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-->
-------
 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.

-------