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/lb respectively) the N, P, and K in the 1975 runoff/ cow is worth about $5.58. When other nutrients and the solids (82 kg/cow/yr) are taken into account, the potential economic value of the loss is even greater. The total amount of manure stored at UVM site 1 was calculated to be 12.3 metric tons wet weight/cow. Based on this estimate, the 1975 losses of solids, total-N, P, and K in the runoff as a percent of the amount stored in the facility were 2.9, 9.8, 2.9, and 19.7 percent respectively. Phosphorus appears to be closely associated with the solids while N and K are more mobile. About 73 percent of the nitrogen lost in runoff was as NH.-N. The total loss- es of N during storage were probably enhanced by NH_ volatilization during the warmer part of the year (See discussion of gaseous N losses below). During 1976 the losses of solids, N, P, and K, were about 50 percent of those in 1975, even though water losses were slightly greater in 1976 (Table 4). The losses of solids, N, P, and K during 1976 were 44, 3.3, and 5.5 kg/ cow respectively. After July 1976, the manure at site 1 was covered with plastic sheeting as the facility was filled. The effluent entering the moni- toring hut contained some runoff from the plastic in addition to seepage from y (15,543 mg COD/liter) x (8.96 x lO""3 liters/sec) = 139.3 mg COD/sec. If 139.3 mg COD were diluted in 17 liters of water, it would exert an 0- demand equal to the solubility of oxygen in water (8 mg/liter). 14 ------- 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 ------- |