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
------- |