DAIRY WASTE MANAGEMENT
STUDY
*****
A comprehensive study of management and
utilization of wastes from high-density
cow housing facilities.
***********
This Demonstration Project was supported in part by P.H.S. Grant
(Nos. 1-D01-VI00137-1 and 2-D01-VI00137-02), now under the Office
?f Si:1 id l;;:t; MW.,C>,K,,,.'„ uf liie environmental Protection Agency.
***********
Administered by
PUBLIC HEALTH FOUNDATION OF LOS ANGELAS COUNTY
*****
Prepared by Project Director C. L. 5enn, P.E,
December 1971
-------
PROJECT PARTICIPANTS
The project described in this report represents a truly cooperative
effort of many agencies and individuals. The functions of some of the
principal participants are shown in the following organizational chart
and summary statement of tasks.
The principal committees and groups were:
Consultants:
Aerojet-General Corporation (marketing-systems-design),
Frank D. Ducey and Al Grimm
Dr. S. A. Hart (Engineering) (Composting)
Dr. C. G. Golueke (Composting)
Dr. Don Linsdale (Entomology) (State Department of Public Health)
Mr. Paul Maier (Operations)
Mr. James Lichtenthalur (Processing and marketing)
Sponsoring Agencies:
City of Cerritos, Mr. W. A. Stark, City Manager
Dairymen's Fertilizer Cooperative, Mr. James Lichteithuler, Manager
State Department of Public Health,
Mr. Richard F. Peters, Chief, Bureau of Vector Control and
Solid Wastes Mar£.gement
County Health Departments
Los Angeles - G. He^dbreder, M.D., Health Officer
Orange - John Philp, M.D., Health Officer
San Bernardino - Harold Cosand, M.D., Health Officer
-------
Alta-Dena Dairy,
Harold, Ed, and Elmer Stuve.
Administration
Public Health Foundation of Los Angeles County,
Charles A. Morris, Administrator
Dallas H. Candy, Project Administrative Officer
(if)
-------
R 0
'X-rji^fe-1
fpuor,c
V
Robert Stone
Joseph Martin
Lloyd Irons
Forest Turner
Weddl.
rtanager
Dairy Employ.
'
Students
operation
activities at
site of unit.
Field and labora
heir functions in
the project.
WI111 an Fa«rbonk'
s E. Bishop
.' c. Oliver
Charles Salvers-*
Aii «.Extension'' a
University act.vt-
t"es related to .
aqricultural .ngr
Bering and inter
j
Director
Dallas H.
'"(for ^He^der «•<
' (for J- P^P' rt'DJ
Frank
Joseph Mart.n
Farm
arm ^uv--- , M
U- »: c?!!n''M
Lloyd
rons
(for
Harold Stueve
Alta
„. .kson,
rDena Dairy
0.)
Ed Aaron , M
Robert Haight OVH
Warner Rottman, DV
Charles Palt,
Don
Roy Eastwood
Harvey
Robert Prochaska
-------
DAIRY WASTE MANAGEMENT PROJECT
Time Schedule
Responsible
Task Agent
1 Build & equip bins Aerojet & Maier
2 Operate bins Alta-Dena Dairy,
Senn & Maier
3 Test product Health Department
Farm Advisor
J» Complete ranking /erojet
5 Environmental Grange County H D*
evaluation (• other H D's
6 Time cost effects: Alta.0ena Dairy>
a) Earth corrals r D - F A**
b) Mechanically Alta-Dena Dairy,
cleaned concrete K D - FA
c) Water flushed Haflinger, H D,
concrete Farm Advisor
7 Cow heal th £
productivity Vsterinari ans
8 Vectors & odor Entomology team
evaluation ' & consultants
9 Drainage Farm Advisor, H D &
Water Qual i ty Brd
10 Water usage H D - F A
Dai rymen 6 Senn
U Waste water treat- H D & Project
ment & disposal Director
12 Shaker screen FA - H D
evaluation j; Senn
13 Cow "rmUerni ty" Veterinarians
facil ities and F A - H D
"Q" fever Dili rymen
14 Weed-seed studies Soil Lab & Univ
15 Product evaluation FA- University
& Soi 1 Laboratory
!6 Reporting All Units o
Proiect Di rector
1969
N
o
V
D
e
c
1970
J
a
n
F
e
b
i
i
1
1
C '0
M
a
r
A
P
r
i
rt t
I
M
a
y
J
u
n
J
u
1
i
i
>
ii u! o
i
b ^
A
u
q
S
e
P
I
0
c
t
N
o
V
0
e
t
i
i
i
i
V; Heal Lh Department
** Farm Advi.sor
(fv)
-------
SPECIAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Valuable advice, guidance, and encouragement were provided by the
four project officers which successively represented the Solid Waste
Management Office, who were:
Mr. Eugene M. Herson
Mr. Charles Orr
Mr. Kent Anderson
Mr. J. Robert Halloway
Graduate Student Participants:
Mr. Tom MeKnight
Mr. Boompong Wanapirom, M.P.H.
Dr. Burt Mil burn
Dr. Min Sisk Park
Particular recognition is given to Mr. Frank Smith, Farm Advisor of
Los Angeles County who devoted many hours aiding, guiding, and advising
on the project, who performed education within the dairy industry on
project goals and accomplishments, and acted as liaison representative
with the University of California Extension Service and the Riverside Campus,
(v)
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER
1 INTRODUCTION 1
Background and objectives 1
Summary of first phase of project 2
2 BIN COMPOSTING DEMONSTRATION H
Design details 12
Quality of product 36
Conclusions from processing of the manure
from earth corrals 38
Conclusions from phase one of demonstration
project . 42
3 COMPOSTING WITHOUT BINS AND AERATION BY "SUCTION" 45
Aeration by suction 49
WATER POLLUTION PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH I'AiftY
MANAGEMENT 52
Surface water pollution from earth corrals 52
Underground water pollution 54
Pending enforcement action 55
MANAGEMENT OF COWS ON ALL-CONCRETE SURFACES 57
Recycling demonstration 61
Questions and problems with "environmental
cow housing" ' 64
Material processing and handling capacity 65
Conclusions concerning environmental housing 66
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS 68
Alternate methods of manure management 68
Conclusions of cost analysis 79
SPECIAL FINDINGS AND VARIANCES WITH "LITERATURE" 81
Merits of demonstrated aeration process 81
Composting temperatures 84
(vi)
-------
labie of Contents (continued)
(Chapter 7)
Observations of other systems 85
Other Systems 89
Drainage problems 91
APPENDIX
1 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF EARTH CORRAL DAIRIES IN
RESIDENTIAL AREAS. 93
INTRODUCTION 93
METHODS AND MATERIALS 94
Data Analysis 96
SUMMARY 103
Nuisances 103
Ranking nuisances 103
The effects of distance 104
Satisfaction with environment 104
Effects of superior management 104
Conclusions 105
2 ENTOMOLOGICAL STUDY FOR COMPARISON CF FLY PRODUCTION
AT TYPICAL, COIJVENTICMAL EARTH CORRAL DAIRIES WITH
WATER-FLUSHED, ALL-CONCRETE DAIRIES. 136
INTRODUCTION 137
METHODS 137
Methods employed 137
Observed fly. breeding sources 138
SUMMARY OF DATA 142
DISCUSSION A:-1D RESULTS 148
3 ENTOMOLOGY REPORT 149
REFERENCES 151
LIST OF FIGURES viii
LIST OF TABLES xi
(vll)
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
Number Page
1. 100,000 cubic yard manure "anaerobic
composting pile" 4
2. Typical method of cleaning earth corrals in
dry weather 8
3. Typical water-flushed, free-stall dairy 8
4. Bench-scale bin system 10
5. Earth corrals at Alta-Dena Dairy"". 13
6. Mechanically cleaned free-stall units at
Alta-Dena Dairy .• 14
7. Arrangement of "environmental housing" and
composting facility .... 15
8. Aerated composting bins 16
9. Dairv ownsr, EPA official, and Health Officer
at Eagle Loader 17
10. Blower pi:es in bin 19
11. Blower, valves, and gauge system (note timing clock
and housing to permit "blowing" or "sucking") ... 20
12. Compost screening facility 22
13. Screen being fed by Eagle Loader. (Note small
proportion of rejects at left and bag filler
at right) 23
14. Laboratory at project site—note using direct
reading percent moisture unit 25
15. Adverse effect of high moisture on processing 27
16. High temperatures due to insufficient airflow 28
17. Temperature drop in dry material .29
18. Temperature at constant airflow rate (50% moisture). 30
19. Typical temperatures with constant airflow and
optimum moisture 31
(viii)
-------
'(List of figures continued)
Figure
Number
20. Temperature drop with constant airflow rate 32
21. Temperature at middle of bin depth 32
22. High temperature with high airflow for maximum
drying 33
23. Effects of high temperature 33
24. Relationship of moisture content to temperatures .. 34
25. Effect of moisture content on temperature with
constant airflow rate 34
26. Compost storage bin and sack loader 41
27. Typical system for 200-cow earth corral dairy .... 47
28. Typical aerated composting load on pipes in slab .. 48
29. Blower hook-up, dairy waste project 49
30. "Sucking" air through pile on slab, discharging
moisture to atmosphere 51
31. Good drainage from earth corrals creates potential
surface water pollution 53
32. Water-flushed dairy 58
33. Cows prefer compost on slabs to their free-stalls . 59
34. 100 cows on compost in roofed "loose-housing"
facility 60
35. Placing recycled compost in free-stall cow
housing facility ... 62
36. Recycled aerated manure system 63
37. Propelle- aerator in simulated oxidation ditch,
tested at project site 67
38. Covering pile while "blowing" to heat outer
surface. Also, placing plastic chips over
pipes to facilitate airflow 72
39. Free-stalls with manure fibre for bedding—
Hafliger Dairy 86
(ix)
-------
/1 .• . j. . f r -• • .- .. ! • ....•*
\ u i b 0 Oi i iyuici CUM 1.1 nucu j
Figure
Number Page
40. Cow washing nozzles and bottom-hinged dam, for
water-flushed dairy ............................ 86
41. "Swego" shaker screen for waste from Hafliger
water-flushed dairy. Fibrous material used for
cow bedding .................................... 87
42. Distance from dairies vs. percent of annoyed
respondents--DUST .............................. 115
43. Distance from dairies vs. percent of annoyed
respondents--NOISE ............................. 116
44. Distance from dairies vs. percent of annoyed
respondents—RODENTS ........................... 117
45. Distance from dairies vs. percent of annoyed
respondents— UNSIGHTLY PREMISES ................ ns
46. Distance from dairies vs. percent of annoyed
respondents--ODORS ............................. 119
47. Distance from dairies vs. percent of annoyed
respondents—FLIES ............................. -J20
48. Distance from dairies vs. average percent of
annoyed respondents (dairies combined)--
. . DUST, NOISE, RODENTS ..... ...................... 121
49. Distance from dairies vs. average percent of
annoyed respondents (dairies combined) —
UNSIGHTLY PREMISES, ODORS, FLIES ............... 122
(x)
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table
Number Page
1. Comparative analysis of costs per cow per year 5
2. Percent, on a dry basis, of stated constituents of
compost from earth corrals and from all-concrete
corrals 36
3. Cost of aerated compost—demonstration project .... 69
4. Cost of aerated compost (open slab) 70
5. Cost breakdown, 400-cow milking dairy 74
6. Comparative fixed costs of earth corral dairies and
environmental systems, 400 cow dairy 75
7. Annual extra cost of recycling manure 77
8. Costs and revenue from product. Quantity of sacked
compost per year 78
9. Distribution of the percentage of respordents
dnno^co by cai.ii nuisance, arranged tc signify
significant difference between neighborhoods ... 105
10. Percentage distribution of annoyed respondents
blaming dairy as the cause (dairy by dairy) .... 106
11. Distribution of respondents mentioning a nuisance
and identifying the dairy as the cause (dairies
combined, distance by distance) 107
12. Severity of annoyance vs. distance from dairies
(dairies combined) 108
13. Ranking of nuisances on basis of percent respondents
who were annoyed with each nuisance (arranged
by neighborhood) 109
14. Ranking of nuisances based on the percent of
annoyed respondents who blamed the dairy for
causing the nuisances 110
15. Distribution of respondents' answers to the question,
"Can you. t/tuifc a{, aity.tfsxng -cu ycu,l nc.u}hbo.ifiood
w/u.c/i /titi beau pa/t-tica£a,t£i/ annoying
-------
(List of idbleb continued)
Table
Number Page
16. Distribution of respondents' answers to the question
"Can you think o£ anything -ui tjouA. neighborhood
wliicJi /uai been pasiticutaiiy annoying at bothcAAome.
to you?" (Arranged by dairy) 112
17. Percent of respondents who mentioned the dairy, flies,
or odors in answer to the question, "Can you. tl-u.nk
o& anything -in ijouui \\u.Qlibo>ihood tc.'i-tc/i /w.5 6een
pasuticwLaniy annoying oa.ij you. o/ie mtt.k youn.
nu.gkbon.hood?" (By distance and by neighborhood).. 114
19. Fly development rating data 150
20. Fly development numerical ratings 153
21. Percent of samples with fly development 154
(xii)
-------
DAIRY WASTE MANAGEMENT
Charles L. Senn
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Background and Objectives
High-density cow housing is rapidly replacing traditional "dairy farms."
To be near the market and sources of labor and supplies, the dairies tend to
be concentrated in certain areas when these are close to large cities. There
is, therefore, a natural tendency for the dairies to be in close proximity to
residential developments.
Th-ic Hor.:™rfv^i-,;;r, py-.j.j — t b:~~n with the objectives of.
1. Defining and evaluating the major environmental problems in managing
solid wastes produced by high-density cow housing located in close
proximity to residential developments.
2. Evaluation of the various types of cow housing and solid waste
management facilities, from the viewpoint of environmental and
economic acceptability.
3. Economic and environmental evaluations of the various systems for
utilization or disposal of dairy v.v::;f.o's.
4. Development cf meihuus and systems which will minimize fly production,
odors, and drainage problems from earth corral dairies, especially
in wet weather.
5. Develop a process fur economically and efficiently composting manure
on each dairy.
-------
As the project developed, new legislation and new pollution control
policies necessitated inclusion of the following additional objectives:
1. What methods are most practical to avoid pollution of surface waters
and nuisances by drainage from conventional corrals?
2. How can high-density cow housing be managed to avoid pollution of
underground water supplies, when located on permeable soils above
such aquifers?
Summary of First Phase of Project
The first phase of the project is briefly summarized here. A more
complete report was previously prepared.
Project Sponsors and Participants. The city of Cerritos, in which there were
over 20 relatively large dairias, sponsored and supported the prcjcd,. The
Dairymen's Fertilizer Cooperative, which was collecting, stock-piling, and
marketing manure, provided the site, facilities, material, data, and operating
personnel for the fin.t phase.
The Aerojet General Corporation was the principal ccnsultant and performed
market analyses, economic analyses of various candidate systems, and ranking
of anticipated environmental effects of such systems.
The project was supported, and guided by a group of public agencies
including the Farm Advisors, health departments of four counties surrounding
Los Angeles, State Deoartment of Public Health, and the University of
California's Extension Service and Riverside Campus.
Project Consultants were Dr. Clarence G. Guelki;, Professor Sam Hart, and
Mr. Paul Maier.
-------
'"ior to the beginning of the project a court suit charged
the Dairymen's Fertilizer Cooperative with creating nuisances and health
hazards from dust generated by handling and processing manure (Figure 1).
The charges were reviewed with health officers, epidemiologists, and
environmentalists v/ho joined in sponsoring the project. The group of partici-
pants agreed that the alleged "health problems" and nuisances should be
resolved by avoiding the creation of a huge, central manure storing and
processing operation. They decided that if health hazards from manure dust
do exist, control should begin on the dairies. They decided that top priority
should be given to processing the manure on each dairy by methods which would
permit handling wet manure in wet weather, thereby helping to cope with the
worst fly and odor problems which result when the winter's manure accumulations
remain on earth corrals until dry enough for aainq in the huae stockpile.
The City Council and the Cooperative's Board of Directors strongly favored
to "utilize," rather r.han "dispose" of the manure. It was decided that the
processing, preparing for sale and marketing might best be accomplished by a
central cooperative organization which would serve many dairies by providing
technical direction, specialized equipment, and marketing service. The project
became a truly cooperative ventur-2 with teams covering various special subjects
such as "Entomology ar.d Odors," "Neighborhood Attitude Stucies," "Veterinarian
and EDidemioloqy , " "I'arm Advisors 4" etc,
Y(ig Asro^et Gentrcil Corncrution' s nisrkctins analysis rhov/ed that in the
six county marketing area, at present, the manure from 60,000 cows is being
sold as bulk or sacked "steer manure." Their studies included a comparative
•»»,-> i > ic I f ^f rcc ts ncr cov,1 per ''ear of various possibl0 nrorot:sinn u^il i?;'tion
-------
4.
.
Figure 1. 100,000 cubic yard'manure "anaerobic composting pile."
-------
5.
and disposal methods. The economic aspects were considered along with the
anticipated "environmental effects" of each method. The study included not
only earth corrals, but also covered all-paved corrals, both water-flushed
and mechanically cleaned. Their cost analysis was summarized as follows:
TABLE 1
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF COSTS PER COW PER YEAR
1. Earth corrals with manure composted on each dairy.
System Cost/Cov//Year
a. Composted in aeration bins $28*
b. Windrow composting by special machine $40*
2. Paved corrals.
*• "i. ''c'\\
a. Liquid flush-irrigate with waste $21
b. Liquid flush-separate solids-irrigate $22
c. Mechanically scrape-direct land utilization' $34
d. Scrape and compost by aeration $28
e. Aerobic, liquid stabilization $44
3. Collection of raw nanure for centralized processing.
System
a. Stockpile to "compost" $19*
b. Aerated central composting $25*
c. Central-mechanically turned windrowing $29 to $69*
d. Heat drying $49*
e. Incineration $79*
f. Pyrolysis $57*
g. Wet oxidation (Zimpro process) $48+*
*Incl'jdes S7.80 per ccv; per year for harvesting fioni corrals and
loadinj onto trucks.
-------
b.
The environmental "raters" were sanitarians, entomologists, farm advisors,
and city officials. The rating scale was "0" for no effects to "9" for major
effects. They each considered the three prevailing climatic conditions and
found the following concerns:
1. Dry sumnier—principally dust with lesser concern about flies, odors,
and drainage.
2. Wet winter—the season of least complaints with some concern for
drainage.
3. Warm spring before winter manure accumulation is dried or removed—
major problem; are flies (ranked "9"), odor (ranked "8").
Neighborhood opinion sampling was conducted by a separate evaluation
system designed by Orange County's Environmental Health Director and his staff,
and utilized by both his staff and by personnel of the S.in RprrvirHinn r.r,\<.r.t\/
Health Department, to Measure attitudes of people living within various dis-
tances of dairies and -:n various locations with respect to orevailing winds.
Nearly all householder:; living adjacent to corrals v.ere concerned and
dissatisfied. Those 3IJO feet away were influenced by the quality of dairy
design and maintenance, and, those at 700 feet were unaware of the dairy unless
it was visible across open fields. (Full report is in Appendix 1).
Environmental and Ecj.ijinic Assessment of Various Systems. Early in the project
it was decided that this study would be principally concerned with dairies of
limited arer; in locations which are becoming somewhat residential in character.
This would tend to exclude dairies on large farms where raw manure can be
applied directly to crop lands. It would also tend to exclude water-flushed
systems winch may be acceptable on large, irrigated farms where manure can be
-------
flushed with irrigation water for direct application on the land. (See
comparative entomology report, Appendix 2).
Earth Corrals. The public attitude survey and environmental ranking systems
shov/ed that earth corral dairies are basically unacceptable neighbors to
residents living within 350 feet. It was also noted that new water pollution
control policies may load to "outlawing" earth corrals where they produce either
surface or ground water pollution. A long range prediction, based upon the
study, is that earth corral dairies are becoming both environmentally and
economically unacceptable in areas of nixed residential and agricultural uses and
where land costs are too high to permit direct agricultural utilization of solid
and liquid wastes. They will also be unacceptable where serious surface of
ground water pollution results. (Figure 2)
Kater vlushuJ, All-concrete Sic-using. Theoretically the water-flushed dairy has
many advantages. Some have claimed that the water already used for cooling,
washing and cleaning nrlking parlors is simply reused for flushing the 15-foot-
wide, several hundred root-long, sloping (2-3%) area between free-stalls and
feeding and watering facilities (Figure 3). Project studies and observations
at three dairies with 400, 700, and 1200 cows showed this system requires up
to two and a half times as much water as would have t.o be used for washing
cows and milk parlors.
A major problem is how to utilize and dispose or this highly polluted
water produced by dairies of limited land area, wit/nut producing surface and
ground water pollution and nuisances. A secondary question is the somewhat
controversial question of whether the wet concrete does produce a serious
-------
L
'
i
'
Figure 2. Typical method of cleaning earth corrals in dry weather.
• \
I '
Figure 3. Typical wafpr-fIIKhpH
-• t t_t i i Md i ( V
-------
9.
problem of cows' feet becoming sore. The project study indicates that at
several dairies where this system is used, sore feet did not cause serious
problems. Also, at all-concrete corrals, mastitis rates did not go up and
milk production rate: wore maintained at times when production was down for
cows housed on wet, muddy earth corrals. On the other hand, mastitis rates
did go up among those cows which had to wade through mud-manure mixtures.
Among the possible, partial solutions to problems from water-flushed
systems are:
1. Use of extended aeration to produce an affluent which can be recycled
for certain cleaning functions; and which will produce an effluent
acceptable for surface channel or ditch disposal during rainy weather.
2. Grouping of dairies to make it possible to build a "community" dairy
may then exis.t, or extra treatment may be necessary, in situations
where phosphates and nitrates may promote autrophication of lakes
and reservoirs, or where nitrates would contaminate water supplies.
Mechanically Cleaned, All-concrete, Roofed Housing. Project participants and
consultants recommend that major emphasis be given to a system which will
minimize the quantity and pollutional quality of waste-water and which will
permit high-density housing with a minimum of adverse environmental effects.
This involved:
1. Development cf economical and non-nuisance producing manure
processing methods.
2. Roofing and paving cow housing to avoid surface and ground water
pollution.
-------
3. Distribution of th. • for utilization by plants, lav/ns, and
crops.
costing Methods. Bench-scale testing in 6 - 6 cubic yard bins (Figure 4)
at t f the D -n's Fertili/ ative demonstrated that
'.ing by mechanical turning and agitation is inefficient and involves
excess;
On the other nan..', efficient anc _tive composting is accomplished
by introducing air in;o the manure by lov.'-pressurc rs discharging thr;
perforated pipes in t:ie bottom of the ial. By controlling the airflow
rate t. , i;an be ! 170 F. Tests and
observations by the project's entc. by agricultural specialists
of the UnivLM-sity of California shc.:ed ^oduct did not attract flies nor
produce f 1 • ,'ae, ev-in though sul Ft '.'•<; fni.-nH tn HP
1-seed free, nearly odorless, and fre2 of pathogens. L'hen screened, it
was an attractive soil amendment that was easy-to-apply to lawns and gardens.
L
Fluure 4. Bench-scale b'n
-------
11.
CHAPTER 2
BIN COMPOSTING DEMONSTRATION
The bench-scale composting demonstration, market analysis, and
environmental ranking all indicated that aerobic composting, at each dairy,
is the most promising system for managing cow manure under the following
conditions:
1. When it is not economical to beneficially apply manure directly on
agricultural land
2. Where there is a market which enables recovery of a significant
portion of the processing cost.
To obtain more comprehensive data on design, operation, economics, and other
factors, the project was continued into a second phase. The participants
were Ciidiiyeu soiiit"_.-iiiat , ci3
1. The city of Oerritos, with remarkable speed, changed from a "dairy
community" to a "residential community," and withdrew active participation
except for a continuing finaicial contribution.
2. The Dairymen s Fertilizer Cooperative site was sold to become part
of a regional park.
3. With completion of the assigned responsibilities, Aerojet General
gradually withdrew.
4. Farm Advisor at;d Sun Bernardino County Health Department
participation became more active.
5, A most important point was that Alta-Dena Dairy, in the City of
Industry offered to provide the site and much of th«; equipment and facilities
for a full-scale demonstration of composting and sacking manure from 400 cows
-------
on earth corrals. At that dairy there are over 2,000 cows. Sixteon-hundred_
wore on earth corrals (Figure 5), and 100 in al 1-concrete, free-stall
housing (Figure 6).
In addition to dsinonstrating composting of material from earth corrals,
the project design provided for comparative evaluation of managing and
composting Manure-urine material being mechanically removed from the all-concrete
housing. This was in support of the project consultant and committee
recommendations that effort be made to avoid creating large volumes of
polluted water, as is the case with water-flushed, all-concrete facilities.
Design Detail_s_
Figure 7 shows the arrangement of the composting facilities at the
/\1 toDcna Dairy In tl'<_- C i uy of IniJubLry, Lub Mrigeits County. The original
facility included the composting bins and blowers shown in Figure 8. This
was designed to process the manure from a 400 cow, earth corral dairy. The
design factors were established by the first year study and bench-scale test
program.
Compost_ing Bins.
Composting time: maximum of two to seven-day periods of aerated composting.
Aging: minimum of 30 days of aging in stockpiles.
Quantity: 3/4-cubic feet of corral scrapings per cow ppr day.
Bin size: Each of the bins is designed to hold a week's corral scrapings
from 400 cows, or 300 cubic feet per bin (111 cubic yards). The bins were
made slightly laiger so as to accomodate 133 cubic yards, if necpssary.
-------
l_
c
-.-
i
*
•
-
•
- - ,
..
•
v£
:*.
-"--" " •
Figurc 5. Earth corrals at Alta-Dona Dairy.
-------
- ' • —
\
•^
'.. \
• 11
-V'
X
^•- — t"
' "
/"'•«
I
• i &' >,
"* -1 /
I
V
v
;
i'
.-• • \
I,
j i,
,
• •
w>*a^»''y.
>'
Fiyura 5. Mechanically cleaned free-stall units at Alta-Dena Dairy.
-------
ALTA-DENA ENVIRONMENTAL COW HOUSING SYSTEM
orrict-
LAB
AGING COMPOST
rSIMULATED
** OXIDATION
DITCH
FUTURE
PIPE
AERATION
SITE
COMPOSTING
BINS )
BLOWER
o
.
ratSHEO-\
COMPOST A
SACKED
PRODUCT
BLOWER
r
s
PIPED '
AERATION
PAD
SACKING iiHAKEf?
DEVICE-^ • SCREEN
CONVEYER
WATER
TROUGHS
LOOSE
HOUSING
AREA
MANGERS
• i
i
FENCE
— ^
ROOF
LINE
TV
' N
SCALE "=20*
Figure 7. Arrangemen"; of""environmental housing" aid composting facility.
-------
Ib.
AERATO COMPOSTING BINS
Two bins 501 x 9' x 8' • 133 cubic yards each staggered and sized
tor transferring and unloading by conveyor buckets and belt of
"eagle loader".
Blower
1" test holes spaced
along outside wall
of both bins
Blower, valves
and gauges
f x t' grooves for perforated pipes 2'
apart - full length both bins
Figure 8, Aerated composting bins.
Design for Manure Mixing and Handling. The National Canner's Association
had used for a composting demonstration project, a unit primarily designed
for loading sand and
-------
17.
.
Figure 9, Dairy owner, EPA official, and Health Officer at Eagle
LCciucr
-------
18.
The Eagle Loader conveyor belt discharges over the cab of the truck,
and(loads several feet behind the truck, so there is a distance of 20 feet
from the point of loading to unloading. The bins were therefore staggered
by 20 feet.
To confine the manure in the bins, hinged doors were originally provided
but were later found to be relatively unnecessary, and were removed.
Blower System. The bench-scale operation indicated that the airflow rate
must be highest at the beginning of the composting cycle and then gradually
reduced. Normal maximum rates were 3 cubic feet per minute per cubic yard of
manure, and the highest rates were 5 cubic feet of manure per cubic yard.
Maximum static pressures were 6 inches water gauge.
Tv/o blowers, eacn with a capacity of 500 cubic feet per minute against
C-Inch v/.g. pressure vere installed so they could be used separately or
together to aerate either or both bins. Each has a 1/3-horsepower motor, is
multi-staged, and ran continuously for over a year with no maintenance or
repair. Piping was designed for air velocities between 2,400 and 6,000 feet
per minute, and to permit using different flow rates for each of the three
separate systems serving each bin. All piping was P.V.C. Four-inch plug
type valves were provided to regulate the airflow. Each line was supplied
with an indicating static pressure gauge and an opening to measure velocities
with a pitot tube (Figures 10 and 11).
Air Inlets. The bin floors were paved and provided with 4-inch-wide and
4-inch-deep lateral grooves, spaced 2 feet apart. One-inch plastic pipes
with two 5/16-inch holes per foot were laid in the grooves. Openings through
-------
•
*
•
1
.
k
• 'l
1
•
i
•
•
I
i
•
t
• ~ .
' • .'••'-
». . . •
. ,..^_-.
,
•
_ \
\
1
• •
.
7 ~ • •'. - -
«. "~ 4 ' ' "'" «
•*•. .
• "
"..-
"--.;
- ' * - * ""- • «J*' **"".-
--^ <4 J '«k
- -•
« . ^ . - • .
, v - • *• •
ij* ' '-r-
._ . ..
• i J "
.
'
"
-.
...
- ,
«.
--^" -
• _•
yv
.
-------
/ . . • ~?r
\ />*• M ••/'.- .
1 ' I /
-".
* •• • —
?• / • /-- ,-v
4
'5- «. I
i -
* '4
\^.. *
V " :T> '" -i '" '- "
-•
i - .--• •
; •---
rv -•
-.- —
.
.
' - " • • .
• 'fr-'-j','
Figure 11. Blower, valves, and gauge system (note timing clock and housing
to perrvit blowing" or "sucking.")
-------
the bin walls, from all 4-inch grooves, were arranged to provide drainage.
However, to prevent escape of air, these had to be plugged with wooden
4- by 4-inch plugs. The air piping system had to be redesigned to permit
drainage, and to avoid water accumulations from heavy rains, in the piping
(which would stop the flow of the low-pressure air.)
Test Openings. One-inch pipes with threaded caps were installed to penetrate
the outer bin walls. These were located two feet, four feet, and six feet
above the bin bottoms. There were two vertical rows for each one-third portion
of each bin. These were used for measuring temperatures with 3-foot-long
stemmed indicating thermometers and for inserting thermocouples connected to
a Honeyv/ell (Johnson) recording thermometer; also for occasional sampling with
an M.S. A. device to measure the percent oxygen in the gas within the manure
Hauling and Loading Equipment. Manure was hauled to the composting site in
Ford dump trucks with double rear axles and a capacity of 10 cubic yards.
Loading and mixing was done with Ford Diesel tractors with an open-bottomed
scraper bucket behind and a 3/4-cubic yard front-end loading bucket. This
equipment is normally used at the dairy for cleaning the earth and concrete
corrals and for hauling the manure for disposal on agricultural lands.
The Eagle Loader was used for loading bins, for transferring from the
first to the second bin, for unloading the second bin, sometimes for mixing
wet and dry manure and compost before loading into the first bin, and to feed
compost to the shaker screen.
-------
22.
Sieving and Sacking. A 10-foot by 4-foot shaker screen with nominal 1/2-lnch
openings was mounted with one end 3 feet 8 inches higher than the other, on a
special concrete bin (Figure 12). The screen was fed by the Eagle Loader
which, in turn, was fed from piles supplied by the bucket on a tractor.
Screen rejects, rock from the corrals, and lumps amounted to less than is
percent of the volume being screened and ws hauled away for disposal.
(Crushing or grinding appeared to be uneconomical and undesirable.)
COMPOST SCREENING FACILITY
SHAKER
SCBKEN
Figure 12. Compost screening facility.
Screened material was loaded into a 10-cubic yard "U"-shaped unit
equipped with a corkscrew which moves the material to a dual outlet valve
for filling sacks (Figure 13).
Paving. The surfaces surrounding the bins and for stockpiling, sacking, etc.,
were paved to enable operation in wet weather.
-------
•
/
/"S
•
; f , f • •
¥
-*-••-'•— t-nf.1
Figure 13. Screen being fed by Eagle Loader.
(Note small proportion of rejects at left and bag fill
at right.)
er
-------
24.
Test Equipment. Moisture determinations were made by either the standard
oven and weighing method or on a unit which dries the material in 20 to 30
minutes by an electrically heated coil and which gives a direct reading of
percent moisture. The latter checked with the former within 1 to 2 percent,
and was used when small numbers of sample were being run, and immediate
results were desired, as to check moistures as bins were being loaded
(Figure 14).
The most convenient and useful temperature readings were by 3-foot-stem,
dial thermometers. For special data on correlation of moisture, airflow, and
other conditions such as ambient temperatures, thermocouples connected with
a Honeywell recorder were programmed and operated to give readings at 12
different points.
Percent oxygen in the composting mass was measured by an M.S.A. direct
reading unit. The probe was arranged to exclude particles and a squeeze-bulb
was operated until a constant reading was obtained. The unit was quite
satisfactory' for several months.
On the other hand, a Beckman unit, connected with a pump, filter, moisture
condenser, etc., was not successful. Various probes were built to enable
obtaining an adequate inflow. Excessive moisture necessitated improvising
a valve to restrict the airflow. However, the unit was not as accurate as
the simpler M.S.A. unit.
Bulk Density. A most useful test is bulk density. The weight per cubic
foot was obtained with a 1-cubic foot-metal box on a scale set to compensate-.
*r
for the weight of the empty box.
-------
•\
1
1 ' ' [TTn;
Figure 14. Laboratory at project site—note using direct readinq percent
moisture unit.
-------
Composition of Composting Material.
Mixing. During dry weather it was possible to adjust the moisture content
of the manure by mixing the moist material from paved areas around feed
mangers and watering troughs with dry material from the earth surfaces. As
will be discussed later, it was found that mixing of 10 percent compost with
raw material produced a better soil amendment than by composting raw manure
alone. Manure was brought to the slab adjacent to the first bin in 10-cubic
yard truck loads. As the 12 truck loads were dumped the 3/4-cubic yard bucket
on the tractor was used to scatter compost over the material. The Eagle Loader
did a good job of mixing by the action of the corkscrew, bucket-conveyor, and
conveyor belt. It was, however, desirable to mix the wet and dry corral
scrapings in each truck load to avoid having large, separate masses of wet and
•dry material.
Moisture Content. As might be expected, too much moisture resulted in packing
which prevented proper airflow and made unloading difficult. Without adequate
oxygen in the mass (about 6%) the material failed tc heat and portions
developed a characteristic araerobic odor and black color, This condition
developed with moisture in the 62 to 65 percent range. With wet material,
the corkscrew device 0,1 the loader would not "dig" into the material so it was
necessary to use the front-end loading tractor to loosen and break up the mass.
One-inch by three-inch steel plates were welded to the corkscrew to improve
efficiency. These were of value. Moisture would ooze from the material and
tend to stop the flow of air from the 4-inch slots in the bin bottoms.
-------
It was noted that a simple test would tell the equipment operator when
the mix was too wet. When the manure was made into the form of a snowball,
and squeezed, if moisture oozed out the mix was too wet.
The effect of high moisture is shown in Figure 15. It will be noted
that at 66 percent moisture the temperature rose to 132 F but not higher.
Then the bin was unloaded, dry material was added, and the mix was reloaded
at 61 percent moisture. The temperature then rose rapidly to above 170 F.
A parallel test of material loaded at 60 percent moisture reached above 170 F
and remained hot for several days. The 170 F was reached in 6 hours, accounting
for high temperatures on day '0'.
I
190 -
180 -
170 -
•160 _
ISO -
140 -
130 -
«-T O» "TCH HT!Tc:n;r.S OX
August 12 - 18, 1970
We.t Sin
'Lo*d«d «t 66% nolttur*
T
T
1 4
TiM (diyt)
Figure 15. Adverse effect of high moisture on processing,
-------
28.
Figure 16 shows the necessity of breaking up the mass when loading with
material of 60 percent moisture content. If the material had been transferred
to the.second bin at the end of 6 days, it would have been loosened to permit
enough airflow to keep temperatures below 174 F--the critical temperature.
The amount of moisture was an important factor concerning the length of
time the material would remain hot, during aeration. Normally the thermophilic
action would continue as long as the moisture ranged between 40 to 62 percent.
The hot airflow through the material tended to extract moisture. When the
moisture dropped to below 40 percent, it was necessary to practically stop
the cooling effect of the airflow or temperatures would fall to below 140 F.
HIGH TEMPERATURES DOE TO INSUFFICIENT AIR FLOW
190-
170-
160"
150--
140-
130-
flow wa*
Air flow dropped to
increased to 1 cfm/c.y. due
2.0 cfn/c.y. to "packing"
Aiz flow
l.S cfn/c.y.
601 moisture »s loaded
Example of "cooking* without stabilizing
Time in Bin (days)
Figure 16. High temperatures due to
insufficient airflow.
-------
The effect of low moisture (37% as loaded) is shown in Figure 17.
The temperature never reached above 140 F and fell to 100 F in five days
with the standard minimum starting airflow of 3 cubic feet per minute per
cubic yard.
TEMPERATURE DROP IN DRY MATERIAL
140
130"
i>
110
100-
37% moisture AS loaded
Mr flov • 3 efn/c.y.
Tanperature »t 2 £o«t above
bin bottom
Tine (days)
Figure 17. Temperature drop in dry
material.
-------
Figure 18 shows that when loaded within 50 percent moisture material,
the temperature drop was quite gradual.
TEMPERATURE AT CONSTANT AIR FLOW RATE (50» MOISTURE)
170 -,
160 -
150 -
140 -
120 -
110 -
100
'-Transferred
to bin 2
Points to note:
1. Rapid temperature rise to 160°F. in six hours
2. Temperature drop is graded and can be stopped by
lowering air flow rate.
3. Tenperature rise due to mixinq . .nd loosening from
transfer.
1 2
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Time in bins (days)
14
Figure 18. Temperature at constant airflow
rate (50% moisture).
-------
31.
Figure 19 shows that with optimum moisture (56%) it is necessary to
provide over 2 cubic feet per minute per cubic yard or temperatures reach
above 174 F. After the first few days the airflow can be cut to 2 cubic
feet per minute per cubic yard and lower.
175 _
165 -
u 160 -
41
e
~S '
0-155 i >
•
-------
32.
Figure 20 shows the effect of a lower moisture, the airflow rate
being dropped to 1.5 cubic feet per minute per cubic yard.
TEKPEPATURE DROP WITH CONSTANT AIR FI>OW RATE
175-
170-
E
S 165'
3
« 160
H
155
Temperature at depth • 4 f««t
Air flow rate • l.'S cfm/c.y.
^ I T
3 4 5
Time (days-hour*)
I I
6 7
Figure 20. Temperature drop with constant
airflow Taut:.
Figure 21 shows'a more rapid temperature drop with 50 percent moisture
and 3 cubic feet per minute per cubic yard.
TEMPERATURE AT MIDDLE OP BIN DEPTH
165-
^160-
<£ «
i
P5°
14S-
0
50% aoistur*
Air flow • J cfa/c.y.
Compost shttt\kig« «
8t in 6 days
L^
"\ ^-—^V
N.
.
i ii i i i i
1 2 3 4 S 67
Tina (days)
depth.
Figure 21. Temperature at middle of bin
-------
33.
Figure 22 shows that high temperatures are maintained with 4 cubic feet
per cubic yard through a 60 percent moisture material. Figure 23 shows that
with a moist material (58^) and a low airflow rate (1,5 cubic feet per minute
per cubic yard) temperatures rose to 190 F. The material was black and had a
somewhat "cooked" odor.
190
180-
<£ 170-
$ 160 -
S iso-
4*
£ 140 H
I
I
130 -
HIGH TEWZIUTUM: WITH HIGH UK now FOR KJU.KUM DRYING
60% Bolitur* »* lowtod
4 cfa/c.y.
I
13
14
15 16
17
II
Figure 22. High temperature wit'i high airflow
for maxinnm drying.
UTECK Or HIGH TEMPCMTOKE
190 -
180 -
_ 170 -
t
5 us -
2
|iso_
140 .
1JO -
' " ^* '
' /**
^
leaded vit.*i black "cxoked"
•utcrt^l f ton Wvit Ri i.
S8» Moistur* when looted.
^* tfrepp^l to 4J%.
Mr flow « 1.4 efv/c.T. .
' ; 1 1 ; i : : i
11 12 11 14 IS Ifc 17 18
Auqu*t
Figure 23. Effects of high temperature.
-------
34.
T?
t
c 5 -
RELATIONSIUF OF MOISTURE CONTENT Tf)
2 -
1-
I
60
I
70
30 40 SO
Per cent noistur* at initial loading of material
Figure 24. Relationship of moisture
content to temperatures.
CTPBCT OP MOISTURE CONTEKT OS TWPERATURS
WITH CONSTANT AIR FLOW RATE
199 _
170 _
£
" 160 _
S 150 _j
140 -
130
Koiitur* content A « 41\
C • 42%
B • 40%
Air flow rat* unifora
ctm/c.y.
at 3
24
48
72 96
Tia* (hours)
I
120
144
168
Figure 25. Effect of moisture content
on temperature with constant airflow rate.
The data on moisture-temperature relations suumarized in Figures 24 and
25 indicate that a moisture content below 50 percent excessively reduces the
time when the material is dclively being processed, that moisture contents
-------
35.
between 50 and 60 percent are optimum. Due to a tendency to pack in the bins
at higher moisture content, 55 percent moisture is considered optimum.
Screening. It was found that high moisture content interfered with operation
of the shaker screen. When the material had above 34 to 36 percent moisture
there was a tendency for the material to plug the screen. Also, when an
excessive amount of the material was placed on the screen balls formed. The
larger balls were rejected by the screen and smaller balls detracted from the
quality of the compost.
Proper regulation to maintain maximum airflow possible at high temperatures
»
aided in drying in the bin to about 35-40 percent moisture. The remaining
drying took place during the stockpiling-aging per.od. As was noted by other
investigators, the processed material remained aerobic and kept at above
140 F throughout lar^c piles (0-feet nigh anu 30-f^el wiJe.)
It was realized that the material at the outer edges of the composting
mass would not be at suitably high temperatures for pasteu.-izating and weed-
seed inactivation. however, these volumes represented a fairly small portion
of the material confined in the bins. Most of this oute- material became
mixed with hot material at several stages including transferring to the
second bin, during transfer and temporary storage outside of the second bin,
and during the stockpiling at 140 F. This, it was believed and tests
indicated, exposed all seeds and pathogens to adequate temperatures at
at least one of the processing steps.
To test this theory, samples of the finished product were "laboratory
tested" for weed-seed germination. Also, relative!./ large quantities were
-------
3G.
used in flower gardens and on dichondra lawns. In all cases, the material
was judged to be weed-seed free. Samples of the material extracted from the
bins by semi-aseptic means were free of coliform.
Quality of Product
Since the sum of the amount of nitrogen, phosphate and potassium is
considerably below 5 percent the product, unless enriched, cannot be labeled
a "fertilizer." However, the soil and plant scientists of the University of
California Agricultural Extension Service and at the Riverside Campus do
believe the chemical nutrient content is of considerable significance to a
number of crops and ground covers, including lawns.
Composted manure normally contains 25 to 30 percent moisture and weighs
25 to 30 pounds per cubic foot. Each 2-cubic foot sack would, therefore,
weigh 50 to 60 pounds.
TABLE 2
The following table gives the percent, on a dry basis, of stated
constituents of compost from earth corrals and from all-concrete corrals:
Constituent
Earth
Concrete
N P K
1.4 0.65 2.3
Z.2 0.78 5.1
C
30
_ _
C/N
25
11
Salts
4.C
7.5
Chlorides
0.5
1.7
-------
Compost from concrete corrals tended to retain nutrients from urine,
which largely seeps into the soil of earth corrals. Recycling up to seven
times through all-concrete corrals, did not significantly increase the
concentration of these chemicals.
The value of compost is probably in its usefulness as a soil conditioner
(holds moisture in sandy soil and makes ground more friable in clay type soils)
and through slow release of chemical nutrients. For some crops, such as citrus
and avocado, the relatively high salt and chloride content is undesirable.
Soil and plant authorities collaborating in this project state the salt and
chloride content is not deleterious to forrage crops, lawns, and most nursery
stock.
While the literature cautions about high nitrate loss as volatile amonia,
as C/N ratios get belcw 30, even with the low C/N ratio of 11 for the recyclpd
material, the loss v/as found to be in the order of 0.2 percent or less than
one-tenth of the total. It was noted that agitation of the hot compost would
produce a strong release of ammonia but with normal aeration this odor was
normally not perceptiMe.
Moisture Reduction. By maintaining maximum airflow rate at maximum temperatures
it should be possible to produce maximum moisture reduction. At an air
temperature of 160 F the air can hold two-tenths of a pound of moisture per
pound of dry air. With an airflow rate in each bin of 500 cubic feet per
minute, or 40 pounds of air per minute, this should theoretically produce a
moisture reduction of 8 pounds per minute or close to 500 pounds per hour.
A«
A bin load of 60 percent moisture material weighs approximately 100 tons.
-------
A reduction of moisture of 20 percent would mean a weight reduction of
20 tons. The above calculation would indicate a maximum potential weight
reduction of 4 tons per day with an airflow rate of 4 cubic feet per minute
per cubic yard and an air temperature of 160 F. This would mean, theoretically,
five days of processing in each of the bins to accomplish the desired results.
As might be expected, efficiency is materially lower and the moisture reduction
was less than one-half of the calculated value. Imestigation of this observed
phenomenon revealed that the outer 6 inches to 1 foot of the compost was
excessively moist, particularly in the mornings. 11; was also noted that the
outer layer of compost was at near ambient temperature. As the wet, moisture
laden air passed through this layer it was significantly cooled and lost some
of its moisture. This led to serious consideration of utilizing the German
practice of aeration tv suction rathpr than blowing. This would have the
effect of removing the hot moisture laden gases without the moisture-condensing
effect of the surface layer of the compost pile. This process will be discussed
later.
Conclusions From Processing of the Manure From Earth Corrals
The material can be successfully processed if loaded at moisture contents
ranging from 45 to 60 percent. Optimum moisture content is in the range of
50 to 55 percent. This is significantly over the maximum allowable moisture
content for processing by aging in stockpiles as was practiced at the Dairymen's
Fertilizer Cooperative where the moisture range had to be kept down to 35 to ,
•c
40 percent. It is therefore apparent that the process can utilize material
significantly more moist than is acceptable for the stockpiling method. In
addition, as is mentirned elsewhere in this report, it was found that adding
-------
compost tended to produce a more desirable product. This added compost also
acted as a drying agent. It was therefore possible to remove manure from
corrals four or five days after a rain, mix it with some compost, load it in
bins, and successfully compost. The literature indicates that manure and
other organic material contain enough organisms of the right type and of the
right quantity for effective composting. Preliminary observations of the
project, on the other hand, indicate a better quality product resulted when
a 10 percent compost was mixed with the raw manure. To further test this
theory parallel bin operations were conducted. In one bin raw manure from earth
corrals was loaded without adding any compost. In the other the same type
corral manure but with a slightly higher moisture content was mixed with
compost. The two bins then were processed with material of approximately
the sa^ie moisture content, the same airflow rate, and other characteristics.
The only difference was that one contained 10 percent compost and one did
not. During two weei'.s of composting it v/as found that temperatures of both
bins rose to and remained at approximately the same levels. Therefore it
appeared that procesr.ing was equally good in both. However, after two weeks
the material to which no compost had been added remained a sort of a yellow
color and its texture was close to that of unprocessed, dry cow manure. The
other material had developed a more brownish color. When moisture was added
to both it was found that the material to which no compost had been added
tended to attract and breed flies. The other did not. These tests were
repeated. While the results are not necessarily conclusive they do appear to
confirm the observation in the bench-scale tests, 'chat the addition of
compost seems to provide the bacterial seed of the stabilizing type organism
that are requisite for producing an optimum produc:.
-------
40.
Preparing Compost for Market. It was found desirable to stockpile the compost
for two weeks to a month. It was also found that if at the mid-point of
composting the material was run through the Eagle Loader this resulted in a
considerable amount of moisture reduction and assisted in maintaining rela-
tively high temperatures in the stockpile over the entire storage period.
There was a question on whether or not the material should be run through
some form of shredding device. It was decided that the initial processing
would simply be running the material through a shaker screen. At first the
screen was loaded by attempting to shake material from the bucket of the
front-end loader on a tractor. However, this resulted in too much of the
30 percent moisture material piling on the screen at one time and caused plugging
of the screen's openiigs. The Eagle Loader was then used for loading, and by
regu'iating its speed it was possible to keep the screen loaded with just the
amount that would be effectively screened in its travel down the screen.
It was found that the rejects constituted somewhere between 5 and 15 percent.
of the total volume. A considerable part of this was stones and rocks from
the earth corrals. I'i view of this small volume, it was determined that it
was not economical to develop and utilize a crushing device.
Alta-Dena Dairy built a portable bin and sacking device. This is a
10-foot-long, 4-foot-wide "V" bottomed tank type body. At the bottom, along
the "V" is d corkscrtw which moves the material toward the sacking end. Slots
above the corkscrew can be opened or closed to adjust the rate at which the
material drops to the corkscrew and its housing. A dual outlet valve enables
filling one bag while placing another to be ready fjr filling (see Figure 26).
The material was placid in plastic bags which were ariginally sealed by a heat
-------
dev'ce. Later it was decided seeing ;voJjced a r.2i*e reliable sack closure.
Xnereas the Gen.ian scientists have advocated that the bags be porus to
"pen it tho rr.atorial to breathe" the Alta-Dena product was practically
herr.-.tically scaled and re. ainod attractive and relatively odorless, and there
^as no indication that a hermetically sealing type bag was not perfectly
satisractory.
Conclusions Fron Phase One cf Dc-.-onstrjtion Project
It can be concluded that the method demonstrated produces a desirable
cc.v.pcst which sells at retail for $.89 per sack and wholesale for more than
$.50 per sack, while the total cost of production is about $.33 per sack
(see Chapter 6). The product is highly acceptable to amateur and professional
fiarrl^norc ;»nH n^rrlun Cnnnlv ^n;>l*»r< Tka rT*OCeSS H2 : t^e fo^ln''^nn adv2nt-2Q°^"
1. It can be conducted at each dairy, thereby avoiding prcoicr.s resulting
from centralized haulirg and processing operations.
2. It can successfully process wet material in wet weather, thereby
obviating a major problem of managing manure In wet weather.
3. The method Is relatively simple and appears to require considerably
less manpower and equipment time than windrowing or other methods.
4. The operation is odorless as indicated by the fact the project is
located within o frw hundred foet of a dense housing development. No complaint
»a» evfci* received about oJor. The observations of p-oject operators anJ
consultants also confirmed the odorless nature of UK; operation.
5. The product was demonstrated to be weed-see*4 free In several ways:
-------
(a) Tomato seeds which are judged to be more resistant to heat and
other destructive effects than weed seeds, were inactivated when
placed in perforated containers filled with manure, placed in
various locations within the compost pile.
(b) Samples were tested by the Soil and Plant Laboratory and the
University of California at Riverside. Also, project partici-
pants nmed compost with soil which was kept moistened and
otherwise! maintained in a way to germinate seeds. The project
participants also used the material on lawns and gardens and
noted no weed development. All tests demonstrated the product
to be "weed-seed free."
6. The material v;as considered to be pathogen-free because repeated samples
.. x_.._ja._U-JT..--.c — -i -• r i- i. ••>.<•.. • • <->i • <-..-.. - .
;•.-. v. • o-.iu cu LIC i i tre i.' I cuiiiOJiii. txpe/tb, t nv, i uu > ;^ c/ic: o/iiei ui out; occiie
Viral and Rickettsial Laboratory, reviewed the tenperature data and indicated
that the temperatures obtained would inactivate the nore resistant organisms
such as the causitive n'ckettsia organism of "Q" fevar. fntomology team
tests consisted of placing the product in containers and noistening it to the
optimum degree for fly larvae development. These containers were then placed
next to material known to be attractive for development of fly larvae, and
fertilized female flii^s were released. The processed material did not attract
fli-iS, nor did any fly larva* develop in that material, whereas Ihe other moist
material produced flies.
Disadvantages of Methoc. One of the more serious disadvantages of the method
was the problem of loacing and unloading with a machine that would periodically
-------
break down or would fail to function effectively when the material was
slightly more moist than optimal. Loading and unloading of bins with the
tractor and skiploader was time consuming.
Higher than average moisture concentrations were noted on the surface of
the material, as described above, and material next to the walls was normally
wet and packed, due to condensation of moisture by the relatively cool tempera-
tures of the concrete walls.
It was difficult to prevent the pipe system froii becoming flooded during
heavy rains.
Modifications Indicated by Study. The problems attributable to use of bins
lead to considering processing in open piles, as discussed in the following
chapter.
-------
45.
CHAPTER 3
COMPOSTING WITHOUT BINS AND AERATION BY "SUCTION"
.The first phase of the project utilized relatively few yards of material
in each batch. Airflow rates were found to be critical. It was especially
noted that relatively high rates produced excessive cooling, and rates which
were too low, especially with a moist batch, also resulted in low temperatures
at depths more than 18 inches beneath the surface. Airflows were too high
at edges of open piles and too low at the center. On the other hand, when the
material was confined in bins it was possible to achieve uniform airflow.
This lead to the conclusion that the process should be carried out in bins.
As originally planned, the management of manure from a considerable
number of dairies in a region would be conducted under the technical and
managerial guidance cf 2 csnpc:"t;vc organization, ilrrrllai to u.e Dairymen's
Fertilizer Cooperative. However, in place of a central stockpiling, storage,
and sacking.operation, the cooperative would:
1. provide technical guidance
2. perform sacking anc marketing
3. obtain and use special equipment which would be moved from dairy
to dairy,
The Eagle Loader, for instance or similar equipment, it was planned,
would be moved from dairy to dairy to load and unload bins. Sieving and
sacking equipment would be similarly mobile. As the project proceeded, it
became apparent that the method would be more desir.ible if the composting
could be accomplished with tractors normally used for cleaning corrals, and
available at all dairies.
-------
46.
The possible advantages of processing over pipes in open slabs were
so significant that Alta-Dena Dairy management built such a unit. Three
pipes were laid 6 feet apart and in two sections, each 30 feet long. Each
section \vould process 140 cubic yards of manure. The unit demonstrated that
temperatures and other indications of processing were at least equal to those
in the bins. Units could easily be loaded and unloaded with the tractor's
skiploader. Processing over slabs would materially reduce the cost of
construction and obviate the necessity of utilizing special equipment for
loading and unloading. In other words, the whole operation could be carried
out with equipment normally available at this type of a farm or dairy operation.
The suggested design is shown in Figures 27 and 28. The two 30-foot-1ong
parts of the aeration system were separately valved to allow use of either
of the units and to permit different airflow rates in each. The blowers which
had been originally installed were also connected to the systems.
Manure, with some compost, was piled over the pipes to a maximum height
of 9 feet, which was i:he limit of the height of the bucket. The base of the
pile was 18 feet to 20 feet wide, the material extending about 3 to 5 feet
beyond the sides and ends of the aeration pipe lines. The pile was an average
of 65 feet long, 15 feet wide, and 7 feet high, or a volume of close to
280 cubic yards. This is equal to the capacity of the two bins.
The temperatures could be maintained above 160 F throughout most of
the pile. Loading and unloading was done with a front-end loader on the
tractor normally used for cleaning corrals. The ov.jrall efficiency was
higher than with the bin operation.
-------
47.
BLOWER-SUCTION
UNIT
CAP AND
ARRANGE FOR
PIPE AND GROOVE
TYPICAL SYSTEM FOR
200 COW - EARTH
CORRAL DAIRY
Figure 27. Typical system for 200 cow earth corral dairy.
-------
UK.
CROSS- SECTION AL AREA
AT LEAST 60 SO. FT.
DH
1 CU. YO. PER
LINEAL FOOT
Figure 28. Typical aerated composting load on pipes in slab,
-------
49.
Aeration by Suction
German composting scientists who visited the project contended there
are advantages to composting by "suction." They said there is merit in
drawing the cool ambient air through the top surface because blowing creates
excessively cool zones around the aeration pipes. This lead to a theory of
the Project Director that the system should be designed for alternately
blowing and sucking. He therefore designed a special housing so the blower
could be used as a suction device. Valves, gauges, and other apparatuses were
devised and modified to enable this type of operation (Figure 29).
—. —
SLOPE
MANOMETER
TO BIN OR
-
/•
•»•••
SLAB AERATION ^~^
,*~ UNITS
/ -* SLOPE
c
-^-
/
FLOW — v^,^
f "" ^F^' 1
,
.>
7\
/
/ FLOW
-*"""" SLOPE ^^
REMOVABLE )
CAPS -'
4'1
•
r LOWER
AND
VACUUM
UNIT
^
HIGH-TEMP
PVC PIPE
AND
FITTINGS
DLOV.'ER :;OCK-L'P
DAIRY WASTE PROJECT
u
Q a
5 o
<2"
T £
O f-4 ^
(
DRAIN
^^••^•a
*v
PPORT -
D
W
u
E
*.
V±
r
i
Figure 29.
-------
50.
Suction was then applied to the material being processed over pipes in the
open slab. These had been laid on a slope so that moisture accumulations
in the pipe would run out of the end. It was necessary to install moisture
drainage traps on the pipeline system leading to the blower and on the blower
itself. It was noted that the hot moisture laden air would cool sufficiently
in passing through the pipes to produce relatively large amounts of condensate.
By avoiding surface condensation, suction did result in a slightly better rate
of moisture removal, not as great as had been anticipated. It had the
advantage of drawing -;he hot gases down to heat the material around the aeration
pipes. This contrasted to the relatively cool zone around those pipes when
processing by forced aeration. Contrary to expectations the air entering the
pile did not cool the surface and temperatures of up to 150 F or 160 F were
found within 3 or 4 inches of the surface. (Figun-? 30).
When the pile was covered during rainy or in threatening weather and
the system was operating as a blower it was noted that the confined hot air
and steam tended to huat the entire outer surface of the pile. One experi-
mental operation consisted of blowing for one day without a cover, to raise
the temperature, then covering for two days to confine the hot air and hot
steam to warm the out.jr surface. The pile was then covered and the unit was
changed to aerobically process by suction. This processing, coupled with
the heat processing that naturally occurs during the aging period, resulted
:n a weed-seed free, properly processed product without any work of turning.
This would appear to be optimum method of processing manure from earth
corrals.
-------
CHAPTER 4
WATER POLLUTION PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH DAIRY WASTE MANAGEMENT
Surface Water Pollution From Earth Corrals
During the course of the project, the California State Legislature,
as did many other State legislatures, passed new pollution control laws which
provided agricultural waste are subject to the same type of pollution control
regulations as are municipal and industrial wastes. Discussion with Water
Quality Control officials and others revealed that standard earth corral
dairies which are sloped to drain to water courses, either directly or indirectly,
would produce pollution of surface waters in violation of State laws and
regulations. In other words, a dairy that is properly graded to enable
maintenance without f"y and odor production in the spring would normally be
u hdtural source of pollution (Figure 31). Observations at a nearby water
flush all-concrete dairy revealed extreme difficulty with disposing of liquid
waste; some would excessi'vley pond in the field, a portion would overflow into
roadside gutters and ditches. These observations ccnfirmed recommendations of
the project consultants, namely that effort be made to develop a method which
will confine manure and urine on concrete from which it can be removed
mechanically, rather than by being mixed with large quantities of water.
-------
54.
Underground U'ater Pollution
Another motivating factor for modifying project objectives was tests
conducted by Professor Pratt and his colleagues at the University of
California at Chino. Their tests were made in the Chino-Corona basin. The
investigators installed a series of Lysomoter wells in earth corrals and on
farm lands receiving solid and liquid wastes from dairies. Their tests
confirmee! what might be expected, namely, that phosphates remain in the upper
few feet of the soil but that nitrates, like many of the other salts, travels
through extensive depths of soil to reach the aquifers. Their observations
and calculations indicate that nitrate concentrations in the aquifer will
exceed the 10 milligrams of N per liter permitted 1-y the Public Health
Service standard, unless cow copulations are kept in the order of four or less
nPr ,->rr*» Th-i^ ?f cc'j-22, •..•c'-'li be economically nfedsible for dairies in
areas where land cosls are from three to twenty-thousand dollars per acre as
they are at many of the southern California dairies.
Already the dairy industry is finding it difficult to economically meet
standards such as those of San Bernardino County limiting cow density to
20 cows per gross acre. These factors led to an extensive series of tests
and preliminary demonstrations at the project to perfect methods of raising
cows in covered housing and without causing surface or ground water
pollution from the feeding and housing facilities.
-------
Pending Enforces.?r.t Ac t i on
The Santa Ana Regional 1,'ater Quality Control Board, after conducting
studies and analyzing data, is beginning an enforcement program aimed at
reducing surface and underground pollution from dairies. Of major concern
is the above-mentioned Chino-Corona basin, 40 niles east of Los Angeles,
with its 115,000 cows. The Regional Board is asking dairymen in its
jurisdiction to detail how they propose to avoid pollution by surface
drainage from their dairies. Of equal concern is the realization that
nitrates are percolating into the upper aquifer at a rate to materially
exceed allowable limits for drinking water. The present cov/ population
is nine per gross acre. Calculations were made to take into account the
amount of nitrates tcken up by plants, lost by de-nitrification within the
soil, loss by surface run-off, etc., and dillution by rainfall and imported
irrigation water . Ti e conclusion is that with present waste management
practices, there should be a limit of three or four cows per acre.
The major sources of this form of pollution are:
1. use of large amounts of manure and manure-urine containing waste
water on land of limited area,
2. direct downward percolation from earth corrals.
One possible solution would be to construct a special or community
sewerage system to collect liquid dairy waste. This would enable use of
water-flushing irethods in roofed, all-concrete floored cow housing, and
provide an outlet for drainage from milking parlors. The high nitrate,
phosphate, chloride, and other total dissolved soli Is would necessitate
-------
either: (1) an outfall sewer to the ocean; (2) test tertiary treatment,
plus special solids management for the close to 900 tons of dry solids
produced per day by 115,090 cows.
Another possible solution was investigated during this project, as
discussed in the next chapter.
-------
CHAPTER 5
MANAGEKE'lT OF COWS ON ALL-CONCRETE SURFACES
As mentioned earlier, project studies showed that water-flushed,
all-concrete floored cow housing, with suitable "free-stalls" in which the
cows rest and sleep, do provide a method of managing waste with a minimum
of labor (Figure 32). A comparison of the fly production aspects of this
system, as compared with earth corral systems, is detailed in Appendix 2.
It is concluded that this system is suitable when:
1. there is a sewerage system to satisfactorily collect, treat, and
dispose of the waste, or
2. where there ere adequate areas of land on which the liquid can be
spread for irrigation and where it can be disposed of without
creating pollution problems.
It appears that vhere such conditions do not e
-------
**-**•
figure 32. Water-flushed dairy drain.
-------
to be , in th: cr?te
there was no fly breedii or od.
'
-«*7^,
' -
. —;«_«,.
.
' /
. • %
•
Figure 33. Cow; prefer compost on slabs to their free-stalls.
As was expected, this phase of the project was interrupted by heavy rain
in late November. However, the experience did lead to the conclusion that the
recycling system should be studied in more depth and in completely roofed
facilities, through a rainy season-
It was decided that two roofed units should be built, to house 10
eacl
•.tails, therefore, th-ese new units were designed vo be "loose g" (Figure :
"pole barns" with roofs high enough to not into h operation of dump
trucks and loading equipment, and to facilitate ventilation, aeration, and ad-
mittance or suniignt. tlimination of the free-stalls dvoided I he
amount of hand labor necessary to keep free-stall* jvered with beddirg.
The facilities were built, financed and subsequently operated by Alta-Dena Dairy.
-------
• - -
J
-
Figure 34. 100 Cows on compost in roofed "loose-housing" facility.
-------
In normal, dry-weather operation, the concrete loafing and feeding
areas were cleaned twice a v;eek. The existing system involved dragging a
bottomless bucket behind a rubber-tired tractor to drag the wet (88* moisture)
manure-urine mixture to a nearby earth corral. Here it was spread in
4- to 12-inch lagers for some drying. However, within three or four days
the material v;as heavily infested with fly larvae and so, while still very
wet, had to be hauled by dump truck for applicatior to agricultural land.
Various methods, such as harrowing, failed to dry the material. Efforts
were made to mix dry compost with the wet material but this was nearly
impossible with the available equipnent such as tractors with front-end
loaders, harrows, and the Eagle Loader. Some success was achieved by
spreading dry compost on the wet manure-urine before it was removed.
Mr. Frank Smith, Farir Advisor, then suggested spreading a bed of compost
after the concrete surface was cleaned and before cows were readmitted.
Recycling Demonstration
From June through November 1970, the project successfully demonstrated
the practicality of utilizing the aerobic composting and recycling process
1n a 90 cow, all-concrete, free-stall facility. (Figure 35).
Tests and calculations indicated it would require about 50 cubic yards
of compost, twice a week, to blot the moisture from 90 cows and produce a
material with 50-55 percent moisture, which was optimum for composting.
It was further noted that, if there were no breakdown in the process,
the two-bin facility ircul* produce the required amount of compost for the
90-cow facility. This estimate proved to be correc; and the process continued
successfully for the j.ix-ir.onth period.
-------
Figure 35. ! cycled -,t in f
The i cally
of o e rev ewed for possible use to minimize I in
material handling. One unit was a Sperry-Rand "flew Holland" side-un'.
manure spreader. This, it was theorized, would be loadec with 10 cubic yards
of wet material from the cow housing. The unit would un'oad onto the
aerating pile as it was driven parallel to the aeration pipes. Another unit
consid- was a self-loading u ^ch would unload by a snc
syst
-ious type tractors, including large, articuJator
:. One such i
-ds and rood speed and maneuvcrabi" ihis cut ti:;;c t; and
,S iu !• ;.'i c*ne--nird 10 ioa
•s.
-------
80'
-~^
/' >v
""" ' '•'"« /J\
.',V-\
\ *J \ Jln_ _____
).-C| .4^1 ^jijjj
A-"" • ' ' ^
./v',
^^/
*
,.— *-^
•• n
i y' '
1 i ' ' c
.
POLE
BAW
OVtH
CONCftTE
SLAB
100 sq.ft.
par cow
STANCHIONS
*^* \
/L
OR r
SELF- ->
f-EEDERS L
12
•\
i
5
r
4" LAYtfc 01'
bLDDIN'J
Arv:.(j! B j
nAIJUI-'f A 40
U! ? 1 ML
I4J-1-' j Vc IJ
WI.I Kl.Y
bUILOINCJ
cor."5
110 Cq.(t.
per cow
$i"9/.50 per
COw
f:
1-'
i
^
L-j'«
» i ?
^ i *
' j [..
_j
i.
i
;
!!
1'
h
L
•
J
i
1
1
f
-
' '•"
^i"
',
, *
;
i-
i
i
i
•
t
i
^
t
I
r
* ' •
>w
-. .—
' >'
t
t
i
i
i
i
CV;HR
,
*M*
C i ^
l'LLl ^
A.
/ X
" J
STOCKPILE
Or DRY
Af P.ATtO
rwji.^
- on pi Iu 1
0 - un pile ?
C - on pile 3
D - on pi lo A
Figure 36. Recycled aerated manure system.
-------
Questions and Probltris 1,'ith "Cr.v'irnn7ental Cow Housing"
Among the questions to be answered were:
1. Would a mixture of five parts of composted material with one part
raw (by volume) contain enough heat-liberating materials to support
the rate of thermophilic action which is necessary?
2. Would it be possible to accomplish the moisture reduction from
55 to 25 percent?
3. Would recycling produce a suitable compost?
4. Would recycling result in an excessive build-up of chlorides, etc.?
5. Would labor and equipment time and costs be excessive?
Project's answers to questions:
1. The temperatures did remain high enough bjt air volumes had to be
rcd-cc- d-i"-.:;;, t;;c *.*»1 ..cather when night temperatures were in tne
32 F to 40 F range.
2. The moisture reduction, in bins, was not .js efficient as was expected.
The greatest problem is to remove moisture without creating the air
pollution problems associated with most heat drying processes. As stated
above, trial was begun in one 90 cow, free-stall, all-concrete unit. Large
Hoi stein cows produce uo to 115 pounds of waste per day. With 87 percent
moisture this means the dry solids are 15 pounds aid the moisture content
is 100 pounds.
-------
&•;>.
Mate rja 1 JVcc•:_?sing a n'! Hand!_inr Capa city
As stated above, it required 50 cubic yards, twice a week, or
TOO cubic yards of compost per week for the 90-cow facility. This would
indicate need 1.1 cubic yards of co.Tipost per cow per week.
Composting Capacity:
With 10-day aerobic composting cycles, need 1.6 cubic yards of
composting capacity per cow. For the 200-cow facility need 320 cubic yards
of composting capacity.
Aging Capacity:
Since a 30-day aging process is three times as long as the composting
process, need 950 cubic yards of composting capacity.
The key itercs for success were determined to be:
1. Adequate composting capacity, preferably under roof for all-weather
operation
2. Adequate anc1 covered (in rainy season) aging piles
3. Careful operation
4, Stand-by composting capacity and equipment.
-------
Cone 1 usicns_Cor.c cm:nc Epv1rop,^eri_tjj_Ho'.if.ing
It appears likely that the environmental housing system will provide
an answer to tho problen of surface and ground water pollution as well as
to odors, fly control, dust control, and other environmental problems
associated with dairies in close proximity to residential areas. The surplus
compost is considerably more attractive and valuable as a soil anendnent t lan
the product resulting from composting material from earth corrals. 8y
capturing all of these liquids and solids and converting these into a soil
amendment, the otherwise pollutions! materials are preserved as a plant
nutrient. When applied to soil rrost of the nitratos are believed to be taken
up by the plants ratKer than penetrating downward no the ground waters.
Preliminary observations indicate that the washing of cows maintained in
cii» 11 C,.:.iiciiLal iiuubiii'j ib nut quite db difficult ob *a:>titiiy cuwi iiuu^cu in ui
-------
CHAPTER 6
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
Alternate Methods of Manure Management
As stated above, this project was directed primarily toward the
management of manure from dairy cows on earth corrals at farms of limited
area and in regions which are in close proximity tc residential develop-
ments. A survey to ascertain attitudes of residents living in the vicinity
of such dairies showed that earth corral dairies ce.use serious complaints
from families living closer than 350 feet from a dciry. Flies, odors, and
dust were the main adverse environmental factors. The project further
recognized that recent water quality control laws, regulations, and policies,
plus studies of pollution of aquifers by dairy operation, will necessitate
new cow housing and waste management programs and procedures.
The first phase of the project demonstrated that aerated composting of
manure from earth corrals is an environmentally and economically practical
procedure. Costs anc revenue are given in the following tables and
discussion. Table 3 covers the operation of the two 133-cubic yard-composting
bins. Table 4 gives the lower costs for aerating over pipes installed in
open slabs. Economics of the first method are marginal but the second
method is clearly economically favorable in areas where there is a market
for a quality compost of this type.
-------
TABLE 3
COST OF AERATED COMPOST—DEMONSTRATION PROJECT
Item
Bins and blowers
Eagle Loader truck
Land (1/2 acre)
Screening facility
Annual fixed cost--
Cost
$30,000
15,000
3,000
3,000
Interest
(73)
$2,100
1,050
210
210
Depreciation
or
Annual Expense
$3,000
3,000
200 (tax)
300
Annual
Cost
$ 5,100
4,050
410
510
$10,070
Other annual charges:
Electricity •$ 120
Repairs 500
Gas and Oil 300
Misc. expense 300
Office expense 350
Total —
Equipment operation aid rental,
including tractor and trucks (52 weeks @ $60) —
TOTAL COST (NOT INCLUDING SCREENING LA30R):
Screening (2 men, Eagle Loader plus tractor
@ $10 per hour) 5 hours per week
(20 cubic yards per hour) 52 weeks—
TOTAL COST FOR BULK COMPOST:
Product produced:
100 cu.yds. per wcek--50 weeks: 5,000 cu.yds.
$17,360
5,000
$ 1,570
$ 3,120
$14,760
$ 2,600
$17,360
$3.47 per cu.yd. (bulk)
Sacking cost:
Labor per cu.yd. = $1.35
Sacks—13.5 sacks per cu.yd. @ $.12 = $1.62
Total cost sacked product:
Total coit Backed product:
$6.44 pe»- cu.yd.
$..47 per sack
-------
70.
TABLE 4
COST OF AERATED COMPOST (OPEN SLAB)
Item
Slab and blower
Land (1/2 Acre)
Screen and belt
coverage
Cost
$5,000
3,000
'.,000
Interest
1%
$350
210
280
ANNUAL FIXED
Depreciation
or Expense
$500
200 (tax)
400
COST--
Annual Cost
$ 850
410
680
$1,940
Other annual charges:
Electricity $120
Repairs 200
Gas and oil 100
Miscellaneous exp. 300
Office expense 300
Equipment operation and "rental" 2,000
TOTAL COST (NOT INCLUDING SCREENING LABOR) $4,960
Screening (See Table 3) 2,600
TOTAL COST $7,560
Cost per cu.yd. • $1.43
Sacking labor cost 1.35
Cost of sacks 1.62
Total cost sacked product/cu.yd. $4.40
Total cost per sack $0.33
-------
With greater efficiency possible by using methods developed during the
project end by purchasing sacks in quantity, the price could be cut somewhat.
The selling price at AHa-Dena Drive-In milk outlets is $.89 per sack
and the current wholesale price is $0.65 per sack.
Delivery and marketing costs must be added. The bin process, while not
a large scale "money maker", does provide a nuisance-free means of dispensing
of manure in all seasons with projected income about equal to costs plus
contingencies.
Cost of Processing on Slabs. The simplified method of aerating by a series of
perforated pipes in slots in open slabs, has advantages:
1. Reduce constru:tion costs from $30,000 to $E,000.
2. Avoid necessity of purchasing and maintaining Eagle Loader.
In addition, by installina a unit which can both blow and "suck"'avoids
the necessity of "turning" the material and cuts processing time. After ten
days in pile, and while still hot, the material is moved to stockpile for aging
A few aeration pipes under the aging piles enable final, slow composting under
aerobic conditions. (Figure 38).
-------
Costs of the "Environmental Cow Housing System". This method would enable
increasing the number of cows per acre. Present practice calls for 500 square
feet of corral space per cow. With extra space for maternity and calf pens,
hay and feed storage, driveways, set-backs, milking parlors, and space for
disposing of milking parlor wash water, 20 cows per gross acre is in some
counties a "legal maximum."
With new concerns for nitrate pollution of aquifers, a limit of four cows
per acre has been suggested. These factors are of groat economic significance
where land costs are high.
Mr. Harold Lee, President of the company that built the Alta-Dena Dairy
roofed-housing facility used in this project, gave the following current costs
for a conventional 400-cow, earth corral dairy in tt.e Chino-Corona area where
115,000 cows are prest.-ntly being maintained. (See Table 5).
• "(nese figures, end cost figures developed during the project, were used
in the following to develop an economic analysis.
Comparative Cost Analysis of 400-Cow Facility With Earth Corrals Compared
With "Environmental System." In this analysis, the above cost data are used,
except that it is assumed that cow density is 80 per gross acre. Land cost
is estimated at $5,000 per acre, the current price in the Chino-Corona area.
(see Table 6).
-------
TABLE 5
COST BREAKDOltf;
400-COW MILKING DAIRY
Ground "A" Sub Total $240,000.00
Grading 10,000.00
Irrigation well and pump 9,000.00
Domestic well, pump and tank 7,000.00
Milk house and breezeway 13,000.00
Dairy barn and feed system 22,000.00
~.vo-hundred cow wash pens 12,400.00
6,000 Gallon tank, 25 H.P. booster pump and controls 2,400.00
Holding pens 1,600.00
Corrals 50,000.00
6-inch concrete driveways 10,000.00
Asphalt paving 5,000.00
Hay shelters 10,000.00
Tractor shed 3,600.00
12-inch concrete lines-, standpipes, and alfalfa valves 6,500.00
Barbed wire fencing 6,900.00
"B" Sub Toral $169,400.00
Vacuum pump, lines, and units 15,000.00
Milk tank, ice machine, etc. • 13,000.00
Tractor, wagon, and pickup 16,000.00
"C" Sub Total $ 44,000.00
GRAND TOTAL $453,400.00
-------
7G.
TABLE 6
COMPARATIVE FIXED COSTS OF EARTH CORRAL DAIRIES AND
ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS*
400 COW DAIRY
Item
Land @ $5,000 per acre
Grading
Corral construction, including
feed mangers
Driveways
Fencing
Four 100-cov/ facilities
Paving, pipes, blowers, walls for
composting
Office-laboratory
Roof for composting area
Sieving and .sacking
Special hauling equipment
Extender aeration system for waste
Misc. tools and materials
Design and contingency
TOTALS
Earth
System
$100,000 (20 A)
10,000
50,000
15,000
6,900
-
-
-
'
-
-
-
-
10,000
$191,900
Environmental
Cow Housing
System
25,000
2,500
10,000*
5,000
2,800
80,000
22,000
2,000
10,000
7,000
15,000
8,000
5,000
10,000
$204,300
Net including roofed housing,
*?'-•>•
-------
The above tabulation assumes there would be front loading tractors
and trucks available for both the earth corral and environmental systems.
It assumes barn wash water would be disposed of on part of the 5-acre area
of that type dairy; that the extended aeration system will enable recycling
soire wash water and disposal of waste water on a smaller parcel of land.
Taxes would be approximately equal though slightly higher for the larger
investment in land for earth corrals.
-------
TABLE 7
ANiiUAL EXTRA COST OF RECYCLING MANURE
Depreciation--^ year life
equip-vent and facilities, $40,COD @ }():• $ 4,000
Repairs 500
Electricity 500
Gas and oil 500
Misc. expense 300
Office expense 300
Operator (1/2 time) 4,000
Supervision (1/4 time) 3,000
$13,100
Cost of cleanincj earth corrals and
disposal of manure:
From Table 1
$7.CO/cow/year to set ape and load $ 3,120
Hauling cost 3,650 cu.yds. @ $0.50 $ 1,825
Cost of cleaning earth corrals: $ 4,945
Extra anrual cost of recycling manure
in environmental housing: $ 8,155
-------
TABLE 8
COSTS A;;D REVENUE FROM PRODUCT.
QUANTITY OF SACKED CCXPOST PER YEAR
Assuming a "shrinkage" from the 3/4 cu.ft. produced per cow
per day to 1/2 cu.ft. of final product--
The annual output from 400 cows would equal:
36.5 X 200 = 73,000 cu.ft.
or 2,700 cu.yds.
or 36,500 2-cu.ft. bags
Extra cost of sacking:
Costs of sacks, each = $ 0.12
Costs of sacking = 0.10
Total: $ 0.22 per sack
Estimated value of sacked product
F.O.B. dairy = $ 0.50
Extra cost per sack = 0.22
Revenue per sa:k: $ 0.28
With 36,500 sacks, revenue over cost = $10,220
Extra annual cost o-" "environmental
housing system (Table 7) = 8,155
Apparent cost advantage of Environmental
System (per yeor with 400-cow dairy): $ 2,065
-------
Conclusions of Cost Analysis
The financial comparative analysis depends upon a number of factors.
Lower land cost and lack of market for the product would ter.d to lessen the
advantages of the "environmental system."
Further limitations on cow density on earth corrals will tend to favor
the environmental system.
When pollution control regulations prohibit surface and ground-water
pollution, many of the earth corral dairies will be forced to provide roofed
housing. Then the present choice seems to lie between "environmental
housing," and a system for treating and disposing of liquid wastes, such as
a "dairy" sewerage and treatment plant system.
A comprehensive cost-benefit analysis would, of necessity, include the
factors of total c^v:r:rr.;r,tc.1 irr.pc.v.l o." vdi iuui cafdiJale systems.
Environmental housing -anks high in odor, fly, and ether environmental quality
control indices. There are indications that the system has other advantages,
especially over earth corral systems, such as:
1. Cow milk production stays high during rainy weather and muddy corral
conditions, which results in loss in production.
2. Cow health is probably higher since they are not exposed to muddy
corrals which seem to promote mastitis.
3. Cow cleaning is less of a job than when cows lay in muddy coirais.
4. Time and effort to round-up cows and drive to and from milking
parlors is reduced.
5. There are indications cows' feet retiain healthy, while wet concret.
does appear to cause some sore foot problem:;.
-------
Anticipated Possibl e ECOIJOMK: Disadvantages .^ The market for the compost
can either improve or decrease the economic advantages.
The necessity for continuously maintaining the system is, like all other
parts of an operation which must continue for 365 days a year, an important
consideration. However, the project design contemplates enough aeration
capacity, in several separate units, that the operation will be continuous.
It is also important that a surplus of compost be maintained to carry the
operations through periods of adverse weather, etc.
There is the possibility that breakdown of key hauling equipment will
necessitate equipment rental or contracting for certain services. This,
however, is a problem v/ith any anticipated system, although not as acute.
-------
81.
CHAPTER 7
SPECIAL FINDINGS AND VARIANCES WITH "LITERATURE"
Merits of Demonstrated Aeration Process
The Solid Wastes Office's project review panel wisely had advised that
the project include a study of all available methods of utilization or
disposal of dairy waste. The data indicated that aerobic composting appears
to be the method of choice. Three factors were important in the decision
making process. It was determined that the selected process should not
necessitate accumulating large quantities of manure for anaerobic composting
by stockpiling; the method should be environmentalIj acceptable, particularly
from the standpoint of flies, odors and dust; and the process should produce a
product with maximum marketability. An important consumer demand is that the
product should be free, of weed seeds, dry enough and of such consistency as
to facilitate application in a uniform manner to gardens and lawns; that it
should not produce objectionable odors nor create fly breeding when subsequently
moistened.
The findings of the project are at variance with opinions and decisions
based upon other research. For instance, "American Composting Concepts,"
published by the Environmental Protection Agency Solid Wastes Management
Office (1971) said "forced aeration was shown to be technologically difficult
to accomplish and was least likely to aerate a composting mass." It said,
"simple turning was shown to be an effective way of maintaining needed aeration."
These two statements are completely disproven as a result of the project
findings, as follows:
-------
In the early stages of the project, masses of approximately 6 cubic
yards of manure in each of six bins were turned with a front-end loading
bucket. Three simple tests were used along with the visual observation to
check various stages in the processing cycle. One was to note the percent
of oxygen in the gases within the compost mass. The second was use of
1-, 2-, and 3-foot-long stems on direct reading thermometers. These two sets
of data enabled correlating temperatures and percent oxygen. The third
test was a rapid moisture determination.
Since the fundamental object of the project was to develop a method for
rapidly producing good quality compost at the lowest cost, it was determined
that the ideal method would be one in which the entire mass is being processed
simultaneously, at a rapid rate. It was found that with relatively fresh
manure, or manure and compost mixtures and no aeration, the percent oxygen
gradually drops from in.a percent at the surface tc 6 percent at 18 inches, and
near zero at greater depths. The surface temperatures were, as might be
expected significantly modified by the atmospheric temperature, but close to
ambient temperature. At a depth of 6 inches to nearly 18 inches the tempera-
tures were in the range froir 140 F to 160 F, which was considered optimum for
producing weed-seed and pathogen-free compost and for maximum composting
activity. Even with daily turning 'it was noted that oxygen at depths below
18 inches quickly dropped to below 6 percent and aerobic processing practica'ily
•j topped. Or. the other hand, it v/as found to be simple to adjust the air
supplied by perforated pipes connected with low pressure blowers to maintain
a rate necessary to maintain aerobic conditions throughout the mass and without
producing excessive cooling effects. It is relatively simple to demonstrate
-------
that a orating with a forced or sucked air supply requires far less labor
than for windrowing. In other v;ords, tSie D'.IMP demonstrated the value of
utilizing low pressure air for aerobically composting large masses of cow
manure, by a sinple and inexpensive system.
Mic ro b i o1 egi c a 1 " S e?ding." Another statement in "American Composting Concepts"
contends that microbiological "seeding" is of no value in the composting
process. One of the mo.-e important tests regularly conducted by the project's
entomology team v.'as to determine whether or not the compost, when moistened
to the optimum fly breeding range, would produce fly larvae when exposed to
ova position of fertilized adult females. It was found that two batches of
compost could be processed for the same period at well above 140 F, and one
would produce flies when subsequently wetted and the other would not. One
'••o'jH pro^'ce cc?"sidc*"-1?!e o^o*^ \;^r>^ vetted, the ot.':cr would not. Prcl imincrv>
experimentation indicated that the difference was thi.t one batch contained at
least 10 percent of compost mixed with the raw manure and the other did not.
Subsequently, one bin was filled with over 100 cubic yards of raw manure to
which no compost had been added. The second bin was, at the same time, filled
with raw manure in which 10 percent compost had been mixed. Both were processed
by the same method, sinultaneously. .Both developed the same temperatures
(above 160 F) and appealed to be processing at an equally effective rate. The
mixture, however, produced a brownish compost of the appearance and consistency
that was desired. Raw uanure produced a yellowish material that looked pretty
much like dry manure fibres. The material resulting from the mixture, when
moistened, remained relatively odorless and did not produce fly larvae, whereas
the raw material, when subsequently wetted, did produce odors and fly larvae.
-------
A review of the literature revealed that a number of authorities
advocate that temperatures be kept in the 130-140 F range, "to avoid
inactivation of borieficial organisms." The project demonstrated that the
most rapid production of attractive, stable compost occurred at temperatures
batv/een 160 F and 174 F. These temperatures are also desirable to rapidly
inactivate weed seeds and pathogens. This observation is in agreement with
those of German scientists who visited the project and reported 172 F to be
optimum. A major objective in the project was to achieve moisture reduction.
This is facilitated by maintaining optirrum heat libjration to enable maintain-
ing high temperatures and simultaneous high airflow rate.
Temperatures rose to as high as 188 F. The compost, at temperatures
above 174 F, had a ne.irly black color, a "cooked" odor, and was not a
desiraoie product.
Temperatures and Processing in Open,-Aerating Piles. When material was piled
over pipes in the manner shown'in Figure 38, the temperatures normally
reached and were maintained at close to 160 F to within 4 inches of the
surface. While there was condensation at the sides, next to the walls of the
bins and at the top, there was less evidence of surface condensation in the
edges of the open piles.
While "packing" was common in the bins, necessitating moving to tho
second bin to break up and rnable adequate airflow this condition was less
of a problem with the 3ile^. In fact, when loaded with material with less
^>
than 55 percent moistu-e, no turning was necessary except that which
occurred when the material was moved to the stockpils.
-------
Material which v;as effectively processed at temperatures above 140 F
for approximately eight days v;culd remain at about 140 F for several weeks in
the stockpiles. Such temperatures, unlike in piles of unprocessed materials,
existed throughout the piles. This condition was believed to inactivate
weed seeds and pathogens of most of the portions of the material which was
not exposed to high enough temperatures due to their location near the bottom
or sides in the composting bin or pile. The aging improved the appearance of
the material. A comoination of aging plus exposure to the air while placing
in and removing from the aging stockpile usually produced a moisture reduction
of 5 to 10 percent. This confirmed statements found in the literature
calling for "aging" or "ripening" by storage.
Observations of Other Systems
Water-Flushed Dairies. Three v/atcr-f lushed dairies wert studied as part of
the project. These v;ere the:
Henry HafTiger Dairy, near San Jacinto, Riverside County (Figure 39)
Shady Grove Dairy, near Ontario in San Bernardino County
Dawn Dairy, near Corcoran in Kings County
At both the Hafliger and Shady Grove Dairies, cows were held in a paved
area where they were subjected to washing and soaking by sprays comparable to
those used for watering golf courses. The wash water, together with water used
to wash the milking carl or, accumulated behind a bottom-hinged dam at the
bottom of an approximately 15-foot-wide, 15-foot-long ramp with the water depth
ranging from 18 incnes at the dam and 0 inches at the top of the slope.
Measurements by the Froject Director indicated a dcily water use of 40 to 50
gallons per cow. It appeared that the sprays were allowed to run more than
-------
:
j a sur-p from
:h it v,
•ited at an el
. This would remove the
fibrous i ial which d d into a dump truck. Tins was used as bedding
he ccv.'i' free-stalls.
o •
J
I
_-b'-lk»;^_ _.-•.... ——m—*-'i«'^—i'-
I
L, . .
41. ". screen for wast H
pih>'nr:
water- 1
-------
At tiines, the screen was bypassed. Then the manure-water mixture was
pumped at high pressure through a rotating nozzle which spread the material
in a 300-fcot-diameter circle. Since there were no nearby residences and
there v;ere several hundred acro:s of land available, the waste disposal posed
no irradiate problems. The system appears to be efficient, necessitating
almost no labor for manure handling. Mr. Haf]iger contends he has no special
problem w-'th cows' sore feet and no abnormal rote of cow replacement. Some
observers contend somewhat of a sore foot problem does exist.
At the Shady Grove Dairy the mixture of water and manure, without treat-
i
merit, from over 600 cows was spread on about 20 acres of crop lands. The soil
had becc:::c- water-logged and liquid periodically drained into roadside ditches.
A shaker screen was installed and it did not seem to solve the problem, but
it has r\nt hppn -in ncc innn onnnnh f?v f.jii observation. A review of these
systems (Shady Grove and three others in San Bernarcino County) with Health
and Farm Advisor officials indicates there are significant problems which will
necessitate major modifications or abandonment of tre water-flushed systems.
Problems with fly breeding in this type systeir are described in
Appendix 2.
At the Dawn Dairy, with upwards of 1,200 milking cows, a Swego shaker
screen provides bedding for the free-stalls. In visw of the cows being
housed in a fairly clean environment» and where cow:.1 hides arc not soiled
by jr.ud, a lev;-volume, efficient cow washing unit is in use. It is using water
only when activated by a cow being held momentarily while jets from below
•\r
wash the essential arec-s. This saving in water, hcwover, is not significant
because of t!'.2 volu.r.o cf water uic-J to accomplish tlu: twice daily flushing of
-------
the concrete areas bet'.veer! cows' free-stalls snd their feed mangers. Extra
water is run into the typical ramp-dammed area. In addition, watering troughs
which hold about 1,000 gallons each, are provided with bottom-hinged dams
which are also routinely opened to flush the paved areas.
The Dawn Dairy liquid waste is utilized, as part of the irrigation water,
on over 1,000 acres. The management has reported the "fertilizer" value of
this manure is about $165 per month. At the other water-flushed dairies, manure
removal labor is minimal. The design overcomes some of the problems of other
dairies.
Grooves about 1/8-inch wide and deep, to avoid a slippery surface, are
parallel to the slope and tend to drain. At other dairies the grooves are
perpendicular to the r-lope and tend to remain more wet, possibly contributing
to the Lendbiicy luv.arc! sure cows' feet.
Another feature -5 the surface is slightly crowned to tend to concentrate
the flow in the hard-to-clean corners, thereby tending to avoid accumulations
of fly-breeding manure at these points.
The above and other observations made during the project have clearly
indicated that water-flushed dairies are capable of being maintained with a
minimum of labor and nuisances. The major problem is in disposal of the
rather large quantities of polluted water, as was discussed in Chapter 4.
Other Systems
Two other systems were observed in the Centra] Valley of California.
Three dairies were designed to continuously keep co'-/s under roof. About
TOO square feet of floor area was provided per cow. The areas in front of
-------
fec-.d Dangers anJ watering troughs are physically separated by fence, from a
laryer "loose ho'jsing" ar\jd v;here cov/s sleep and "loaf". Wood shavings and
sawdust covered the entire floor. Additional sawdust and shavings are
periodically added to the surface. Before accumulations get too deep the
mixture of wood waste and manure are r&r.oved.
Heavy concentrations of fly larvae were noted in the pile of material which
had been removed from the cow housing facility. The system had sufficient
promise as to lend encouragement to "testing a system in which a more readily
available drying material (aerobically processed compost) would be used and
in which the irrr.cdiate processing of water material would avoid fly breeding.
Lagoons. A few new dairies near Tulare were built -;o provide fairly large
lagoons for storing and treating liquid dairy waste. One type design was
developed to provide qood slopes for corrals in an area of flat terrain.
Lagoons are dug to a depth of about 30 feet, about 40 feet wide and 200 feet
long. The excavated earth is used to build a mound, on the top of which is
the milking parlor. Sloping downward are the corrals and a concrete apron
which slopes down to the lagoon. Cow and barn wash water flow down the ramp
to the lagoon.
The lagoon serves as a storage reservoir from which the water-manure
mixture can be pumped at times when needed for irrigation or when it can be
disposed of.
A few special observations were made. While the lagoons., in a somewhat
sandy-loam soil, leaked heavily when first filled, i;hey quickly became nearly
watertight. It is assumed the ingredients in manure have a tendency to clog
pores between the or.rns of earth.
-------
Contrary to expectations, own though the lu-'conr. wen? bubbling due to
dicestive action, they did not produce Seriously objectionable odors. Clunps
of sludge rose to the surface. Grass tended to grow on these accumulations,
partially covering the surface. Sor.ie dairymen r.-aintainc-d flocks of ducks with
clipped wings. These tended to feed upon and break up the clumps, keeping
the surface quite free of such accumulations.
Drainage Problems
At several dairies in the more congested areas near Los Angeles, serious
drainage problems were noted. At one water-flushed dairy, it was noted the
required 2 to 3 percent slopes for the 600-or-more foot-long concrete free-stall
facilities necessitated differences in elevations of 20 feet from bottom to
tops of the slopes. The natural slope was about 1 percent. The required
<--!,-,.,~ .-3 produced by excavation at the bottom emu rimnu ac tne too. in one
of several of such dairies observed, the result was that about 15 acres of the
dairy property, including barns and roofed and pavec areas, drained into sumps
which normally received the manure-water mixture frcm the v/ater-flushed system.
During storms the mixtjre of rain v/ater, manure, and barr drainage all had to
be pumped for disposal. With a periodic rainfall rate of 2 inches per hour
the pumps must handle 30 cubic feet .per second or 13,500 g.p.m., a truly large
pumping task. A 6-irch rainstorm would produce 2,500,000 gallons of somewhat
oolluted wati.-r i.n d''s:ose of. The observations indicated the desirability
of d design which wou'c exclude clean drainage from the more polluted drainage
the system is designeo to handle.
-------
APPENDIX I
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF EARTH CORRAL DAIRIES
IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS
R. Stanley Fernow, R.S.*
Roy Eastwood, R.S. **
Robert S. Stone, R.S.***
with major input of data from additional surveys in
San Bernardino County, conducted under
Joseph Martin, R.S. ****
and
Robert Prochaska, R.S.*****
*Senior Sanitarian Aide, Orange County Health Departr.ient
**Supervising Vector Cortrol Sanitarian, Orange County Health Department
**-Director of Environ^ertal Health, Orange County Health Department
****Director of Environmental. Quality Control, San Bernardino County Health Dept.
"****CiitGiiiulO'jisl-5dni tari in.. San Bernardino County Health 'Jepartir.erit
-------
APPENDIX 1
INTRODUCTION
Increased hupan populations, urban expansion problems and environmental
pollution in recent years have broadened the scope of public health.
"Subsequent definitions (Anon, 1968} have expanded the concept until it
encompasses all aspects of societal and individual health and well being."
A task force from Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW) (1967) states that
"...the department's purpose for environmental concern be to insure that
every American can thrive in an attractive, comfortable, convenient and
healthful environment."
Southern California has experienced a wide variety of problems associated
with rapid urban qrowth. Residential areas have sprung up with rapidity.
Towns have grown and expanded until their borders touch. Agricultural establish-
ments have become surrounded by residential areas adjacent to their borders.
The specific type of situation with which this study deals is the one
resulting when people purchase homes adjacent to or near a dairy ranch.
Ordinarily there are no buffer zones between the dairy ranches and the
residential neighborhoods. In most instances, the purchaser has not been
fully aware of the potential problems of having a dairy for a neighbor.
The objective?-; to be act;:.'/.-.:;.)! i^hi-d i;i this, study are as follows:
]. Interview selected citizens to determine what features of dairy
farming are pirticularly objectionable.
*~
2. Determine whether dairy operations carried out under "ideal"
conditions with a minimum of fly production and odor nuisance would
be objectionable to residents.
-------
METHODS AND MATERIALS
The above-Mentioned tasks were accomplished by interviewing residents
living around dairies both in Orange and San Bernardino Counties. The
San Bernardino County Health Department was very cooperative in this endeavor.
A survey form was developed (appendix 1). Residents were interviewed in control
areas' and in neighborhoods surrounding dairies.2 In these interviews, the
attitudes of the respondents toward environmental nuisances thought to be
associated with,, dairy ranches were measured. Attitudes toward nuisances such
as dust, noise, rodents, unsightly premises, odors, end flies were recorded.
Also, a "normal" index of attitudes toward these same environmental nuisances
was obtained from neighborhoods without any animal establishments (controls)
botii in Orange and San Bernardino Counties. This index of "normal" attitude
levels was then compared to the attitude levels found to be existing in the
neighborhoods surrounding dairies. It was then determined whether living close
or adjacent to a dairy does or does not create high levels of annoyance
:oward environmental nuisances and whether these high levels of annoyance would
exist regardless of superior dairy management.
1. The control areas i i both counties contained no animal or commercial
establishments. Also they were about the same socio-economic level as were
the dairy neighborhoods.
2. The Orange County dairy neighborhood was chosen because of superior manage-
ment on the dairy. The San Bernardino County neighborhoods were chosen at
random based on similar socio-economic levels.
-------
The ctiiry ncricj^Lcrhaods wore stratified to co;r,p
-------
Dus_t. In the category of dust, a larger percentage of respondents were
annoyed by dust in the dairy neighborhoods than in the control neighborhoods
(Table 9).
Although only 27 percent of the respondents in the Orange County dairy
sample were annoyed by dust (Table 9), 62 percent of these same respondents
blamed the dairy as th^ source (Table 10). This means that although fewer
respondents in the Orange County dairy sample were annoyed by dust than in
the other dairy samples, a larger percentage of respondents in the Orange
County dairy sample blrned the dairy for the dust problem than did respondents
in other dairy areas (Table 10).
The San Bernardino County control sample was significantly different from
all the dairy sar.ples (Table 9). Therefore, all three dairy neighborhoods'
total populations were more annoyed by dust than the San Bernardino control
area total population. However, the Orange County control area sample was
significantly different (Table 9) from one of the San Bernardino County dairy
samples (D2). Therefore, only the D2 area total pop-jlation was more annoyed
by dust than the Orange County control area total population. Thus, the
San Bernardino residents from D2 were more annoyed with dust than the residents
from either control area.
Noise. A lorger percent of respondents were annoy3d with noise in the Orange
County control (Cl) anc dairy (Dl) samples than in any of the other neighbor-
hoods (Table 9). The Cl and Dl samples were significantly different from
D2 and D3 samples (Table 9). This means that respondents in the total popu-
lation of both Cl and Dl were more annoyed by noise "han the total population
-------
of 02 and C3. This difference was riue to n nn-° nf tho q3n rinv-nay^ioo County dairy samples (03), wer« annoytu
vrth rodents than were respondents in any of the other samples (Table 9 ).
Although there was no significant difference between areas Dl and D3 in
respect to the percent of respondents who complained about rodents, (Table 9 ),
55 percent of the respcndents in the D1 area who complained about rodents also
blamed the dairy for the problem as compared to only 12 percent in area 03
(Table 10). Samples Dl and D3 are significantly different from C2 (Table 9 ).
This means that the total population in both Dl and D3' were more annoyed by
rodents than the total population in C2.
htlv Premises. Although a larger percentage of respondents in Cl and Dl
were more annoyed with jns'Vghtly premises than were respondents in the other
neighborhoods, there we^e no significant differences between any of the test
areas (Table 9 ).
-------
Table iO reveals that n£ respondents blamed any of the dairies as being
an unsigiitly premise.
Odors. There was a large percentage difference between dairy and control
samples (Table 9). Respondents were much more annoyed with odors in the dairy
samples than in the control samples.
Table 10 shows that the majority of respondents who experienced discom-
fort from odors identified the dairies as the cause. There was a significant
difference (x2 test) between the percent of respondents blaming the dairy as
the cause when comparing one of the San Bernardino County dairy samples (03)
with either Dl or D2. This means that less people in the total population of
D3 blamed the dairy for odors than either the total populations of Dl or D2.
The control samples were significantly different from the dairy samples
(Table 9). This indicates the total population of each dairy neighborhood
was i^ra annoyed '-.'ith odors than the total population of either control area.
Plies. There was a large percentage difference between the dairy and control
samples (Table 9). Respondents were much more annoyed with flies in the
dairy samples than in the control samples. The majority of respondents living
around dairies who experienced the discomforts from flies identified the
dairies as the cause (Table 10).
One San Bernardino County dairy sample (D3) was significantly different
from tho Oranne County dairy sample (ni)» o.nd from both of the control samples
(Tiblo 9). This rr.esns that the total population in 1)3 was more annoyed with
flies than the total population in either Cl , C2, or 1)1. However, both control
sa.-'ples .-.'ere significantly different from all three dciry samples (Table 9.).
Thir> si'joifios that the total population of all three dairy neighborhoods were
":..r-o .irnoyoj vn'tJi flies than the total population -of ,v.ne c.ontrol neighborhoods.
-------
Figure 47 supports the above evidence that residents around dairy #3
were more annoyed with flics than were residents living around the other
dairies (note the straight line for dairy #3 in Figure 47).
Ranking Nuisances. The nuisances in the two control areas ranked the same
(Table 13). However, in the Orange County control sample (Cl) a tie existed
between dust and rodenss, and in the San Bernardino County control sample (C2)
there was a tie between rodents and odors.
In the San Bernardino County dairy samples, more respondents were annoyed
by flies than any other nuisance, while in the Orange County dairy sample,
more respondents v;ere annoyed by odors than any other nuisance. Statistically
speaking, the percentage difference between respondents who were annoyed by
odors and those who were annoyed by flies in any single dairy neighborhood
fell in Llie non-s iyni fkarice range, ims means that flies and odors were
equally annoying in each dairy neighborhood and that the percentage differences
within each sample, reflected in Table 13, betv/een respondents who experienced
odors and those who experienced flies were due to chance and are not due to
the existence of any real differences between total populations.
It is interesting to note in Dl (Table 13) that respondents in the sample
y/ere more annoyed with noise than with flies. Also, respondents were highly
annoyed with noise in C1. In both cases, it was due to excessive amounts of
^0*_rc-jding. Thus in sample Dl, respondents were more annoyed with noise that
they identified as mainly non-dairy related than they were with flies which
the majority of the respondents reported was dairy related (Table 10).
The nuisances were ranked about the sane in eacr dairy neighborhood based
, the percent of annoyed respondents who blamed the dairy for causing the
-------
nu is .-3 nee (TobleK). In tin's tuble, dairy neighborhoods :: 1 and i'2. ranked
nuisances the same. Dairy neighborhood £3 varied slightly.
SeveH-_tA'_o_f Annoyance vs Distnnrn Fron! the l-rcji^ In the categories of
3SO feet and 700 feet from dairies, no respondents bio-nod the dairies for being
the cause of dust, noise, or rodents. Those respondents who did blame the dairy
for these three environmental nuisances lived adjacent to the dairies (Table 11).
In the categories of odors and flies, very little difference existed between
distances and the number of respondents who blamed the dairies for fly and odor
problems (Table 11 ). Thus from 350 feet away (from the dairies) and on, odors
and flies are the only dairy related nuisances for which respondents actually
blamed the dairies as the cause.
However, there are1 significant differences in J:he "extremely annoyed"
category of odors when cornparinn t.hp "ad.iarpnt" to '350 font" distance and
the "adjacent" to "700 foot" distance (Table 12). "he differences between
respondents at 350 feet and at 700 feet are.- non-significant in the "extremely
annoyed" category. Total residents living adjacent to the dairies tend more
frequently to be extrenely ar.noyed with odor than at the other distances.
There are significant differences (x2, 5%) in the "extremely annoyed"
category of flies between respondents living adjacent to the dairies and those
living at the 700-foot distance away from the dairies (Table 12).
This means that total residents living adjacent to the dairies tend to
be extremely sr.r.cyed v;ith flics rrorc cftcr, than these living at least 700 feet
away from the dairy.
Figures 4Z through 47 illustrate levels of annoyance in relation
to distance, dairy by iairy. Figures -12 and 49 ere a composite cf Fig-jrcs 42
-------
thrcuyh 47. Lssc.'d on pcrci-nl of respondents annoyed, as shown in these
f itjnros, there; 2 re no sicurifleant differences between distances. Perhaps
with larger sample sizes, there would have been differences on this basis.
Figures 46 and 47 for fries and odors is supporting evidence for this
statement, (note the gradual decline as distance increases).
Responses to Miscellaneous Question /:'l. Near the beginning of the interview
schedule, the respondents were asked, "Can you think of anything in your
neighborhood which has been particularly annoying or bothersome to you?"
This question v/as designed to reveal what the first annoyance "popping" into
their minds rnic.ht be.
The only comparison of groups which was significantly different was control
sample (C2) compared to respondents living 350 feet away from the dairies'
(Table 15). This means that the total population ol: residents who live at t';,c
350-foot distance woulj be more apt to say that something annoyed them about
their neighborhood tha.i would the total population of residents living in the
San Bernardino control area. Although all the remaining comparisons of groups
that can be derived from Table 15 were not significantly different, the other
two distance categories (adjacent and 700 feet) were close to being significantly
different from the San Bernardino control area and may have been so had a
larger size sample been taken.
Respondents' attitudes were significantly different when comparing the
(Dl) sample with all tre other-samples in Table 16. These differences were not
due to a bad influence of the dairy on its surrounding neighborhood, but were
due to respondents around Dl complaining excessively about hot-rodding and
street irprov-^pr.ts. The high percentage of dairy respondents who fell into
-------
tii,? "can Lhink of "G^echirm tfrmoyiny" Coi.c'jory ct the different distance's
frcrn the dairies in Table 15 i.-ore due to tha influence of 01 as a v;holo in
the data.
In response to miscellaneous question -1, a certain percent of
respondents mentioned either the dairy, flies, or odors as being particularly
annoying or bothersome (Table 17). There v.;ere no significant differences in
any comparison that cculd be derived from Table 17. However, it is worthy of
note that the only grcups that had n£ respondents mentioning dairies as the
f|rst annoying thing to come into their minds, in response to the question
asked, wsre the control groups and the 700-foot groups.
Responses to Miscellaneous Question ?2. After miscellaneous question #1
analyzed above was asked, the following question was posed to the respondents,
"How satisfied would you say you are with your neighborhood: vrry satisfied;
somewnat ratisfied; or not at all satisfied?" Each respondent chose one of
the three possibilities (Table 18). The only groups significantly different
were one San Bernardino sample (D2) compared to the San Bernardino control
sample (C2) in the "ve-y satisfied" category. This neans that more residents
living in C2 would say that they were very satisfied with their neighborhood
than would residents Iwing in D2. The fact that fewer respondents were "very
satisfied" with their r:eighborhood in Cl as compared to area C2 could be due
to the excessive hot-rodding (noise) experienced by respondents in area Cl.
It is worthy of ncte (Table 18) that, all the dairy neighborhoods had fewer-
respondents in the "very satisfied" category than did C2. Also, no respondents
in either control samples were "not at all satisfied" with their neighborhoods
compared with at least one respondent in each dairy sample v:ho fell into this
category.
-------
The follovring conclusions are drawn from the data analysis.
Nuisances
Dust^ As a whole, residents living around dairies will tend to complain more
about dust than residents living in neighborhoods without animal establish.rr.cnts
Noise. Residents living around dairies will not complain any more or less
about noise than will residents living in neighborhoods without animal
establishments.
Rodents. The evidence favors the conclusion that residents living around
dairy ranches will complain more about rodents (mainly gophers) than v/ill
residents livinn in nFinhbm-hnnHc w-n-^c'Jt aniiiul establishments.
Unsi ohtly Premi ses . Tne evidence leads to the unquestionable conclusion that
dairy neighborhood residents will not complain any more or less about unsightly
premises than will residents living in neighborhoods without animal establish-
ments.
Odors and Flies. It is an unquestionable conclusion that residents living
around dairies complain more about flies and odors than residents living in
neighborhood? without anirral pr-tshlishn-ents.
Residents surrounding dairies will complain about flies and odors at the
sane rate and will rank flies and odors as the most annoying nuisances.
Hrr./pvpr, residents aroi-nd the Orange County dairy (01) complained about noise
-------
(hut-ro-.id'i .'!•:;) bo ing ao bad as ihe odors and flins. Resident1; li'/irv; in
areas without aninal e?tuL>liih;i;o:-,ti or other non-reindi^Lial use will
complain about noise (hot-rociding) fi;ore th-?.n any other nuisance.
The Lffc c 1 5 of Pi strip • : 2
A greater number of residents living adjacent to the dairies will say
that they are e^r^ ;J;/_ajTnpjye_d_ \;i th flies and odors than will residents
living at least 700 feet away. Also, a greater number of residents living
350 feet and on, from a dairy, will be less apt to say they are extremely
annoyr-d with odors tian residents adjacent to dairies. In this sense, flies
have a more far reaciing geographical effect than do odors. However, when
comparing percent of respondents annoyed by flies to odors at 700 feet, flies
and odors have very nearly an equal effect on residents living at the 700-foot
distance.
Satisfaction Hith Environment
As a whole, residents surrounding dairy ranches are less satisfied with
their neighborhoods than are residents who live in neighborhoods without
animal establishment1; or other commerce. This is probably a result of the
residents' awareness to the dairy-related nuisances such as flies, odors,
and dust.
I •ffnff'c Q" ^i mo^-i Q|»
The Orange County dairy (Dl) was known to be operated with superior
envi iGiiniciital nianaytimefit. Cuns ider ing ihe effects of this dairy on the
-------
r-,:••, idcMts, ns siio ,n in L'IC cj;;ta c,";ny;. is, it 'is r>.-jsonab'ie to conclude that
ev^ii a ciriry utilising superior ma'•,:"; ye:-;-..-nt leciiivi'^cs is not co^pj^tgjy an
acceptable neighbor in a residential area.
CotKlusicnj
The final conclusions drawn from this study indicate to the authors
that neighborhoods can be surveyed to determine residents' attitudes
concerning their environment.
Scir.e apprehension existed as to whether interviewing respondents around
the dairies about nuisances would cause the residents increased agitation
toward the dairies. \'o fly and odor complaints from respondents living
around the Orange County dairy were recorded by the Orange County Health
Department after the interviews wore completed. Pert of this success may be
att.rihijtp.-j tn s i«f^< of ir.trr-'jct-i:-;! sent Lo eech respondent pnor to
interviewing.
The writers have also concluded that the two major nuisance problems
associated with dairy operations, even with excellent dairy management, are
flies and odors. Therefore, it seems imperative that dairies desiring to
remain in residential areas must seek out and use new methods of solving
these two outstanding problems.
-------
TASLE
BY EA"M
Tii!; PL'-'C^TAGE OF RCS^O^i^NTS ANNOYS;
::, ARRA:,n:ri TO S:G;:I!;Y SIGNIFICANT
. .* rr T* :.' jr
LJ fc. J I* _
1. Dust:
r? n
Dl
D3
2. Nolso:
'/. anr.cved
--same—
-same---
3__ D2_ C2
77,
•—saiie
Dl Cl
37:, 43.:, 67,, 70;i
Rode-nts:
neiohbo_rho_od
'; anncvcd
_r,l_
for
Jp_2__
10:
D3 D]_
"27;, 30-,
% anno./ed
-sar:o—
D3 C2 D2 Dl Cl
3/0 I 13 1 0 ,j 1 3 ia
5. Odors:
neighborhood
— — ionic--"
Cl C2
D3
D2
Dl
% annoyed
OS 672 77?; 80%
6. Flies:
neighborhood
--same—
C2 Cl
PO::
—sane—
—same—
Dl D2 D3
90';
Neighbor' ioods not connected by dotted lines are
significant at 5/: \2 .
Cl - Gi'u HjO CuunLy conLr'ul soniple
C2 = S'1! iit.-vn.ipi.i j no fniinty ri^ptrol
Dl = Cr<; -,qo County dairy sa:;;p1e
> -
i.\r '.:-.::>r;ard;;^ Cc::rty d-iiry S3;r
-------
bl.AM;?;G
Ar_Ra__ ^J2PJiS^_
Dl 8
Q2 11
03 9
fluir.ber
Area Annoyed
Dl 9
no •?
D3 8
Number
Area Annoyed
Dl 24
D2 23
D3 20
. I ' i ., , 1 \ i .- • * . . ( ... 1
D/'u.:\Y n$ iiiil CMlijb
Dust
Percent Annoyed
62%
36'.;
IIS
Rodents
Percent Annoyed
Bl,"?:iii!ii D.'.'iry
55:;
33;:
12S
Odors
Percent Annoyed
Blaiiiinq Dairy
95%
100%
70%
(DAIRY BY DA!
Dumber
Annoyed
20
n
5
RY)
Noise
Percent Annoyed
0 lamina Dairy
5%
9%
0%
Unsiohtlv Premises
Number
Annoyed
4
3
1
Numbe"
Annoyed
19
26
27
Percent Annoyed
Bla;ninn Dairy
07,
02
0%
Hies
Percent Annoyed
blaming Dairy
79%
92%
81%
Dl = Orar.go County dairy sample.
D2, D3 = San Bernardino County dairy samples.
-------
T 11 '• i r 1 1
i /,'... u. _ II
r- I f -rf. ' ; i — ' \- : A'" [1 " '.• I". ; ' ri ,-•:--• • > r •. — T ,~ • I T . i,» « ' '' I T C " : ' (" C r • ' n
,jlo i K i;,.. i ,. '.i 'jV ;,,..>! •,,.'L;i;^ I'., u ;:v,, i, ,u ;-, ,.,' i „-.-. ,V, r. ,•',:•.,)
D i :iTA.- ;•.::: i
Adjacent to dairies
350 ft. fro:'i dairies
700 ft. from dairies
Adjacent to dairies
J~3 ft. frcr.i dairies
'U'J tt, troii) dairip^
Adjacent to dairies
350 ft. from dairies
700 ft. from dairies
^ Oib,/,,,
Njniber
Annoyed
13
7
8
Number
;nnov:d
10
3
7
Number
Annoyed
24
23
20
— •-—
ij i -''"I ! rn [ i.-; T ry
53^
o^;
02
Rodc-nts
Percent Annoyed
Elaninq Dairy
70S
07l
o::
Odors
Percent Annoyed
Blaming Dairy
92%
96%
80%
BaiMr
Annoved
16
10
10
Unsi
Number
Annoyed
2
4
2
Number
Annoyed
27
25
20
Percent. Annoyed
Bltiiiiinn Dsii'V
1ZS
0%
0%
ghtly Premises
Percent Annoyed
Blaniina Dairy
Oo/
to
0%
0%
Flies
Percent Annoyed
Blaming Dairy
93%
76%
85%
-------
OF /V.'IOYA.NCR VS uIST/Y.'a' FRC.'i DAIP.ILS (^AIRILS C
Severity of
Aj^rioya ;•;•;.,:
Not at all
annoyed
Slightly
annoyed
Moderate-^
annoyed
Seriously
annoyed
Extremely
^oyscl^
TOTAL
f{ =
TiTvf — -, — • _
"t at g ii —
annoyed
Slightly
annoyed
Jo'lerately
annoyed
Seriously
annoyed
annoyed Y
TOTAL
N =
A-J.i .
57%
103
20;:
10%
3,o
100^
30
Un-inh
Adj.
94%
3%
0%
3%
0%
i co;;
ir\
Dust
350' 700'
77^ 73"^
3fi QZ
ior; 23;:;
i o'; 4%
o: o-;
100;; 100;;
30 30
tl'/ Drc'iis23
350' 700'
87;; 94%
0% 0%
10% 3%
3% 0%
n<>' 707
U,j O/o
100;; 100:;
Qn "?n
f.'oi se
Adj. 350'
45;; 6/>-
0% 3%
30% 10«
17% 20%
7^ 0%
100;; 100%
30 30
.Odors
Adj. 350'
20% 23%
10% 37%
30% 23%
20% 17%
20% 0%
100;: loo-;-'
3f) 30
Rodents
700'
67%
3%
20%
7%
3%
100%
30
700'
34%
30%
23%
13%
0% .'-.
10C^
30
Adj .
67%
7%
13%
10%
3%
100%
30
Adj.
10%
7%
33%
27%
•• 23%
' 100%
30
350'
90 :;
6%
10%
0%
0%
i oo-;;
30
Hies
350'
17%
17%
37%
16%
13%
100;;
30
700'
77%
17%
6ct
fo
0%
0%
100%
30
700'
33%
17%
37%
13%
0%
100%
30
-------
TABLE
o or *.:'•:• [ sA::cr.::;
:;:;OVED win. LA
Control --"]
Nuisance
Noise
Flies
Unsightly
Premises
Dust
Rodents
Odors
(Or.-!fic:c: Co. )
.'- Annoved
70
27
23
10
10
0
Control ;-2 (San
Nuisance
Noise
Flies
Unsightly
Premises
Dust
Rodents
Odors
r-n-rdVo C^
c'. Annoyed
43
20
7
3
0
0
pjlrv •-• I (C"-:.••-;::•_ Co. ) Dairy -2 (San Bern. Co.) Dairy =3 (San Bern. Co._)
Nuisance
Odors
Noise
Flies
Rodents
Dust
Unsightly
;> Annoved
80
67
63
30
27
13
Nuisance
Flies
Odors
Dust
Noise
Rodents
Unsightly
Prenii ses
% Annoyed
87
77
37
37
10
10
Nuisance
Flies
Odors
Dust
Rodents
Noise
Unsightly
Premises
% Annoyed
90
67
30
27
17
3
-------
TA3LE 14
RANKING OF NUISANCES BASED ON HE PERCENT OF AMOVED RESPONDENTS
WHO CLAMED THE DAIRY FOP CAUSING THE NUISANCES
Dairy .21 (Oranoc County)
Number
Nuisance Annoyed
CJcr ^24
Flies 19
D-.ist 8
Rodents 9
::oise 20
Unsightly
premises 4
% Annoyed
Bl airing Dairy
95
79
62
55
5
0
Dairy #2. (San
Her
Nuiii!y?r
Nuisance Annoye
Odor
Flies
Dust
Rodents
Noise
Unsightly
r%V*oryii c oc
23
26
11
3
11
2
tare lino County)
i Claming Dairy
100
92
36
33
9
n
U
Dairy »3 (
Nuisance
Flics
Odor
Rodents
Dust
Noise
Unsightly
San Cornordino County)
Huirbcr 'I Ar.royo.-l
Aiinoycd Blaniin.j L"-,"1. ; t\y
27 81
20 70
8 12
9 11
5 C
1 0
-------
I A:.".i. i i '•">
" Cs.il !•'<.".; '
-------
niSTKiLUTio;; OF :-;:^o:;:.;::,T5' A.-IJI.'E;;: ro THE CIH:STION,
"f:!,; (r'j-ji .t': .'';•;. <."•( a;.v<-r.:: <';:• '";: f ••;•;;': i:.1 •r.it::^':.';^;1^' '.due.li
(arrd;i[;ecl by dairy)
_D] D? D3 CT _ C2
Can think of
something
annoying 93% 50% 53% 47% 40%
Can't think of
so:.'.:t!niri
annoying' 7% 50% 47% 53% 60%
TOTAL 1CO% 100% 100% 100% 100%
30 30 30 30 30
Cl = Orange County control sample
C2 = San Bernardino County control sample
Dl = Orange County dairy sample
D2, D3 = San Bernardino County dairy samples
-------
-FRCt:;T •;:•:• r-:::•";...;..;:";? '.;:iO ",•;.:.nc1:^ IH;: DAIRY, FLILS, OR ODORS
I'i A.::v::'."?. TO Ti;i: CYSTIC:*, Va,: .;.:•.-;; ^n;!: ^:; ai'.ij.tliuij .in ('.••ill
(Both by distance anii r.oighboi-rcofj)
Adj. 350' 700' Dl D2 D3 C1 C2
Mentioned dairy 17;: 102 CKi 10:^ 7% IQv, 0::!> 0%
Mentioned flies 13:: 3£ 3^- 10:: 3fi 7^ 0^ 0^
Mentioned cdc-rs 3r; 3:; 7-i 3;: 0;.' 10^ 0:^ 0^
C~i = Or«r:ne Coun::;/ control s?-::'clo
C2 = r:n C-2 •!'.::re!'!r,o Cr>'.;r.ty control sample
ni - n.^^-..-5 ("-:•'!•.'••-• .Ha-;^.- ,-r,.--i.-.
•' • _ „ r ' v-
no _ c^.-. n:n--r^ i^H"1'""^ nnM:-if" H^ir'1 •"-""I'lr-^
**v- v.,.1 :'•_ Ji-lv-iijv. vwu,l o UC» t • jv-*nrMt-.j
-------
DISTRIBUTION OP' R^O'iKMS /VLS'.^RI'iG 014:5TIO;J,
(By disteiy/.e anci by njlyhborhood)
Distanc e i^eighb ornood
Ad.i. 3rO' 7C01 Dl D2 D3 Cl C2
Very satisfied 70^ 63:, 67^ 67S 57^ 77^ 77% 87%
Somewhat satisfied 23~; 39:; 26:: 30;^ 36:: 20^ 23" 13%
Not at all satisfied T.i (T, 7:J 3% 7% 3% 0^ 07,
TOTAL 100X 100^ 100"; 100% lOOo 100^ 100X
N = 30 30 30 30 20 30 30 30
Cl = Orange County control sample
C2 = San Bernardino County control sampl
Dl = Orange County dairy sample
D2, D3 = San Bernardino County dairy sample
e
-------
z
: .1
1CD
C)
't-
40
'"Kf
34.
...j
ADJ.
Figure 42. uistance from dairies
-------
a-
UJ
IL
'00
80
40
x
X
X
X
X
X
ADJ. 350'
DiSTAHCi!
Figure 43. Distance from dairirs vs. pcrcr-ni;
-------
100
80
o
I-
2
\
\
\
S
20
ADJ.
\
\
\
3SO'
70']'
DISTAHC
Figure 44. Distance from dairies vs. perc-jr
-------
100
80
LL
o
60
40
20
ADJ.
DISTANCE
45. Distance from dairies vs. r;o'
-------
a
u
ica
40
ADJ.
350'
700*
Figure 46. Distance from dairi
-------
J'O
43
ADI.
X
X
X
350"
DISTANCE
'igure 47. Distance from dairies v . percent or aar-uyai
-------
>-
o
<
u~
o
tjj
u
K
UJ
O-
100
80
40
20
ADJ.
Dl r T •' K 5
1C I .' r i 1
Figure 48. Distance from dairies vs.
rioisr:, RODENTS.
-------
z
til
o
z.
o
n._
V!
ill
(Z
Q
UJ
>-
O
2
Z
<
U.
O
UJ
U
(X
IU
a.
100
80
60
40
20
0 »~
ADJ.
__«_„
700'
D1S-ANCE
Fipure 49. nistance from dairies vs.
U'lSIGHTLY F'RCMISES, ODORS, FLIES.
percent of annoyed respondent;
-------
SURVEY
Cl
C2
C3
C4
o Cc-in
oase ..o.
Cluster No.
Ti
Tii;-e line!
Total Tin'.e
A. Introduction:
My nanie is from the city of Wo sent
you a letter concerning a survey which the city is conducting. Did you
receive the "letter? (Show copy of letter if necessary.) As we mentioned in
the letter, the purpose of this survey is to determine attitudes of residents
toward the physical conditions of the neighborhoods in which they live.
Your household has been chosen to represent families in your area.
The information you give me will be held in strict confidence by the city and
your name will in no way be attached to the findings of this study.
We greatly appreciate your participation in this survey.
B. Nuisance Questions
/
1. In general how satisfied are you with your neiQhborhood?
C5
C6
C7
C8
2. Can you think of anything in your neighborhood which has been particularly
-.-..;.:, ii.3 v, LuJ.sr-i,u!;e ^o you?
1 no 2 yesx
w *
I *IF "YES" ASK:]
READ TO RESPONDENT:!
Would you describe it to me?
PROBE:
I have some questions which will have
alternate answers. First I will read the
question* and then I will read some
alternative 'tnswers, and I would like you;
to choose pne_answer for each question.
For example: If I again asked you the
question,
- ; ' . ; ?•/*..'• ? *'-•<•••. - •" '.' = ' :•••;• ,'../. :'. •::
How satisfied would you say you are with yoO«^ neighborhood? The possible
answers would bs: •/•!•'••..:•
1 Very satisfied 2 Somewhat satisfied J[ Mot at all satisfied
BduTd you please choose one of these answers. •: ?f;s
p:£AD TO
Now I would". li** t.o ask you a few questions
about sows specific potential nuisances
which you nwy havf: noticed in your neighbor-
hood in f.he past V./oive months, such as:
dust, noi-->, t'odnrta, unsightly prcsn'ses,
, flies, iwd otl^er insects.
-------
9 4.
CIO
Cll
C12
C12
Within 1'vi p^st tv.'.':-lvo r.ionths, have you been annoyed by any dust in the
neighborhood?
1 No 2 Yes*
! IF A;!Y DUST ASK:1
Would you say you noticed the dust?
_3 Very rarely
_4 Sometimes
_5 Often
_6 Most of the time
Were you annoyed?
J Slightly
_2 Moderately
_3 Seriously
4 Extremely
What seems to be the source of the dust?
Did you notice the dust more any particular
time of day?
1 Ho 2 Yes*
IF "YES" ASK:]
3 Morning
4 Afternoon
t> Evening
Is there any season of the year that dust
is more of a problem?
6 No 7 Yes*
IF "YES" ASK:|
_8 Winter
_9 Spring
_0 Summer
11 Fall
C13 5. V.'ithin the past twelve months, have you been annoyed by any noise in the
neighborhood?
1 No 2 Yes*
•"IF "YES" ASK:1
C14
Would you say you have noticed the noises?
3 Very rarely
4 Sometimes
""T"" Often
6 Most of the time
Were vou annoyed?
1 'Slightly
__2 Moderately
3 Scirio-usly
4 Extremely
-------
iv. -.->uui ue u CP:-?
C16
C16
Did you notice the noises more any
particular tvr.e of day?
1 No 2 Yes*
*IF "YES" ASK:i
3 Morning
4 Afternoon
5 Evening
Is there any particular season of the year
that noise is more of a problem?
6 No 7 Yes*
1 *IF "YES" ASi::|
8 Winter
_9 Spring
0 Sumer
11 Fall
C17 6.
Within the past tv.-elve months, have you been amoyed by any rodents in
the neighborhood, such as: rats, mice and gophers?
1 No 2 Yes*
CIS
C19
C20
IF ANY RODENTS ASK:
l-.'o'Od you soy you have noliceii the rodent;,?
3 Very rarely
4 Sometimes
5 Often
6 Most of the time
Were you annoyed?
I Slightly
2 Moderately
3 Seriously
4 Extremely
Wh.at seems to be the source of the rodents?
Is there any particular season of the year
that rodents are ir.ore of a problem?
1 No 2 Yes*
j*IF "YES" ASK:j
3
"4
5
6
Winter
Spring
Fall
-------
7. vnirnn io.-> past twelve months, have you l.eoii annoyed by any unsiyhtly
orchis;??, 'in t'-o I'ovih! orhocd?
j .4. r<- >•<•,•<• c it f1 r i' • I
; - ir 1 ;:o .^OK. »
C22
V.'ould you say you have noticed the
unsiyhtly premises?
3 Very rarely
~~5 Often
6 ^ Most of the time
Were you annoyed?
1 Slightly
2 Moderately
3 Seriously
4 Extremely
|IF Ai'iY UiJSIG'riTLY PREMISES ASK:]'
C23
C24 8.
What is the unsightly premises?_
Withint the past twelve monthss have you been annoyed by any odors in the
neighborhood?
2 Yes*
FTP "YES" ASK:|
C25
C26 IIP ANY ODORS ASK:|
C27
Would you say you have noticed the odors?
3 Very rarely
4 Sometimes
_5_ Often
_6 Most of the time
Were you annoyed?
_J Slightly
2 Moderately
3 Seriously
4 Extremely
What seems to be the source of the odors?
Did you notice the odors more any particular
time of day?
1 No 2 Yes*
I*IF "YES1* ASK:)
3 Horning
4 Afternoon
5 Evening
Is there any season of the year that odors
are more of a problem?
6 No 7 Yes*
-------
I,-
C29
C30
C31
(C31
_8 Winter
9 Spring
JO Summer
' 11 Fall
C28 9. Within the past twelve months, have you been annoyed by any flies in the
neighborhood?
1 No 2 Yes*
nt T C "vr~
pir (Lj
IIF AriY FLIES ASK?
Would you say you have noticed the flies?
3 Very rarely
4 Sometimes
5 Often
6 Most of the time
Were you annoyed?
1 Slightly
2 Moderately
3 Seriously
4 Extremely
What seems to be the source of the flies?
Did you notice the flies more any particular
time of the day?
>u
day
2 Yes*
|*IF "YES1^ ASK:|
3 Morning
4 Afternoon
5 Evening
Is there any season of the year that flies
are more of a problem?
6 No 7 Yes*
"YES" ASM
8 Winter
9 _ Spring
0 _ Su::i;;:er
C32 10. Within the past twelve months, have you been arnoyed by any other insects
in the neighborhood?
1 No 2 Yes*
I*IF "YES" ASKT1
What types of insects were they? _
Would you say you have noticed other insects?
3 Very rarely
_ 4 _ Sometimes
_
6 Most of the time
-------
C33
(IF ANY OTHER If,'SECTS ASK:
C34
C35
C35
i'e you onnove
1 SViohtlv
2 MoctoraU:l
3 _ Seriously
4 Extremely
What seems to be the source of the other
insects?
Did you notice the other insects more any
particular time of day?
1 Mo 2 Yes*
;*IF "YES"
J Morning
4 Afternoon
_5 Evening
Is there any season of the year the other
insects are more of a problem?
6 No 7 Yes*
*1F "YES" ASK:
_9 Spring
0 Summer
11 Fall
C36 11. Within the past twelve months, have you noticed any other nuisances in
the neighborhood?
1 No** 2 Yes*
C37
C38
(*IF "YES" ASK:]
**IF "NO" REMIND RESPONDENT
OF ANNOYANCES MENTIONED IN
QUESTION P. 2. I
What seems to be the source of the
nuisances?
Would you say you have noticed this nuisance?
1 Very rarely
2 Sometimes
3 Often
4 Most of the time
Would you say that you were annoyed?
5 Slightly
6 Moderately
7 Seriously
8 Extremely
-------
•!ave you noticed this nuisance more any
j particu]«r tire- of dnv?
1 1 No 2 Yes*
Morniny
Afternoon
Evening
Is there any season of the year that this
nuisance is irore of a problem?
6 No 7 Yes*
|*1F "YES" ASKT1
_8 Winter
_9 Spring
0 Summer
11 Fall
12. Of the bothersome things you have mentioned, which annoys you:
C40 '.REPEAT TO RESPO.'.r^T ALLj
C41 :"'.'.-;oy.-.::cES ••:':T:C':ZD i
C42
'C43
C. Direct questions about the dairy.
C44 1. Is there a dairy -in this
neignsnrnooo'
1 No* 2 Yes**
I Most
Second inost
Third :r.ost_J
Fourth most
1*IF "KQ" ASK-I
C45
C46
C47
C48
!**IF "YES" ASKr
Would you move into a house where you had
a dairy next door to you?
3 No* 4 Yes
*IF "NO" ASK:
What would be your objections?
Would you move anywhere into a neighborhood
that containsJ a dairy?
1 No* 2 Yes
I*IF "NO" ASK-j
What would be your objections?_
Have you ever thought of moving out of the
neighborhood because of the dairy?
1 Mo 2 Yes
-------
C50
C51
uo vou nave any objection to the dairy
1 f.'o
2 Yes*
j*ir ""VlS"" ASK:j
What would be your objections?
What is your greatest objection to the
da i ry?
[IF AriY OBJECTION'S ASK:]
C52 2. This next question will require you to use your imagination a little.
Suppose scientist0, in the future were able to completely eliminate all
insects, odors, and unsightly premises at all the dairies.
Suppose in this future time you wanted to buy a certain home, but before
you bought the hone you discovered it was next door to one of these
new scientific da-ries.
Would you still buy the home?
1 f!o* 2 Yes
I*IF "KQ" ASK:|
C53
What would be your objection?
Under the same circumstances we just men-
tioned. «;i.ionn<;p you fH<^cOWQV*2t the HEW
scientific dsiry'-vas nc_t next door, but
just around in tha neighborhood somewhere,
would you still buy the home in this case?
3 No* 4 Yes
|*IF "NO" ASK;)
What would be your objection?
C54 3. Have you yourself ever lived on a farm, ranch or dairy?
1 No 2 Yes*
C55
*IF "YES" ASK:I
How long did you live there?_
Years
D, History of Resident.
C56 1. About how long hav* you lived at this address?_
C57 2. Are you renting or ^o you own your own home?
1 Rent 2 Own or buying
C58 3. Do you have any children under the age of 18?
1 No 2 Yes*
-------
l.'hat are tJioir ag<3-s_
C60 4. Does vour property have a Lv.ck patio?
1 No 2 Yes*
C61
FIf":'fES" ASK:|
Is your patio
1 Uncovered
2 Roofed over
3 Screened in
C62 5. What is the highest grade you completed in schoo1?_
C63 6. What is your occupation? „_____
C64 7. What industry are you associated with?
C65 8. What is your spouse's occupation?
C66 9. What industry is your spouse associated with?_
E. Detail Information.
1. Address
C67 2. Property value:
1 10 - 14,999
_J_ 15 - 19,999
3' 20 - 24,?c}
ft OK on n.-T)
5 30 - 34,999
6 35 - 39,929
7 40 and over
C68 3. Distance from dairy to house
C69 4. Direction of house to dairy:
1 N 2 NE 3 E 4 SE 5 S
C70 5. Front screen door.
_\ No 2 Yes
C71 6. House is "L" shaped?
1 No 2 Yes*
6 SW 7 W a NW
(*IF "YES" DIRECTION IT CLOCKS?
C71
C72 7.
Eack of house
1 N
_2_S
•j r
3 SW
1~SE
5 NW
T~NE
-------
C73 8. Sex of respondent.
__J H 2 F
C74 9. Type of dwellinq.
1 single v/i th acreage
^~2~~~ single on city lot
C75 10. Color of house
11. Total O.K. and no response_
12. Study number
13. Interviewer's name
-------
CITY OF
GARDE!! G'UIVE
CALIFORNIA
City Hall . 11391 Acacia Street . Area Code 714—537-4200
Dear Fellow Citizen:
In the near future, Mr. Stan Fernow, a representative for the
City of Garden Grove, will call at your home. Mr. Fernow is
conducting a survey to determine the attitudes of residents
to.-a'i'd ths physical conditions of the neighborhoods in which
they live.
Any information you may wish to give will be irost appreciated
and will b^ held in strict confidence. Your name will in no
way be attached to the findings of this survey.
The results cf ths survfy will provide us with needed information
which v.'ill help to make our city a better place in which to live.
We will be sincerely grateful for your participation. If you
have any questions, please do not hesitate to call my office.
Very truly yours,
s/
DUDLEY N. LAPHAM
City Manager
-------
REFERENCES
(Appendix 1)
1. U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. The urban planner
in health planning, public health service, p. 16, 1968.
2. U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. A strategy for a
livable environment, p. XV, 1967.
3. Siege!, Sidney. Nonparamstric statistics for the behavioral sciences,
New York, f-k-Graw-Hill ,1950.
-------
APPENDIX 2
ENTOMOLOGICAL STUDY
FOR
COMPARISON OF FLY PRODUCTION
AT TYPICAL, COiiVE:;~IO;iAL EARTH CORRAL DAIRIES
WITH WATER-PLUS'iED, ALL-CONCRETE DAIRIES
Robert Prcchaska, R.S.*
*Entomo1ogist-Sanitarian
San Bernardino County Health Department
-------
APPENDIX 2
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this study was to entomologically compare conventional
dairies with flush-out dairies. The aims were: (1) to compare their
similar operational features and numerically evaluate them for fly develop-
ment, and (2) to determine what engineering and management factors affected
fly development in the operation of flush-out dairies.
METHODS
The following four dairies in San Bernardino County near the communities
of Ontario and Chi no were selected for the study:
Conventional Dairies:
1. Ormonde Dairy, 14510 Archibald Avs., Ontario
2. Swager Dairy, 8435 Edison Ave., Chino
Flush-out Dairies:
3. Cloo Dairy, 14848 Haven Ave., Chino
4. Shade Grove Dairy, 13485 Bon View Ave., Ontario
Methods Employed
The dairies were evaluated on May 21 and 29, June 9 and 29, July 15,
and August 13, 1970. During these inspections, emphasis was placed on the
areas, cause, and degree of fly development, but not as to species. The
following areas were evaluated for fly development in respect to conventional
dairies versus flush-ojt dairies: barn wash (dam area), corrals (free-stalls
-------
and alley lanes), fence lines (side walls and islands), feeding areas
(same), water troughs (same), and sump areas (same). (See Form 1).
The fly developmental sources were numerically evaluated by examining
approximately 1-foot square-areas of manure. The following numerical
system was used to evaluate the degree of fly development found during
these inspections: 0 (no fly development), 5 (less than five larvae and
pupae), 10 (more than five larvae and pupae found), and 20 (excessive larvae
and pupae found). (See Table 19 for data collected).
Observed Fly Breeding Sources
Barn I'.'ash (D^-ried area). In the conventional earth corral dairies, important
fly development areas were the sides adjacent to the fence lines below the
barn wash facilities. These areas allowed for continuous fly development.
Good management practices such as weekly removal of manure or stirring to
facilitate drying of manure would reduce such fly developmental sources.
The principal ar-sas of fly development at the flush-out dairies were
the islands between the lanes below the dammed areas. Providing higher side
walls and more volume of water or a greater velocity could prevent manure
from accumulating and prevent the fly development situations.
Corrals (Free-stall and alley lanes). In the conventional dairies the areas
where fly development occurred were where the mem-re was allowed to collect
adjacent to the tenet, lines, in the corners, and in the centers of corrals.
Urine-soaked areas also supported fly development. These areas allowed for
continuous fly development greater than as the flush-out dairies. Good
maria?jeii!ent practices such as weekly disking of corrals to facilitate drying
-------
of manure and removal of manure accumulation in corral corners and centers
would reduce such fly developmental sources.
Fly development involving the free-stall and alley lane areas of the
flush-out dairies occurred only at the lower ends of the systems, where water
surged over into the free-stall spaces, and where manure remained in alley
lanes. The providing of higher side walls, and more volumes of water or at
a greater velocity of water, would prevent fly development by keeping free-
stalls drier and alley lanes free of manure. It was also noted that the
number of ccv/s grouped in the alleys and lanes affected the flushing action
cf the water.
Fence Lines (Side '/.'alls and Islands). The accumulation of manure under
fence lines and around posts of conventional dairies allowed for compara-
tively less flv development than at flush-out d?i.*ies. Mana^srnent practices
such as weekly removal- of manure, especially near watering and feeding areas,
would reduce fly.devalopraent.
Conversely, the side walls and islands of the flush-out dairies allowed
for comparatively grsater fly development because of manure collecting on
side walls and in island areas between alley lanes. The sloping and coving
of the side wall bases and elimination of shelf would prevent these fly
development sources. Adequate volumes or water velocities could then move
manure more efficiently.
Feeding Areas. In the conventional dairies significant areas for fly
development were irt and near the feed mangers, adjacent concrete aprons,
and some at the basei of the animal stanchions. These areas allowed for
-------
greater fly development than at the flush-out dairies. Management practices
such as removal or displacement of manure from the above areas, and timely
removal of feed wastes from mangers, would reduce these fly developmental
sources. Roofing the feeding area to protect from rain, would also be
desirable.
The only areas of fly development in feeding areas of flush-out dairies
were the feed mangers and the bases of the feeding stanchions. These were
placed on concrete aprons and well drained, but roofing of feeding areas,
along with timely removal of feed wastes, would further prevent fly
development. :
Water Troughs. In the conventional dairies the fly development occurred in
the peripheral areas and on the side walls of the water trough systems.
These areas allowed "or continuous fly development greater than the flush-cut
dairy systems. Weekly removal of manure and avoidance of water overfTowage
would correct these fly developmental sources.
The flush-out dairy water trough systems were serious and continuous
sources for fly deve".opment when compared to other areas of evaluation.
Raised side walls designed to prevent overflowage would help correct these
fly development areas. The design of a full water'ng trough system located
between islands would also accomplish this.
Sump Areas. In the conventional dairies the only pestiferous fly development
occurred in the immediate periphery of the barn wash outlets. These areas
allowed for less fly ievfclopment than the flu.sh-out dairy sump systems.
Management prattices such as periodic manure displacement or disking would
help prevent these fly developmental sources.
-------
The surop areas of the flush-out dairies were a greater and continuous
source for fly development. The areas of fly development were where the
manure surged over the sump facilities, or backed up between the alley lanes,
or which ran over tf>2ir respective sides. These problems could be avoided
by adequate side walls, larger pits, and pit entrances, and adequate volumes
of water or increased water velocity.
-------
SUMMARY OF DATA
The observations were recorded on Form 1 for each of the six
critical fly developing areas of each of the four dairies in the study.
The rating scale v;as as follows:
In each 1-foot square-area of manure observed—
Rating Condition
0 No fly development
5 One to four larvae or pupae
10 Five to thirty larvae or pupae
20 Over thirty.
Table 19 provides for recording the observations of each of the six
potentially critical fly breeding areas on each of the four dairies.
Dairies 1 and 2 arp conventional p^th corral dairies, and 3 and 4 are
of the all-concrete, flush-out type.
For each typical area of observation the following information is
given:
The first line gives the total number of l-foot square areas evaluated
during the six observation dates over the four-month observation period
(warm weather season from May to August.)
The second two lines give the number of sample areas in the specified
(in parenthesis) ranking category.
The fourth line ("TOTALS") was'obtained as follows: the number of
observations which wc.-re made in each ranking category were multiplied by the
*r
ranking number (showr in parenthesis). The sums of these products are the
"TOTALS".
-------
T <••. r.' i r " o
i i • !-> L L i ;'
FLY DEVaO'rTulT P.ATliiG r.V-.TA
~
n o :- f •'
A ii thJ
EVALUATED
Barn v/ac,h
(da^ed
area)
Corrals
(free-
st-tils,
ci i i >^ y - * /
Fence lines
(side
walls,
isianas;
Feeding
areas
Water
troughs
Sytfp
area?
• 1
30
17(0) 6(5)
7(10)
100
80
44(0) 23(5)
11(10) 2(20)
265
85
44(0) 31(3)
T ,1 .' 1 n \
,UV IU,
255
30
9(10) 17(5)
4(10)
125
30
9(5) 15(10)
6(20)
315
30
25(0) 3(5)
2(10)
35
D. -.];<;/ i:;r.;;r
2
I
30
7(0) 7(5)
15(10) 1(20)
205
56
34(0) " 10(5)
1C(10) 2(20)
190
62
31(0) 22(5)
9(10)
200
30
10(0) 12(5)
8(10)
140
30
12(5) 15(10)
3(20)
270
30
24(0) 3(5)
3(10)
45
[F • ,.'• : I ."<
3 1
30
18(0) 6(5)
5(10) 1(20)
100
40
32(0) 8(5)
40
48
27(0) 11(5)
10(10)
155
30
22(0) 7(5)
1(20)
55
30
15(0) 6(5)
7(10) 2(20)
140
30
18(0) 3(5)
8(10) 1(20;
115
4
30
16(0) 14(5)
70
35
26(0) 7(5)
2(10)
55
40
11(0) 16(5)
12(10) 1(ZO)
230
30
24(0) 5(5)
1(10)
35
30
4(0) 11(5)
15(10)
205
30
15(0) 5(5)
13(10) 2(20)
195
n/i-n
Un '. ' \
NUfiBERS
Samples Ma.
Ratings No.
TOTALS
Samples No.
Ratings No.
TOTALS
Samples No.
Ratings No.
TOTALS
Samples Nc.
Ratings Nc.
TOTALS
Samples No.
Ratings No.
TOTALS
Samples No.
Ratings No.
TOTALS
-------
DAIRY HAS IF: nAr;Ai;::MF:r;r iw),u:cr - LNTOMOLOGI^AL SI^VL
Type of Opera Lion
(Convent!ona! Plush-OuI)
A. BARN HASH (DA"M£D AREA)
COMMENTS AND FLY DEVELOPMENT RATINGS
B. CORRALS (FREE-STALLS, ALLEYS)
C. FENCE LINES (SIDE HALLS, ISLANDS)
D. FEEDING AREAS (SAME)
E. VJATER TROUGHS (SAME)
r. .3UMP AREAS (SAME)
-------
Explanation of Table 20.
The "TOTALS" of Table 19 were divided by the numbers of
observations ("Samples No.") to give an "average" ranking for each
category of observation area, for each dairy. These were then totaled
for each dairy and for each of the two types of dairies. The "ranking"
for each dairy was then obtained by dividing the "TOTALS" by the number
of observation areas to give "AVERAGES".
-------
TABLE 20
FLY DEVELOPMENT NUMERICAL RATINGS
Areas
Evaluated
Barn wash
(dammed area)
Corrals
(free-stalls,
alleys)
Fence Lines
(side v/alls,
islands)
Feeding areas
Water troughs
Sump areas
TOTALS
AVERAGES
Dairy Identification
1
3.33
3.31
3.00
4.17
10.50
1.17
25.48
4.35
2
6.50
3.39
3.23
4.67
9.00 •
1.50
28.29
•o*
4.72
Average
1 + 2
4.92
3.35
3.12
4.42
9.75
1.34
26.90
4.48
3
3.33
1.00
3.23
1.83
4.67
3.83
17.89
'2.98
4
2.18
1.57
5.75
1.17
6.83
6.50
24.00
4.00
Average
3 + 4
2.75
1.29
4.49
1.50
5.75
5.17 ~
20.95
3.49
-------
TABLE; 21
PERCENT OF SAMPLES WITH FLY DEVELOPMENT
Areas
Evaluated
Barn wash
(dammed area)
Corrals
(free-stalls,
alleys)
Fence lines
(side v:;.lls,
islands)
Feeding areas
Water troughs
Sump areas
TOTALS
AVERAGES
1
43
45
48
70
70
16
292
48.66
C
2
77
41
50
67
60
20
315
52.50
airy Ident
Average
1 + 2
60
43
49
68
65
18
303
50.50
if ication
3
40
20
44
27
50
40
221
36.83
4
46
26
70
20
87
50
299
49.83
Average
3 + 4
43
23
57
23
68
45
259
43.16
-------
DISCUSSION A?!D RESULTS
The overall numerical ratings for fly development were light, as
shown in Tables 20 and 21, and were less for the flush-out dairies than
for the conventional dairies. But when evaluating comparative areas
there was more fly development in the sump areas and side wall and island
areas of the flush-out dairies than at earth corral dairies. Both dairy
operations had the highest fly development in the areas near water troughs,
-------
149.
APPENDIX 3
ENTOMOLOGY REPORT
-------
,. CUUriiY Ui< LUS AfS'ULLiiS
•« * •• i A - ,'~: """r T-- ""'"< "5 * "". r-i •• •• •- •; > T rri
•} i 1 ;'.'j; ;• ."_' :•••..: i ; > ->!.' 1 A Iv 3- _? i -^ i'** -"- 313 NORTH FIGUflROA, LOS A^GULi-.S, CALIF
./ G. A. J:L1D:>."I-DER, M.D., M.F.H. • HEALTH OITICUK . TULiiPilON'i: 025-3^12
Dece::;ber 23, 1970
' Charles L. Senn, Fro.icct. Director
Duiry \!?:.ste J^ar.arenont Project
Universit-y of Cal:l:'c:v.ia at L-os /insele
School of IVoiio Health
Loo Anr'.eles, California 90023
SUBJECT: rV-RTTAL REPORT 07 T:^ "nCXOLOGICAL CO^T-rriT^S OF TIIIS PROJECT
Tear Mr. Senn:
The Entoaological Corr-mittee of the Dairy Waste Manage-
ment Project vrns asci.rr.ed the tasks of evaluating the fly breeding
potential of the proems::--c. r.^nurs and also the odor factor. The
rc-.-.-vlto of t'.; ;.:; ;:rvl:.-i:r.ary studies vrill te discussed below.
Th? r.-.:-.ur-3 iii-c-d in this study was that which had been
processed in •!".:-.•• bir.s ar, Alta-Dena Dnirv. >."ost. of t.hi R n.?:->r>T:ir~
was accc::••-;'!id.-;: ^\'.rir.~ th-3 ^;~erir.~nt.a~.1 period v.'hsn time, tenipera-
t.iror, r.'ist'^re, r."d air r-..u~ic3 -.:;rs rcir.r; on. Tr.e entire sr.r.pling
proc-3d'oi-e bo-^n.J~ie 22, l'-70, rr.d fir.:.j;h;d Oitober 6, 1970. This,
of course, io t'-.-s -z±r.:-i of the fly's greatest .Activity and productiv-
ity. Six replicates were completed curing this time.
The procesf ed ir.anure was collected and placed in three
one-gallon heavy plastic containers. Water was added to make the
material acceptable for fly oviposition. Standard CSMA. fly breed-
ing medium was placed in another plastic container. The CSI-IA. media
was used as a control. The containers were then stationed in areas
around the dairy vjhere each one had an equal opportunity to be
challenged for fly breeding potential. The target fly was Jfosca
dor.ost.ica, the house fly, as it is the most ubiquitous and pro-
lific of all the Dipterans found around animal operations. It is
s\:~re-steel that other tests be conducted next spring to evaluate
possible problcr.s due to oviposition of Sto'io^ys calcitrans, the
bitinc stable i'ly.
-------
:\;: h:>~ V^n :• :v.!;. c:_.to-i abo'.e, the material. collected and
checked in t;::.s oVj.rr Tvv..r'."-.;rir.^ri v;'.ryir.~ rrioiaturo, tir^o, t';'.':::::erature,
aif, ar-d other 'jon.:.;it..Lor;:; in the procor>~iri.- bin3. This nic.K-.n3 that
there was not; necessarily a classical diminution of fly brccair.r in
the contain jrn. The .•naxi.-nu.'n nurr.be r of i'ly larvae observed was 5Q»
which was noted in the first replicate. In each instance the breed-
ing in the C3ILA. media vas too nuTiarous to coiuit, so apparently there
v:-35 not the sa;::o i'nvor,-.blc» conditions in the ri.%r.ure even with improper
or incomplete procc33ir.~ a:3 •t:iere vras in the CSl-L'i media. The maximum
nu.7:ber o:' fly larvae in the last four replicates were tv.'enty. Five
larvae were count sa in the fifth test and none in the last. The
techniques and v.-ywchar conditions for all' replicates were very similar;
th?re:'ore, it c--.n pocsibly bs ascun:sd frorr; the above that proper
procecsing of the manure is very important in the prevention of fly
breeding in tha final product.
OpOR
The evaluation of odors was done empiracally as no device
was available to accvjrr.tol:' chc-c]-: the er..?.nations fron the processinr
of tn-v r:'.':ur^. '.-. .nicivj.ly ohcorvvibis o.:cr3 x:.;r-'-? r.o"'~d cirroiy ty
s-.-;-:liT.-;. .Xn r.~ : -;r:.pt ^-.7 r.-/.1?) xo tli^ccvsr th^ nn'uual source, whether
it V.T-O -hi r.--Lorial in the bins or from the surrounding dairy opera-
Any odc-rc diroctly related' to the bins v-r.s sensed usually
.;•.=? vir;-:~ily c:v:.id o:' the chara-t^riEtif! cov; manure smell; i:i Jact,
see. "led to have a not .unpleasant fresh odor.
There has been no attempt in this report to correlate
ail the above data, with the actual conditions cf the. processing or
processed manure.
Very truly yours,
G.A. E5IE2RSDSR, M.D., M.P.H.
Health Officer
Senior-
WCMija
co5 Baiter ?.< '.Mlson, Director
-------
rsi.
1. Adriano, D. C., P. F. Pratt, and W. Brock. Land disposal of manures
from dairies: I and II. University of California at Riverside.
Unpublished report, 1970. 39 p.
2. Animal waste management. Cornell University Conference on Agricultural
Haste Management, Syracuse, New York, Jan. 13-15, 1969. 413 p.
3. Ayers, R. S., and R. L. Branson. Nitrates in the Upper Santa Ana Basin
in relation to grcundv/ater pollution. Kearney Foundation of Soil
Science, University of California. Unpublished report,
July 1, 1971. 120 p.
4. Berge, Orin I. Waste management—what does it cost? Hoard's Dairyman,
116(7), p. 421, April 10, 1971.
5. Berge, 0. I. l.'iste hand!inn: what are the choices? Hoard's Dairyman,
116(6)353, 323, March 25, 1971.
6. Bishop, S. E., end J. C. Oliver. Dairying in Riverside and San Bernardino
Counties. University of California Agricultural Extension Service,
Rev. May 1971. 38 p.
7. Bishop, S. E. Tow cohort 2nd v.'?.ctc dicpcsal for ccv:s en concrete.
Dairy Catt'ie Day, Sprir.y 1965, Agricultural Extension Service,
University of California, p. 62-66.
8. Dairy design. University of California Agricultural Extension Service,
February 1968. 78 p.
9. Fly control on the dairy. University of California Agricultural
Extension Service, AXT-198, 1966-1967. 16 p.
10. Fly control research on poultry ranches, Vols. 1 and 2. Orange County
(California) Health Department, March 1967. 108 p. and 83 p.
,11. Gainesville compost plant, an interim report. GainesvilTe' Municipal
Waste Conversion Authority, Iric., U. S. Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare, Bureau of Solid Waste Management,
Cincinnati, 1969. 119 p.
12. Gr'ay, K. Research on composting in British universities. Compost
Science, r, (5):12-15, Sept.-Oct. .1970.
13. Hart, S. A.; So' id^aste manageme;ot:;in Gentian;/. U.S. Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare, Pub'Hc HaaTth Service Publication
No. 1812, Uncinnatl, 1968. 18 p.
-------
14. Hart, S. A. Solid waste management/composting European activity and
American potential. U.S. Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare, Public Health Service Publication No. 1826, Cincinnati,
1968. 40 p.
15. Interim specifications—disposal lagoons. U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. Unpublished report, 1970.
10 p.
16. Jones, D. D., D. L. Day, and A. C. Dale. Aerobic treatment of livestock
wastes. Agricultural Experiment Station, Bulletin 737, Urbana,
Illinois, May 1970. 55 p.
17. Lee, H. The new costs. The Dairyman, 51(5):10-13, May 1971.
18. Livestock waste management and pollution abatement. ]_n_ Proceedings;
1971 International Symposium on Livestock Wastes, Columbus,
April 19-22, 1971. American Society of Agricultural Engineers,
St. Joseph, Michigan. 360 p.
19. Loose-housing system for dairy cattle. Misc. Publication No. 859,
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Rev. Apr1:! 1965, Washington,
U.S. Government Printing Office. 17 p.
20. Lossin, R. D. Compost studies. Compost Science, 11(6):16-17, .
Nov.-Dec. 1970.
21. Lossin, R. D. Compost studies. Compost Science, 12(1):12-13,
Jan.-Feb. 1971.
22. Management of farm animal wastes. Jn_ Proceedings; National Symposium
on Animal Waste Management, Michigan State University,
May 5, 6, 7 1966. ASAE Publication No. SP-0366:23-27, St. Joseph,
Michigan. 158 p.
23, Mercer, Walter A., et al. Composting fruit and vegetable refuse.
Compost Science, T-10, Summer, 1965.
24. Mills, J. L., et al. Quantitative odor measurement. Journal of the
Air Pollution Control Association, 13(10):467-475, October 1963.
25. Miner, J. R., ed. North Central Region Publication 206, Spec. Rep. 67,
Iowa State University of Science and Technology, Ames, Iowa,
May 1971. 44 p.
26. Proctor, D. E. The management and disposal of dairy manure. Circular
30, College of Engineering Research Division, Washington State
University, Pullman, Washington. Unpublished report, May 8, 1968..-
16 p. ' '
-------
27. Spohn, E. Composting by artificial aeration. Compost Science,
11(3):22-23, Hay-June 1970.
28. The way cows will be milked on your dairy tomorrow. Babson Bros.
Dairy Research Service, Oak Brook, Illinois. 64 p.
29. Turner, D. 0. Disposing of animal wastes. Compost Science, 12(2):12-13.
Mar.-Apr. 1971.
30. Turning waste into feed. Chemical Week, p. 24, August 26, 1970. .
31. Van Dam, J., and C. A. Perry. Manure management—costs and product
forms. California Agriculture, 12-13, December 1968.
------- |