EPA-600/2-78-078
April 1978
Environmental Protection Technology Series
      ALTERNATE  METHODS OF  MANURE  HANDLING
                                  Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory
                                           Office of Research and Development
                                          U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                                                   Ada, Oklahoma 74820

-------
                 RESEARCH  REPORTING SERIES
                                                              Regional CculLT lor t-iiyinmnii-nt.il Inlorn
                                                                     LSKI'AKcgionlll
 Research reports of the Office of Research and Development, U.S. En        phnad
 Protection Agency, have been grouped into nine series. These nine
 gories were established to facilitate further development and applic
 vironmental technology. Elimination of traditional grouping was consciously
 planned to foster technology transfer and a maximum interface in related fields.
 The nine series are:

       1.  Environmental Health Effects Research
      2.  Environmental Protection Technology
      3.  Ecological Research
      4.  Environmental Monitoring
      5.  Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
      6.  Scientific and Technical Assessment Reports (STAR)
      7.  Interagency Energy-Environment Research and Development
      8.  "Special" Reports
      9.  Miscellaneous Reports

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

-------
                                             EPA-600/2-78-078
                                             April  1978
      ALTERNATE METHODS OF MANURE HANDLING
                       by

              Frederick R.  Magdoff
                 Grant D. Wells
                 Arthur E.  Smith
                 Steven Goldberg
                   John Amadon
         Agricultural Experiment Station
              University of Vermont
           Burlington, Vermont  05401
               Grant No. R-803883
                 Project Officer

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

-------
                                 DISCLAIMER
     This report has been reviewed by the Robert S. Kerr Environmental
Research Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and approved
for publication.  Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily
reflect the views and policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute
endorsement or recommendation for use.
                                     ii

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

     An important part of the Agency's endeavors to fulfill its mission
involves the search for information about environmental problems, management
techniques and new technologies through which optimum use of the nation's
land and water resources can be assured.  The primary and ultimate goal of
these efforts is to protect the nation from the scourge of existing and
potential pollution from all sources.

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

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

     This report is a contribution to the Agency's overall effort in ful-
filling its mission to improve and protect the nation's environment for the
benefit of the American public.
                                        William C. Galegar, Director
                                        Robert S. Kerr Environmental
                                          Research Laboratory
                                    iii

-------
                                   ABSTRACT

       The objectives of this research project were to (a) construct an
inexpensive storage facility for solid dairy cow manure,  (b) evaluate its
performance and the extent of pollutants in runoff from storage facilities,
and  (c) determine current manure handling practices in Vermont and dairy
farmers' attitudes and expectations with regard to possible future regulations
on manure handling.

       A storage facility was constructed at the University of Vermont (UVM),
Animal Sciences Research Center (Spear Street Farm) and runoff from the site
was channeled through sampling huts.  A second site was established on a dairy
farm in North Hero, Vermont.  Runoff from the stacked manure was sampled
weekly.

       The quality and quantity of runoff from the storage sites indicate a
substantial potential to pollute.  Runoff from open stacks of manure should,
therefore, be contained in a lagoon and irrigated on cropland.  Alternately,
runoff could be eliminated by covering the manure.

       A survey of Vermont commercial dairy farmers (20 or more milking cows)
indicated that most felt they could not afford the cost of changing manure
handling systems.  Only 3 percent of all dairymen definitely intended to
change manure handling systems.  However, most felt that saving the fertilizer
value of manure would be a more important reason for them to change systems
than would be reduced chore time.

This report was submitted in fulfillment of Grant No. R803883 by the University
of Vermont under the partial sponsorship of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency.  This report covers a period from September 1974 to June 1977, and
work was completed as of June, 1977.
                                     iv

-------
                              CONTENTS


Foreword	ill

Abstract	iv

Figures	;	vi

Tables	vii

    1.  Introduction 	 1

    2.  Conclusions  	 2

    3.  Recommendations	•	3

    4.  Methods and Materials	4

    5.  Results and Discussion	10

           Performance of low-cost storage facility at
           UVM Spear Street Farm	10

           Runoff from UVM sites	H

           Seepage beneath base of the UVM facility	17

           Gaseous N loss from stored manure	17

           Runoff from North Hero site	20

           Dairy farmer survey	20

References	31

Appendix	32

    Runoff events monitored at UVM sites  	  33

-------
                                 FIGURES



Number                                                             Page

  1. Design of manure storage facility at UVM Spear Street Farm . .  5

  2. Diagram of cross-section of base of site 1 at UVM Spear
     Street Farm	6

  3. Runoff characteristics and nutrient loss during
     January 29, 1975, rainstorm (0.75 cm precipitation)	13

  4, Relation of monthly total-N loss to monthly runoff
     volume from UVM site 1 (January 1975 through April 1976) ... 15

  5. Runoff NH.-N as a percent of total-N (January 1975
     through April 1976)  	 19
                                   vi

-------
                                  TABLES
Number                                                              Page


  1.  Average manure characteristics when brought to UVM sites ...  8

  2.  Average manure characteristics when brought to
      North Hero site	9

  3.  Precipitation and runoff volume from UVM Site 1	12

  4.  Runoff characteristics and losses from UVM Site 1	16

  5.  Nitrogen fractions in North Hero manure stack (July 28, 1976). 17

  6.  Runoff losses at North Hero site	20

  7.  Summary of responses of all Vermont commercial dairymen to
      possible future environmental laws regarding manure handling . 22

  8.  Summary of responses of Vermont dairymen with 20-39 cows to
      possible future environmental laws regarding manure handling . 24

  9.  Summary of responses of Vermont dairymen with 40-79 cows to
      possible future environmental laws regarding manure handling . 26

 10.  Summary of responses of Vermont dairymen with 80 or more cows
      to possible future environmental laws regarding manure
      handling	28

 11.  Degree of importance of economic and environmental factors of
      alternate manure handling systems for farms of various
      herd sizes	30
                                    vii

-------
                                  SECTION 1
                                INTRODUCTION
       The traditional method to dispose of dairy cow manure from stanchion
barns in the Northeast has been to daily haul and spread the manure on fields.
This practice is still prevalent in many parts of the region.  Studies have
demonstrated that when manure is applied on frozen or snow-covered soil during
the winter months, substantial nutrient losses can occur with field runoff
(5, 6, 7).  Much of the nutrient loss from manure application on frozen or
snow-covered ground is associated with applying manure during a thaw (6) or
when a thaw and rainfall occur soon after manure application (5).  However,
manure applied to frozen soil in plots that have been rough plowed may actual-
ly decrease runoff volume and soil loss (10).
       Concern over winter spreading of manure, because of the loss of its
fertilizer value as well as the associated pollution of surface waters, has
led to renewed interest in long-term (6 months or more) manure storage.  Seep-
age from stacked manure can contain large amounts of various plant nutrients,
solids, and COD (3, 9).  Concrete and steel structures that contain manure
completely are available, but their high cost makes them unattractive to the
low-to-medium-income farmer.  An inexpensive manure storage facility for
stanchion barn manure was, therefore, constructed and monitored to evaluate
its performance.  A second conventional manure stack was also monitored.
       In addition, Vermont dairyment were surveyed to determine their current
manure handling practices as well as their attitudes towards changing manure
handling systems.

-------
                                  SECTION 2

                                 CONCLUSIONS

       The concentrations and amounts of nutrients in runoff from the manure
storage facility were high enough to cause deterioration of water quality in
small streams and ponds.  Consequently, substantial fertility value was lost
during manure storage.  The runoff from such a facility should be confined in
a lagoon and irrigated on cropland, or the manure stack should be covered to
eliminate the large volume of contaminated runoff.  Covering for the facility
should probably be a permanent roof rather than a thin plastic sheet placed
directly on the pile.  The latter is cumbersome and not very efficient.  Using
a lagoon with a manure stack involves both solid and liquid waste handling.
However, this may prove necessary for most dairy farms with stanchion barns
anyway in order to handle both manure and milking center wastes.  The large
amount of bedding used with stanchion barn manure indicates that the manure
will probably continue to be handled mainly in the solid or semisolid state.
       Most Vermont dairy farmers answering the questionnaire felt that saving
the fertility value of the manure was a better reason to change manure hand-
ling practices than possible reduced chore time.  Few farmers felt that they
could afford the cost of changing to new manure handling systems.

-------
                                  SECTION 3

                               RECOMMENDATIONS

       The relatively inexpensive facility for storing manure from stanchion
barns was easy to manage.  However, runoff from an uncovered facility in humid
regions certainly has the potential to pollute.  It is therefore strongly
suggested that either the manure storage area be covered or the runoff con-
tained in a lagoon and later irrigated on cropland.  If the manure is covered,
a permanent roof is much superior to a plastic covering.
       The farmer survey indicates that if inexpensive solutions to manure
storage are not found or if a costly structure cannot be subsidized, resist-
ance to regulations dealing with manure storage may be expected.
       The survey also indicated that greater farmer knowledge of the fertil-
ity losses during their current practices (mainly daily spreading) might help
convince them of the benefits of newer manure handling systems.

-------
                                  SECTION 4
                            MATERIALS AND METHODS
UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT FARM RUNOFF SITE CONSTRUCTION AND MONITORING
INSTALLATIONS
       The 18 x  50 m manure storage facility was constructed at the University
of Vermont (UVM) Animal Sciences Research Center (Spear Street Farm) so that
all seepage and  stack runoff would flow to the two low corners (Figure 1).
The sod was stripped and the natural contour was graded to provide a 2% to 5%
slope  toward the outlet.  The side that sloped towards monitoring hut 1,
(site  1, 18 x 26 m storage area) was constructed as follows:  the base con-
sisted of 10 to  15 cm of crusher run gravel, a 0.15-mm thick plastic sheet
protected by 2 to 5 cm of fines above and below to prevent puncture, and 8 to
10 cm  of crushed limestone (passing a 1.9-cm screen) on the surface (Figure 2).
The base of the side that sloped toward monitoring hut 2 (site 2, 18 x 24 m)
consisted of 20 cm of either 1.9 cm or 3.8 cm diameter peastone.  A treated
plastic plank and post wall, covered with plastic, was constructed along the
rear of the facility to prevent manure from slumping out of the storage area.
Manure was stacked from the rear of a conventional box manure spreader to a
height of about 1.2 m.  A picket fence dam was constructed to retain large
solids within the stacking area while allowing liquid and small partlculates
to flow to the monitoring stations from the low corner of the facility.  A
lagoon, collecting all runoff from the site, was emptied by irrigation onto
corn fields.
      A tipping-bucket mechanism was installed in the monitoring stations to
obtain a flow-composite sample of the runoff.  Runoff volume was recorded by
attaching a counter to the tipping bucket.  During monitoring of individual
peak runoff events, a flow recorder and automatic sampler were used instead
of the tipping bucket apparatus.  Precipitation and temperature were monitored
with a recording rain gauge and a recording thermometer respectively.

-------
               WASTEWATER DISCHARGE INTO LAGOON
                                      DISCHARGE INTO LAGOON
    EARTHEN
        DIKE
(1/3 M HIGH)

           N
                          MONITORING HUT 1
                                  MONITORING HUT 2
                 _u
DROP BOX	,
                                                                   DROPBQX
                  fir
                          PICKET DAM
                   SITE 1
                                                     x   //
                                       PICKET DAM
                              18M
   2-3% SLOPE
     LIMITS OF PLASTIC LINING -  j

     	26M	•**
                                                              2-3% SLOPE
                                                              24M
        Figure 1.  Design of manure storage facility at UVM Spear Street Farm.

-------
6 mil PLASTIC
                                 8-10 cm CRUSHED
                                         LIMESTONE
                                2-5 cm ROCK FINES
                                2-5 cm ROCK FINES
                                10-15 cm CRUSHER
                                         RUN GRAVEL
Figure 2.  Diagram of cross-section of base of site 1 at
          UVM Spear Street Farm.

-------
       The basic cost for both sites of the storage facility (excluding
research-related features and equipment for handling manure and the liquid
runoff) was $2,600.  This was $40 per cow at the UVM Spear Street Farm.
       Manure containing sawdust bedding from the 62-cow stanchion barn at
the UVM Spear Street Farm was stacked in the storage facility from January
until May 4, 1975 (UVM site 1).  After unloading and spreading, manure was
brought to the site daily and stored again from May 14 until November 4 when
it was unloaded.  Manure was stored at the site from January 2, 1976, through
May 10, 1976, when it was again unloaded.  Manure was brought to the site
from July 7, 1976 to December 22, 1976 and stored until unloaded April 28,
1977.  During this last time interval manure stored at UVM site 1 was covered
with black plastic.  Site 2 received small quantities of manure from August 15,
1975 through September 15, 1975.  The manure was unloaded November 4, 1975.
Manure was stored again from January 2, 1976 through May 10, 1976 when it was
again unloaded.  Manure was brought to the site again from December 22, 1976
through March 31, 1977 and was unloaded April 28, 1977.  During this last
storage period site 2 was left uncovered while manure at site 1 was covered
with black plastic (see above).  After each unloading a residual of manure
mixed with gravel and some manure along the sides remained.
       During the first unloading there were isolated areas of sponginess in
the base and care had to be taken to avoid tearing the plastic lining.  How-
ever, the well-graded material in the limestone base compacted after the first
unloading and allowed easy operation of wheeled tractors.  Average manure
characteristics during 1975, 1976, and 1977 are presented in Table 1.
       Monitoring at UVM site 1 was carried out for the entire period January
1975 through April 1977 whether or not manure was stored at the site.  Moni-
toring of UVM site 2 began August 1975 and lasted until April 1977.
NORTH HERO FARM
       Another manure runoff site was established in Grande Isle County
behind the dairy barn of a commercial farmer.  The stacking area (about 21 x
21 m) was surrounded by low earthen dikes and the entire area covered with a
6-mil black sheet plastic.  Runoff was directed to a shallow sump containing
a float-controlled submersible pump.  Runoff samples were taken from the
sump weekly and the flow was estimated by recording pump operation time.

-------
           TABLE 1.  AVERAGE MANURE CHARACTERISTICS
                     WHEN BROUGHT TO UVM SITE

Characteristic
% (dry wt. basis)
NH4-N
Total-N
P
K
Ca
Mg
Na
Dry wt.
(% of total)

1975*
0.65
2.19
0.50
1.50
2.37
0.42
0.42
22.95
Year
1976+
0.90
2.65
0.54
1.41
4.14
0.48
0.38
22.70

1977*
0.98
2.69
0.64
1.47
4.80
0.63
0.53
24.09
Average of 11 composite samples.
Average of 15 composite samples.


Average of 8 composite samples.
                               8

-------
       Manure from 44 cows was stored at the site from December 1974 until
October 1975 and from December 1975 until October 1976.  The site was monitor-
ed weekly only when manure was being stored.  Average manure characteristics
for 1975 and 1976 are presented in Table 2.
ANALYSIS OF RUNOFF AND MANURE
       Manure and runoff were analyzed by the following procedures:  solids by
drying at 105°C; total-N by the semimicro Kjeldahl procedure (1); NH.-N and
N03+N02-N by steam distillation (2); total-P by the cholorstannous-molybdate
method after nitric-perchloric digestion; total-K, Mg, and Ca in nitric-per-
chloric extracts by atomic absorption; and chemical oxygen demand (COD) by
the method used for analysis of wastewater (8).
SURVEY OF VERMONT DAIRY FARMERS
       A five-page questionnaire was developed to learn what farmers might do
both in the absence and presence of external regulation.
       A commercial dairy herd was defined as one having 20 or more milking
cows.  Under this definition there were 3,346 herds in Vermont in 1975, which
formed the population base of the study.  Questionnaires were mailed to a
50 percent random sample of dairymen and 874 usable surveys, or nearly 55
percent, were returned.  Proportionally the returned surveys reflected the
same percentage of "small", "medium", and "large" size herds that appear in
the population.
                  TABLE 2.  AVERAGE MANURE CHARACTERISTICS
                            AT NORTH HERO SITE
Characteristic
% (dry wt. basis)
NH4-N
Total-N
P
K
Dry wt. (% of total)
1975
0.73
2.15
0.46
1.64
23.49
1976
0.89
2.24
0.51
1.16
19.45

-------
                                  SECTION 5
                           RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
PERFORMANCE OF LOW-COST STORAGE FACILITY AT UVM SPEAR STREET FARM
       During the first cleanout, care had to be taken not to spin the tractor
wheels because spongy pockets remained in the limestone base.  After one
season of wetting and drying, the base hardened to what might be described as
a soft plaster of paris.  Traction was sufficient for bucking and loading
manure.  The tire tread did not dig into the stone unless special efforts were
made to spin the tires.  Sharp turns were made without ridging the limestone.
Skid-steer loaders worked as well as tractor loaders.  In general, traction
was as good or better than what could be achieved on concrete.
       Very little stone was mixed into the manure from the action of tractor
tires.  Stone could be dislodged with the teeth of the loader, but normal
bucking procedures with a level bucket picked up a few stones.  About 2 cm of
manure was left on the surface of the limestone as the site was emptied.
       No evidence was found that the plastic underliner was punctured, al-
though at points it was covered with as little as 5 cm of limestone.  No
evidence of puncture was observed where stone was cleared away by hand.
       Of the three sizes of limestone used, the 2 cm peastone would be re-
commended, although all held up well.  The stone passing a 3 3/4 cm screen
was somewhat porous, and the rock fines evidenced more sponginess than did
the 2 cm peastone.
       Acidic conditions of manure may dissolve limestone.  For this reason
and the fact that a small amount of limestone may be removed with the manure,
additional limestone may need to be spread over the surface from time to time,
although after 2 years of use it was not yet necessary.
       These limestone bases will not work well where water is continuously
ponded on the surface, and there is poor subsurface drainage.  Bonding between
particles is decreased as pore spaces are filled with water.  Interlocking
surfaces easily slip because of the lubricating effect of water.  Partial

                                      10

-------
support is given to vehicles for a single pass, but continued back-and-forth
motion destroys the structural strength of the base.
       Retaining walls of cedar post and treated plank were adequate for low
manure stacks of approximately 2 m.  Higher stacks would require substantially
stronger walls to retain the manure.  Untreated plank could have been used and
would probably last as long as the untreated cedar posts.
RUNOFF FROM UVM SITES
Runoff Volume
       In 1975 the major runoff events occurred during winter and early spring
(Table 3).  While only 25 percent of the precipitation fell during January
through April, 69 percent of the annual runoff from the site occurred during
these months.  The small amount of water retained by the frozen and wet manure
during the winter months probably induced the relatively high amount of runoff
from the site.  In addition, an accumulation of snow at the site from the
adjacent field was observed.  The runoff during the early months of 1975, as
well as during February and March 1976, was greater than the precipitation
that fell on the site.  For the remainder of both years, runoff was less than
the amount of precipitation, reaching as low as 22 percent of precipitation
during September 1975 and 14 percent of precipitation in December 1976.  Evap-
oration from the manure pile between most rainfalls probably provided consider-
able water storage capacity.  Part of this stored moisture was then evaporated.
However, the unusually cold weather during December 1975 caused little of the
5 cm of precipitation (all occurring as snow) to run off the site during that
                                         2
month.  Total runoff for 1975 was 589 1/m  surface area or on a cow basis
averaged 12.2 I/cow/day.  Increasing stack height, thereby reducing the ground
surface area needed for manure storage, would lessen the total runoff from
the system but probably not greatly change the runoff expressed on a surface
area basis.  However, less bedding in the manure would probably reduce the
storage capacity for water and result in increased runoff from the system.
Runoff Quality and Nutrient Loss
       During individual storm or thaw-induced runoff events, the concentra-
tions of elements in the runoff decreased during peak flows and then increased
as the flow returned to base levels (Figure 3).  The greatly increased flow
during these events offsets the decrease in concentrations, causing increased
                                     11

-------
         TABLE 3.  PRECIPITATION AND RUNOFF VOLUME FROM UVM SITE 1.
 Month
     Total
precipitation (cm)     Runoff (kl)
+ Water equivalent of snow in parentheses.

* 1 cm precipitation at site equivalent to 4,680 liters.
    % of
precipitation
recovered in
   runoff*
1975
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
1976
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December

4.34 (0.30)+
4.78 (2.39)
7.62 (1.93)
3.20 (2.46)
2.84
7.14
8.13
7.92
8.51
10.01
7.42 (0.99)
5.08 (5.08)

6.60 (3.66)
3.43 (0.84)
3.46 (1.42)
5.97 (trace)
18.36
10.74
8.03
10.49
8.61
11.28
3.25 (2.75)
4.06 (4.06)

44.2
39.6
51.1
54.1
9.7
12.1
11.5
8.9
8.9
17.4
8.1
9.9

24.2
44.7
50.4
14.4
62.7
13.9
7.0
38.1
32.7
9.2
5.6
2.8

217
177
144
361
73
36
30
24
22
37
23
42

78
278
311
52
73
28
19
78
81
17
38
14
                                     12

-------
  loo-


's so-
o.
a
— 60

a.

L 40
<

O 20
                                  AMOUNT IN  RUNOFF


                                 - (KG/2 HOURS)	
           TOTAL-

             N
             K



           SOLIDS
                                                         TOTAL

                                                          (KG)
.103
.OOfl
.098
1.37
.104
.006
.098
1.33
.112
DOS
.097
1.25
.148
Q\0
.134
1.25
.168
.013
.159
1.72
.236
.014
.201
2.16
.171
.010
.157
2.04
.158
.009
.144
1.98
.147
.008
.131
1.86
.127
.OO7
.112
1.59
.112
.006
X>99
MO
.112
.006
.099
1.40
1.698
.100
1.529
19.35
E
o.
a
z
 I
.J
<
»»
o
                10  12

                     I
2468

 AM  (1/30/75)
                                                         10    •*
 Figure 3.
            2   4   6    8  10   12

              PM (1/29/7S)       I

                            TIME
Runoff characteristics and  nutrient loss during January 29,  1975

rainstorm (0.75 cm precipitation).

-------
 nutrient and solid loss.   Monthly nutrient loss was,  therefore,  related to
 runoff volume (shown for  nitrogen in Figure 4).
        The ranges in runoff  concentrations of solids,  Cl,  and  COD,  and  nu-
 trients were substantial  (Table  4).   The  maximum values were near those re-
 ported for runoff from unpaved beef  cattle feedlots and seepage  from dairy
 manure stacks (4, 9).   Very  low  concentrations  coincided with  runoff events
 during early January when little manure was stored at  the  site.  The runoff
 had  definite potential to pollute small streams and ponds.  Using the mean
 values for COD and flow rate and assuming no turbulence, runoff  from the pile
 could  deplete the dissolved  00 in a  stream with a flow rate of about 17 liters
             3     I/
 /sec (0.6 ft /sec)- .   In addition,  the nitrogen and phosphorus  contained  in
 the  runoff might  stimulate the development of eutrophic conditions  in a small
 stream or pond.
        During 1975,  nutrient losses  in the runoff amounted to  6.02  kg N,
 0.41 kg P,  and 8.32  kg K/cow (Table  4).   At current fertilizer prices (N,  P,
 and  K  at 23,  43,  and 12
-------
Z   80
i
     60
CO
CO
     40
Z
 i
     20
o
Y-- -3.6 +  .0014X

R=.81
               10
          20
             RUNOFF (1,000 LITERS/MONTH)
        Figure A. Relation of monthly total-N loss to monthly runoff volume from
        UVtt site 1 (January 1975 through April 1976).

-------
                      TABLE 4.   RUNOFF CHARACTERISTICS AND LOSSES
                                FROM UVM SITE 1 DURING 1975 and 1976*
Runoff characteristics

(ppm,
Range
Solids 1,400 -
Total-N 20 -
NH4-N 6 -
P 7 -
K 83 -
Ca tr -
Mg 6 -
Cl 64 -
COD 275 -
Flow rate
(I/day) 0 -
57,200
3,953
2,795
255
5,400
1,330
590
3,842
50,713
6,975
wet basis)
Mean
18,000
1,354
991
92
1,870
384
128
1,335
15,543
775
Loss
during
1975
(kg/cow/yr)
82.02
6.02
4.41
0.41
8.32
1.71
0.57
5.94
69.12
4,447.27
Loss
during
1976
(kg/cow/yr)
44.29
3.32
2.32
0.29
5.47
0.97
0.48
3.39
54.62
4,932.27

*Manure was covered with plastic starting July 1976.

-------
the manure.  The runoff from the plastic could not be completely diverted
around the monitoring intake.
SEEPAGE BENEATH THE BASE OF THE UVM FACILITY
       One side of the facility was underlain with plastic protected by rock
fines (site 1) while the other side was not (site 2).  It is, therefore,
possible to estimate the amount of water percolating through the base by com-
paring the amount of runoff from the two sides.
       During January through June 1976, precipitation was 48.6 cm while run-
off from sites 1 and 2 were 44.9 and 33.0 cm respectively.  Thus about 24 per-
cent of the precipitation that fell during the period apparently percolated
through the base into the soil under site 2.  While a very slowly permeable
manure-gravel layer probably develops with time, after 1 year of use the base
was apparently still quite permeable.
GASEOUS N LOSS FROM STORED MANURE AT UVM SITE
       Gaseous N Loss from manure stacks may occur by two different mechanisms
As the surface dries NH,  can be lost as NH,.  In addition, near the surface
              +
of a stack NH,  might be nitrified into NO- and NO-.  Rainfall may subsequent-
ly leach these forms deeper in the stack where anaerobic conditions allow de-
nitrification to occur.  The distribution of N fractions in manure stacks
suggests such a process (Table 5).
                 TABLE 5.  NITROGEN FRACTIONS IN NORTH HERO
                           MANURE STACK (July 28, 1976)
Horizontal
depth into
manure stack
(cm)


Surface (0)
30
60



Total-N


20,613
19,139
21,019



NH^-N

	 ppm
347
4,563
6,471



N03+N02-N


1,364
275
334
* Values are means of three different samples.
       Concentrations of NH^ in the runoff from site 1 during 1975 indicates
that some N may have been lost by volatilization.  During June through Decem-
                                     17

-------
ber of 1975, there is a decrease of NH.-N as a percent of total-N (Figure 5),
K, Na, Cl, and solids.  Since the characteristics of the manure stored at the
site during this period did not vary much from earlier manure, the reason for
the decreased NH.-N was probably gaseous N loss.  Assuming this to be the
case, NH.-N loss by volatilization may be calculated by finding the amount of
NH.-N that would have been in the runoff if the 75.2 percent of the total-N
occurring as NH, during January through May 1975 had also occurred June
through December (instead of the 67 percent actually found).  This calculation
worked out to be about 0.18 kg N/cow.  Adding this to the 1975 runoff losses
would raise the estimate of annual N losses by only about 3 percent.  Thus
runoff appeared to be a much greater source of N loss than did loss in the
gaseous state.
                                     18

-------
VO
          8O


RUNOFF
NH4-N   70
AS%OF
TOTAL -N

         6O
<•
J
1
F
i
M
i
A
i
M
i i
J J
1OTC -
1
A
i
S
i
o
1
N
i
D
i
J
i i **
F M A
- 1OTC ».
      Figure
                5.   Ri-roff NTi^-N as a percent of total-N (January 1975 through April 1976)

-------
 RUNOFF FROM NORTH HERO  SITE
       During  1975  runoff  losses/cow  from  the North Hero  site  (Table  6) were
 somewhat higher  than  losses  from UVM  site  1  (Table 4).  At North Hero there
 was  less runoff/cow but higher concentrations of  solids and nutrients than at
 the  UVM site.  The  relatively high stack at North Hero resulted in  less ground
                                                    2
 surface occupied/cow  than  at UVM site 1 (10 and 15 m /cow respectively).
 Thus, less precipitation was intercepted/cow at North Hero.  Runoff at North
 Hero during 1976 was  greater than during 1975, probably due to the  greater
 precipitation  during  1976.  The losses estimated  as a percent of the  amount
 stored were also higher in 1976 than  in 1975 (Table 6).   The exceptionally
 high percent K loss estimated for 1976 (40.8) may have been partly  due to the
 very low K content  in manure grab samples  (Table  2).  The grab samples may
 not  have adequately represented the actual characteristics of the manure.
                 TABLE 6.  RUNOFF LOSSES AT NORTH HERO SITE
Loss during
1975
(kg/cow/yr)
Solids 50.1
Total-N 4.9
NH^-N 3.6
P 0.2
K 6.1
Ca 0.7
Mg 0.4
Liquid 2,230.5
( 2.
(11.
(26.
( 1.
(18.



5)*
3)
7)
7)
1)



Loss during
1976
(kg/cow/yr)
76.0
6.8
5.2
0.3
10.0
1.2
0.7
3,887.6
( 3.6)
(14.5)
(28.0)
( 2.6)
(40.8)



* Estimated loss as percent of amount stored at site  (total wet weight of
  manure estimated at 433,500 and 574,388  for 1975 and 1976 respectively.)
DAIRY FARMER SURVEY
       Tables 7 to 11 show the major statistical data reviewed from the ques-
tionnaires.  Perhaps the major finding is that relatively few Vermont dairy-
men intend to adopt different manure handling practices because of what they
                                     20

-------
perceive as prohibitive cost with few tangible benefits.   Table 7 indicates
that about 85 percent of the farmers feel that the total  cost of alternative
systems would be "very important" and this figure is significantly higher than
any of the percentages appearing in the categories of specific benefits.   It
can be assumed that most commercial dairymen in Vermont would be unlikely to
adopt new manure handling practices voluntarily.
       Tables 8 through 11 show the summary of responses  of dairymen to possi-
ble future environmental laws regarding manure handling.   While there is some
variation in response relative to herd size, the data suggests the following
conclusions:
     1. Most dairymen would adopt a wait-and-see attitude and could be expect-
     ed to lobby against environmental regulations regarding new manure hand-
     ling practices.
     2. A relatively small percentage of dairymen would go out of business if
     regulations were passed.  The statewide average of 29 percent of "defi-
     nitely will" and "likely" can also be  interpreted as an emotional over-
     reaction at the time of the original mailing of the questionnaire.
     3. If regulations were passed requiring that new manure systems be adopt-
     ed, more than one-half of the dairymen would seek a government agency to
     cost-share construction.
     4. Relatively few dairymen would comply and adopt new housing and milking
     technologies at the same time.
                                       21

-------
TABLE 7.  SUMMARY OF RESPONSES OF ALL VERMONT COMMERCIAL DAIRYMEN TO
          POSSIBLE FUTURE ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS REGARDING MANURE HANDLING



1.
2.

3.

4.


5.

6.


7.

8.

9.


Definite- Not 1
ly will Likely Unsure likely

Will go out of dairy business 12 17 29 31
Will relocate business elsewhere-
free of regulations 2 4 12 37
Will never comply even if it means
getting fined for violations 5 8 31 31
Will get together with other dairy
farmers to get regulations
softened or repealed 24 35 24 11
Will change manure system even if
there are no regulations passed 3 12 21 34
Will wait to see what other dairy
farmers are doing before making
my final decision 14 37 22 16
Will comply with regulations to
get it over with 3 20 37 23
Will drop dairying and specialize
in other agricultural products 4 11 24 35
Will comply and adopt new housing
and milking technologies 2 6 25 34

Definitely
will not

11

45

25


6

30


11

17

26

33
10. Will comply with least costly
    system at the minimum level of
    the law                              7      37     33     13       11

11. Will comply with a more effective
    system at higher cost because laws
    might get tougher in future          2       8     31     31       28

12. Will cut back herd size, take part-
    time job because the investment
    would be too much                    4      10     21     32       33

13. Will try to increase herd size to
    justify increased capital expense
    of manure system	2	9     17     34	39_
                                                             (continued)
                                     22

-------
TABLE 7.  SUMMARY OF RESPONSES OF ALL VERMONT COMMERCIAL DAIRYMEN TO
          POSSIBLE FUTURE ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS REGARDING MANURE HANDLING


                                    Definite-                Not   Definitely
                                     ly will  Likely Unsure likely  will not
                                                 Percent
14.  Will keep herd size same and
     absorb cost of new manure system    3      26     34     17       20

15.  Will borrow money to have adequate
     manure handling system built        3      19     22     24       32

16.  Will see if there is government
     agency that will cost-share with
     me                                 20      35     21     11       13

17.  Will confer with county agent,
     SCS, Univ. Extension specialists,
     etc., for technical help on
     manure systems                     27      38     17      8       10
                                      23

-------
TABLE 8. SUMMARY OF RESPONSES OF VERMONT DAIRYMEN WITH 20-39 COWS TO POSSIBLE
         FUTURE ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS REGARDING MANURE HANDLING

                                    Definite-                Not    Definitely
                                     ly will  Likely Unsure Likely  will not

                                                  Percent

1.  Will go out of dairy business      18        24      31     18         9

2.  Will relocate business elsewhere
    free of regulations                 2         3      13     36       46

3.  Will never comply even if it means
    getting fined for violations        3         9      41     23       24

4.  Will get together with other dairy
    farmers to get regulations
    softened or repealed               22        35      24     8       11

5.  Will change manure system even if
    there are no regulations passed     3         5      22     32       38

6.  Will wait to see what other dairy
    farmers are doing before making

7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
my final decision 15
Will comply with regulations to
get it over with 3
Will drop dairying and specialize
in other agricultural products 6
Will comply and adopt new housing
and milking technologies 3
Will comply with least cost system
at the minimum level of the law 8
Will comply with a more effective
system at higher cost because laws
might get tougher In future 2
Will cut back herd size, take part-
time job because the investment
would be too much ?
36
11
13
4
32
5
16
27
41
32
25
31
26
25
10
26
27
28
13
29
22
12
19
22
40
16
38
30
                                                              (continued)
                                     24

-------
TABLE 8.  SUMMARY OF RESPONSES OF VERMONT DAIRYMEN WITH 20-39 COWS TO
          POSSIBLE FUTURE ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS REGARDING MANURE HANDLING

                                    Definite-                Not    Definitely
                                     ly will  Likely Unsure likely  will  not
                                     	Percent
 13.   Will try to increase herd size
      to Justify increased capital
      expense of manure system           1       5     20     24       50

 14.   Will keep herd size same and
      absorb cost of new manure system   4      17     39     15       25

 15.   Will borrow money to have
       adequate manure handling system
       built                             3       9     21     28       39

 16.   Will see if there is govern-
      ment agency which will cost-
      share with me                     12      28     26     17       17

 17.   Will confer with county agent,
      SCS, Univ. Extension specialists,
      etc., for technical help on
      manure systems                    16      36     23     11       14
                                     25

-------
TABLE 9.   SUMMARY OF RESPONSES OF VERMONT DAIRYMEN WITH 40-79  COWS  TO POSSIBLE
          FUTURE ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS REGARDING MANURE  HANDLING

                                    Definite-                Not   Definitely
                                     ly will  Likely Unsure Likely  will not
                                     	  Percent 	

1.  Will go out of Jairy business      10      15      30    36        9

2.  Will relocate business elsewhere
    free of regulations                 3       4      13    35       45

3.  Will never comply even if it means
    getting fined for violations        6       7      27    36       24

4.  Will get together with other dairy
    farmers to get regulations
    softened or repealed               25      35      23    12        5

5.  Will change manure system even if
    there are no regulations passed     3      11      20    37       29

6.  Will wait to see what other dairy
    farmers are doing before making

7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
my final decision
Will comply with regulations to
get it over with
Will drop dairying and specialize
in other agricultural products
Will comply and adopt new housing
and milking technologies
Will comply with least cost system
at the minimum level of the law
Will comply with a more effective
system at higher cost because laws
might get tougher in future
Will cut back herd size, take part-
time job because the investment
would be too much
15
4
2
2
6
2
3
37
23
11
7
39
9
9
20
34
23
23
32
30
20
17
21
36
36
14
33
34
11
18
28
32
9
26
34
                                                              (continued)
                                     26

-------
TABLE 9.  SUMMARY OF RESPONSES OF VERMONT DAIRYMEN WITH 40-79 COWS TO
          POSSIBLE FUTURE ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS REGARDING MANURE HANDLING


                                   Definite-                Not   Definitely
                                    ly will  Likely Unsure Likely  will not
                                                    -P e r c e n t	
13. Will try to increase herd size to
    justify increased capital expense
    of manure system                     2      9     16     37      36

14. Will keep herd size same and
    absorb cost of new system            2     29     32     19      18

15. Will borrow money to have adequate
    manure handling system built         4     20     23     23      30

16. Will see if there is government
    agency that will cost share
    with me.                            22     37     20       8      13

17. Will confer with county agent,
    SCS, Univ. Ext. specialists, etc.,
    for technical help on manure
    systems                             28     40     14       9        9
                                      27

-------
TABLE 10.  SUMMARY OF RESPONSES OF VERMONT DAIRYMEN WITH  80 OR MORE COWS TO
          POSSIBLE FUTURE ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS  REGARDING MANURE HANDLING

                                    Definite-                 Not  Definitely
                                     ly will  Likely Unsure Likely  will not
                                     	Percent  	•	

1.  Will go out of dairy business        7      11     27     37       18

2.  Will relocate business elsewhere
    free of regulations                  1       4      7     43       45

3.  Will never comply even if it means
    getting fined for violations         3       9     30     29       29

4.  Will get together with other dairy
    farmers to get regulations
    softened or repealed                24      34     27     11        4

5.  Will change manure system even if
    there are no regulations passed      6      23     20     30       21

t.  kv'ill wait to see what other dairy
    farmers are doing before making

7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
my final decision
Will comply with regulations to
get it over with
Will urop dairying and specialize
in other agricultural products
Will comply and adopt new housing
and milking technologies
Will comply with least costly system
at the minimum level of the law
Will comply with a more effective
system at higher cost because laws
might get tougher in future
Will cut back herd size, take part-
time job because the investment
would be too much
12
1
2
2
7
1
2
41
26
8
7
35
12
5
17
40
18
26
35
39
16
18
20
45
38
15
27
40
12
13
27
27
8
21
37
                                                               (continued)
                                     28

-------
TABLE 10.  SUMMARY OF RESPONSES OF VERMONT DAIRYMEN WITH 80 OR MORE COWS TO
                                     Definite-                Not   Definitely
                                      ly will  Likely Unsure likely  will not
                                                 Percent -—	•
 13.   Will try to increase herd size to
      justify increased capital expense
      of manure system                    2      10     18     39       31

 14.   Will keep herd size same and absorb
      cost of new manure system           4      31     35     14       16

 15.   Will borrow money to have adequate
      manure handling system built        2      32     21     19       26

 16.   Will see if there is government
      agency which will cost-share with
      me                                 30      40     14      7        9

 17.   Will confer with county agent,
      SCS, Univ. Extension specialists,
      etc., for technical help on
      manure systems                     39      38     13      3        7
                                      29

-------
TABLE 11.  DEGREE OF IMPORTANCE OF ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS OF
           ALTERNATIVE MANURE HANDLING SYSTEMS FOR FARMS OF VARIOUS HERD
           SIZES




Save chore labor:
20-39 cows
40-79 cows
80 or more cows
State average
Save fertilizer values:
20-39
40-79
80 or more cows
State average
Avoid odor complaints:
20-39 cows
40-79 cows
80 or more cows
State average
Avoid water pollution:
20-39 cows
40-79 cows
80 or more cows
State average
Total cost of system:
20-39 cows
40-79 cows
80 or more cows
State average

very important



49
55
66
56

65
75
80
73

15
18
24
18

36
36
45
38

83
88
84
86

some importance
P .
e r c 6 n u

26
27
21
25

23
18
19
20

32
27
34
30

35
36
32
35

12
10
15
11

not important



25
18
13
19

12
7
1
7

53
55
42
52

29
28
23
27

5
2
1
3

Total



100
100
100
100

100
100
100
100

100
100
100
100

100
100
100
100

100
100
100
100
                                     30

-------
                                 REFERENCES

1.  Bremner, J.M.  Total nitrogen.   1965a.    In C.A.  Black,  et  al.  ed.
    Methods of Soil Analysis,  Part  2.   Agronomy 9:   1171*1178.   Amer. Soc.  of
    Agron., Madison, Wisconsin.

2.  Bremner, J.M.  1965b.  Inorganic forms  of nitrogen.   In  C.A. Black,  ed.
    Methods of Soil Analysis,  Part  2.   Agronomy 9:  1179-1237.   Amer.  Soc. of
    Agron., Madison, Wisconsin.

3.  Converse, J.C., C.O. Cramer,  G.H.  Tenpas, and D.A.  Schlough.  1975.
    Properties of solid and liquids from stacked manure.   In Managing Live-
    stock Wastes, Proceedings of the 3rd International Symposium on Livestock
    Wastes.

4.  Gilbertson, C.B., T.M. McCalla, J.R. Ellis, O.E. Cross,  and W.R.  Woods.
    1970.  The Effect of Animal Density and Surface Slope on Characteristics
    of Runoff, Solid Wastes and Nitrate Movement on Unpaved  Feed Yards.
    Nebraska Agr. Exp. Sta. Bull. No.  508,  Lincoln, Nebraska.

5.  Hensler, R.F., R.J. Olden, O.J. Attoe,  W.H. Paulson,  and R.F. Johannes.
    1970.  Effect of method of manure handling on crop yields,  nutrient
    recovery and runoff losses.   Transactions of the Amer. Soc. Agr.  Eng.
    13: 726-731.

6.  Klausner, S.D., P.J. Zwerman, and D.F.  Ellis.  1976.   Nitrogen and
    phosphorus losses from winter disposal of manure.  J. Environ. Qual. 5:
    46-49.

7.  Midgley, A.R., and D.E. Dunklee.  1945.  Fertility Losses from Manure
    Spread During the Winter.  Vt.  Agr. Exp. Sta. Bull. No.  523, Burlington,
    Vermont.

8.  Orland, H.P., ed.  1965.  Standard Methods for The Examination of Water
    and Waste Water.  Amer. Public Health Assoc. Inc., New York, N.Y.

9.  Tenpas, G.H., D.A. Schlough, C.O. Cramer, and J.C. Converse.  1972.
    Roofed vs. unroofed solid manure storages for dairy cattle.  ASAE Paper
    No. 72-949.  Amer. Soc. Agr. Eng., St. Joseph, Michigan.

10. Young, R.A., and C.K. Mutchler.  1976.  Pollution potential of manure
    spread on frozen ground.  J. Environ. Qual.  5:174-179.
                                     31

-------
              APPENDIX
RUNOFF EVENTS MONITORED AT UVM SITES
                  32

-------
                                              THAW EVENT   3/4/76 3/5/76
co
CO
Time
UVM Interval
Site #1
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
Time
Interval
(hrs)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Effluent
(liters)
126
162
162
162
150
150
144
135
132
129
126
126
135
174
237
300
300
297
297
300
360
480
510
540
540
Solids

1.37
1.73
1.30
1.30
1.26
1.26
1.24
1.20
1.17
1.16
1.16
1.17
1.30
1.72
1.78
1.98
1.98
1.93
2.14
2.19
3.35
4.46
4.40
4.40
4.40
ix>ss/n
Inorg.
N

.08
.09
.08
.10
.08
.09
.08
.08
.08
.08
.08
.08
.10
.13
.14
.18
.18
.15
.16
.17
.22
.29
.29
.28
.29
our 	
Total
N Mg

.10
.12
.11
.12
.11
.11
.11
.11
.11
.11
.11
.11
.12
.16
.19
.21
.20
.18
.19
.21
.25
.33
.32
.32
.32

.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.02
.02
.02
.02
.02
.02
.02
.03
.04
.04
.04
.04
Ca
Vo -
Kg
.02
.02
.02
.02
.02
.02
.02
.02
.02
.02
.02
.02
.03
.03
.03
.03
.05
.04
.03
.04
.05
.06
.05
.05
.05
K Na P

.14
.17
.16
.19
.16
.16
.16
.15
.15
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.17 ..,, .01
.17 g .01
.17 .01
.17 | .01
.20 .01
.25
.26
.28
.27
.27
.29
.35
.45
.49
.49
.49
.01
.02
.02
.02
.02
.02
.02
.03
.03
.03
.02
Cl

.09
.12
.11
.10
.10
.10
.10
.09
.10
.10
.10
.10
.11
.14
.19
.23
.23
.16
.18
.18
.21
.30
.32
.32
.31
                                                                                                  (continued)

-------
                                           THAW EVENT   3/4/76  3/5/76
                                                                                         (continued)
OJ
Time
UVM Interval
Site tl
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Time
Interval
(hrs)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Effluent
(liters)
720
780
828
720
630
510
450
444
360
300
270
238
221
204
202
180
180
162
162
162
162
162
162
Solids

4.61
4.29
4.97
3.96
3.84
3.57
2.61
3.46
3.31
1.94
1.82
2.33
2.36
1.73
1.94
1.80
1.78
1.52
1.55
1.76
1.62
1.62
1.53
ix>ss/nour 	
Inorg. Total
N N Mg

.39
.41
.42
.37
.34
.31
.29
.30
.25
.17
.18
.20
.17
.15
.16
.14
.14
.12
.12
.14
.12
.14
.14

.43
.45
.46
.41
.39
.35
.30
.34
.39
.21
.21
.23
.20
.18
.18
.17
.17
.15
.15
.16
.16
.16
.16

.05
.05
.05
.05
.04
.04
.04
.04
.03
.02
.02
.02
.02
.02
.02
.02
.02
.02
.02
.02
.02
.02
.02
Ca
_ t-n
Kg
.03
.03
.06
.04
.04
.04
.04
.04
.05
.02
.03
.03
.03
.02
.03
.03
.03
.02
.02
.03
.02
.02
.02
K Na P

.63
.64
.61
.51
.47
.48
.42
.46
.36
.26
.25
.05
.05
.05
.05
.05
.04
.03
.03
.03
.02
.02
.29 25 .02
.23 o .02
.21 .02
.25 § .01
.19 .01
.24
.16
.19
.19
.20
.19
.18
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
Cl

.40
.42
.42
.38
.32
.30
.28
.30
.31
.24
.23
.19
.18
.16
.16
.15
.15
.13
.14
.14
.14
.14
.14
     Total loss
     throughout
     storm period -
14383
111.27   8.75  10.24 1.13
1.50 13.82
195   9.51

-------
                                                 RAINSTORM - 9/2/76
                           Total  of  .25 cm rain during 10 minute period  (1:00-1:10 p.m.)
Cn
Time
UVM Interval
Site fl


1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Time
Interval
(hrs)


.17
.17
.17
.17
.17
.17
.17

Effluent
(liters)


1.5
42.5
30.0
8.5
5.0
4.0
4.0

Solids



.04
.39
.60
.19
.12
.09
.09
S/U.J./ IK
Inorg .
N


.001
.010
.010
.004
.003
.002
.002

Total
N


.002
.020
.020
.007
.004
.003
.003


Mg


.0003
.0040
.0040
.0010
.0006
.0005
.0005


Ca
kg

.0002
.0100
.0040
.0009
.0005
.0004
.0003


K


.01
.05
.09
.03
.02
.01
.01


Na


.001
.X)09
.010
.005
.003
.002
.002


P


.0001
.0010
.0020
.0005
.0003
.0002
.0002


Cl


.005
.030
.060
.020
.010
.009
.009
      Total loss
      throughout
      storm period  -
95.5
1.52
.032    .059  .0109   .0163   .22   .032   .0043   .143

-------
RAINSTORM  10/8/76 - 10/9/76
       (5.99 cm Rain)
Time
UVM Interval
Site 11

























Total loss
throughout
storm

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24


-
Time
Interval
(hrs)

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1


-
Effluent
(liters)

87
96
87
72
65
55
47
40
36
29
25
22
22
25
36
40
40
36
42
180
72
72
72
72


1370
Solids

.40
.60
.26
.42
.39
.34
.36
.36
.35
.28
.24
.21
.24
.25
.36
.39
.39
.39
.44
1.73
.65
.60
.61
.32


10.58
Inorg.
N

.01
.02
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.02
.02
.02
.01
.01
.06
.02
.02
.02
.01


.36
Total
N

.02
.03
.01
.02
.02
.02
.02
.02
.02
.02
.02
.01
.01
.02
.02
.03
.03
.02
.03
.10
.03
.03
.03
.02


.60
LO8B/1
Mg

.005
.008
.003
.007
.006
.005
.005
.004
.004
.004
.003
.002
.002
.003
.004
.005
.003
.004
.005
.02
.006
.010
.010
.005


.13
lour
Ca
•tg
.010
.010
.005
.020
.010
.010
.009
.009
.009
.007
.006
.005
.005
.006
.009
.010
.005
.010
.010
.050
.02
.02
.02
.009


.28 1
K

.07
.01
.04
.07
.06
.06
.05
.05
.05
.04
.04
.04
.04
.04
.06
.07
.06
.06
.07
.26
.10
.08
.08
.06


.65
Na

.010
.020
.004
.010
.010
.010
.009
.010
.010
.008
.007
.007
.007
.007
.010
.020
.010
.010
.010
.040
.020
.010
.010
.010


.279
P

.003
.005
.004
.003
.003
.002
.002
.002
.002
.002
.002
.001
.001
.001
.002
.002
.001
.002
.002
.009
.003
.003
.003
.002


.062
Cl

.04
.06
.02
.04
.04
.04
.03
.03
.03
.03
.02
.02
.02
.03
.04
.04
.04
.03
.04
.15
.05
.04
.05
.03


.96

-------
                                     RAINSTORM  4/22/77 - 4/25/77
                                             (5.84 cm Rain)
Time
Time
UVtt Interval Interval
Site #1


1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
(hrs)


8
2.25
5
13
6.25
5
16.25
4.5
6
5
	 liOss/ nour 	
Effluent
(liters)


4.8
21
20
23
43
78
95
105
86
2.2
Solids



.04
.18
.11
.10
.17
.44
.54
.50
.43
.01
Inorg.
N


.002
.009
.001
.005
.010
.030
.040
.040
.030
.001
Total
N


.004
.010
.010
.009
.020
.040
.050
.050
.040
.001

Mg


.0005
.0020
.0010
.0020
.0030
.0080
.0090
.0100
.0070
.0001

Ca


.001
.004
.004
.004
.008
.020
.020
.020
.020
.001

K
kg

.006
.020
.020
.020
.008
.070
.080
.080
.060
.002

Na


.0010
.0040
.0040
.0030
.0060
.0200
.0200
.0200
.0100
.0004

P


.0002
.0009
.0008
.0020
.0020
.0080
.0100
.0200
.0080
.0001

Cl


.004
.010
.010
.009
.020
.050
.050
.050
.040
.001
Total loss
throughout
storm period  -
3686.7   19.49   1.334 1.829  .3321  .779 2.883   .6905
.3871  1.879

-------
                                           RAINSTORM  4/22/77  -  4/25/77
                                                   (5.84  cm Rain)
00
Time Time
UVM Interval Interval Effluent
Site (hrs) (liters)
#2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

8
2.25
5
13
6.25
5
16.25
4.5
6
5

1.6
6
8
35
64
99
75
102
85
3
Solids

.02
.07
.09
.34
.61
.44
.44
.60
.54
.02
Inorg.
N

.001
.003
.004
.020
.003
.020
.020
.040
.030
.001
Total
N

.001
.004
.006
.030
.005
.030
.030
.050
.040
.020
• LI
Mg

.0002
.0009
.0010
.0040
.0020
.0060
.0070
.0100
.0080
.0004
osa/nour — — —
Ca K
kg

.0002
.0010
.0020
.0080
.0060
.0200
.0200
.0200
.0200
.0008

.004
.010
.020
.070
.020
.090
.080
.110
.090
.004
Na

.001
.003
.004
.010
.005
.020
.020
.030
.020
.001
P

.0001
.0002
.0004
.0003
.0020
.0040
.0040
.0040
.0070
.0002
Cl

.002
.009
.012
.050
.008
.050
.050
.070
.060
.002
      Total loss
      throughout
      storm period
3619.1
24.39   1.103  1.671  .3119 .7943 3.595
.881   .1657  2.544

-------
                                  TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
                           {Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
 EPA-600/2-78-078
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLfc
                             2.
             3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION-NO.
 Alternate Methods  of Manure Handling
             5. REPORT DATE
               April  1978  issuing date
                                                           6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
 Frederick R. Magdoff,  Grant D. Wells, Arthur E.  Smith,
                                                           8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
 Steven Goldberg,  and John Amadon
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAMF AND ADDRESS
 Agricultural Experiment Station
 University  of Vermont
 Burlington,  Vermont  05401
             10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.

               1BB770
             11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.

               R-803883
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
 Robert  S.  Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory-Ada, OK
 Office  of  Research and Development
 U.S.  Environmental Protection  Agency - Ada, OK
 Ada,  Oklahoma  74820                             	
             13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
               Final  (7/1/75 - 6/30/77)
             14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
               EPA/600/15
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
 Part  of the material in this  report will be published  in  Transactions Amer. Soc.
 Agri.  Engin.                   	 	  		
16. ABSTRACT
       The objectives of this research project were to  (a)  construct an inexpensive
  storage facility for solid dairy cow manure, (b) evaluate its performance and the
  extent of pollutants in runoff  from storage facilities,  and (c) determine current
  manure handling practices in  Vermont and dairy farmers'  attitudes and expectations
  with regard to possible future  regulations on manure  handling.
       A storage facility was constructed at the University of Vermont (UVM), Animal
  Sciences Research Center  (Spear Street Farm) and runoff  from the site was channeled
  through sampling huts.  A second site was established on a dairy farm in North Hero,
  Vermont.  Runoff from  the stacked manure was sampled  weekly.
       The quality and quantity of runoff from the storage sites indicate a substantial
  potential to pollute.  Runoff from open stacks of manure should, therefore, be
  contained in a lagoon  and irrigated on cropland.  Alternately, runoff could be
  eliminated by covering the manure.
       A survey of Vermont  commercial dairy farmers  (20 or more milking cows) indicated
  that most felt they could not afford the cost  of changing manure handling systems.
  Only three percent of  all dairymen definitely  intended to change manure handling
  systems.  However, most  felt  that saving the fertilizer value of manure would be a
  more important reason  for them to change systems than would be reduced chore time.
17.
                                KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
                  DESCRIPTORS
                                              b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
                             COSATI Field/Group
  Waste disposal, Agricultural wastes,
  Water pollution,  Runoff, Fertilizers
Dairy manure, Storage,
Handling
  43F
  68D
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT

  RELEASE TO PUBLIC
19. SECURITY CLASS (ThisReport)
  UNCLASSIFIED
21. NO. OF PAGES

    47
                                              20. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
                                                UNCLASSIFIED	
                           22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
                                            39
                                                     I). S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1978-757-140/6830 Region No. SHI

-------