                 IV      141  282  25   9  35  279  32  0.42

   High           I      334  245  30  10  51  214  31  0.37
                 II      290  264  40  12  48  204  32  0.55
                III      143  281  33  12  31  277  29  0.42
                 IV      340  248  36   8  47  208  31  0.49
                        68

-------
Table A10.  SILAGE AND EAR CORN YIELDS




            FROM WASTE DISPOSAL PLOTS
Proposed
rate,
(MT/ha.) Salt
(t/a.) treatment
Check



44.8 Low
(20)


High



89 . 6 Low
(40)


High



134.4 Low
(60)


High



15.5% moisture
Ear corn yield,
Replication (hl/ha.) (bu/a.)
I
II
III
IV
I
II
III
IV
I
II
III
IV
I
II
III
IV
I
II
III
IV
I
II
III
IV
I
II
III
IV
28.22
37.10
45.88
45.66
56.88
71.93
38.51
53.42
30.24
60.06
18.58
32.20
66.48
55.00
70.96
56.84
67.71
52.84
48.68
48.76
61.50
55.04
44.46
50.06
61.90
82.68
46.38
53.02
32.44
42.65
52.73
52.48
65.38
82.68
44.26
61.40
34.76
69.03
21.36
37.01
76.42
63.22
81.56
65.34
77.83
60.74
55.96
56.05
70.69
63.27
51.11
57.54
71.15
95.04
53.31
60.94
0.0% moisture
Silage, Yield,
(MT/ha.) (t/a.)
3.99
3.76
9.27
5.64
7.77
9.16
8.18
8.78
6.81
6.52
5.87
7.68
7.39
7.46
11.36
3.94
6.54
8.02
8.31
8.58
7.97
8.09
4.41
3.45
6.18
7.75
6.52
6.27
1.78
1.68
4.14
2.52
3.47
4.09
3.65
3.92
3.04
2.91
2.62
3.43
3.30
3.33
5.07
1.76
2.92
3.58
3.71
3.83
3.56
3.61
1.97
1.54
2.76
3.46
2.91
2.80
                    69

-------
        Table A10 (continued).  SILAGE AND EAR CORN YIELDS

                                FROM WASTE DISPOSAL PLOTS
Proposed
 rate,                             15.5% moisture     0,0% moisture
(MT/ha.)    Salt                   Ear corn yield,   Silage,   Yield,
 (t/a.)   treatment  Replication  (hl/ha.)  (bu/a.)  (MT/ha.)  (t/a.)

 179.2      Low            I       69.41     79.78     8.47     3.78
  (80)                    II       63.78     73.31     7.06     3.15
                         III       56.12     64.51     7.71     3.44
                          IV       59.45     68.33     7.48     3.34

            High           I       52.33     60.15     6.18     2.76
                          II       69.16     79.49     7.14     3.19
                         III       70.60     81.15     5.76     2.57
                          IV       23.46     26.96     6.41     2.86
                                 70

-------
Table All.  SOIL ANALYSES FOR PLOTS RECEIVING THE LOW SALT WASTE




            AT AN AVERAGE RATE OF 38.52 MT/ha.  (17.25 t/a.).

Depth,
(cm)
Season (ft) Replication
Fall 1973 0-30.5
(0-1)


30.5-61.0
(1-2)


61.0-91.4
(2-3)


91.4-152.4
(3-5)


Fall 1974 0-30.5
(0-1)


30.5-61.0
(1-2)


61.0-91.4
(2-3)


91.4-152.4
(3-5)


I
II
III
IV
I
II
III
IV
I
II
III
IV
I
II
III
IV
I
II
III
IV
I
II
III
IV
I
II
III
IV
I
II
III
IV
Na K,
(meq/lOOg)
0.13
0.77
0.05
0.04
0.10
0.18
0.24
0.12
1.29
0.32
0.56
0.33
0.39
0.50
0.60
0.36
0.09
0.21
0.14
0.15
1.02
0.22
0.30
0.23
0.62
0.33
0.62
0.49
0.85
0.73
0.60
0.57
0.19
0.47
0.68
0.58
0.41
0.59
0.50
0.34
0.33
0.43
0.68
0.32
0.37
0.42
0.52
0.38
0.40
1.23
0.72
1.06
0.35
0.55
0.66
0.46
0.46
0.44
0.69
0.39
0.31
0.29
0.52
0.42
EC,
(y mhos /cm)
772
650
547
760
457
1333
1134
1571
633
3304
4577
4942
4708
5946
7060
6647
2322
3532
558
3261
642
900
1953
1632
469
3994
5644
4505
5316
4843
6551
6001
                                 71

-------
Table A12.  SOIL ANALYSES FOR PLOTS RECEIVING THE HIGH SALT WASTE




            AT AN AVERAGE RATE OF 26.92 MT/ha. (12.02 t/a.)

Depth,
(cm)
Season (ft)
Fall 1973 0-30.5
(0-1)


30.5-61.0
(1-2)


61.0-91.4
(2-3)


91.4-152.4
(3-5)


Fall 1974 0-30.5
(0-1)


30.5-61.0
(1-2)


61.0-91.4
(2-3)


91.4-152.4
(3-5)


Na K,
Replication (meq/100g)
I
II
III
IV
I
II
III
IV
I
II
III
IV
I
II
III
IV
I
II
III
IV
I
II
III
IV
I
II
III
IV
I
II
III
IV
0.09
0.07
0.10
0.05
0.03
0.47
0.13
0.12
0.93
0.58
0.25
0.28
0.43
0.50
0.18
0.40
0.16
0.18
0.14
0.25
0.14
0.23
0.17
0.25
0.55
0.48
0.34
0.55
0.69
0.47
0.43
0.71
0.20
0.25
0.63
0.77
0.35
0.37
0.54
0.60
0.42
0.34
0.44
0.51
0.52
0.34
0.33
0.37
0.86
0.98
0.71
0.95
0.47
0.43
0.49
0.55
0.33
0.30
0.35
0.71
0.83
0.26
0.29
0.48
EC,
(ymhos/cm)
568
536
61
677
551
1021
542
875
1645
4584
3022
2822
4826
8399
2083
4873
1545
2208
651
3310
535
931
634
444
4735
4557
3810
4793
4808
7898
4768
6194
                                72

-------
Table A13.  SOIL ANALYSES FOR PLOTS RECEIVING THE LOW SALT WASTE




            AT AN AVERAGE RATE OF 101.46 MT/ha.  (45.30 t/a.)
Depth,
(cm)
Season (ft)
Fall 1973 0-30.5
(0-1)


30.5-61.0
(1-2)


61.0-91.4
(2-3)


91.4-152.4
(3-5)


Fall 1974 0-30.5
(0-1)


30.5-61.0
(1-2)


61.0-91.4
(2-3)


91.4-152.4
(3-5)


Replication
I
II
III
IV
I
II
III
IV
I
II
III
IV
I
II
III
IV
I
II
III
IV
I
II
III
IV
I
II
III
IV
I
II
III
IV
Na K,
(meq/100g)
0.07
0.05
0.03
0.07
0.22
0.22
0.08
0.16
0.35
0.41
0.24
0.29
0.50
0.43
0.30
0.40
0.26
0.24
0.22
0.37
0.38
0.29
0.21
0.22
0.62
0.70
0.28
0.43
0.76
0.70
0.15
0.45
0.94
1.05
0.59
0.71
0.59
0.60
0.38
0.42
0.42
0.48
0.35
0.37
0.32
0.41
0.41
0.35
1.57
1.65
1.20
2.92
0.46
0.52
0.44
0.47
0.36
0.44
0.35
0.36
0.29
0.41
0.35
0.37
EC,
(umhos/cm)
785
541
819
749
2393
2374
1625
1782
4534
4086
2947
4195
5736
5627
5010
5484
4804
3283
3910
7496
2176
1565
1268
1328
5349
5228
4824
4166
7332
6758
4245
6274
                                 73

-------
Table A14.  SOIL ANALYSES FOR PLOTS RECEIVING THE HIGH SALT WASTE




            AT AN AVERAGE RATE OF 85.32 MT/ha. (38.09 t/a.)

Depth,
(cm)
Season (ft)
Fall 1973 0-30.5
(0-1)


30.5-61.0
(1-2)


61.0-91.4
(2-3)


91.4-152.4
(3-5)


Fall 1974 0-30.5
(0-1)


30.5-61.0
(1-2)


61.0-91.4
(2-3)


91.4-152.4
(3-5)


Na K,
Replication (meq/lOOg)
I
II
III
IV
I
II
III
IV
I
II
III
IV
I
II
III
IV
I
II
III
IV
I
II
III
IV
I
II
III
IV
I
II
III
IV
0.06
0.04
0.04
0.02
0.14
0.16
0.27
0.09
1.75
0.39
0.10
0.23
0.28
0.40
0.18
0.26
0.49
0.23
0.36
0.35
0.23
0.26
0.23
0.17
0.62
0.45
0.36
0.32
0.80
0.53
0.38
0.44
0.88
0.90
0.68
0.60
0.48
0.69
0.50
0.38
0.37
0.49
0.33
0.33
0.35
0.39
0.39
0.34
2.00
1.30
1.27
1.30
0.71
0.52
0.44
0.40
0.51
0.35
0.46
0.35
0.47
0.34
0.39
0.35
EC,
(ymhos/cm)
785
541
819
749
2393
2374
1625
1782
4534
4086
2947
4195
5736
5627
5010
5484
4804
3283
3910
7496
2176
1565
1268
1328
5349
5228
4824
4166
7332
6758
4245
6274
                                74

-------
Table A15.  SOIL ANALYSES FOR PLOTS RECEIVING THE LOW SALT WASTE




            AT AN AVERAGE RATE OF 135.20 MT/ha. (60.38 t/a.)

Depth,
(cm)
Season (ft) Replication
Fall 1973 0-30.5
(0-1)


30.5-61.0
(1-2)


61.0-91.4
(2-3)


91.4-152.4
(3-5)


Fall 1974 0-30.5
(0-1)


30.5-61.0
(1-2)


61.0-91.4
(2-3)


91.4-152.4
(3-5)


I
II
III
IV
I
II
III
IV
I
II
III
IV
I
II
III
IV
I
II
III
IV
I
II
III
IV
I
II
III
IV
I
II
III
IV
Na K,
(meq/lOOg)
0.17
0.06
0.04
0.11
1.31
0.36
0.27
0.27
0.39
0.43
0.46
0.44
0.43
0.36
0.43
0.61
0.37
0.21
0.36
0.59
0.31
0.22
0.22
0.25
0.52
0.53
0.30
0.40
0.74
0.60
0.42
0.46
0.69
1.04
0.72
0.77
0.39
0.62
0.58
0.55
0.42
0.56
0.60
0.37
0.33
0.32
0.49
0.41
3.02
1.49
2.26
3.09
0.68
0.71
0.56
0.48
0.42
0.49
0.41
0.33
0.31
0.29
0.33
0.41
EC,
(umhos/cm)
438
879
618
800
1034
1629
1388
3085
5339
4881
5802
5724
6218
3149
6982
6467
7551
3953
5535
6503
1360
896
1489
2305
4665
5397
4656
5088
6238
5708
5617
5845
                                 75

-------
Table A16.  SOIL ANALYSES FOR PLOTS RECEIVING THE HIGH SALT WASTE




            AT AN AVERAGE RATE OF 119.70 MT/ha. (53.44 t/a.)

Depth,
(cm)
Season (ft)
Fall 1973 0-30.5
(0-1)


30.5-61.0
(1-2)


61.0-91.4
(2-3)


91.4-152.4
(3-5)


Fall 1974 0-30.5
(0-1)


30.5-61.0
(1-2)


61.0-91.4
(2-3)


91.4-152.4
(3-5)


Na K,
Replication (meq/100g)
I
II
III
IV
I
II
III
IV
I
II
III
IV
I
II
III
IV
I
II
III
IV
I
II
III
IV
I
II
III
IV
I
II
III
IV
0.05
0.06
0.05
0.07
0.14
0.58
0.14
0.12
0.21
0.20
0.35
0.24
0.51
0.46
0.50
0.31
0.59
0.52
0.57
0.48
0.11
0.21
0.25
0.18
0.34
0.64
0.45
0.24
0.78
0.70
0.81
0.33
0.55
1.12
0.68
0.73
0.29
0.47
0.61
0.56
0.37
0.41
0.69
0.46
0.31
0.51
0.54
0.31
2.07
1.41
1.79
1.76
0.38
0.47
0.58
0.47
0.37
0.29
0.75
0.32
0.36
0.29
0.76
0.35
EC,
(pmhos/cm)
514
625
764
1050
456
955
615
1769
783
2392
1846
5049
3606
5438
5122
6103
5357
5302
5466
5700
773
3324
768
1978
2516
5420
4559
4290
4689
7359
5851
4999
                                76

-------
Table A17.  SOIL ANALYSES FOR PLOTS RECEIVING THE LOW SALT WASTE




            AT AN AVERAGE RATE OF 169.55 MT/ha.  (75.70 t/a.)
Depth,
(cm)
Season (ft) Replication
Fall 1973 0-30.5
(0-1)


30.5-61.0
(1-2)


61.0-91.4
(2-3)


91.4-152.4
(3-5)


Fall 1974 0-30.5
(0-1)


30.5-61.0
(1-2)


61.0-91.4
(2-3)


91.4-152.4
(3-5)


I
II
III
IV
I
II
III
IV
I
II
III
IV
I
II
III
IV
I
II
III
IV
I
II
III
IV
I
II
III
IV
I
II
III
IV
Na K,
(meq/lOOg)
0.05
0.09
0.10
0.09
0.11
0.41
0.26
0.55
0.28
0.57
0.33
0.47
0.51
1.22
0.43
0.39
0.31
0.43
0.36
0.23
0.24
0.33
0.45
0.34
0.36
0.49
0.48
0.38
0.60
1.68
0.60
0.18
0.93
0.92
0.77
0.74
0.66
0.64
0.52
0.58
0.52
0.37
0.32
0.42
0.36
0.35
0.31
0.41
2.38
2.53
1.90
1.89
0.80
0.50
0.55
0.47
0.53
0.39
0.33
0.30
0.38
0.30
0.38
0.30
EC,
(ymhos/cm)
549
1472
613
1058
1000
4955
2229
3024
4491
6261
6180
8305
6567
3366
5839
7574
3830
5414
4871
5496
1111
2459
2414
3170
4172
5072
4726
5845
6328
6224
6095
6585
                                 77

-------
Table A18.  SOIL ANALYSES FOR PLOTS RECEIVING THE HIGH SALT WASTE




            AT AN AVERAGE RATE OF 172.69 MT/ha. (77.10 t/a.)

Depth,
(cm)
Season (ft)
Fall 1973 0-30.5
(0-1)


30.5-61.0
(1-2)


61.0-91.4
(2-3)


91.4-152.4
(3-5)


Fall 1974 0-30.5
(0-1)


30.5-61.0
(1-2)


61.0-91.4
(2-3)


91.4-152.4
(3-5)


Na K,
Replication (meq/lOOg)
I
II
III
IV
I
II
III
IV
I
II
III
IV
I
II
III
IV
I
II
III
IV
I
II
III
IV
I
II
III
IV
I
II
III
IV
0.05
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.25
0.16
0.22
0.27
0.68
0.49
0.25
0.29
0.57
0.48
0.33
0.30
0.58
0.48
0.74
0.46
0.31
0.27
0.20
0.28
0.59
0.35
0.34
0.44
0.62
0.45
0.40
0.34
0.76
0.79
0.58
0.70
0.48
0.68
0.33
0.49
0.72
0.36
0.34
0.26
0.37
0.33
0.36
0.32
2.15
1.99
2.09
1.50
0.78
0.83
0.37
0.54
0.61
0.54
0.37
0.36
0.38
0.42
0.34
0.35
EC,
(pmhos/cm)
547
461
1688
625
1024
1580
2398
2358
4897
5028
3157
5908
8334
6045
4142
5783
5855
6511
6517
5183
1288
1288
1782
3238
4925
4446
3137
5785
7086
4966
4408
6666
                                78

-------
      Table A19.  MEAN VALUES FOR EXCHANGEABLE Na, K, AND EC

                  FOR THE MAIN EFFECTS

Season

Fall 1973
Fall 1974
Na,
(meq/lOOg)
0.09
0.35
K,
(meq/lOOg)
0.71
1.67
EC
(ymhos/cm)
720
4430
                            Waste rate
  Proposed
    rate,
(MT/ha.)(t/a.)

   44.8 (20)

   89.6 (40)

  134.4 (60)

  179.2 (80)
Fall 1973

Fall 1974
Na
(meq/lOOg)
0.16
0.18
0.27
0.26
Salt
Na
(meq/lOOg)
0.20
0.23
K
(meq/100)
0.67
1.23
1.45
1.41
treatment
K
(meq/lOOg)
1.29
1.09
    EC
(ymhos/cm)

   1372

   2566

   3193

   3168
    EC
(ymhos/cm)

   2636

   2513
                                  79

-------
      Table A20.  MEAN VALUES FOR EXCHANGEABLE Na,  EXCHANGEABLE K

                  AND EC FOR THE SEASON  BY WASTE  RATE  INTERACTION

Proposed        ~~                                                 ~~
 rate,
(MT/ha.)                      Na,             K,            EC,
 (t/a.)	Season	(meq/lOOg)	(meq/lOOg)	(ymhos/cm)

  44.8       Fall 1973        0.16           0.47            571
  (20)
             Fall 1974        0.16           0.86           2173

  89.6       Fall 1973        0.05           0.79            718
  (40)
             Fall 1974        0.32           1.66           4415

 134.3       Fall 1973        0.07           0.79            714
  (60)
             Fall 1974        0.46           2.11           5671

 179.2       Fall 1973        0.07           0.77            877
  (80)
             Fall 1974        0.45           2.05           5460
                                80

-------
Table 21.  MEAN VALUES FOR EXCHANGEABLE Na, EXCHANGEABLE K, AND EC

           FOR THE SEASON BY SALT TREATMENT INTERACTION


                Salt           Na,             K,            EC,
 Season       treatment     (meq/lOOg)     (meq/lOOg)     (ymhos/cm)

Fall 1973       Low            0.12           0.74            753

                High           0.06           0.68            687

Fall 1974       Low            0.28           1.84           4520

                High           0.41           1.51           4339
                                  81

-------
Table A22.  MEAN VALUES FOR EXCHANGEABLE Na, EXCHANGEABLE K, AND EC

            FOR THE WASTE RATE BY SALT TREATMENT INTERACTION
Proposed
 rate,
(MT/ha.)       Salt           Na,             K,            EC,
 (t/a.)	treatment	(meq/lOOg)	(meq/lOOg)	(ymhos/cm)

  44.8         Low            0.20           0.67           1550
  (20)
               High           0.13           0.67           1194

  89.6         Low            0.16           1.34           2798
  (40)
               High           0.20           1.12           2335

 134.4         Low            0.24           1.64           3285
  (60)
               High           0.30           1.26           3101

 179.2         Low            0.21           1.51           2913
  (80)
               High           0.31           1.32           3423
                                 82

-------
Table A23.  MEAN VALUES FOR EXCHANGEABLE Na, EXCHANGEABLE K AND EC

            FOR THE SEASON BY WASTE RATE BY SALT TREATMENT INTERACTION
Proposed
  rate,
(MT/ha.)
 (t/a.)
                   Fall 1973
                                 Fall 1974
  Salt
treatment
 Na    K        EC,
(meq/lOOg)   (ymhos/cm)
           Na    K,       EC,
          (meq/lOOg)   (ymhos/cm)
  44.8
  (20)
  89.6
  (40)
 134.4
  (60)
 179.2
  (80)
  Low

  High

  Low

  High

  Low

  High

  Low

  High
0.25  0.48

0.08  0.46

0.06  0.82

0.04  0.76

0.10  0.80

0.06  0.77

0.08  0.84

0.06  0.71
682

460

724

713

683

745

923

830
0.15  0.85

0.18  0.88

0.27  1.86

0.36  1.47

0.38  2.46

0.54  1.76

0.33  2.18

0.56  1.93
2418

1928

4873

3956

5886

5456

4903

6016
                                    83

-------
                                    TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
                             {/'lease read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
 1. REPORT NO.
   EPA-600/2-76-188
                          	I	
 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
    Animal Waste Management in the Northern Great Plains
 7. AUTHOR(S)
   Maurice L. Horton
John L. Wiersma  James L. Halbeisen
                                                            3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
                                     5. REPORT DATE
                                      September 1976 (Issuing Date)
                                                            6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
                                                            8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO
 9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
  Water Resources  Institute
  South Dakota State  University
  Brookings, South Dakota  57006
                                      10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.

                                        1BB039
                                     11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
                                        S-802532
 12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
   Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory
   Office of Research and Development
   U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency
   Ada,  Oklahoma  74820
                                      13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
                                        Final
                                     14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE

                                        EPA-ORD
 15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
 16. ABSTRACT
   The effect of salt  level of the ration for beef steers upon salinity of the waste
   and the effects of  the  applied waste upon the  soil and upon crop  production was in-
   vestigated.  In addition,  the study was conducted in both covered and open feedlot
   pens to study the effect of shelter in a northern climate upon  animal performance
   and waste characteristics.

   The field portion of  the study included four rates of waste up  to 179 MT/ha. applied
   to  plots 0.02 ha. in  size.   Detailed soil analyses were made which included salinity,
   nutrients, cations, and the dispersion hazard  as indicated by the level of exchange-
   able sodium.

   The levels of salt  used in  the ration appeared to have little or  no effect on animal
   performance; however, the  salinity and sodium  levels of the waste were directly af-
   fected.  The salinity level of the surface 30  cm of soil where  high rates of waste
   were applied was sufficiently high to affect the growth of corn.   The lack of leach-
   ing water caused a  maximum effect of the applied waste in the surface layer.
 7.
                                KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
                  DESCRIPTORS
                                              b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
                                                   c. COS AT I Field/Group
  Soil  analysis
  Disposal
  Wastes
  Saline  soil
  Soil  properties
                         Soil disposal  fields
                         Application rates
                         Waste composition
                         Corn yields
                         Climatic factors
                         Crop production
       2A
 8. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT

  Release  unlimited
                        19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
                            UNCLASSIFIED
21. NO. OF PAGES

       94
                                              20. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)
                                                   UNCLASSIFIED
                                                   22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
                                             84
                                                     U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1975-657-695/6)17 Region No. 5-||

-------