United States
Protection
Agency
Robert S. Kerr EPA-600/2 78-045
inmental Rese : / March 1978
Ada OK 74820
Research and Development
&EPA
Ultimate Disposal of
Beef Feedlot Wastes
onto Land
Environmental Protection
Technology Series
-------
RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES
Research reports of the Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, have been grouped into nine series. These nine broad cate-
gories were established to facilitate further development and application of en-
vironmental technology. Elimination of traditional grouping was consciously
planned to foster technology transfer and a maximum interface in related fields.
The nine series are:
1. Environmental Health Effects Research
2. Environmental Protection Technology
3. Ecological Research
4. Environmental Monitoring
5. Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
6. Scientific and Technical Assessment Reports (STAR)
7. Interagency Energy-Environment Research and Development
8. "Special" Reports
9. Miscellaneous Reports
This report has been assigned to the ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION TECH-
NOLOGY series. This series describes research performed to develop and dem-
onstrate instrumentation, equipment, and methodology to repair or prevent en-
vironmental degradation from point and non-point sources of pollution. This work
provides the new or improved technology required for the control and treatment
of pollution sources to meet environmental quality standards.
This document is available to the public through the National Technical Informa-
tion Service, Springfield. Virginia 22161.
-------
EPA-600/2-78-045
March 1978
ULTIMATE DISPOSAL OF BEEF FEEDLOT WASTES ONTO LAND
by
Harry L. Manges
Larry S. Murphy
William L. Powers
Lawrence A. Schmid
Kansas State University
Manhattan, Kansas 66506
Grant No. R-803210
Project Officer
R. Douglas Kreis
Source Management Branch
Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory
Ada, Oklahoma 74820
ROBERT S. KERR ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
ADA, OKLAHOMA 74820
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the Robert S. Kerr Environmental
Research Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and approved
for publication. Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily
reflect the views and policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute
endorsement or recommendation for use.
ii
-------
FOREWORD
The Environmental Protection Agency was established to coordinate
administration of the major Federal programs designed to protect the
quality of our environment.
An important part of the Agency's endeavors to fulfill its mission
involves the search for information about environmental problems, manage-
ment techniques and new technologies through which optimum use of the
nation's land and water resources can be assured. The primary and ulti-
mate goal of these efforts is to protect the nation from the scourge of
existing and potential pollution from all sources .
EPA's Office of Research and Development conducts this search through
a nationwide network of research facilities.
As one of these facilities, the Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research
Laboratory is responsible for the management of programs to: (a) investi-
gate the nature, transport, fate and management of pollutants in ground-
water; (b) develop and demonstrate methods for treating wastewaters with
soil and other natural systems; (c) develop and demonstrate pollution con-
trol technologies for irrigation return flows; (d) develop and demonstrate
pollution control technologies for animal production wastes; (e) develop
and demonstrate technologies to prevent, control or abate pollution from
the petroleum refining and petrochemical industries; and (f) develop and
demonstrate technologies to manage pollution resulting from combinations
of industrial wastewaters or industrial/municipal wastewaters.
This report is a contribution to the Agency's overall effort in ful-
filling its mission to improve and protect the nation's environment for
the benefit of the American public.
*+**> O.
William C. Galegar, Director
Robert S. Kerr Environmental
Research Laboratory
111
-------
ABSTRACT
A study was conducted to determine the effects of beef feedlot manure
application rate on corn forage yield, properties of soil, and quality of
surface runoff from irrigation and precipitation. The project was located at
a commercial beef feedlot in southcentral Kansas.
Laboratory and field studies were made on a proportional sampler for
sampling runoff. The principle of the sampler which uses orifices for divid-
ing the flow appeared sound. However, additional development is necessary
before the sampler can be considered operational.
Quality of runoff from land receiving annual applications of manure did
not correlate with manure application rate. Concentrations of pollutants
varied greatly between runoff events and concentrations in runoff from land
receiving no manure was relatively high.
Corn forage yields increased as manure application rate increased up to
rates of about 100 metric tons per hectare per year. Annual manure applica-
tions of up to 50 metric tons per hectare did not lead to harmful levels of
nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, sodium, or magnesium. Concentrations of
calcium decreased regardless of manure application rate.
This report was submitted in fulfillment of Grant Number R-803210, by
Kansas State University under the partial sponsorship of the U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency. This report covers a period from June 15, 1974 to
June 14, 1975, and work was completed as of June 14, 1975.
IV
-------
CONTENTS
Page
Foreword ill
Abstract iv
List of Tables vi
Acknowledgments viii
Sections
I Introduction 1
II Conclusions 4
III Recommendations 6
IV Proportional Runoff Samplers 8
V Quality of Runoff from Land Receiving Feedlot Manure ... 17
VI Effects of Annual Manure Applications on Soil Properties
and Corn Forage Yields 35
VII References 51
VIII Publications 53
-------
TABLES
Number Page
1 Rainfall and Measured Runoff 16
2 Chemical Oxygen Demand of Runoff (mg/1) 19
3 5-Day Biochemical Oxygen Demand of Runoff (mg/1) 20
4 BOD5 as Percent of COD 21
5 Suspended Solids of Runoff (mg/1) and (% Volatile Solids) ... 22
6 Ammonia-Nitrogen of Runoff (mg/1) 24
7 Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen of Runoff (mg/1) 25
8 pH of Runoff 26
9 Electrical Conductivity of Runoff (umhos/cm) 27
10 Total Phosphorus of Runoff (mg/1) 28
11 Sodium of Runoff (mg/1) 29
12 Potassium of Runoff (mg/1) 30
13 Calcium of Runoff (mg/1) 31
14 Magnesium of Runoff (mg/1) 32
15 Ttotal N (% Dry Weight Basis) in Soil Receiving Manure 37
16 Ammonium-Nitrogen (ppm) in Soil Receiving Manure 38
17 Nitrate-Nitrogen (ppm) in Soil Receiving Manure 40
18 Weak Bray Extractable (Available) Phosphorus (ppm)
in Soil Receiving Manure 41
19 Ammonium Acetate Extractable Potassium (ppm) in Soil
Receiving Manure 43
20 Ammonium Acetate Extractable Sodium (ppm) in Soil
Receiving Manure 45
vi
-------
21 Ammonium Acetate Extractable Calcium (ppm) in Soil
Receiving Manure 46
22 Ammonium Acetate Extractable Magnesium (ppm) in Soil
Receiving Manure 47
23 Corn Forage Yields and Accumulated Manure Applications .
49
Vll
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The cooperation of those associated with the Pratt Feedlot, Inc., and
especially Mr. Frank Smith, is gratefully acknowledged. Special thanks go to
Mr. George Lemon and Mr. Gary Dodson of Pratt Farmland Company who patiently
scheduled the project's activities into their farming operation.
Several people associated with Kansas State University in addition to
the authors contributed to the project. These included research assistants,
graduate research assistants, and temporary employees. Their assistance was
sincerely appreciated.
A special thank you goes to Mr. R. Douglas Kreis of the Robert S. Kerr
Environmental Research Laboratory for serving as project officer.
viii
-------
SECTION I
INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND
A research project was initiated in 1969 in cooperation with the Pratt
Feedlot, Inc., at their beef feedlot located near Pratt, Kansas. Overall
objectives of the project were to determine the quantity and properties of
wastes generated at a beef feedlot and the optimum waste application rates
onto land with a minimum of pollution to land, its stormwater runoff, and the
groundwater. Manges e_t^ al^ have reported on the research conducted through
1973.
OBJECTIVES
The research program for 1974 and 1975 was altered somewhat from the
previous project. Objectives of the revised project were:
a. To determine the effects of beef feedlot waste loading rates onto
land on the properties of runoff from irrigation and rainfall.
b. To correlate properties of runoff water with feedlot waste loading
rates.
c. To determine the effects of long term feedlot waste loading rates
on properties of soil and corn forage yields.
d. To formulate recommendations for the ultimate disposal of wastes
onto land with the intent of minimizing pollution.
PREVIOUS RESEARCH
Manges et al.* presented a review of literature covering pollution
potential of feedlot wastes, systems for treating feedlot wastes, and effects
of feedlot wastes on the chemical and physical properties of soil. The
following review is limited to sampling of runoff water from land and the
effects of feedlot waste loading rate on the properties of runoff water.
Runoff Sampling
Collection of runoff samples manually is not feasible because runoff
events are irregular, most sampling sites are at remote locations, and labor
for taking samples is expensive. Automatic samplers are necessary if all
runoff events are to be sampled.
-------
Numerous automatic water samplers have been developed and several can be
purchased from commercial firms (Swanson and Gilbertson ). Most samplers
take a fixed sample volume at fixed time intervals. As a result, either flow
rate must be constant or a runoff hydrograph obtained for use with the sam-
plers to determine total pollutant load of the runoff water. Also, many of
the samplers are driven by an electrical power source.
A proportional sampler collects a selected fraction of the flow passing
through it. Volume of the sample divided by sampling fraction gives total
volume of flow. Total pollutant load is the product of volume of flow and
pollutant concentration.
Barnes and Frevert , and Barnes and Johnson developed a slotted conduit
and drop structure arrangement for use on large watersheds (ten to a thousand
acres). The concept was to intercept a small, fixed proportion of the flow
width with the slot and convey the collected flow in the conduit to a collec-
tion tank. In laboratory tests, the sampler worked quite well over the range
of flow rates tested and proved to be trash resistant. During field tests,
accurate sampling was impossible when head on the weir was 3.05 cm or less.
Accurate adjustment of the slot width was critical in maintaining the accuracy
of the sampler.
Schwab and Brehm5 reported on a proportional sampler consisting of small
buckets on a moving chain driven by an electric motor. The sampler had a
sampling ratio of 0.1 percent and operated at heads between 1.22 and 9.14 cm.
The Coshocton wheel was first developed in 1947 by W. H. Poinerene and
was further refined by Carter and Parsons6. It consists of a circular plate
mounted on a freely turning axle with a slotted sampling head mounted on the
circular plate. In operation, an H-flume directs the flow onto the plate
causing it to spin. As the plate spins, the slot in the sampling head cuts
across the nappe from the H-flume. Flow is sampled at regular intervals.
The water that enters the slot, passes through the plate, and is funnelled
into a collection tank.
The Coshocton wheel collects all of the flow at the selected percent of
time rather than the selected percent of flow all of the time. Tests by
Carter and Parsons5 on a one percent sampler and on a one-half percent sampler
determined the sampling error of the first at plus or minus 5 percent and
that of the second at plus or minus 10 percent. The Coshocton wheel is trash
resistant and has no problem with suspended silt, clay, or fine sands.
However, particles large enough to settle out in the H-flume affect operation
of the sampler. The main failing of the Coshocton wheel is that it requires
a large head loss to operate because of the drop from the bottom of the flume
to the wheel.
A two-stage multi-weir divisor was developed for measuring and sampling
tile effluent by Laflen7. Each stage consisted of a flume that discharged
through a weir plate which had thirteen identical 22.5 degree vee-notch
wiers. The flow that was to be sampled entered the first stage where it was
-------
split, and a thirteenth of it entered the second stage to be split again.
Flow from the center weir of the second stage was collected in a tank. Flow
rates above 0.0946 m /min could be determined to within 3 percent by measuring
head in the first stage. Coote and Zwerman8 developed a small one-stage
divisor to reduce the sampling ratio of a 1 percent Coshocton wheel to 0.1
percent. A single plate, having ten small sixty degree vee-notch weirs where
the flow from one was collected, was incorporated into the sample collection
box beneath and behind the wheel. In order to make a divisor that would be
accurate, it had to be stamped out with a special-made die and then tested
and adjusted with a triangular file.
Eisenhauer9 used a two-stage sampler. The first stage was a flume that
discharged through two Cipolletti weirs. One weir had a crest length that
was one-ninth the crest length of the other weir. The second stage was a
sampling wheel similar to the Coshocton wheel except that the rotation of the
wheel was in a vertical plane parallel to the weir. The sampler required
electrical power to run the sampler wheel and had a considerable difference
in elevation between where runoff entered the sampler and where it left.
Runoff from Land Used for Manure Disposal
Few data are published giving the quality of runoff from land receiving
applications of manure. Typical values fpr runoff from cropland expressed in
mg/1 are: COD, 80; BOD, 7; total N, 9; and total P, 1.0 (Loehr10).
Harris11 and Manges et a_l. * have reported on work previously done at
Pratt, Kansas. Concentration of measured pollution parameters in runoff from
rainfall increased as manure application rate increased. Concentration of
pollutants in runoff from furrow irrigated corn was not influenced by manure
application rate.
-------
SECTION II
CONCLUSIONS
A proportional sampler is needed for sampling runoff from non-point
sources of pollution. Volume of runoff and total pollutant load could be
determined from sample volume and laboratory analyses. A simple proportional
sampler with no moving parts and requiring a minimum of maintenance can be
constructed using submerged orifices for both the main flow and sampled flow.
Success of the sampler depends on finding a resistant but flexible material
for collecting and storing the runoff sample.
Runoff from wellwater used to irrigate land receiving annual applica-
tions of manure did not carry a concentration of pollutants sufficient to
produce a significant pollution hazard. However, runoff from rainfall carried
high concentrations of some pollutional parameters.
Chemical oxygen demand concentrations in rainfall runoff from manured
land were double those from land receiving no manure. These results indicate
a background level is maintained in the soil independent of manure applica-
tion rates. Five day biochemical oxygen demand concentrations were low
reflecting good treatment of manure in the soil.
Suspended solids concentrations were high even though samples were
collected during the growing season when they should have been near seasonal
lows. Volatile solids were 10 to 30 percent of suspended solids indicating a
relatively high organic matter content in the runoff.
Nitrogen concentration in the soil increased as manure application rate
increased. Primary nitrogen accumulations were in the annually tilled surface
zone. Ammonium-nitrogen concentrations were high enough in the seed zone to
produce a toxicity in emerging corn seedlings. Soil nitrogen concentrations
increased dramatically as annual manure application rate exceeded 50 metric
tons per hectare. At high manure rates, nitrogen was lost by denitrification
which may serve as a pollution management tool. However, at manure rates
high enough to induce significant nitrogen loss by denitirification, nitrogen
available for plant use is a potential source of nitrogen pollution in sur-
face runoff and nitrate-nitrogen pollution to ground water by downward
percolating water.
The capacity of the surface soil to adsorb phosphorous anions was ex-
ceeded and phosphorus moved downward. At the higher manure application
rates, some phosphorus moved below one meter indicating a potential for
groundwater pollution in shallow aquifers along with the potential for
pollution of surface runoff by erosion.
-------
Soil potassium increased with increasing manure application rates.
Concentration of potassium correlated with electrical conductivity indicating
that potassium was an important contributor to detrimental effects on plant
emergence and growth due to salt injury.
Sodium concentrations in the soil were considerably below those of
potassium because of a lower sodium level in the beef animal's diet. Sodium
does not. appear to be as much of a problem as potassium and ammonium in crop
production on land receiving manure.
Calcium level in the soil decreased because of leaching by irrigation
water augmented by the large amounts of the monovalent cations (ammonium,
sodium, and potassium) added in the manure. Loss of calcium from the surface
soil horizons increases the chances for an alkali problem and detrimental
effects on soil physical characteristics.
Magnesium concentrations in the soil did not change dramatically even
under high applications of manure. There was a trend towards higher concentra-
tions to a depth of 70 centimeters as manure application rate increased.
Downward movement suggests some leaching of magnesium due to the high con-
centrations of monovalent cations.
Corn forage yields were near maximum at annual manure applications of
about 100 metric tons per hectare. Pollution of the environment will be
minimal at this manure application rate.
-------
SECTION III
RECOMMENDATIONS
Ultimate disposal of beef feedlot wastes can be accomplished with minimal
pollution of the environment. The following recommendations are based upon
the results of this study.
ULTIMATE DISPOSAL OF WASTES
Apply beef feedlot manure to land for treatment and ultimate disposal.
Annual application rate should not exceed 50 metric tons per hectare of dry
matter.
Plow the manure under as soon as it is applied to prevent contamination
of surface runoff waters.
Grow a crop on the land which is a large user of nitrogen and other
plant nutrients.
Collect soil samples annually from the surface six inches and have them
tested for salt-alkali to monitor salt buildup. Collect soil samples annually
from the root zone of the crop and have them tested for nitrate-nitrogen. If
salinity or nitrate-nitrogen levels increase dramatically, decrease annual
manure application rate.
RESEARCH NEEDS
An inexpensive proportional sampler is needed to monitor quantity and
quality of runoff from non-point sources of pollution. The sampler should
have no moving parts, require a minimum of maintenance, and require no exter-
nal power source. The proportional sampler using orifices should be developed
further and additional sampler designs investigated.
Research is needed to determine background levels of pollutants in
runoff from agricultural land. Effects of crop specie, tillage, and fertility
should be documented. Only after this base data is gathered can a workable
policy on acceptable pollutant levels in waters be established.
Additional research is needed to determine the effects of feedlot waste
application rates and waste application methods on the quality of runoff
waters from irrigation and precipitation. These studies, should be conducted
in several areas so climate and soil type can be included as variables.
-------
The effects of feedlot waste application rates to land on characteristics
of the soil, percolating soil water, surface runoff, and crop yield should be
documented. It is obviously impossible to conduct research including all the
possible parameters which include soil type, crop specie, and climate. The
above recommendation can be accomplished by monitoring sites used for dis-
posal of feedlot wastes throughout the United States.
-------
SECTION IV
PROPORTIONAL RUNOFF SAMPLERS
GENERAL
In the past, runoff has been sampled for laboratory analyses to determine
pollutant concentrations by taking grab samples at specified time intervals.
Flow measurements were made at the same time as samples were taken so that
pollutant load of the flowing water could be calculated. Such a sampling
procedure was time consuming and required considerable manpower throughout
the day and night to secure representative samples of flowing water.
Automatic samplers can be purchased which will sample runoff waters.
Samples are collected either by a pump or vacuum bottles. The samplers are
operated by electric power, batteries, or spring driven clocks. Samples are
taken and stored either in individual containers or in one container giving a
composite sample. In many cases, it is desirable to know the total pollutant
load in runoff. A hydrograph of the runoff must be obtained for calculating
total pollutant load when the samples are kept separately. When the samples
are composited, total pollutant load can be determined only if flow is at a
constant rate and volume of runoff is measured.
Runoff is seldom at a constant rate. As a result, total pollutant load
can be determined only when a good hydrograph of runoff is available. Thus,
a combination runoff measuring and sampling station must be established. The
station most likely would consist of a measuring flume, water level recorder,
and water sampler. In many cases electrical power is either not available at
the sampling site or cost of extending power lines to the site would be
prohibitive. Therefore, many sampling stations are operated off of batteries
or spring driven clocks and are subject to occasional malfunctions.
Samplers were needed to collect runoff from plots receiving various
applications of feedlot manure. The samples were to be a true proportion of
the total runoff so that volume of runoff and total pollutant load of the
runoff could be calculated. Maximum expected flow through the samplers was
0.15 cubic meters per minute with the sample to be approximately 1 percent of
the total flow. A sampler was desired which would not require an external
power service to operate and which would have a minimum of moving parta so
that maintenance and servicing could be held to a minimum.
METHODS AND PROCEDURES
The first alternative considered was a vertical plate with two Cipolletti
8
-------
weirs in it like the first stage of Eisenhauer's sampler9. The weir for the
main flow would require a crest length 99 times the crest length of the
sampling wier. For low flow rates, the sampling weir crest length would be
very short subj ecting the weir to plugging with any floating debris. Con-
sequently, this alternative was dropped from consideration.
The next alternative considered was a plate with a series of one hundred
identical orifices drilled on a horizontal axis where the flow from one
orifice was collected as the sample. It was dropped from consideration for
the reasons that one hundred orifices were too many to drill for one sampler
and the long length would make it difficult to install perfectly level so
that discharge would be constant along the sampler length.
The next possibility considered involved discharging the main flow
through a weir and carrying the sample flow through a vertical series of
orifices sized and spaced to simulate the response of a weir. In other
words, the sum of flow through the orifices would equal 1 percent of the
total flow. A computer program was developed to design such a series of
orifices. The concept was dropped when the computer specified a large number
of very small orifices spaced at irregular intervals. The small size of the
orifices would make it difficult to prevent clogging by floating debris. The
complexity of the series of orifices would clearly involve more work in
fabrication than would be practical.
Previously, a simple vertical plate with two orifices, one large and one
small, was not considered because it was readily apparent that the sampling
ratio would not be constant when the flow rate was too low for the large
orifice to flow full. A horizontal plate with two orifices, where the
direction of flow was downward, was not considered either because at low flow
rates the large orifice would not flow full. Instead, the large orifice
would act as a weir. A constant sampling ratio would not be obtained until
the flow rate was high enough for the large orifice to flow full. However,
if the direction of flow were upward, there would be full flow at even very
low flow rates and a constant sampling ratio would be maintained.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
A sampler was constructed, as shown in Figure 1, with short tubes instead
of orifices to provide better control of discharge. The sampler can tolerate
being flooded by tailwater if the sample flow is collected in a flexible bag
floating in the discharge pool of the sampler rather than in a rigid container.
If the main flow tube becomes flooded by tailwater, the sample flow already
collected rises with the tailwater and floods the sampling tube to the same
degree as the main flow tube because of the flexibility of the bag. This
action produces the same head differential on the sampling tube that exists
for the main flow tube. The sampling ratio should remain constant regardless
of the degree of flooding.
-------
Figure 1. Plan view of proportional sampler.
10
-------
The equation for the sampling ratio for either unsubmerged or submerged
flow is:
_ q x 100
Q + q
where :
R = sampling ratio in percent
q = flow rate through the sampling tube in cubic meters per minute
Q = flow rate through the main flow tube in cubic meters per
minute
Unsubmerged flow rate through the sampling tube is:
q = 0.00006ca /2gH (2)
where:
c = coefficient for the sampling tube
a = cross-sectional area of the sampling tube in square centimeters
g = the acceleration of gravity in centimeters per second squared
H = the height of water, above the tube exit elevation, on the
upstream side of the sampler in centimeters
^
Unsubmerged flow rate through the main flow tube is:
Q = 448. 8CA /2glf (3)
where :
C = coefficient of the flow for the main flow tube
A = cross-sectional area of the main flow tube in square centimeters
By substituting equations 2 and 3 into equation 1, the sampling ratio becomes;
ca x 100
_
R '
CA + ca
This establishes the unsubmerged sampling ratio as being independent of the
flow rate.
When the sampler is submerged, equation 1 still holds for the sampling
ratio but different equations are needed for the flow through the tubes. The
equation for the flow through the sampling tube changes to:
q = 448.8ca /2g(H - hs) . (5)
11
-------
where:
hs = height of water in the sample collection bag above the tube
exit elevation in centimeters
Flow through the main tube changes to:
Q = 448.8CA /2g(H - hm) (6)
where:
hm = the height of tailwater above the tube exit elevation in
centimeters
By substituting equations 5 and 6 into equation 1, the equation for the
submerged sampling ratio becomes:
448.8ca /2g(H - hs)
448.8CA /2g(H - hm) + 448.8ca /2g(H - hs)
If hs is equal to hm as it is assumed, equation 7 reduces to:
= ca x 100
CA + ca *• }
Since the sampling ratio is the same for both unsubmerged and submerged flow,
the sampler should operate satisfactorily under either condition.
Laboratory Models
A test model was constructed with the sampling tube having an inside
diameter of 0.635 centimeters and the main flow tube having an inside diameter
of 6.35 centimeters. Both tubes extended 1.9 centimeters above the plate on
which they were mounted.
The test model was installed in a test rack in the laboratory and tested
under unsubmerged conditions as described by Nixon12. Flow from each tube
was collected simultaneously for a set time interval with flow rate constant.
Sampling ratio decreased as flow rate increased becoming nearly constant at
1.05 percent for flow rates above 0.11 cubic meters per minute.
Next, the test model was tested under submerged conditions with the
tailwater higher than the tube exits. Flow from the sample tube was caught
in a plastic bag to separate the sample from the main flow as described by
Nixon1 . Flow from the sample tube and the tailwater exit were collected
simultaneously for a set time interval. Sampling ratio was near constant at
0.88 percent. There was some contradiction in the test results at the lowest
flow rates but it was attributed to variability in the test procedure having
a greater effect at low flow rates.
12
-------
We had expected sampling ratio to decrease as flow rate increased under
unsubmerged conditions. This was because the tubes, oriented as they were,
functioned also as weirs and at low flow rates weir flow was dominant over
tube flow. The sampling ratio would decrease as flow rate increased because
the ratio of the weir capacities was the ratio of the circumferences of the
tubes, which yielded a lower sampling ratio than that of the tube capacities.
The 1.05 percent sampling ratio at the highest flow rate tested was near the
ratio of 0.99 percent predicted by Equation 4.
Sampling ratio for submerged flow was 0.88 percent while Equation 4
predicted 0.99 percent. Inspection of the flow control tubes showed that the
main flow tube had a rounded discharge end while the end of the sampling tube
was cut off square. Variation between actual sampling ratios and predicted
sampling ratio of 0.99 percent was attributed to differences in discharge
coefficients between the two flow tubes.
Based upon these laboratory results, ten samplers were built with the
same dimensions of the test sampler for field installation under submerged
conditions. All flow tubes had square ends. One of the samplers was placed
in the test rack with the discharge of the tubes submerged. Sampling ratio
was found to be 1.29 percent which was greater than the 0.99 percent pre-
dicted by Equation 4. These results indicate that the discharge coefficient
for the small sampling tube was larger than the coefficient for the larger
main flow tube.
As the sampling tube and main flow tube did not maintain the same coeffi-
cients for unsubmerged and submerged flow, an alternative to the tubes was
sought. The vertical tubes were replaced with horizontal orifices surrounded
by ring-shaped weirs substantially larger in diameter than the orifices. As
flow was upward through the sampler, the orifices would be submerged regard-
less of flow rate. Thus, at high flow rates where the influence of weir flow
would have disappeared, sampling ratio should be constant for both unsub-
merged and submerged operation. The circumference of the weir rings around
the orifices were greater than that of the tubes they replaced. The effects
of weir flow on the unsubmerged sampling ratio should be decreased.
A test model was built with a main flow orifice diameter of 6.35 cm and
a sampling orifice diameter of 0.635 centimeters. A 5.08 centimeter length
of 10.2 centimeter inside diameter PVC pipe was placed as a weir around the
main flow orifice, and a 5.08 centimeter long section of 2.54 centimeter
inside diameter PVC pipe was placed as a weir around the sampling orifice.
The test model was placed in the test rack where the other models were tested
and sampling ratio was determined for unsubmerged and submerged flow.
Results of unsubmerged tests indicated that although the effect of weir
flow on the sampling ratio had been reduced, it wasn't eliminated. Sampling
ratio continued to decrease as flow rate increased for unsubmerged flow,
approaching the 0.99 percent predicted by Equation 4.
Sampling ratio averaged 1.01 percent under submerged flow which was .02
percent greater than predicted flow by Equation 4. This small difference
13
-------
between actual sampling ratio and predicted sampling ratio could be due to
accuracy of the testing apparatus and a slight effect of the plastic bag used
to catch the sample.
These results indicate that it is possible to build a true proportional
sampler. Sampling ratio will be constant if the sampler is operated under
submerged conditions at all times.
Field Models
Ten samplers with tubes for dividing the flow as shown in Figure 1 were
built and installed at the Pratt Feedlot, Inc. The samplers were located on
plots which had received annual feedlot manure applications. The objective
of the study, discussed in Chapter V, was to determine the effect of manure
application rate on the quality of surface runoff.
Five of the samplers were installed in series with a flume-recorder-
sampler setup as shown in Figure 2. Flow was measured by a sixty-degree
trapezoidal flume equipped with a Steven's Type F water level recorder and
the proportional samplers which were submerged during runoff events.
Table 1 shows the results of field tests where data were collected from
both the flume-recorder-sampler and the proportional samplers. These results
show that samplers were not operating properly. Observation of the samplers
indicated that they were full of sediment in some cases.
Table 1 shows that sampling ratio increased as peak flow rate decreased.
Decreasing sampling ratio was attributed to deposition of sediment in the
sampler. Sedimentation was encouraged by the steep overfall ahead of the
proportional sampler. This overfall can be protected with some durable
material greatly reducing the flow of sediment through the sampler.
Two sets of data in Table 1 show a sampling ratio greater than the 1.29
percent measured in the laboratory on one of the samplers. These high ratios
were obtained from small runoff events. The pit holding the sampling tube
had a capacity of 0.11 to .15 cubic meters per minute. During initial runoff,
the sampler was unsubmerged until water had accumulated in the sample bag
giving a higher sampling ratio as shown in laboratory tests.
Some data was lost because of failures in the plastic bags used to catch
the sample. Failures were due to degradation by sunlight, mechanical damage
by wind, and damage by rodents.
Additional research is needed to perfect the proportional samplers.
However, initial results indicate that a simple proportional sampler can be
built which will require a minimum of maintenance. Success of the operation
of the sampler will depend on solving the sedimentation problem and finding a
material for the sample bag which can withstand exposure to field conditions.
14
-------
Automatic Sampler
Water Level Recorder
Proportional
Sampler
Figure 2. Field installation of proportional sampler and flume-recorder-sampler setup.
-------
TABLE 1. RAINFALL AND MEASURED RUNOFF
Date
5/29/75
6/08/75
6/08/75
6/08/75
6/08/75
6/16/75
6/16/75
6/26/75
6/26/75
8/13/75
8/13/75
8/13/75
8/18/75
8/18/75
Rainfall
(nun)
15.7
27.4
27.4
27.4
27.4
50.8
50.8
22.2
22.2
16.8
16.8
16.8
29,5
29.5
Plot
106
101
102
104
106
104
106
104
106
101
104
106
104
108
Hydrograph
Volume
(liters)
34.24
329.56
90.09
276.34
55.87
1514.16
1578.82
964.11
681*68
96.00
497.55
39.37
367.64
152.48
Sample
Volume
(liters)
0.321
0.943
0.486
1.909
0.869
0.000
3.729
0.000
4.565
0.000
0.108
0.662
3.407
1.136
Ratio
(%)
.9372
.2861
.5390
.6907
1.556
0.0000
.236
0.0000
.6697
0.0000
.02169
1.681
.927
.745
Peak Flow
Rate
m3/min
0.0008
0.0068
0.0027
0.0052
0.0028
0.0465
0.0383
0.0605
0.0345
0.0033
0.0258
0.0011
0.0045
0.0037
-------
SECTION V
QUALITY OF RUNOFF FROM LAND RECEIVING FEEDLOT MANURE
GENERAL
This study examines the ultimate disposal of beef cattle feedlot solid
wastes and the potential for surface water pollution thereof. The principal
concern lies in the pollutant characteristics of runoff from land receiving
applications of manure as evidenced by BODs, COD, ammonia nitrogen, electrical
conductivity, pH, and suspended solids load. ALso presented are analyses of
the runoff water for total nitrogen, phosphorous, potassium, magnesium,
calcium and sodium. We hypothesized that increased loads of feedlot manure
when applied on cropland would increase the pollutant load of the runoff but
not by a proportional amount. Possibly there would be a point at which an
optimum of applied manure would not increase the runoff pollutant load, yet
increase the crop yield due to the plant nutrients found in the cattle
wastes. If this optimum application could be established, feedlot operators
could be encouraged to apply manure for maximum crop yield and minimum
pollution potential.
METHODS AND PROCEDURES
Manure Disposal Plots
Forty plots were established in 1969 for manure disposal studies. The
plots were located approximately 0.8 kilometers from the feedlot pens. All
plots were 9.1 meters wide and 64 meters long and contained 12 rows of corn.
The predominant soil on the manure disposal study area has been classi-
fied as a Farnum loam (USDA-Soil Conservation Service13). As the original
land surface was undulating, considerable areas of subsoil were exposed
during leveling for surface irrigation. Laboratory analyses show the surface
soil to be a silty clay loam with a cation exchange capacity of 19 milli-
equivalents per 100 grams and a pH of 7.0.
Sample Collection
Two techniques of collecting runoff samples were used. One method
employed an automatic water sampler sold by Servco Laboratories of Minneapolis,
Minnesota. It consisted of a clock motor and 24 air evacuated bottles con-
nected by clear vinyl plastic tubes to a sampling head. The head was placed
in a furrow in front of a trapezoidal flume equipped with a Type F Stevens
water level recorder. The clock motor, which was started by the water level
17
-------
recorder, released the vacuum in one bottle each 5 minutes. A sample of
runoff was then sucked through the plastic tube attached to the bottle and
stored for later collection and laboratory analyses.
A short tube sampler was devised to obtain directly a proportional
sample. The sampler has been discussed in Chapter IV of this report. Ten
proportional samplers were installed; five at the same sites as the vacuum
samplers, and five more on plots receiving approximately replicate manure
applications.
Manure was applied annually to the plots in the fall of 1969 through
1974. Runoff sampling commenced in May 1975 and continued through August
1975 when the corn was harvested for silage. Rainfall was measured by a
standard rain gauge for the first four events. A recording rain gauge was
installed after the fourth rainfall and was operated the remainder of the
summer. Brandenberg14 gives additional details of the experimental procedure.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Results of the runoff analyses are presented in Tables 2 through 14.
Runoff and irrigation dates are given in numerical order, 1 through 11, and
2i through 4i, respectively. Samples 3-1 through 4-5 were taken by the
proportional samplers. Samples A through E were taken by the vacuum samplers
with the number designating the order of the sample taken.
Proportional samples 3-1 through 4-5 were .individually analyzed. The
vacuum samples for the first five runoff events were composited into fewer
samples. For example, the El designated sample contained equal parts of the
first five samples collected by a vacuum sampler during a runoff event, E2
contained equal parts of the next five samples, etc. After the fifth runoff
event, a hydrograph was used to determine the relative importance of each
individual sample and a single composite was made for the entire runoff.
Usually the hydrograph peaked rather sharply within a few minutes after
runoff started. Therefore, the composite was made largely from the two or
three samples on either side of the peak.
Harris11 concluded from his studies in the same area that runoff from
irrigation using wellwater did not produce a significant pollution hazard.
Because of this, only a few samples of runoff from irrigation water randomly
selected were analyzed. The values recorded substantiated Harris's findings.
Lack of sample data was usually due to equipment malfunction. However,
because of the close proximity of storms during the period of June 21-23,
the proportional samples collected a composite of all three storms. The
vacuum samplers were activated during the storm on June 21 and were unavail-
able for the next runoff event.
A correlation test was applied to the COD data for proportional and
vacuum samples to determine if the ratios were one. Values for samples 3-5
and E which were taken from the sample waste disposal plot were tested. Only
four common pairs of data were available for the comparison. With an alpha
of .05, the correlations coefficient, r, was not found to be significantly
18
-------
TABLE 2. CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND OF RUNOFF (rag/1)
Date of
(1975)
Rainfall
Maxinura
(Whr)
Sanple
3-3
3-4
3-1
3-2
3-5
4-3
4-4
4-2
4-1
4-5
Cl
Dl
D2
D3
D4
A3
31
52
B3
B4
El
E2
E3
£4
E5
Runoff
f -n ^
Intensi
Plot
104
106
101
102
108
204
205
203
202
210
104
106
106
106
106
101
102
1C'2
102
102
103
108
103
108
108
Event
cy
MT/ha.
0
58
108
190
311
0
57
92
164
330
0
58
58
58
58
108
190
190
190
190
311
311
311
311
311
5/22 5/29
14.0 15.7
1 2
2,520
710 214
3,790 198
591
223
710 990
2,550 1,180
276
4,020
2,230
355
239
179
172
734 .
2,940
1,690
2,870
1,440
6/6
15.7
3
650
229
112
459
268
533
443
405
308
158
6/8 6/16 6/21
27.4 49.5 1.3
16.5 12.7
456
268
497 96
688 4,710
26S 423
153 37
2,364 29
278 162
240 147
450 294
323
123
251 150
236
162
192
37
294 369
350
6/22
& 23 6/27 8/1 8/13 8/18
57.1 22.9 25.4 16.5 29.5
35.6 22.9 19.0 16.5 12.7 IRRIGATION
7 8 9 10 11 2i 31 4i
2,697
790 1,723 839 549
2,584 - 20
2,060
1,504 1,835 315 274
90 496 220 345
52 346
180 285
752 2,472 1,049
188 752 86 188
150
287
51
38
212 362 7
-------
TABLE 3. 5-DAY BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND OF RUNOFF (mg/1)
ro
o
Date of
(1975)
Rainfall
Maximum
Sample
3-3
3-4
3-1
3-2
3-5
4-3
4-4
4-2
4-1
4-5
Dl
D2
D3
D4
El
E2
E3
Runoff Event
(mm)
Intensity
(mm/hr)
Plot MT/ha.
104
106
101
102
108
204
205
203
202
210
106
106
106
106
108
108
108
0
58
108
190
311
0
57
92
164
330
58
58
58
58
311
311
311
5/22
14.0
1
103
47
90
21
8
98
38
77
49
5/29 6/6
15.7 15.7
2 3
28
7
15
8 9
10 7
6 7
8
6/8
27.4
4
6
6
10
9
9
49
5
10
16
10
6/16 6/21
49.5 1.3
16.5 12.7
5 6
3
77
10
1
1
4
4
8
28
15
10
22
5
3
2
6/22
& 23 6/27
57.1 22.9
35.6 22.9
7 8
12 0.4
3
1
17 1
6 10
5 14
7
11 1
7 9
8/1 8/13 8/18
25.4 16.5 29.5
19.0 16.5 12.7
9 10 11
3 11
1 4
2 3
7
4
2 5
-------
TABLE 4. BOD AS PERCENT OF COD
Date of
(1975)
Rainfall
Maximum
Sample
Runoff Event
(mm)
Intensity
(mm/hr)
Plot Mt/ha.
5/22 5/29 6/6
14.0 15.7 15.7
123
6/8
27.4
4
6/16 8/21
49.5 1.3
16.5 12.7
5 6
6/22
& 23 6/27
57.1 22.9
35.6 22.9
7 8
8/1 8/13 8/18
25.4 16.5 29.5
19.0 16.5 12.7
9 10 11
3-3
3-4
3-1
3-2
3-5
4-3
4-4
4-2
4-1
4-5
Dl
D2
D3
D4
El
E2
E3
104
106
101
102
108
204
205
203
202
210
106
106
106
106
108
108
108
0
58
108
190
311
0
57
92
164
330
58
58
58
58
311
311
311
4.1 4.3
6.6 3.3
2.4 7.5
3.6 3.6
3.9
1.1 1.0 6.3
3.8 0.5 1.5
13.8
1.9
2.2 3.0
2.2
1.2
1.5
3.4
5.9
2.1
1.8
4.2
3.6
3.1
3.1
1.6
2.4
3.5
3.4
2.5
2.7
2.7
11.2
6.4
6.2
11.5
14.1
1.0
0.6
1.5 0.02
0.1
0.05
1.1 0.05
6.7 2.0
9.6 4.1
3.9
1.5 0.04
3.7 1.2
0.4 2.0
0.3 1.5
0.3 1.5
0.9 0.0
2.5
0.4
2.3 2.7
-------
TABLE 5. SUSPENDED SOLIDS OF RUNOFF (mg/1) AND (% VOLATILE SOLIDS)
to
Date of
Rainfall
Maximum
Sample
3-3
3-4
3-1
3-2
3-5
4-3
4-4
4-2
4-1
4-5..
Cl
Dl .
D2
D3
D4
A3
Bl
B2
B3
B4
El
E2
E3
E4
E5
Runoff Event (1975)
(mm)
Intensity
Plot
104
106
101
102
108
204
205
202
203
210
104
106
106
106
106
101
102
102
102
102
108
108
108
108
108
(nwi/hr)
Mt/ha.
0
58
108
190
311
0
57
92
164 .
330
0
58
58
58
58
108
190
190
190
190
311
311
311
311
311
5/22 5/29
14.0 15.7
1 2
76,820
145,000(48) 2,380
169,000 2,260
14,950
1,310
26,820(14) 1,440
68,480 4,250(15)
31,820
13,453(14)
4,020(15)
3,280(53)
1,840
840
610
3,560
3,600
2,920
1,700
10,760
6/6
15.7
3
7,640(27)
2,760
1,970(29)
1,600(39)
1,120
4,680
3,900(34)
3,320
2,400
1,070
6/8
27.4
4
2,180
2,550(69)
11,640
3,680(24)
4,420
35,664(15)
4,080
4,000(30)
10,840(13)
2,960(10)
6/16 6/21
49.5 1.3
16.5 12.7
5 6
1,190
31,400
4,860
355
540
2,110
1,800
3,520
827
330 476(38)
850
995
430
2,250
4,030
2,000
2,810
6/22 & 23
57.1
35.6
7
3,500(1)
23,400
1,660
550
10,920(4)
2,190(7)
-------
TABLE 5. SUSPENDED SOLIDS OF RUNOFF (rag/1) AND (% VOLATILE SOLIDS) (Continued)
ho
U>
Date of
Rainfall
Maximum
• Samole
Runoff Event (1975)
(inches)
Intensity
Plot
(mm/hr)
MT/ha.
6/27
22.9
22.9
8
8/1 8/13 8/18
25.4 16.5 29.5
19.0 16.5 12.7 IRRIGATION
9 10 11 21 3i 41
3-3
3-4
3-1
3-2
3-5
4-3
4-4
4-2
4-1
4-5
Cl
Dl
D2
D3
D4
A3
Bl
B2
B3
B4
El
E2
E3
E4
E5
Ml
M3
M4
M5
M7
Ml
M3
M4
M5
M7
Ml
M3
M4
MS
M7
0
20
40
80
160
0
20
40
80
160
0
20
40
80
160
4,360(6)
6,330(12)
2,900
3,720
12,760
7,760(9)
2,330(1)
11,500(8)
3,940
1,170(27)
1,193
1,520(28)
8,190
2,330(20) 3,780(20)
162
130 1,030
2,360(25) 2,520(31)
380
4,460(21)
250 830
136
126(27)
1,460(32) 34
-------
TABLE 6. AMMONIA-NITROGEN OF RUNOFF (mg/1)
ro
•P-
Date of
(1975)
Rainfall
Maximum
Sample
3-3
3-4
3-1
3-2
3-5
4-3
4-4
4-2
4-1
4-5
Dl
D2
D3
D4
Bl
B2
B3
B4
El
E2
E3
E4
E5
Runoff Event
(mm)
5/22
14.0
5/29 6/6
15.7 15
.7
6/8
27.4
Intensity (mm/hr)
Plot
104
106
101
102
108
204
205
203
202
210
106
106
106
106
102
102
102
102
108
108
108
108
108
Mt/ha.
0
58
108
190
311
0
57
92
164
330
58
58
58
58
190
190
190
190
311
311
311
311
311
1
6.38
2.50
2.75
4.38
2.38
1.88
2.25
3.50
2.50
3.88
6.38
4.25
3.00
3.88
4.50
7.38
5.75
4.88
3.63
2 3
5.
2.38
2.50
2.38 2.
0.88 1.
1.50 1.
3.
3.
5.
5.
4.
3.
88
50
58
88
13
13
25
75
13
50
4
1.13
1.13
3.25
3.75
3.50
6.58
4.13
4.88
3.75
4.13
6/16 6/21
49
16
5
3.
11.
4.
3.
1.
1.
2.
3.
3.
3.
3.
2.
4.
4.
4.
.5 1.3
.5 12.7
6
25
50
00
00
50
50
25
75
13
50
00
50
25
13
83
6/22
& 23 6/27 8/1
57.1 22
35.6 22
7 8
0.50 3;
4.
2.
2.00 3.
1.50 0.
0.75 0.
1.
1.25
1.75 3.
3.
2.
1.
0.
.9 25.4
.9 19.0
9
5.25
50 1.40
25
16
15 1.95
63 3.25
50
25 1.10
6.20
00 1.55
20
15
15
60
8/13 8/18
16.5 29.5
16.5 12.7
10 11
4.25
2.50
3.15
4.65
4.38
.
-------
TABLE 7. TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN OF RUNOFF (mg/1)
ro
Date of
(1975)
Rainfall
Maximum
Sample
3-3
3-4
3-1
3-2
3-5
4-3
4-4
4-2
4-1
4-5
Cl
Dl
D2
D3
D4
A3
Bl
B2
B3
B4
El
E2
E3
E4
E5
Runoff Event
(inches)
Intensity
(in/hr)
Plot MT/ha.
Ml
M3
M4
M5
M7
Ml
M3
M4
M5
M7
Ml
M3
M4
M5
M7
0
20
40
80
160
0
20
40
80
160
0
20
40
SO
160
5/22
0.55
1
90.9
10.8
10.7
75.1
40.0
26.4
65.5
68.9
30.7
24.2
11.3
5.0
5.7
43.7
21.9
17.1
9.9
15.7
5/29 6/6
0.62 0.
2 3
25.
16.6
7.7
9.4 7.
4.0 5.
3.
8.
14.
17.
16.
12.
5.
62
8
4
1
8
2
6
1
7
1
1
6/8
1.08
4
3.9
5.2
37.5
11.9
17.8
64.6
10.6
38.3
42.6
9.6
6/16
1.95
0.65
5
3.3
39.4
14.7
3.3
1.7
3.0
5.6
13.0
4.1
4.2
4.8
3.5
8.2
7.1
6.7
6/22
6/21 & 23
0.05 2.25
0.50 1.40
6 7
11.0
45.0
3.0
2.0
21.6
9.4
4.3
2.4
3.8
1.5
2.2
20.9
10.8
6.6
6.5
5.9
6/27 8/1
0.
0.
3
13.
20.
9.
15.
13.
14.
4.
13.
4.
5.
3.
2.
10.
5.
4.
3.
3.
90 1.00
90 0.75
9
26.6
7 3.0
5
8
8 2.5
7 6.0
4
8 2.2
15.0
2 3.1
0
0
6
8
5
5
5
3
7
8/13 8/18
0.65 1.16
0.65 0.50 IRRIGATION
10 11 21 31 41
14.1
0.4
6.7
5.5
8.6
2.4
42.2
2.4
3.7
2.4
8.5 0.9
6.7 0.8
6.4 0.6
6.3 0.6
5.4 0.5
-------
TABLE 8. pH OF RUNOFF
to
Date of
(1975)
Rainfall
Maximum
Sample
3-3
3-4
3-1
3-2
3-5
4-3
4-4
4-2
4-1
4-5
Cl
Dl
D2
D3
D4
A3
Bl
B2
B3
B4
El
£2
E3
E4
E5
Runoff Event
(inches)
Intensity
(in/hr)
Plot MT/ha.
Ml
M3
M4
M5
M7
Ml
M3
M4
M5
M7
Ml
M3
M4
M5
M7
0
20
40
80
160
0
20
40
80
160
0
20
40
80
100
5/22
0.55
1
7.80
7.43
7.45
8.65
7.56
7.42
7.25
7.70
7.71
7.52
7.13
7.10
7.16
7.65
7.62
7.59
7.52
7.51
5/29 6/6
0.62 0.62
2 3
7.14 7.23
7.10
7.25 7.30
7.43 7.38
7.47 7.28
7.72
7.40
7.44
7.42
7.33
7.47
6/8
1.08
4
7.28
7.10
7.10
7.25
7.21
6.94
7.02
6.99
6.97
7.88
6/22
6/16 6/21 & 23
1.95 0.05 2.25
0.65 0.50 1.40
567
6.92 6.30
7.24
7.14
7.15 7.22
7.00 6.75
7.08 7.03
6.75
6.64 6.59
7.34
8.20
9.61 7.26
7.25
6.90
6.40
7.24
9.69 8.38
10.00
6/27 8/1 8/13 8/18
0.90 1.00 0.65 1.16
0.90 0.75 0.65 0.50 IRRIGATION
8 9 10 1 2i 31 4i
6.50
6.53 6.62 6.99
6.51 8.49
6.52
6.96 7.56 7.32
7.06 6.87 6.93
6.94
6.65 7.36
7.27
7.44 7.65 7.65
8.15
5.99
7.48
9.03
8.22 8.48 9.17
-------
TABLE 9. ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY OF RUNOFF (Mmhos/cm)
NJ
VJ
Date of
(1975)
Rainfall
Maximum
Sample
3-3
3-4
3-1
3-2
3-5
4-3
4-4
4-2
4-1
4-5
Cl
Dl
D2
D3
D4
A3
Bl
B2
B3
B4
El
E2
E3
E4
E5
Runoff Event
(inches)
Intensity
(in/hr)
Plot MT/ha.
Ml
M3
M4
M5
M7
>I1
M3
M4
M5
M7
M3
M3
M4
M5
M7
0
20
40
80
160
0
20
40
80
160
20
20
40
80
160
5/22 5/29
0.55 0.62
1 2
80
100 95
105 7
195
210
52 52
78 32
37
102
109
150
84
60
67
134
174
90
78
72
5/5
0.62
3
66
261
49
43
245
520
280
160
80
75
6/8
1.08
4
35
40
72
55
130
20
48
78
168
127
6/16
1.95
0.65
5
41
100
168
276
31
52
98
145
270
70
51
60
74
180
180
6/22
6/21 & 23 6/27 8/1 8/13 8/18
0.05 2.25 0.90 1.00 0.65 1.16
0.50 1.40 0.90 0.75 0.65 0.50 IRRIGATION
67 8 9 10 11 21 3i 4i
100 120 150 190
100 240 440
190
340 200 620 360
1C 10 80 80
10 10
30 180
80 70 260
200 220 490 410
30
20 20
60
430
140 50 240 420
-------
TABLE 10. TOTAL PHOSPHORUS OF R'JNOFF (mg/1)
00
Date of
(1975)
Rainfall
Maxiraun
Sample
3-3
3-4
3-1
3-2
3-5
4-3
4-4
4-2
4-1
4-5
Cl
Dl
D2
D3
D4
A3
31
B2
B3
B4
El
E2
E3
E4
E5
Runoff Event
5/22 5/29
(inches)
Intensity
(in/hr)
Plot MT/ha.
Ml
M3
M4
M5
M7
Ml
M3
M4
M5
M7
Ml
M3
M4
M5
My
0
20
40
80
160
0
20
40
80
160
0
20
40
80
160
0.
1
41,
45.
11.
35.
12.
32.
36.
43.
41.
9.
4.
3.
2.
30.
19.
9.
9.
8.
55 0.52
2
56
94 2.70
80 4.68
62
9.40
25 2.95
50
88
76
25
54
92
77
73
00
92
53
03
58
5/5
0.52
3
9.87
8.45
0.45
3.30
7.73
12.28
14.42
13.74
12.72
7.72
5/8
1.08
4
0.80
1.78
20.31
5.95
14.06
30.64
4.20
9.55
20.94
11.63
5/15
1.95
0.65
5
2.18
12.81
9.25
5.53
0.68
2.20
3.50
7.50
2,08
2.47
3.26
2.50
9.02
8.31
8.10
6/22
5/21 6 23
0.
0.
6
2.
1.
1.
1.
7.
15.
1C.
7.
5.
7.
05 2.25
50 1.4Q
7
4.S8
32. SI
1.43
1.3S
12.30
11.70
90
55
60
52
87
35
77
51
40
70
6/27
0.90
0.90
S
5.93
10.48
7.60
15.31
5.20
6.65
3.70
15.94
2.54
2.57
1.90
1.81
9.05
5.72
5.22
5.50
; T /
^ * j.*t
8/1 8/13 8/18
1.00 0.65 1.16
0.75 0.65 0.50 IRRIGATION
9 10 11 21 31 4i
11.00
1.78 7.00
0.38
3.83 5.53
1.98 1.88
1.43
7.78
4.80 3.70
2.58
1.20
1.47
1.54
2.34
8.57 0.70
7.54 0.43
6.97 0.48
6.99 0.50
6.43 1.15
-------
TABLE 11. SODIUM OF RUNOFF (mg/1)
VO
Date of
(1975)
Rainfall
Maximum
Sample
3-3
3-4
3-1
3-2
3-5
4-3
4-4
4-2
4-1
4-5
Cl
Dl
D2
D3
D4
A3
Bl
B2
B3
B4
El
E2
E3
E4
E5
Runoff
(inch
Intens
Plot
Ml
M3
M4
M5
M7
Ml
M3
M4
M5
M7
Ml
M3
M4
M5
M7
Event
es)
icy (in/
MT/ha.
0
20
40
80
160
0
20
40
80
160
0
20
40
80
160
5/22
0.55
hr)
1
24
45
9
22
26
17
16
24
29
11
8
8
10
20
15
9
12
13
5/29 6/6
0.62 0.62
2 3
14
19
12
42 42
10 10
7
24
31
20
12
16
9
6/8
1.08
4
7
17
8
13
27
10
11
23
23
6/16
1.95
0.65
5
6
15
8
7
3
6
5
6
7
7
6
5
6
5
5
6/22
6/21 & 23
0.05 2.25
0.50 1.40
6 7
7
21
4
3
12
3
6
5
6
8
6
lh
12
13
20
22
6/27
0.90
0.90
8
12
11
12
16
11
8
3
14
7
5
5
6
8
7
9
9
11
8/1 8/13 3/13
1.00 0.65 1.16
0.75 0.65 0.50 IRRIGATION
9 10 11 21 31 41
17
31 12
65 22
17 16
35
26
53 42
6
50
52
51
53
li 50
14 51
lo 51
15 51
19 50
-------
TABLE 12. POTASSIUM OF "RUNOFF (mg/2)
OJ
o
Date of
(1975)
Rainfall
Maximum
SaT.pl e
3-3
3-4
3-1
3-2
3-5
4-3
4-4
4-2
4-1
4-5
Cl
Dl
D2
D4
A3
31
B2
B3
B4
El
E2
E3
Ei
E5
Runoff Event
(inches)
Intensity
(in/hr)
Plot MT/'ha.
Ml
Ml
Mi
M5
M7
Ml
M3
Mi
M5
M7
Ml
M3
MA
M5
0
20
40
SO
160
0
20
40
SO
160
0
20
40
30
:•;? 160
5/22
0.55
1
477
560
60
291
239
174
376
194
218
74
72
51
54
210
152
68
64
63
5/29 6/6
0.62 0.62
2 3
334
31
28
81 101
27 16
25
240
106
101
76
78
41
6/8
1.08
4
23
27
188
58
113
150+
50
80
200
86
6/16
1.95
0.65
5
21
127
69
35
8
16
31
56
16
17
17
50
46
45
6/22
6/21 & 23
0.05 2.25
"0.50 1.40
6 7
51
264
23
13
112
72
17
10
8
11
121
82
53
66
64
6/27
0.90
0.90
8
64
93
62
105
104
253
31
100
20
19
13
54
39
34
36
34
8/1 8/13
1.00 0.65
0.75 0.65
9 10
141
23
45
41
10
67
30
23
8/18
1.16
0.40 IRRIGATION
11 21 31 41
75
58
38
106
9
4
4
4
88 5
53 4
51 3
52 3
50 3
-------
TABLE 13. CALCIUM OF RUNOFF (mg/1)
Date of
(1975)
Rainfall
Maximum
Sample
3-3
3-4
3-1
3-2
3-5
4-3
4-4
4-2
4-1
4-5
Cl
Dl
D2
D3
D4
A3
Bl
B2
B3
B4 '
El
E2
E3
E4
E5
Runoff Events
(inches)
Intensity
(in/hr)
Plot MT/ha.
Ml
M3
M4
M5
M7
Ml
M3
M4
M5
M7
Ml
M3
M4
M5
M7
0
20
40
80
160
0
20
40
80
160
0
20
40
80
160
5/22
0.55
1
7.2
5.2
2.7
1.0
17.6
11.2
21.2
29.4
9.1
6.8
2.8
1.7
2.6
15.9
9.3
4.9
3.9
3.4
5/29 6/6
0.62 0.62
2 3
3.9
1.0
0.7
4.2 2.5
0.9 2.2
0.2
1.3
6.6
5.5
2.9
5.8
1.9
6/8
1.08
4
1.8
3.4
5.3
3.1
5.2
6.4
5.6
1.4
9.8
4.0
6/16
1.95
0.65
5
0.8
7.3
3:0
0.8
1.2
2.1
2.9
6.7
\
1.1
1.7
2.1
1.1
2.4
1.7
1.9
6/22
6/21 & 23
0.05 2.25
0.40 1.40
6 7
2.1
8.8
1.5
0.7
3.2
2.8
1.0
0.4
0.9
1.0
1.0
8.3
3.2
1.3
2.8
1.7
6/27 8/1 8/13
0.90 1.00 0.65
0.90 0.75 0.65
8 9 10
9.0
0.6 4.2
3.7
5.4
5.3 5.4
0.8 2.6
6.4
1.8 5.7
6.7
4.9 6.2
1.6
0.9
1.2
1.0
1.5
2.4
2.6
1.8
1.6
1.5
8/18
1.16
0.50 IRRIGATION
11 2i 3i 4i
3.7
5.0
3.4
1.3
4.5
5.4
7.8
4.8
6.8
4.5 4.7
4.9 11.0
2.6 5.4
1.5 11.1
1.7 8.0
-------
TABLE 14. MAGNESIUM OF RUNOFF (mg/1)
Dace of
(1975)
Rainfall
Maxiraui?.
Saoiole
3-3
3-4
3-1
3-2
3-5
4-3
4-4
4-2
4-1
4-5
Cl
Dl
D2
D3
D4
A3
Bl
B2
B3
B4
El
E2
E3
E4
E5
Runoff Event
(inches)
Intensity
(in/hr)
Plot MT/ha.
Ml-
M3
M4
M5
M7
Ml
M3
M4
M5
M7
Ml
M3
M4
M5
M7
0
5/22
0.55
1
76.0
20 102.0
40
80
160
0
20
40
80
160
0
20
40
80
160
7.0
36.5
37.0
28.5
28.0
36.0
10.0
14.5
4.2
2.0
1.0
24.3
17.0
10.5
3.0
6.7
5/29 6/6
0.62 0.62
2 3
16.9
4.0
1.0
11.0 12.3
5.3 3.5
6.3
9.4
12.9
10.9
10.7
11.7
5.2
6/8
1.08
4
6.3
9.5
19.8
9.0
9.0
74.0
6.8
10.0
34.5
5.8
6/16
1.95
0.65
5
4.8
19.8
13.5
4.0
2.5
4.0
9.5
15.8
1.5
4.2
4.6
2.8
8.6
7.7
6.7
6/22
6/21 & 23
0.05 2.25
0.50 1.40
6 7
7.8
34.5
5.3
2.5
16.3
10.0
3.3
1.6
2.6
0.6
0.8
9.0
8.0
5.2
6.5
6.4
6/27 8/1
0.90 1.00
0.90 0.75
8 9
10.3
4.0 2.0
8.5
2.5
12.3 5.3
14.3 8.5
18.3
5.3 3.5
11.0
14.5 7.3
2.0
1.8
1.7
1.7
3.9
4. S
4.8
2.7
2.2
8/13 8/18
0.65 1.16
0.65 0.50 IRRIGATION
10 11 2i 3i 4i
10.3
7.8
4.0
8.2
0.9
7.0
1.9
2.0
3.1
9.0 2.0
6.5 2.0
5.1 2.0
6.8 2.0
4.3 2.2
-------
different from one. However, with only 3 degrees of freedom and standard
deviations of 846 and 98 for proportional and vacuum samples, respectively,
it is obvious that more data is needed to make a definite statement about the
sampling equality of the two methods.
Although data were taken for 11 runoff events, a trend towards increasing
pollutant loads with increasing manure application rate could not be estab-
lished. However, certain results will be discussed.
Generally, the COD concentrations were very high (Table 2). The propor-
tional sampler concentrations were consistently higher than the vacuum
sampler concentrations. COD was expected to be high because of the cellulosic
content of manure. Bacteria in the soil have difficulty in metabolizing the
cellulose because they lack the enzyme necessary to break the Beta (1-4)
linkage which holds the long-chain cellulose molecules together. However,
the cellulose will exert an oxygen demand when the COD test is run. Although
the COD values are high, they represent a substantial decrease from the
feedlot runoff values as previously measured at Pratt (Manges et al. *) .
These feedlot runoff COD values ranged from 1,514 to 14,309 milligrams per
liter with an average of 6,111 milligrams per liter.
concentrations given in Table 3 are low, generally in the range of
10 to 30 milligrams per liter, and reflect good treatment of the waste. From
feedlot sources until ultimate disposal, there appears to be ample time for
biological degradation to occur. When the manure is stockpiled, substantial
treatment of the solid waste can occur within, the interior of the pile where
temperatures are high.
Values of BODs as a percent of COD are shown in Table 4. The majority
of the ratios were 3 to 4 percent. These ratios are low when compared to
secondary treated domestic sewage effluent which has a typical value of
25 percent. A certain background BODs level is indicated by the material
always present in the soil and largely unaffected by manure application
rates.
The data in Table 5 indicate that suspended solids concentrations were
high even though the data were collected during the growing season when
suspended solids should have been near seasonal lows. The proportional
sampler data were highly variable but the vacuum sampler data showed an
increase in suspended solids loads for increasing manure application rates.
A flushing effect was noted in the vacuum samples where a generally higher
suspended solids loads occurred within the first ten samples. Volatile
suspended solids were generally in the range of 10 to 30 percent of the
suspended solids indicating a relatively high concentration of organic matter.
According to Table 6, ammonia-nitrogen levels were low compared with
typical effluent from feedlots and municipal secondary treatment plants.
Typically these point source effluents could be expected to contain 150 and
30 milligrams per liter of ammonia-nitrogen, respectively. The former value
is much more variable and depends on the nature of the runoff (i.e., snowmelt
or rainfall) and type of lot surface (i.e., concrete or dirt).
33
-------
Total nitrogen concentrations of runoff from the disposal area, Table 7,
were round to range from 20 to 40 milligrams per liter. The pH of the runoff,
Table 8, was generally between 6.5 and 8.0, indicating a well-buffered runoff.
Electrical conductivity, Table 9, generally increased as manure application
rate increased. Concentrations in runoff of phosphorus, sodium, potassium,
calcium, and magnesium are given in Tables 10 through 14.
34
-------
SECTION VI
EFFECTS OF ANNUAL MANURE APPLICATIONS ON SOIL
PROPERTIES AND CORN FORAGE YIELDS
GENERAL
Large volumes of manure are generated in beef feedlots. Application of
these wastes to land appears to be the least costly method for disposal.
Manges et al. found that net returns from irrigated corn silage production
on land receiving annual manure applications at the Pratt Feedlot were not
sufficient to pay for applying the manure. Therefore, costs of disposing of
feedlot manure can be minimized by applying large amounts to land near the
feedlot.
METHODS AND PROCEDURE
Soil cores were taken to a depth of 3 meters and analyzed for chemical
properties prior to initiation of research in the fall of 1969. Soil cores
were also taken at the approximate same locations and depths in the winter
after the 1975 corn crop was harvested. Chemical properties found after six
years were compared with the original properties to determine the effects of
manure loading rate.
Annual manure applications were made to 24 of the 40 plots described
briefly in Chapter V of this report. Four plots served as a check and 12
plots received an application of manure in 1969 with no subsequent applica-
tions. Furrow irrigated corn was grown for silage on the plots with no
fertilizer added in addition to the manure. Irrigation water was applied as
needed for good corn production.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Nitrogen
Determinations of soil nitrogen as affected by accumulative appli-
cations of feedlot manure ranging up to a total of 2,750 metric tons per
hectare over a six year period produced significant accumulations of total
nitrogen in the soil. Comparing the data collected in 1969 prior to the
first manure applications with that collected in 1975 following the final
application, nitrogen concentrations in the soil had increased from a common
value of around 0.12 percent up to values ranging as high as 0.45 percent.
Most of the accumulations, however, tended essentially to double soil nitro-
gen concentrations. Primary accumulations were in the surface 30 centimeters,
that portion of the soil which was tilled each year by plowing.
35
-------
Rate effects were easily distinguished with soil nitrogen concentrations
increasing rather dramatically beyond a mean average annual application of
about 50 metric tons per hectare. The larger applications affected a slightly
greater mass of soil than did the smaller applications, but still most nitro-
gen accumulations were confined to the surface 30 centimeters. The results
reported in Table 15 show the values down to a depth of only 1 meter, despite
the fact that sampling was carried out to a depth of 3 meters. In considera-
tion of space, these values have not been reported due to the similarity to
values in the 70 to 100 centimeter range.
Interpretation of data of these types points out the fact that very
large amounts of nitrogen would be available for plant use from such manure
treatments, but also point out the fact that soil with such a high nitrogen
level may potentially be a source of surface nitrogen runoff into waterways
and provides a potential source of nitrate for leaching.
Calculating the amount of nitrogen added to the soil from these manure
treatments at approximately 1 percent nitrogen on a dry matter basis (the
basis of soil application), it is evident that very large amounts of nitrogen
have not been accounted for by these total soil nitrogen determinations.
Computations indicate that the amount of nitrogen which has not been accounted
for by soil analysis approximates 10-11 metric tons of nitrogen per hectare
at the highest rates of application. The fate of this nitrogen lies either
in dentrification or with leaching beyond the sampling zone. However, the
magnitude of nitrate nitrogen in the soil which would have been included in
total nitrogen determinations, does not represent a very large percentage of
that total nitrogen. Denitrification can be the only explanation for such a
discrepancy between applied nitrogen and that found in the soil at the end of
the sampling period. An earlier report by Wallingford jit_ al.15 indicated that
denitrification was in fact occurring under these types of soils due to the
very large amounts of carbon which were added with the applied manure.
Denitrification, then, may serve as a very important pollution management
tool under such large amounts of manure application. However, more effective
use of the manure nitrogen in crop production would preclude such large
amounts of nutrient application and would perhaps diminish the possibility of
denitrification through the smaller amounts of oxidizable carbon present in
the soil.
Studies of the ammonium-nitrogen present in the soil (Table 16) reveal
concentrations which were quite variable but generally low at the time of the
1975 sampling. Samplings during the application periods in earlier years,
particularly samples taken in the spring prior to corn planting had indicated
ammonium-nitrogen concentrations ranging up to as high as 500 parts per
million and probably responsible for germination damage in corn. These
concentrations are not unlike those found in the vicinity of anhydrous ammonium
retention zones which are known to produce a toxicity in emerging seedlings
both through the presence of large amounts of ammonium ions and from the salt
effect produced. Ammonium concentrations in general, then, were quite low at
the time of this last sampling.
36
-------
TABLE 15. TOTAL N (% DRY WEIGHT BASIS) IN SOIL RECEIVING MANURE.
Depth
cm
1969 0-10
10-20
20-30
30-40
40-50
50-60
60-70
70-80
80-90
90-100
1975 0-10
10-20
20-30
30-40
40-50
50-60
60-70
70-80
90-100
104
0
7111
.116
.111
.118
.083
.093
.075
.076
.067
.053
.126
.117
.114
.082
.070
.073
.038
.038
.012
305
0
.090
.086
.076
.110
.069
.061
.067
.059
.046
.049
.047
.044
.059
.059
.088
.170
.167
.029
.015
110
157
.100
.107
.097
.074
.081
.083
.075
.066
.061
.072
.062
.020
.024
.024
.017
.012
.012
.009
.006
309
195
—
—
.108
.124
.121
.106
.083
.085
.084
—
.132
.117
.091
.076
.065
.044
.041
.044
.035
Manure Plot
106 310 101 306 102
Manure MT/ha in 6 Year Period
348 345 649 730 1140
.165
.123
.116
.115
.093
.076
.086
.073
.073
.057
.083
.109
.091
.044
.024
.035
.032
.024
.003
.223
.159
.121
.097
.083
.094
.075
.065
.074
.065
.150
.135
.079
.053
.044
—
r* - '
.0.1
.041
.125
.125
.128
.121
.124
.102
.109
.108
.078
.085
.147
.217
.075
.085
.079
.050
.052
.053
.041
.102
.087
.079
.072
.063
.058
.053
.044
.047
.044
.208
.047
.047
.065
.065
.059
.076
.003
.003
.115
.107
.109
.102
.101
.103
.074
.069
.062
.055
.173
.188
.275
.065
.059
.044
.038
.026
.006
308
1273
.107
.093
.089
.060
.056
.046
.039
.041
.039
.033
.249
.129
.105
.067
.062
.059
.029
.015
.018
108
1884
.123
.117
.119
.119
.099
.074
.071
.058
.062
.055
.270
.253
.044
.024
.032
.038
.029
.026
.029
307
1818
.115
.093
.084
.069
.065
.060
.051
.054
.053
.055
.249
.205
.173
.044
.041
.047
.c:3
.C20
.02Q
105
2059
.132
.117
.121
.116
.036
.070
.058
.049
.054
.059
.311
.258
.135
.073
.062
.053
.029
.009
.012
302
2752
.118
.104
.100
.077
.067
.069
.067
.057
.053
.036
.332
.449
.376
.164
.044
.038
.029
.041
.024
-------
TABLE 16. AMMONIUM-NITROGEN (ppm) IN SOIL RECEIVING MANURE.
00
Year Depth
cm
1969 0-10
10-20
20-30
30-40
40-50
50-60
60-70
90-100
1975 0-10
10-20
20-30
30-40
40-50
50-60
60-70
90-100
180-200
104
0
6.6
8.8
10.7
9.6
5.7
5.7
6.1
2.8
11.7
8.4
7.7
4.4
5.5
7.0
5.9
3.7
2.6-
305
0
9.7
10.7
10.9
9.0
5.8
5.8
5.2
7.9
10.3
5.9
6.6
4.0
3.3
4.4
1.8
4.0
0.0
110
157
15.1
8.5
10.7
6.9
7.9
7.9
6.7
5.7
3.7
3.3
2.2
2.2
1.8
1.1
0.7
2.2
2.9*
309
195
13.1
9.8
8.1
6.9
8.5
8.5
4.8
4.5
6.6
7.0
5.5
6.6
3.7
2.9
3.7
3.3
2.6
Manure Plot
106 310 101 306 102 308
Manure - MT/ha in 6 year period
348 345 649 720 1140 1273
10.1
47.3
8.8
6.0
4.2
4.2
5.4
6.0
6.6
5.1
5.1
4.4
2.6
2.6
4.4
1.8
4.4
12.2
16.4
6.4
6.7
2.8
2.8
2.8
6.7
9.5
9.9
4.8
3.3
4.4
3.3
4.4
2.6
1.5
13.6
38.4
11.9
11.8
7.2
7.2
7.3
4.6
8.8
13.9
5.6
5.9
5.1
8.8
10.6
7.C
6.2
12.4
29.1
9.3
6.3
6.3
6.3
5.7
3.0
5.5
S.8
0.4
1.3
0.7
2. 2
1.5
1. 2
0.0
15.7
13.8
14.8
7.5
4.8
4.8
6.7
2.4
14.7
22.0
9.2
11.7
6.6
11.0
11.7
5.9
5.9
16.0
24.2
20.3
7.4
0.0
0.0
11.5
6.6
11.7
6.2
5.5
4.4
2.6
2.9
1.8
1.8
1.8
108
1884
12.4
70.0
16.7
6.3
6.6
6.6
5.7
5.2
9.2
9.9
4.0
3.7
2.9
1.8
3.3
1.1
6.2
307
1818
12.5
20.9
4.8
5.7
5.7
5.7
6.6
5.5
3.7
2.9
2.2
4.0
3.3
2.6
3.3
2.6
6.6
105
2059
12.2
20.4
7.0
7.2
9.7
9.7
6.7
4.9
11.0
11.4
7.0
5.5
7.7
6.2
4.0
2.9
2.6
302
2752
8.1
4.5
5.4
4.8
4.8
4.8
5.1
3.0
11.4
15.0
15.0
9.2
2.2
2.9
3.7
1.8
6.2
-------
Nitrate-nitrogen samplings (Table 17) reveal relatively large amounts of
nitrate-nitrogen in the soil profile as compared to the samples collected
prior to manure applications. Generally, as higher accumulative amounts of
manure were applied over the six-year period, nitrate-nitrogen concentrations
increased. However, there was an interesting trend toward lower nitrate-
nitrogen concentrations at the extremely high rates of annual application.
These lower amounts of nitrate-nitrogen at the very high rates of application
support the contention that dentrification may be an increasingly important
factor under such high rates of manure application. Despite the fact that
nitrate-nitrogen accounts for the relatively small percentage of the total
soil nitrogen, a very large amount of nitrogen was present in this form in
the soil profiles down to the 3 meter depths sampled. The magnitude of this
accumulation approximated 1200 kilograms per hectare. Concentrations of
nitrate-nitrogen ranged up to as high as 170 parts per million as contrasted
to concentrations in the pre-application samplings which ranged around an
average of about 3 parts per million.
Obviously, the concentration of the nitrate-nitrogen of this magnitude
would point towards a potential pollution of ground water found at relatively
shallow depths such as in some of the sandy soils of western Kansas south of
the Arkansas River. Still, judicious use of manure as the nutrient source
would preclude such accumulations since recommended rates of application
would range in the vicinity of 50 metric tons per hectare. At those rates of
application, nitrate-nitrogen accumulations were relatively low and in fact
were not notably different from some of the controlled areas. Despite the
high concentrations of nitrate-nitrogen in the soil, the forage from this
investigation (reported earlier) contained relatively small amounts of
nitrate-nitrogen and posed relatively little hazard to cattle through nitrate-
nitrogen toxicity.
Phosphorus
Studies of available soil phosphorus, not total soil phosphorus, indi-
cated very dramatic increases in available plant P from manure applications.
These results have been noted earlier in the life of the investigation but
final sampling in the Fall of 1975 pointed to maximum concentrations in the
vicinity of 600 parts per million available P as extracted by the weak Bray
extracting procedure. This dilute acid extraction procedure (HCl-NH^F) is a
good approximator of the availability of soil P and correlates well in the
study area with nutrient absorption by plants and fertilizer requirements for
phosphorus. No good explanation is given for the relatively high concentra-
tions of available phosphorus in control plot 104 but there is a very definite
trend upward in available soil phosphorus as a manure applications increased.
Observing the trends in Table 18, it is evident that phosphorus accumula-
tions to greater depth occurred as the rates increased. Apparently the
ability of the soil to absorb phosphate had been saturated and more phosphorus
was moving downward in the soil. Phosphate, of course, is an anion and tends
to be fixed by calcium as well as iron compounds in the soil but only a slight
degree of this fixation capability is present. The pentration of phosphorus
to depths as great as 60 to 70 centimeters is uncommon. Fertilizer applica-
tions usually do not produce such high accumulations of phosphorus and these
39
-------
TABLE 17. NITRATE-NITROGEN (ppm) IN SOIL RECEIVING MANURE.
Year Depth
en
1969 0-10
10-20
20-30
30-40
40-50
4s 50-60
0
60-70
90-100
1975 0-10
10-20
20-30
30-40
40-50
50-60
60-70
90-100
130-200
104
0
4.4
5.2
4.0
4.7
1.8
1.6
1.8
0.3
25.3
23.1
25.7
13.6
4.8
2.2
1.5
0.0
48.4
305
0
3.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
1.8
0.3
1.6
0.3
5.9
5.5
3.3
2.2
0.4
1.8
0.4
0.0
0.7
110
157
4.4
3.1
1.8
1.6
1.9
1.9
1.8
1.1
1.8
0.7
0.7
0.10
0.0
0.0
0.0
c.o
0.0
309
195
0.8
6.5
3.7
2.6
1.6
2.1
1.3
1.1
22.4
24.2
15.8
1S.O
4.8
3.3
2.2
1.1
0.7
106 310
Manure -
348 345
5.8
6.0
5.7
2.9
3.6
2.1
1.8
1.3
1.4
2.7
2. 2
.4.4
13.9
14.7
14.3
6.2
-9.5
8.6
5.8
3.2
1.3
8.4
0.6
0.0
0.0
37.8
29.3
14.3
13.2
12.8
12.1
11.7
7.3
9.5
Manure Plot
101 306 102 308
Mt/ha in 6 year period
649 730 1140 1273
7.1
8.4
16.7
3.1
2.7
2.3
1.0
1.0
93.9
166.2
144.2
122.9
93.2
68.6
62.4
37.4
12.1
3.4
1.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
19.4
23.5
9.5
2.2
3.3
2.9
2.6
1.8
8.8
5.7
8.4
9.4
4.5
2'.1
1.1
0.6
0.6
129.1
170.6
85.1
69.3
57.4
53.2
48.8
32.3
23.1
2.3
3.4
2.4
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.8
52.1
31.9
20.2
17.2
14.3
15.0
16.9
17.2
23.1
108
1884
2.7
2.4
4.0
2.6
0.0
0.8
2.4
1.1
119.9
33.4
25.3
38.1
48.4
51.4
54.3
46.2
40.3
307
1818
4.4
2.7
1.9
0.6
2.1
l.Q
1.1
2.1
24.1
32.3
,26.4
11.7
12.3
16.9
17.2
12.1
35.9
105
2059
7.9
5.3
4.2
2.4
1.3
2.1
0.6
2.3
111.5
85.5
51.7
3.3
2.6
25.7
S.S
5.9
2.6
302
2752
3.7
3.1
1.3
1.6
0.5
0.5
1.0
0.0
26.4
31.2
19.1
9.2
2.2
2.9
3.7
1.8
6.2
-------
TABLE 18. WEAK BRAY EXTRACTABLE (AVAILABLE) PHOSPHORUS (ppm) IN SOIL RECEIVING MANURE.
Year Depth
cm
1969 0-10
10-20
20-30
30-40
40-50
50-60
60-70
90-100
1975 0-10
10-20
20-30
30-40
*C-5G
50-60
6C— 7 Z
iO-^jO
18C-2C:
104
0
17
11
12
18
4
3
4
21
313
150
138
19
15
10
10
3
13
305
0
8
3
2
1
2
2
3
8
62
20
4
3
3
4
2
6
7
110
157
27
20
11
6
6
9
13
17
113
38
10
7
8
8
9
14
13
309
195
18
12
2
3
3
5
8
16
145
145
20
30
3
3
3
7
7
106 310
.Manure -
348 345
23
17
11
4
3
3
11
11
225
225
163
31
10
9
19
8
22
30
31
8
3
3
3
4
18
275
395
16
7
6
8
7
8
3o
Manure Plot
101 306 102 308
MT/ha in 6 year period
649 730 1140 1273
39
59
15
8
5
4
3
3
375
563
213
41
57
30
9
4
22
13
24
2
2
2
2
2
5
350
375
120
15
8
9
9
10
8
54
22
21
21
4
5
5
31
500
563
185
80
13
10
18
9
9
11
6
7
2
3
3
5
8
523
563
105
39
13
9
1
i:
24
108
1884
20
16
15
11
7
3
2
4
560
625
80
64
80
65
30
45
49
307
1818
12
4
4
2
2
2
2
5
563
563
500
24
9
15
10
5
46
105
2059
45
46
21
4
3
1
1
4
563
563
475
138
150
88
36
18
29
302
2752
10
11
3
3
3
2
1
7
563
625
563
338
14
27
20
1
28
-------
data tend merely to support the contention of Michigan researchers that
fixation and adsorption capacities can be saturated allowing movement of
phosphorus through the soil towards groundwater. Groundwater contamination
in this area is unlikely due to depth, but increased depth of sampling beyond
2 meters did indicate a relatively little penetration of the phosphorus past
the 1 meter zone. Some relatively higher amounts of phosphorus were present
at various profile depths on down to 3 meters but these are not likely
explained by the manure treatments due to intervening low values.
Relatively little information has been accumulated concerning the length
of time that this phosphorus may serve plants adequately and also relatively
little information is available concerning the effects of such high concentra-
tions on the availability in plant utilization of micronutrient metals such
as zinc, iron, manganese, and copper. The distribution of these elements in
the soil as extracted by the chelate DPTA was reported earlier by Wallingford
et^al^.16. Such extremely high concentrations of available phosphorus, however,
do not bear too well in following plant nutrition from the standpoint of
possible interruption of absorption of other essential nutrients because of
this high phosphorus concentration. Again, judicious use of the material at
rates recommended by publications produced by these investigations suggest
that such accumulations are not likely when those recommended rates of appli-
cation are utilized. Certainly farmers should be advised that additional
applications of fertilizer phosphorus under these conditions are needless and
represent an unnecessary crop production expense.
Obviously, some potential increase in runoff of phosphorus by erosion
exists with such high amounts of phosphorus present in the surface soil. To
evaluate the effects of these concentrations on phosphorus in surface runoff,
refer to the runoff section of this completion report.
Potassium
Large amounts of potassium are present in the forage portion of the
ration fed to cattle in feedlots such as the one at Pratt. Earlier investi-
gations, corroborated by the data reported in Table 19, indicate that large
amounts of this potassium have accumulated in the soil from manure appli-
cations. The effects of this potassium on plant growth, while producing a
desirable effect at the lower rates of application, was considered to be a
source of problems for plant emergence and growth due to salt injury at the
higher accumulative rates of application. Our studies have suggested that
the accumulation of mono-valent cations such as potassium and ammonium in the
soil may be a hazard also to soil physical conditions and water infiltration.
Again, no good explanation is available for the increase in ammonium acetate
extractable potassium in plot 104, a control area, but generally surface soil
concentrations in the vicinity of 350 parts per million at the outset of the
investigation were increased to near 1,000 to 1,600 parts per million extrac-
table potassium in 1975. In fact, ammonium acetate extractable potassium
ranged as high as 2160 parts per million. Soil depths affected by potassium
application increased with increasing rates of application. Very high
concentrations, as large as 1300 parts per million, were noted down to a
depth as great as 70 centimeters in plot 105 which received an accumulated
treatment of 2,059 metric tons per hectare of manure over a six year period.
42
-------
TABLE 19. AMMONIUM ACETATE EXTRACTABLE POTASSIUM (ppra) IN SOIL RECEIVING MANURE.
Year Depth
cm •
1969 0-10
10-20
20-30
30-40
40-50
50-60
60-70
90-100
1975 0-10
10-20
20-30
30-40
40-50
50-60
60-70
90-100
180-200
104
0
397
352
359
362
242
331
623
304
618
422
287
226
181
166
196
211
136
305
0 ,
217
142
145
182
159
203
139
155
327
229
245
294
245
327
327
262
392
110
157
392
193
157
148
223
209
241
192
347
287
302
287
302
332
332
287
151
309
195
345
148
197
210
247
197
197
160
474
458
213
262
278
327
278
273
294
106 310
Manure -
348 345
266
285
228
149
150
144
184
158
573
664
528
407
347
332
362
302
271
380
290
250
195
260
171
391
152
719
703
278
245
327
245
311
327
311
Manure Plot
101 306 102 308
Mt/ha in 6 year period
649 730 1140 1273
365
444
496
300
170
157
131
91
950
12S3
965
799
513
362
256
287
166
249
147
213
174
241
160
162
182
735
£18
523
425
311
278
245
196
392
366
281
296
336
363
292
254
226
1206
1642
1282
935
61S
483
422
287
362
242
138
187
173
130
140
174
107
1635
801
589
409
327
362
311
213
245
108
1834
361
322
354
187
177
171
170
255
1814
2023
1512
1387
1418
829
528
302
302
307
1818
222
139
145
106
134
148
124
135
1472
1455
1145
621
409
366
294
311
392
105
2059
340
305
294
192
175
195
222
173
1512
1814
1814
1642
1512
1426
1327
256
256
302
2752
207
161
163
213
249
249
233
195
1685
2160
1901
1357
664
377
256
141
441
-------
Sampling beyond the 100 centimeter level did not indicate significant
migration of potassium to this depth and subsequently data for these
greater depths are not presented. Such large accumulations of potassium
also correlated well to very high conductivity of soil saturated paste ext-
tracts suggesting that potassium had a very important role in contributing to
such detrimental conditions for plant growth.
Sodium
Sodium accumulations in the soil were much less spectacular than those
of potassium (Table 20). Sodium concentrations in the diet were generally
much less than those of potassium and thus the explanation for the relatively
small accumulative effects. At the higher rates of application, admittedly,
sodium concentration did increase as much as five-fold, but generally a
doubling to tripling of the sodium concentration to values ranging around 400
to 500 parts per million ammonium acetate extractable sodium was common.
Undoutedly, this sodium extractable also contributed to the salt problems
which were expressed as increased conductivity of the saturated paste extracts
in the soils. Sodium in the ration would have originated as an additive
primarily to supply the need of this element in the animals' ration and to
induce higher consumption of water to improve feed efficiency. Sodium does
not appear to be such a problem as does potassium and probably ammonium under
these types of manure applications.
Calcium
Ammonium acetate extractable calcium concentrations in the soil decreased
rather dramatically over the 6-year time span of the investigation (Table
21). Initial soil samplings in 1969 produced concentrations running as
high as 11,000 parts per million extractable calcium but the maximum values
in 1975 ranged only around about 3600 parts per million with the majority of
values in the vicinity of 1,000 to 2,000 parts per million extractable calcium.
This suggests the possibility that application of irrigation water over the
time span of the investigation had produced some leaching effect augmented by
the application of large amounts of monovalent cations, such as ammonium,
sodium, and potassium. Loss of calcium from the surface soil horizons could
tend to augment the detrimental effects on soil physical characteristics of
very high concentrations of monovalent cations. Throughout the span of the
study, however, calcium remained highly adequate for plant nutrition.
Magnesium
Extractable soil magnesium concentrations really did not change very
dramatically throughout the life of the investigation. There was a trend
toward slightly higher concentrations in the soil where the manure treatments
listed in Table 22 had been applied. Treatment effects seemed to extend
downward to approximately 70 centimeters, but initial concentrations were
somewhat variable and these trends are not nearly so pronounced as were those
for total nitrogen, potassium, and sodium. The downward movement of magnesium
may also suggest some leaching effect produced by the high concentrations of
monovalent available cations in the surface soil.
44
-------
TABLE 20. AMMONIUM ACETATE EXTRACTABLE SODIUM (ppm) IN SOIL RECEIVING MANURE.
Year Depth
cm
1969* 0-10
10-20
20-30
30-40
40-50
50-60
6C-70
90-100
1975 G-10
•-10-20
2C-20
30-40
40-50
50-60
60-70
90-1SO
1SO-ZCO
0
244
86
110
208
246
354
827
399
138
169
134
159
169
154
133
107
169
305
0
104
146
102
93
122
122
109
292
125
112
112
140
125
125
112
37
324
110
157
143
86
110
120
141
168
188
213
246
230
261
276
261
261
292
363
307
309
195
99
104
144
116
171
210
260
232
137
137
150
274
240
237
200
212
412
106 310
Manure -
348 345
81
123
87
86
140
76
100
101
184
215
230
261
307
292
322
215
599
126
125
116
107
126
211
233
131
200
262
187
237
299
187
237
200
299
Manure Plot
101 306 102 308
KT/ha in 6. year period
649 730 1140 1273
33
66
50
53
66
32
54
24
200
3cS
307
307
261
256
246
215
107
177
ISO
212
173
180
181
196
216
125
137
150
225
249
212
175
37
249
147
131
114
239
361
418
521
743
353
537
399
353
338
399
414
230
123
225
195
172
223
240
312
282
280
237
150
162
187
262
224
224
125
187
103
1884
130
132
141
146
171
157
156
257
783
675
752
875
691
568
430
334
430
307
1818
108
117
118
184
180
171
208
261
224
187
212
337
374
387
349
262
424
105
2059
76
112
93
101
59
100
131
97
353
553
5S3
461
430
353
363
322
230
302
2751
137
147
131
156
157
101
174
132
476
6.14
56S
507
420
353
246
15-r
4S6
-------
TABLE 21. AMMONIUM ACETATE EXTRACTABLE CALCIUM (ppm) IN SOIL RECEIVING MANURE.
Year Depth
cm
1969 0-10
10-20
20-30
30-40
40-50
50-60
60-70
90-100
1975 0-10
10-20
20-30
30-40
50-60
60-70
50-100
120-200
104
0
2620
3100
3150
2970
3550
3480
3560
10400
1207
1091
1184
1337
1467
1704
1875
2002
305
0
4730
4150
4020
4870
4900
10600
17400
8290
1366
1139
1534
1949
2160
1830
1814
2463
157
2910
2250
3340
4010
5650
6500
6330
8610
1758
1961
2377
2451
2813
2790
2737
1685
309
195
4530
8930
5150
5630
6220
13700
11900
5240
1238
1357
1022
1820
2370
1889
2095
2391
106 310
Manure -
348 345
2700
4770
3390
3700
4890
3940
5900
5020
1356
1308
1280
1796
2298
2458
2555
2241
4280
2380
3250
3690
4280
4820
4970
7730
1310
1176
961
2101
1629
2032
2154
2178
Manure
101
MT/ha
649
2510
2800
2840
3070
3580
3956
3940
4190
900
1220
1030
2037
1954
2357
3575
1553
Plot
306 102 308
in 6 year period
730 1140 1273
6770
4660
4590
7570
7780
7630
135CO
11700
1189
1263
1230
2038
1648
1433
1547
2417
2650
1810
1970
2530
3080
3120
2480
6070
1130
1073
81-
1060
1737
• 2035
1594
3394
3580
4560
2330
5320
7840
6790
10000
6120
112Q
726
934
1784
1826
3142
1663
1341
108
1884
3570
3190
3020
3430
4310
4460
4470
10700
1225
1139
1537
2091
2097
2472
2914
2438
307
1818
3280
3480
4110
4650
11100
7310
8470
2720
1033
980
827
2965
1873
2289
2136
2559
105
2059
4760
2660
3480
4780
4820
' 5140
6790
5650
1207
1113
949
1043
1356
1651
1796
2649
302
2752
4160
5240
5290
5760
5970
5810
8300
12400
1056
1103
1121
2025
2569
2520
1880
26G1
-------
TABLE 22. AMMONIUM ACETATE EXTRACTABLE MAGNESIUM (ppm) IN SOIL RECEIVING MANURE.
Year Depth
cm
1969 o-lO
10-20
20-20
30-40
40-50
50-60
-J 60-70
90-100
1975 0-10
. 10-20
20-30
30-40
40-50
50-60
60-70
90-100
180-200
104
0
329
422
432
379
490
783
832
1427
372
330
319
371
444
508
597
720
393
305
0
493
682
721
874
838
1344
719
709
457
398
462
745
787
891
767
645
693
110
157
285
446
340
554
758
886
848
775
567
708
339
824
883
880
854
802
664
309
195
492
469
793
854
1030
1230
965
709
430
503
404
709
783
1019
998
866
617
Manure Plot
106 310 101 306 102 308
Manure - MT/ha in 6 year period
348 345 649 730 1140 1273
311
601
410
553
742
604
480
774
437
437
449
632
753
994
1042
922
511
373
321
466
571
674
796
781
592
529
497
423
687
854
744
936
839
797
239
275
239
229
270
297
290
317
320
553
419
342
302
253
226
471
210
701
538
519
907
892
752
814
689
539
557
584
S21
926
774
682
565
703
267
256
249
348
702
775
703
802
519
607
406
357
402
635
740
605
427
343
736
380
770
564
503
692
373
601
350
393
473
634
668
1089
650
514
108
1884
445
409
379
453
648
739
718
999
745
718
. 841
829
816
791
802
888
628
307
1818
463
535
684
835
1841
834
769
694
606
608
503
711
942
860
1002
831
745
105
2059
432
254
338
506
551
622
914
793
714
692
590
519
564
537
642
740
894
302
2752
411
433
618
683
770
754
1040
690
816
922
931
798
894
908
886
598
672
-------
Corn Yields
Corn forage yields, corrected to 70 percent moisture content, are given
in Table 23. For 1974 and 1975, corn forage yields increased with increasing
manure application rates up to average annual rates of about 100 metric tons
per hectare. Yields decreased as manure application rates continued to
increase.
Corn forage yields on the check plots were unexpectedly high especially
in 1975. A possible explanation is that topsoil containing manure may have
been carried onto the check plots from adjacent manured plots during tillage.
This observation is substantiated by the apparent increase in phosphorous and
potassium in the surface soil during the 6 years of the study (Tables 18 and
19).
48
-------
TABLE 23. CORN FORAGE YIELDS AXD ACCUMULATED MANURE APPLICATIONS.
Plot
1970
Yield Manure
1971
Yield Manure
1972
Yield Manure
1973
Yield Manure
1974
Yield Manure
1975
Yield Manure
Mt/ha.
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
103
109
110
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
56.7
61.0
32.3
57.8
36.8
6S.2
52.2
53.6
46.9
33.6
52.7
55.2
46.6
37.9
41.0
41.7
42.8
39.0
34.5
48.0
137
159
455
0
471
63
269
327
215
20
415
141
72
0
54
20
123
590
372
303
54.9
43.3
48.2
44.4
26.2
44.5
35.6
40.5
56.6
32.2
28.2
35.7
63.9
28.0
30.8
29.6
40.8
32.3
38.1
16.5
202
343
455
0
9C6
93
269
622
215
53
974
254
199
0
82
33
123
590
372
747
66.1
56.7
50.2
63.7
40.8
53.8
57.7
53.5
67.2
59.4
28.7
68.7
64.9
47.9
61.0
66.0
60.2
58.7
56.0
48.0
354
431
455
0
1599
169
269
1062
215
85
1398
456
309
0
160
72
123
590
372
1137
52.8
48.8
50.9
32.1
26.5
47.9
55.4
68.2
52.7
58.0
29.1
56.4
43.0
28.8
59.7
51.3
32.8
51.7
38.3
40.9
425
687
455
0
2054
253
269
1263
215
114
2049
614
417
0
227
127
123
590
372
1320
64.5
47.2
62.8
73.4
54.7
49.2
62.6
47.0
76.7
44.1
63.0
52.2
54.6
24.5
48.1
43.0
16.4
54.5
44.8
29.3
593
907
455
0
2054
298
269
1628
215
134
2049
813
499
0
298
152
123
590
372
1707
84.6
61.2
63.9
73.7
85.2
55.4
70.8
56.0
47.2
43.6
62.6
64.7
66.6
73.5
75.4
63.5
48.0
59.9
49.9
39.0
647
1138
455
0
2054
347
269
1868
215
157
2049
985
551
0
340
181
123
590
372
1980
-------
TABLE 23. CORN FORAGE YIELDS AND ACCUMULATED MANURE APPLICATIONS (Continued)
Cn
O
Plot
1970
Yield Manure
1971
Yield Manure
1972
Yield Manure
1973
Yield Manure
1974
Yield Manure
1975
Yield Manure
MT/ha.
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
64.1
48.0
51.1
42.1
33.6
59.9
54.7 '.
49.8
35.2
56.7
44.8
54.7
53.6
45.1
50.4
53.6
34.5
39.9
46.2
54.9
233
610
204
507
0
76
226
175
47
38
25
.271
260
0
161
242
560
504
20
186
33.3
11.5
51.1
34.4
23.7
37.8
33.9
35.7
32.8
45.2
•52.7
46.0
46.2
37.0
40.3
30.9
48.8
11.5
45.3
41.7
233
1180
204
507
0
203
568
402
64
77
75
271
422
0
266
631
560
1078
40
136
61.8
42.6
60.9
61.8
46.4
58.8
59.6
48,4
59.1
59.1
52.4
63.4
43.6
58.0
59.9
13.6
60.1
14,8
60.6
58.8
233
2167
204
507
0
445
909
614
95
180
124
271
631
0
385
1158
560
1914
152,
186
45.9
20.4
50.0
53.5
30.8
48.7
49.0
39.6
44.4
43.3
55.0
56.5
39.9
36.6
33.3
35.3
55.1
12.4
51.1
49.5
233
2746
204
507
0
592
1224
796
125
232
233
271
818
0.
517
1537
560
2484
187
186
66.4
44.5
60.8
59.1
29.4
82.9
55.7
38.4
38.9
56.1
65.6
36.4
58. i
39.6
41.0
37.6
66.6
36.7
51,0
47.7
233
2746
204
507
0
688
1513
1003
148
289
298
271
997
0
643
1917
560
2484
211
186
61.8
64.7
48.4
76.9
63.2
91.1
68.6
44.5
69.4
82.7
80.2
70.6
68.4
85.4
89.6
54.7
88.8
53.3
80.2
47.0
233
2746
204
507
0
728
1814
1270
195
345
343
271
1102
0
708
2172
560
2484
237
186
-------
SECTION VII
REFERENCES
1. Manges, H. L., R. I. Lipper, L. S. Murphy, W. L. Powers, and L. A.
Schmid. Treatment and Ultimate Disposal of Cattle Feedlot Wastes.
Environmental Protection Technology Series EPA-660/2-75-013. U.S.
Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1975.
2. Swanson, N. P., and C. B. Gilbertson. "Sampling of Liquid and Solid
Wastes — Lead Paper," In: Standarizing Properties and Analytical
Methods Related to Animal Research. American Society of Agricultural
Engineers, St. Joseph, Michigan, 1975.
3. Barnes, K. K. and R. K. Frevert. "A Runoff Sampler for Large Watersheds -
Laboratory Tests," Agricultural Engineering 37(2);84-90, 1954.
4. Barnes, K. K. and H. P. Johnson. "A Runoff Sampler for Large Water-
sheds — Field Tests," Agricultural Engineering 37(12);813-815, 1956.
5. Schwab, G. 0. and R. Brehm. "Proportional Tile or Surface Flow Sampler,"
Agricultural Engineering 55(33);22, 1974.
6. Carter, C. E. and D. A. Parsons. "Field Tests on the Coshocton-Type
Wheel Runoff Sampler," Trans. ASAE 10(1);133-135, 1967.
7. Laflen, J. M. "Measuring and Sampling Flow with a Multi-Weir Division,"
Agricultural Engineering 56(6):36, 1975.
8. Coote, D. R. and P. J. Zwerman. "A Conveniently Constructed Divisor for
Splitting Low Water Flows," Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. Proc. 36(6); 970-971,
1972.
9. Eisenhauer, D. E. Treatment and Disposal of Cattle Feedlot Runoff
Using a Spray-Runoff Irrigation System. Unpublished M.S. Thesis, Kansas
State University Library, Manhattan, Kansas, 1973.
10. Loehr, R. C. "Characteristics and Comparative Magnitude of Non-Point
Sources," Presented at the 45th Annual Conference, Water Pollution
Control Federation, Atlanta, Georgia, October, 1972.
11. Harris, M. E. Characteristics of Runoff from Disposal of Cattle
Feedlot Wastes on Land. Unpublished M.S. Thesis. Kansas State Univer-
sity Library, Manhattan, Kansas, 1974.
51
-------
12. Nixon, C. C. Proportional Sampler for Monitoring Surface Runoff.
Unpublished M.S. Thesis. Kansas State University Library, Manhattan,
Kansas, 1974.
13. USDA-Soil Conservation Service. Soil Survey, Pratt County Kansas.
U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1968.
14. Brandenburg, B. L. Characterization of Runoff from Land Disposal of
Beef Cattle Feedlot Wastes with a Comparison of Two Sampling Methods.
Unpublished M.S. Thesis. Kansas State University Library, Manhattan,
Kansas, 1976.
15. Wallingford, G. W., L. S. Murphy, W. L. Powers, and H. L. Manges.
"Denitrification in Soil Treated with Beef Feedlot Manure," Communi-
cations in Soil Science and Plant Analysis 6(2);147-161, 1975.
16. Wallingford, G. W., L. S. Murphy, W. L. Powers, and H. L. Manges.
"Effects of Beef Feedlot Manure and Lagoon Water on Iron, Zinc, Man-
ganese and Copper Content in Corn and in DTPA Soil Extracts," Soil
Sci. Soc. Amer. Proc. 39(3):482-487, 1975.
52
-------
SECTION VIII
PUBLICATIONS
1. Wallingford, G. W., L. S. Murphy, W. L. Powers, and H. L. Manges.
"Effects of Beef Feedlot Manure and Lagoon Water on Iron, Zinc, Man-
ganese, and Copper Content in Corn and in DTPA Soil Extracts," Soil
Sci. Soc. Amer. Proc. 39(3):482-487, 1975.
2. Wallingford, G. W., L. S. Murphy, W. L. Powers and H. L. Manges.
"Denitrification in Soil Treated with Beef Feedlot Manure," Communi-
cations in Soil Science and Plant Analysis 6(2);147-161, 1975.
3. Manges, H. L., R. I. Lipper, L. S. Murphy, and W. L. Powers. "Disposal
of Beef Feedlot Wastes onto Land," In: Managing Livestock Wastes,
Proceedings of 3rd International Symposium on Livestock Wastes. Amer.
Soc. of Agri. Engrs., St. Joseph, Michigan, 1975.
4. Wallingford, G. W., L. S. Murphy, W. L. Powers, and H. L. Manges.
"Disposal of Beef-Feedlot Manure: Effects of Residual and Yearly
Applications on Corn and Soil Chemical Properties," J. Environ. Qual.
4(4);526-531, 1975.
5. Manges, H. L., and C. C. Nixon. "Samplers for Monitoring Runoff Waters,"
ASAE Paper No. 75-2562, St. Joseph, Michigan, 1975.
6. Nixon, C. C. Proportional Sampler for Monitoring Surface Runoff,
Unpublished M.S. Thesis. Kansas State University Library, Manhattan,
Kansas, 1976.
7. Brandenburg, B. L. Characterization of Runoff From Land Disposal of
Beef Cattle Feedlot Wastes with a Comparison of Two Sampling Methods.
Unpublished M.S. Thesis. Kansas State University Library, Manhattan,
Kansas, 1976.
8. Wallingford, G. W., W. L. Powers, L. S. Murphy, and H. L. Manges. "Salt
Accumulation in Soils as a Factor for Determining Application Rates of
Beef-Feedlot Manure and Lagoon Water," In: Land as a Waste Management
Alternative, Proceedings of the 1976 Cornell AgriculturalL _Was_te
Management Conference. Ann Arbor Science, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1977.
53
40.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE:1978 260-880/50 1-3
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT MO.
EPA-600/2-78-OU5
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
ULTIMATE DISPOSAL OF BEEF FEEDLOT WASTES ONTO LAND
5. REPORT DATE
March 19?8 issuing date
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)-
Harry .L. Manges, Larry S. Murphy
William 1. Powers, Lawrence A. Schmid
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
1HB617
Kansas State University
Manhattan,. Kansas 66506
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
R-803210
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory-Ada, 01
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency- Ada, OK
Ada, Oklahoma 74820
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final (6/15/74-6/14/76)
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/15
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
A- study was conducted to determine the effects of beef feedlot manure applica-
tion rate on corn forage yield, properties of soil, and quality of surface runoff
from irrigation and precipitation. The project was located at a commercial beef
feedlot in southcentral Kansas.
Laboratory and field studies were made on a proportional sampler for sampling
runoff! The principle of the sampler which uses orifices for dividing the flow
appeared sound. However, additional development is necessary before the sampler
can be cbnsidered operational.
Quality of runoff from land receiving annual applications of manure did not
correlate with manure application rate. Concentrations of pollutants varied greatly
between runoff events and concentrations in runoff from land receiving no manure was
relatively high.
Corn forage yields increased as manure application rate increased up to rates of
about 100 metric tons per hectare per year. Annual manure applications of up to 50
metric tons per hectare did not lead to harmful levels of nitrogen, phosphorus,
potassium, sodium, or magnesium. Concentrations of calcium decreased regardless of
manure application rate.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COSATI Field/Group
Cattle, Manure, Rainfall, Soils
Water Pollutants, Great
Plains, Environment,
Land-Disposal, Waste
Disposal, Water-pollu-
tion, Animal Wastes,
Soil Chemistry,Disposal
Fertilization, Ultimate
Disposal, Treatment
43F
68D
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
RELEASE TO PUBLIC
19. SECURITY^LASS (ThisReport)
UNCLASSIFIED
21. NO. OF PAGES
62
20. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)
UNCLASSIFIED
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
54
------- |