EPA-R2-73-245
MAY 1973 Environmental Protection Technology Series
Demonstration of a
Waste Disposal System
for Livestock Wastes
Office of Research and Monitoring
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
-------
RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES
Research reports of the Office of Research and
Monitoring, Environmental Protection Agency, have
been grouped into five series. These five broad
categories were established to facilitate further
development and application of environmental
technology. Elimination of traditional grouping
was consciously planned to foster technology
transfer and a maximum interface in related
fields. The five series are:
1. Environmental Health Effects Research
2. Environmental Protection Technology
3. Ecological Research
4. Environmental Monitoring
5. Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
This report has been assigned to the ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION TECHNOLOGY series. This series
describes research performed to develop and
demonstrate instrumentation, equipment and
methodology to repair or prevent environmental
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.
-------
EPA-R2-73-245
May 1973
DEMONSTRATION OF A WASTE DISPOSAL SYSTEM
FOR LIVESTOCK WASTES
By
Clifford R. Moore
Grant No. 13040 FTX
Program Element 1B2039
Project Officer
Ronald R. Ritter
Chief Grants Administration
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1735 Baltimore
Room 249
Kansas City/ Missouri 64108
Prepared for
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND MONITORING
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402
Prico 85 cents domestic postpaid or 60 cents QPO Bookstore
-------
EPA Review Notice
This report has been reviewed by the 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.
11
-------
ABSTRACT
Laboratory studies of livestock waste were conducted both
before and after the construction of an enlarged settling
basin, a hydrasieve at the truck washrack and a two cell
waste stabilization pond. A determination of the effective-
ness of these two systems and the application of them to
feedlots and other livestock facilities in the area were the
main objectives.
The settling basin and hydrasieve were effective in removing
solids and COD from the truck washrack waste. Reductions
in COD, total, suspended and settleable solids were 23.9,
14.8, 50 and 80 percent, respectively. DO increased 42.8
percent and total solids decreased 3 percent across the hydra-
sieve. This 3 percent consisted of straw and other floating
debris which would not be removed at the stabilization pond.
The effectiveness of the stabilization ponds was generally
good. The BOD- of the final effluent was reduced 48.6
percent over tRat of the drainpipe which had drained directly
into the Sheyenne River during previous years.
This report was submitted in fulfillment of Project Number
13040 FTX, between the Environmental Protection Agency and
the Union Stockyards Company.
iii
-------
CONTENTS
Page
I Conclusions 1
II Recommendations 3
III Introductions 5
IV Waste Treatment Facilities 7
V Sampling and Flow Measurement 11
VI Results and Discussion 17
VII Acknowledgments 31
VIII Biblography 33
IX Appendix 35
v
-------
FIGURES
Page
1. Hydrasieve 8
2. Schematic Diagram of Facilities at the Union
Stockyards 9
3. Discharge curve of Drainpipe 13
4. Drainpipe 300$ versus Month of Year 18
5. Primary Lagoon versus Month of Year 19
6. Secondary Lagoon versus Month of Year 19
7. Number of Livestock handled versus Month of Year 20
VI
-------
TABLES
1. Summary of Test Results for the Drainpipe, 1970
2. Summary of Test Results for the Drainpipe, 1971
3. Water Used at Truck Washrack
4. BODe Load Factor for Cattle, Hogs and Sheep
5. Summary of Test Results for the Truck Washrack,
Before Improvements, 1970
6. Summary of Test Results for the Truck Washrack,
Before Screen, 1971
7. Summary of Test Results for the Truck Washrack,
After Screen, 1971
8. Material Removed at Truck Washrack
9. Summary of Test Results for the Primary Lagoon
Samples, 1971
10. Summary of Test Results for the Secondary Lagoon
Samples, 1971
VI1
-------
SECTION I
CONCLUSIONS
1. The two cell waste stabilization pond is an effective
method of treating liquid wastes from stockyards
facilities.
2. The combination of a hydrasieve and settling basin is
effective in cleaning up wastes from washracks serving
trucks transporting livestock.
3. The hydrasieve is effective primarily in removing
floating and large suspended particles, but does not
effect water quality in any other way.
4. The waste materials sampled over a two year period varied
in strength with the season but were consistent over
the entire period.
5. The strength of wastes is very low during freezing months,
even though livestock numbers increase at this time.
6. No pollution of ground water supply has occured since
the wells were put in operation in 1935. Nitrate in
the ground water has changed from 5 mg/1 in 1935 to
zero it this time.
-------
SECTION II
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Based on this study the design criteria for an aerobic
lagoon is about 30 Ibs. BOD_/acre/day.
2. Livestock pens should be hard surfaced to prevent pollu-
tion of the ground water by infiltration.
3. Pens should be cleaned through the winter when possible
to reduce chances of ammonia absorption by nearby surface
water.
4. Pens should be cleaned as early as possible in the spring
to reduce the potential pollution by heavy spring runoff.
5. A hydrasieve or a settling basin should be used at all
livestock facilities using a stabilization pond system.
This will prevent the ponds from being filled with
settleable solids or covered with floating debris.
Possibly for a continuous flow situation with large
volumes, the hydrasieve would prove more effective.
-------
SECTION III
INTRODUCTION
The disposal of livestock manure into the environment is a
practice as old as the animal. Historically, animal manure
was spread over the land surface where the nutrients were
used by growing vegetation and the micro-organisms in the
soil. The current livestock manure production in the U.S.
is estimated to be greater than 1.5 billion tons per year,
and 50% originates from some degree of confinement such as
feedlots and stockyards. With increasing concentration of
livestock and alternative sources of fertilizer, the
practice of distributing the manure on the land has become
questionable from a profits standpoint. Livestock producers
are faced with large volumes of wastes naving low value and
physical, social and economic restrictions which limit the
feasibility of recycling animal wastes througn the soil.
One of the largest problems associated with the confinement
of livestock involves waste disposal.
The trend toward large scale production units has resulted
in the building of numerous cattle feedlots with little
consideration given to pollution control. In the past the
most important criteria used for locating thses feedlots
was good drainage with some of them located next to streams
or lakes. With public interest and concern about pollution
of lakes, streams, rivers and ponds on the increase, most
major cattle feeding states will certainly enact legislation
to regulate or prohibit the operation of feedlots near
bodies of water.
The Federal Government has recognized the need for study in
this area of pollution control and entered into an agreement
with the Union Stockyards Company in West Fargo, North Dakota
to demonstrate the effectiveness of settling basins, a
hydrasieve and stabilization ponds as a means of treating
stockyards wastes. The study was divided into two phases.
The first phase consisted of characterizing the wastes and
construction of an enlarged settling basin, a hydrasieve
and stabilization ponds as a means of treating stockyard
wastes. During the second phase, the quality of the waste
inflow and the treated effluent was monitored to determine
the efficiency of the treatment system and to establish basic
design criteria for use in other areas.
-------
SECTION IV
WASTE TREATMENT FACILITIES
Description
The waste treatment facilities at the Union Stockyards Co.,
West Fargo, North Dakota consists of two main sub-systems.
There is a settling basin (71' x 10' x 21 average depth)
with a hydrasieve (Figure 1) at the truck washrack. The
function of this unit is to pretreat the truck wash water
before it is pumped to the waste stabilization ponds
(Figure 2). This system of waste stabilization ponds treats
all waste water from the Union Stockyards Company.
Operation
The truck washrack is in operation only during the warm
months or from mid-April until the end of October. During
the last seven months of 1970, 16,676 trucks unloaded
livestock at the stockyards with 25,434 during the first 11
months of 1971. The size of the trucks range from 1/2 ton
pickups to five-axle tractor-trailer trucks. When cleaning
trucks, drivers are instructed to first unload any straw
bedding at the landfill area where all solid waste from the
yards are dumped and later covered with earth. Then trucks
may be washed with a high pressure water stream; this system
is coin operated. Waste water from the trucks flows into
the settling basin. During phase one of the study the settling
basin was 6 feet by 55 feet and 2.5 feet deep at the deepest
point and the effluent from it flowed directly into the
Sheyenne River. At the time of construction a hydrasieve
was installed and the effluent from the enlarged settling
basin is now pumped over a hydrasieve where straw and other
floating material is removed. From here the waste water is
mixed with the liquid yard waste.
There are three sources of yard waste from the pens: surface
runoff due to precipitation; solid and liquid animal waste;
and overflow from the animal watering troughs. The liquid
waste waters are collected in a combined sewer and until
construction of the stabilization pond, were discharged
directly into the Sheyenne River. Since construction, however,
these liquid wastes from the yard together with the washrack
waste water have been pumped to the stabilization ponds.
The pens at the Union Stockyards have concrete floors with
floor drains which connect to sewer laterals which discharge
-------
FEED FROM TRUCK
WASHRACK SETTLING
BASIN
STRAW 8
LARGE SUSPENDED
SOLIDS TO TRUCK
EFFLUENT TO
LIFT STATION
HEADBOX
FIGURE I. Hydr«si«vt
-------
1 DISCHARGE INTO SHEYENNE RIVER
LAGOON
-< f-
LAND
SUMP ^zl
< SIHYDRASIEVE f~*
"" 2
-o
1
MH
SUMP-p
-t-
YARDS
SETTLING BASIN
TRUCK WASH RACK
ADM.
BL-DG.
FIGURE 2. SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM OF FACILITIES AT THE UNION STOCKYARDS
-------
into the combined sewer. The drains collect surface runoff
and waste water that soaks through the straw bedding. Each
pen also has a watering trough with a continuous supply of
fresh water flowing through it and overflowing into the
sewer. The pens are cleaned regularly.
The sanitary sewage from the administration building and the
sanitary facilities scattered throughout the stockyards are
also discharged into the combined sewer. As stated earlier/
before construction this waste was discharged into the Sheyenne
River without treatment. Now, however, this is pumped with
the other wastes to the stabilization ponds.
The stabilization ponds were put into operation on April
21, 1971. The primary cell has an area of 2.12 acres and
is five feet deep. The detention time is approximately
five days. The secondary cell has an area of 1.07 acres,
a five foot depth and a detention time of 2.5 days. See
Figure 2 for a diagrem of the system.
10
-------
SECTION V
Sampling and Flow Measurement
During the 1970 phase of the study the waste samples to be
analyzed were collected from the truck washrack and the
combined sewer drainpipe discharging into the Sheyenne River.
The washrack was usually sampled three times a week and the
drainpipe twice. The samples were taken directly to the
Sanitary Engineering Laboratory at North Dakota State
University for analysis, a distance of less than ten miles.
The washrack samples had to be taken carefully to avoid
getting a slug sample. One of the first BOD5 samples from
the settling basin was taken before it began overflowing
and the BODq was six or seven times the average of all
samples. After this instance the remainder of the samples
were taken from the overflow which allowed time for mixing
of the effluent from several trucks and minimized chances of
getting slug samples.
The volume of water from the truck washrack was determined
by counting the number of coins in the water meter once a
week. The volume of water delivered for one quarter was
known and multiplying this times the number of coins gave
the total volume for the time period.
The drainpipe was sampled at the outlet of the river. A
drainpipe discharge calibration curve was developed from
nine dye tests. In these tests the time for a colored dye
to flow a known distance was measured and the velocity was
calculated. The depth of the water in the pipe was measured
several feet back from the outlet, and the cross-sectional
area of flow and velocity then determined the flow for that
water depth.
The Manning Equation CD was used to develop the discharge
curve. The difference in elevation between the ends of the
pipe was measured and the slope was calculated.
(1) V = 1.486 R2/3 Si/2
n
n = roughness coefficient
R = hydraulic radius
S = slope of hydraulic gradient
From the depth measurements and the dye tests all the vari-
ables were known except in n value. The n value for each dye
11
-------
test was calculated and the average of all the n values was
used in the calculation of the discharge at different incre-
ments of d/D (ratio of water depth to pipe diameter) from 0.1
to 1.0. The average value for n was found to be 0.0165 which
is slightly less than the nominal value of 0.020 recommended"/
for use in the design of corrugated metal pipes. The lower
value could be caused by the algae slime growing inside the
pipe and reducing pipe friction. The resulting computed
tests are also plotted on the curve to show the correlation
between the computed values and the observed values(Figure 3).
During the second phase of the study or 1971, samples were
taken of the secondary lagoon effluent, the primary lagoon
effluent, the drainpipe from the yards and the washrack
before and after the screen.
Samples of the secondary lagoon effluent were taken daily
through most of the summer as were samples of the primary
lagoon effluent. Samples were taken of the drainpipe to
establish the consistency of the waste material over two
years. As can be seen in Tables 1 and 2 all tests are very
similar with the exception of COD and suspended solids.
However, both these reductions were minor and the consistency
of the drainpipe effluent can easily be seen.
The washrack water was also very similar for both years. The
reduction in solids, settleable, total and suspended, could
be attributed to the enlarged settling basin. There was also
a decrease in COD in the second year, along with a decrease
in nitrate and nitrite. These reductions would be expected
along with the reductions in solids content.
Samples were also taken from the settling basin at the truck
washrack. This basin was cleaned each Friday afternoon and
samples were taken at that time.
All samples were taken carefully as in the first phase of
the study and all tests run in the sanitary engineering
laboratory at North Dakota State University.
Flow from the drainpipe was not monitored and was assumed to
be consistent with that of 1970. There is no reason why the
flow should not be the same with the exception of flows during
rain storms.
A record flow through the truck washrack was kept and is
shown in Table 3.
12
-------
i-o r-
09 -
o-o
DISCHARGE CALIBRATION CURVE
FOR THE DRAINPIPE
O DATA FROM DYE TESTS
I i I
10 2-0
3-0 4-0
Q (CFS)
5-0 S-0 7-0
FIGURE 3. DISCHARGE CURVE OF DRAINPIPE
13
-------
TABLE 1
Summary of Test Results for the
Drainpipe Samples
for 1970
Q
BOD5
COD
DO
Sul fates
Total Solids
Susp. Solids
Sett. Solids
NH3-N
N02-N
N03-N
cfs
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
ml/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
Min.
1,05
3.0
28.0
7.8
108.0
466.0
4.0
0.02
0.7
0.011
0.149
Max.
2.02
100.0
346.0
9.6
146.0
1934.0
422.0
1.2
6.0
O.Q9
0.711
Mean
1.44
20.0
86.0
8.5
127.0
1040.0
69.0
0.3
2.7
0.024
0.235
14
-------
TABLE 2
Summary of Test Results for the
Drainpipe Samples
for"1971
BOD 5
COD
DO
Sulfates
Total Solids
Susp. Solids
Sett. Solids
NH3-N
NO2-N
NO3-N
Month 1971
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
Minimum Maximum
mg/1 3.0 56.0
mg/1 12.0 225.0
mg/1 6.4 9.9
mg/1 100.0 150.0
Is mg/1 684.0 1390.0
Is mg/1 2.0 178.0
Ls ml/1 0.0 0.8
mg/1 0.0 19.8
mg/1 0.006 0.104
mg/1 0.06 0.626
TABLE 3
Water Used at Truck Washrack
Average
19.7
69.0
8.5
122.0
971.0
29.0
0.2
1.63
0.02
0.194
Gallons
27,250
159,750
214,750
271,750
235,750
291,250
224,500
15
-------
SECTION VI
Results and Discussion
All tables shown in this section are listings giving minimum,
maximum and average values of the results for each phase of
a particular discharge. A complete waste analysis summary of
all results is given in the Appendix, page 35, along with a
list of methods used in the analyses of the wastes.
Figures 4, 5 and 6 illustrate the effect of time of year of
temperature of BODs. It can be seen that the BOD5 of
the drainpipe waste is much greater during the warm summer
months. Figure 7 illustrates livestock number varying with
Month of Year. Combining these figures it seems the more
livestock handled through the yards the lower the BOD5 is,
since BODq is lower in the fall and livestock numbers peak
at this time. It seems to indicate that colder temperatures
have a greater effect of 6005 than increased livestock
numbers. Despite the increase in livestock numbers, the
strength of the drainpipe waste after November 20 was less
than 20 mg/1 in all cases and average less than 20 mg/1 in
September. Gilbertson(2) and Grub(3 ) both noted this fact
in their studies on runoff from cattle feedlots. During
freezing weather the waste and bedding are frozen as a solid
mass until warmer weather when spring runoff transports the
wastes to the sewer or it is removed when the pens are cleaned
in the spring.
Grub(3) discussed several important factors that affect the
composition and quantity of runoff from the feedlots. They
were the effects of precipitation, surfacing material and
depth of waste accumulation. In general, greater depths of
accumulated wastes have greater absorpton capacity for pre-
cipitation and result in lesser quantities of runoff. As
much as one-half inch of moisture may be absorbed by each
inch of organic mass on the feedlot floor, especially if the
mass is slightly damp when precipitation begins. A high-
intensity rain falling on a dry-lot surface may result in
rapid runoff and consequent removal of large quantities of
organic matter, while the same intensity of rain falling on
a damp lot might cause little or no runoff. A high-intensity
rainfall on a surfaced lot will result in a greater quantity
of runoff that will have higher concentrations of BODs and
suspended solids than the runoff from unsurfaced lots, and
with an appreciable floor slope, may effectively clean the
lot. Loehr(8) stated that the minimum rainfall to produce
runoff was approximately 0.36 inches for the surfaced lot and
0.42 inches for the unsurfaced lot. If surface water runnoff
were the only pollution problem associated with confined
17
-------
B.O. D.
MG/U
20
JAN.
FEB.-
MAR.-
APR. -
MAY -
JUM-
JUL.-
AUG.-
SER -
OCT.-
NOV.-
DEC.-
40
I
60
80
100
FIGURE 4. DRAINAGE 6.0.0.
VERSUS
MONTH OF YEAR
18
-------
20 -
15 -
o
O
O
ad
10 -
T
j
0.
Ul
tf)
o
o
o
z
FIGURE 5.
PRIMARY LAGOON VERSUS MONTH OF YEAR
15 -
10 -
o
O
CD
5 -
0 -
"T"
o
T"
CL
LJ
CO
U
O
FIGURE
SECONDARY LAGOON VERSUS MONTH OF YEAR
19
-------
HEAD IN 1000 S
JAN.
FEB. -
MAR. -
APR. -
MAY -
JUN. -
JUL. -
AUG. -
SEP. -
OCT -
NOV. -
DEC. -
FIGURE 7. NUMBER OF LIVESTOCK HANDLED VERSUS MONTH OF YEAR
20
-------
livestock operations, it would appear that confinement areas
should remain unsurfaced. However, a problem which has re-
ceived less attention is the pollution of ground water by
dissolved chemicals, particularly nitrates, which may per-
colate into the ground beneath unsurfaced lots.
As can be seen from Tables 1 and 2, the strength of the
drainpipe waste was very consistent over the two year period
and for practical purposes should be considered equivalent.
The load factor calculations(10) of Table 4 for BODs per
animal were made using the 1970 results.
The total average BOD5 load discharge to the river during
the sampling period was 195 Ibs/day. The drainpipe with an
average discharge of 1.44 cfs and average BODtj of 20 mg/1
contirbuted 155 Ibs. The truck washrack had an average BOD5
of 499 mg/1 and contributed the remainder of 40 Ibs/day 6005.
The theoretical BOD5 of the combined average wastes if they
could be mixed on a daily basis would be 36 mg/1.
The average daily BODg load would be more useful'' to design
engineers if it could be expressed as a factor of so many
pounds per animal, acre of land, truck, etc. At a public
stockyards, the livestock are separated in the pens by owner,
breed or size. The animal density per acre would vary so
much in this tpye of operation, that it was decided to express
the daily BOD5 in Ibs. BOD5 per animal. Cattle, calves,
hogs, sheep and horses are traded at the stockyards and due
to the variation of the amount of BODg in waste produced
by the different animals, a BODtj factor was calculated for
each one. Only 32 horses were received for the whole year
so they were considered to have a negligible effect on the
total waste.
Cattle and calves were also totaled as one unit since the
average number of calves was less than 4% of the number od
cattle. The average weight of each type of animal was
established by stockyard's personnel and is listed in Table 4
along with the otehr data necessary to calculate the factors.
The daily BOD5 production rate of sheep was the smallest
and was considered unity compared to the rates for cattle,
and hogs. The rate for sheep was divided into the rates for
cattle and hogs to obtain a weighting factor for each animal.
It is important to note that although most of the nanure
produced by the animals is removed from the pens and trucks
and is buried in a landfill, the amount of 6005 reaching
the treatment syatem should be in the same ratio as that
determined by the overall defecation rates in Table 4.
21
-------
The total daily BODg discharged to the river by the wash-
rack and drainpipe was previously given as 195 Ibs/day.
Part of this BOD5 was also due to the wastes from the
stockyard office building. It was assumed that approximately
100 people are on the premises at any given time. Using
a population equivalent of 0.17 Ibs. BOD5/day/capita(8),
the total BOD5 contributed by the offices was computed to
be 17 Ibs/day. This amount was subtracted from the total
6005 and the remainder of 178 Ibs. was considered to be
the total average daily BOD5 from the washrack and drain-
pipe attributable to the livestock. Since the washrack
does not operate during below freezing temperatures, the
daily BODc discharge from the drainpipe less the 17 Ibs/
day BOD5 from the stockyards building results in a net
daily BOD5 load of 138 Ibs. without the washrack in
operation. Equations 2 and 3 are the equations used to
calculate the load factors.
(2)
N1W1D1 + N2W2D2 + N3W3D3 =
X
D-
Subscripts: l=cattle 2=hogs 3=sheep
N-^ = average daily receipts of animals
W^ = average weights of animals in 1000 Ibs.
D-i = BODcj defecation rates per 100 Ibs. live
weight
X = unweighted load factor
(3)
Load factor CL.F.-,) = X
W1D1
03 Ibs/day/animal
The unweighted load factor X is solved for in equateion 2.
In equation 3 the quantity in brackets could be called the
weighting coefficient since it adjusts the load factor for
each type of livestock due to the different BOD5 defecation
rates and live wieghts of the animals. The weighting coeffic-
ients are multiplied times X to obtain the daily BODc load
factors for each type of animal. These factors are tabulated
in Table 4 in Ibs. BOD5/day/average animal in this paper
and Ibs. BODr/day/1000 Ibs. live weight to use in estimating
the daily 6065 from a stockyard that is constructed and
operated similar to the Union Stockyards.
22
-------
TABLE 4
Tabulation of the BODs Load Factors for
Cattle, Hogs and Sheep
Daily Receipts
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Average Weight (Ibs.)
BOD5 Defecation Rates** /I
per 1000 Ibs. live weight
BOD5 Loading Factor Expressed
as Ibs. /average animal
With Washrack
Without Washrack
BODe Loading Factor Expressed
as Ibs. /live weight
With Washrack
Without Washrack
Cattle
298.
4855.
1745.
800.
1.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0
0
0
0
3
072
056
090
070
Hogs
40.
2617.
210.
210.
3.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0
0
0
0
4
049
038
233
181
Sheep
0.
2857.
699.
95.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0
0
0
0
7
0046
0036
0484
0379
23
-------
In Table 5, 6 and 7 the minimum, maximum and average test
results are shown for the washrack waste for 1970, the
washrack waste before the hydrasieve for 1971 and the wash-
rack waste after the hydrasieve, respectively.
The consistency of the washrack waste over the two year
period can be seen with the only large changes being in
COD and solids. Both these changes could be due to the en-
larged settling basin installed at the truck washrack.
TABLE 5
Summary of Test Results for the
Truck Washrack, Before Improvements,
1970
BOD5 mg/1
COD mg/1
DO mg/1
Sulfates mg/1
Total Solids mg/1
Susp. Solids mg/1
Sett. Solids ml/1
NH3-N mg/1
N02-N mg/1
N03-N mg/1
Average daily volume of wastewater = 9560 gal/day.
Minimum
137.0
622.0
0.7
115.0
2072.0
564.0
1.0
2.8
0.04
Q.085
.Maximum
1150.0
4780.0
8.4
170.0
5202.0
2470.0
15.0
49.1
0.49
0.57
Average
499.0
1861.0
3.5
134.0
3308.0
1411.0
5.6
20.9
0.278
0.984
24
-------
TABLE 6
Summary of Test Results for the
Washrack before Screen Samples
for 1971
BOD 5
COD
DO
Sulfates
Total Solids
Susp. Solids
Sett. Solids
NH3-N
N02-N
N03-N
BOD5
COD
DO
Sulfates
Total Solids
Sups. Solids
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
Is mg/1
Is mg/1
Is ml/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
Summary of
Washrack
mg/1
ma/i
mg/1
mg/1
s mg/1
s mg/1
Minimum
260.0
710.0
0.4
46.0
2026.0
209.0
0.0
2.3
0.0
0.0
TABLE 7
Maximum
700.0
2352.0
6.4
188.0
4522.0
2353.0
8.0
5.0
0.4
2.14
Average
492.0
1416.0
2.8
118.00
2819.0
706.0
1.1
2.94
0.093
0.322
Test Results for the
after Screen Samples
for 1971
Minimum
052.0
956.0
3.8
80.0
2162.0
116.0
jvr^Aimum
640.0
1920.0
4.0
172.0
4366.0
2133.0
Average
495.0
1376.0
4.0
126.0
2732.0
707.0
25
-------
Minimum
0.0
5.0
0.0
0.0
Maximum
7.0
53.0
0.4
2.78
Average
1.020
31.2
0.093
0.4
TABLE 7 (Continued)
Sett. Solids ml/1
NH3-N mg/1
N02-N mg/1
N03-N mg/1
The dry solids content of this material averaged 15.5 percent
and in Table 8 the amount of wet material removed both in
settling basin and by the hydrasieve is shown.
TABLE 8
Material removed at Truck Washrack (Ibs.)
Month (1971) Settling Basin Hydrasieve
April 2,210
May 34,150
June 72,640 3,020
July 60,830 1,610
August 56,760 2,660
September 88,260 660
October 83,330
As can be seen the sealing basin is very effective in the
removal of solids from the truck washrack waste. In the
case of the Union Stockyards l±t+-ie water quality improvement
was realized across the hydrasieve. Compare Table 8"with
Tables 6 and 7.
Further detail is available in the complete analysis summary
given in the appendix Table A5 and A6. Although a very small
weight of material was removed by the hydrasieve it was effect-
ive in removing floating straw from the truck washrack waste.
The hydrasieve would be of more use if large amounts of float-
ing material were present in a waste water.
Table 9 and 10 gives the minimum, maximum and average test
results for the primary cell and the secondary cell effluents,
respectively.
26
-------
The average BOD$ by month and by number of livestock per
month are shown graphically in Figures 4, 5,6 and 7,
respectively. Curves for strength of drainpipe wastes,
primary cell and the secondary cell effluent versus month
and livestock number are shown.
On the average, the total reduction of BODg between the
drainpipe and truck washrack to the secondary lagoon
effluent was 48.6 percent. This was realized with a system
which had a detention time of seven days. Water quality
was better after treatment in all cases with the exception
of total solids which remained constant with the drainpipe.
The effect of addint the washrack waste to the drainpipe
waste was not considered and therefore, an additional 4 to
5 mg/1 reduction in BOD5 of the mixed waste was obtained.
DO was reduced from 8.8 mg/1 in the drainpipe to 5.9 mg/1
at the point of discharge or the secondary lagoon outfall.
This is not considered to be a problem. Nitrite was up
from 0.020 ppm at the drainpipe to 0.061 ppm at the
secondary lagoon outfall. Ammonia nitrogen was eliminated
and nitrate nitrogen was reduced. No settleable solids
were found in the final effluent and suspended solids were
down 67 percent. Refer to Tables 1 and 10 for comparison.
TABLE 9
Summary of Test Results for the
Primary Lagoon Effluent
Samples
BOD5 mg/1
COD mg/1
DO mg/1
SU1fates mg/1
Total Solids mg/1
Susp. Solids mg/1
Sett. Solids ml/1
NH3-N mg/1
N02-N mg/1
NO3-N mg/1
Minimum
2.4
12.1
1.0
94.0
602.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.02
0.059
Maximum
38.0
168.0
13.6
260.0
1370.0
548.0
1.5
0.0
0.118
0.529
Average
14.8
53.0
3.2
132.0
997.0
27.0
trace
0.0
0.05
0.145
27
-------
TABLE 10
Summary of Test Results for the
Secondary Lagoon Effluent Samples
Minimum Maximum Average
BOD5 mg/1 1.0 30.0 12.7
COD mg/1 12.0 146.0 51.0
DO mg/1 0.1 13.6 5.9
Sulfates mg/1 94.0 182.0 129.0
Total Solids mg/1 586.0 2768.0 1038.0
Susp. Solids mg/1 0.0 100.0 10.0
Sett. Solids ml/1 0.0 0.0 0.0
NH3-N mg/1 0.0 0.0 0.0
N02-N mg/1 0.008 0.132 0.061
N03-N mg/1 0.073 0.861 0.172
The compounds of nitrogen mentioned above are of great
interest to sanitary and agricultural engineers cause of
the importance of nitrogen in the life processes of all
plants and animals. In this study, the samples were analyzed
for ammonia nitrogen, nitrite nitrogen and nitrate nitrogen.
The pH of the effluents from the drainpipe and truck wash-
rack was nearly constant at 9.1 during the sampling period.
Since the water sources at the stockyards are fresh water
wells/ it is thought that the quality of the water will stay
reasonably constant throughout the year. In accordance with
conclusions expressed in the studies by Stratton(ll), the
ammonia in the waste water would be in a gaseous state and
subject to escape to the atmosphere. The washrack effluent
had a relatively high ammonia nitrogen concentration of
20.9 mg/1 for 1970 and 29.4 for 1971 but only provided 1.7
Ibs./day and 2.4 Ibs./day, respectively of total ammonia
because of its low average volume. The drainpipe had a low
average concentration of 2.7 mg/1 for 1970 and 1.63 for 1971
ammonia but because of its daily average volume or 930,000
gal/day, it discharged 20.6 Ibs./day and 12.4 Ibs./day,
respectively of ammonia nitrogen into the river for a total
average daily ammonia nitrogen loading of 22.3 Ibs./day and
14.8 Ibs./day. It should be noted that no ammonia nitrogen
was present in the final effluent from the waste stabilization
ponds.
28
-------
The nitrate nitrogen concentrations in the samples from the
stockyards were quite low compared to the 10 mg/1 limit re-
commended by the Public Health Service. The average nitrate
nitrogen concentration in the drainpipe for 1970 and 1971,
respectively was 0.238 mg/1 and 0.194 mg/1. It was 6.984 mg/1
and 0.322 mg/1, respectively in the truck washrack effluent.
The well water was analyzed twice, both samples were free of
nitrogen in any form.
The concentrations of sulfates in the drainpipe and washrack
effluents were 127 mg/1 and 134 mg/1, respectively. The well
water had 105 mg/1 so only 25-30 mg/1 were contributed by the
stockyards. The Public Health Service has recommended an
upper limit of 250 mg/1 in water intended for human consump-
tion because of its cathartic effect on humans. Sulfates are
also indirectly responsible for two serious problems associ-
ated with the handling and treatment of waste. These are odor
and sewer-corrosion problems resulting from the reduction of
waste water flows in the drainpipe and is usually close to the
saturation point with dissolved oxygen, so this problem should
not occur in pipes transporting the waste. Also at no time
during 1971 did the dissolved oxygen in the waste stabili-
zation ponds go to zero; therefore, odor should be no problem
in the area around the lagoons.
29
-------
SECTION VII
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The support of the president of the Union Stockyards of West
Fargo, Mr. J. E. Roningen, is acknowledged with sincere thanks.
Mr. Clifford R. Moore, consulting engineer of West Fargo, was
Project Director. Mr. Harry R. Kringler, now of the U. S.
Forest Service, provided valuable assistance in the collection
of data.
The construction of the pilot plan was done by Mr. George E.
Haggart, Inc. of Fargo, and their patience during construction
and after construction is acknowledged with sincere thanks.
The use of the Civil Engineering Sanitary Laboratory located
on the North Dakota State University campus is greatly apprec-
iated.
The assistance of Mr. W. Van Heuvelen, Mr. Raymond Rolshoven
and Mr. Norman L. Peterson of the North Dakota State Health
Department is greatly appreciated.
The support of the project by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency and help provided by Mr. Ronald R. Ritter, Project Officer,
is acknowledged with sincere thanks.
31
-------
SECTION VIII
Bibliography
1. American Public Health Association, Standards Methods
for the Examination of Water & Waste Water, 12th
Edition, New York (1965).
2. Gilbertson, C. B.; McCalla, T. M.; Ellis, J. R.; Cross,
0. E. and Words, W. R.; "Runoff, Solid Wastes and
Nitrate Movement on Beef Feedlots," Journal Water
Pollution Control Federation, Vol. 43, pp. 483 (1971).
3. Grub, W.; Albin, R. C.; Well, P. M.; Wheaton, R. Z.,
"Engineering Analysis of Cattle Feedlots to Reduce
Water Pollution," Transaction of the ASAE, Vol. 9, pp.
374-376 (1966).
4. Hach Chemical Company, "Colorimeter Procedures and
Chemical Lists for Water and Wastewater Analysis with
Calibrations for the Bausch and Lomb Spectronic 20,"
3rd Edition, Ames, Iowa (September 1969).
5. Hutchinson, G. L. and Viets, F. G., Jr., "Nitrogen En-
richment of Surface Water by Absorption of Ammonia
Volatilized from Cattle Feedlots," ASAE (1969).
6. King, H. W. ; Wisler, C. O. and Woodburn, J. G.,
Hydraulics, Wilet, New York (1953).
7. Kringler, H. R., "Measurement and Analysis of Normal
Stockyard Waste," submitted at North Dakota State
University (1971).
8. Loehr, R. C., "Animal Wastes - A National Problem,"
Journal of the Sanitary Engineering Division, ASCE
95:SA2, pp. 189 C1969) .
9. Regional Publication NC-69, "Farm Animal Wastes, 1969,"
North Central Regional Techanical Committee, NCRS.
10. Sewage Treatment Plant Design, WPCF Manual of Practice,
No. 8 (1967).
11. Stratton, F. E., "Ammonia Nitrogen Losses from Streams"
Journal of the Sanitary Engineering Division, ASCE,
Vol. 94:SA6, pp. 1085 (1968).
12. Taiganides, E. P. and Hazen, T. E., -Properties of
Farm Animal Excreta," Transactions of the ASAE, Vol. 9,
pp. 374-376 (1966).
33
-------
SECTION IX
APPENDIX
Laboratory Test Procedures 37
Al Well Water Analysis 40
A2 All Test Results, 1970 Washrack 41
A3 All Test Results, 1970 Drainpipe 42
A4 All Test Results, 1971 Drainpipe 44
A5 All Test Results, 1971 Washrack before Screen 46
A6 All Test Results, 1971 Washrack after Screen 47
A7 All Test Results, 1971 Primary Lagoon 48
A8 All Test Results, 1971 Secondary Lagoon 50
35
-------
LABORATORY TEST PROCEDURES
Dissolved Oxygen (DO)
The azide modification of the iodometric method for
determining the DO was used as described in Standard
Methods' '/on page 406 with the exception of titrating
300 ml samples with 0.0275N titrant. Some turbid
samples were measured on a Beckman Dissolved Oxygen
meter because the indicator endpoint could not be
distinguished.
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD)
The procedure outlined in Standard MethodsO)>page 415.
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)
The dichromate reflux method page 510, Standard Methods'!
Ammonia Nitrogen
The diazotization method, page 400, Standard Methods^ v
Color intensity was measured with a Bausch and Lomb
Spectronic 20 colorimeter. Nitrite concentration was
determined from the calibration charts on page 58 in
the Hach Chemical Company's colorimetric procedures
manual (4).
Nitrate Nitrogen
The cadmium reduction procedures of measuring both
nitrate and nitrite nitrogen in Standard Methods/on
page 395 was used and the nitrite concentration was
subtracted to obtain the net nitrate concentration.
The color intensity was measured with a Bausch and
Lomb Spectronic 20 colorimeter. The nitrate nitrogen
concentration was determined from the calibration chart
on page 56 in the Hach Chemical Company's colorimeter
procedures manual(4).
Sulfates
The turbidimetric method, page 291, of Standard Methods')
was used to measure sulfates. The turbidity was
measured on a Bausch and Lomb Spectronic 20 colori-
meter and the sulfate concentration was determined
from the calibration chart on page 91 of the Raich
Chemical Company's Colorimeter procedure manual(4).
36
-------
Total Solids
The amount of total solids was determined by measuring
the residue left after evaporation, a volume of waste-
water. .The metliod is given on page 423 in Standard
MethodsO).
Suspended Solids
The Gooch crucible method, page 424, Standard Methods^)
Settleable Solids
The amount of settleable solids was reported on a
volume basis in an Imhoff cone using the procedure
on page 426 of Standard MethodsO).
37
-------
Table Al
Washrack Well Water Analysis
(Average of Two Samples)
BOD 5
COD
DO
Sulfates
Total Solids
Suspended Solids
Settleable Solids
Ammonia Nitrogen
Nitrite Nitrogen
Nitrate Nitrogen
rag/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
ml/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
0.0
0.0
4.3
105.0
1083.0
6.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
38
-------
TABLE A2
WASTE ANALYSIS SUMMARY SHEET
u>
10
Samples
No.
1
2
3*
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
24
25
27
33
38
39
41
42
43
44
Date
6-05-70
6-08-70
6-10-70
6-12-70
6-15-70
6-19-70
6-22-70
6-24-70
6-29-70
7-01-70
7-06-70
7-09-70
7-10-70
7-13-70
7-15-70
7-17-70
7-22-70
7-24-70
7-27-70
7-29-70
8-01-70
8-12-70
8-17-70
9-23-70
10-05-70
10-07-70
10-14-70
10-19-70
10-21-70
10-26-70
TRUCK WASHRACK
Q
cfs
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
BOD5
rag/1
-
-
2500
860
380
800
280
750
690
1150
290
400
570
567
162
475
380
300
460
220
290
680
960
137
740
225
380
875
187
262
COD
mg/1
1540
5730
2890
1110
3160
1410
1895
2230
3620
963
1643
1800
1155
622
1890
944
1215
1436
876
1005
2960
3350
1037
3750
782
2100
4780
831
1123
-
DO
mg/1
_
6.3
0.7
1.0
3.6
1.4
1.9
2.0
1.0
1.7
3.6
1.2
2.4
4.6
5.3
2.9
5.5
• 4.8
2.4
4.3
5.7
5.5
2.2
7.3
'1.0
8.4
2.3
2.5
7.0
5.9
so4
rag/1
186
182
340
176
245
220
220
177
205
232
240
124
155
156
132
135
127
117
170
122
127
165
125
125
140
115
122
135
127
127
Total
Solids
mg/1
2982
2215
7244
5202
2482
4536
3750
4190
4260
4966
2430
2954
3132
3756
3226
2900
2240
2160
2916
2308
2346
3800
4282
2072
4766
2120
3414
4888
2362
3284
Susp.
Solids
mg/1
1450
758
3670
2470
1050
2080
2070
2185
1925
2030
871
908
984
1620
2010
1290
676
564
1020
1000
840
1030
2040
670
2067
676
1900
2085
986
1685
Set.
Solids
ml/1
_
-
-
15.0
2.5
12.0
9.0
7.5
7.5
7.0
3.0
1.4
2.0
5.5
6.5
4.5
2.7
1.6
1.9
3.0
2.5
4.5
8.5
4.0
5.0
1.0
12.0
9.0
4.2
7.5
NH3-!
mg/1
25.8
2.8
47.3
42.8
13.6
26.9
13.3
24.5
35.8
49.1
13.4
11.2
25.7
26.9
9.5
21.5
10.6
9.8
19.4
9.8
12.3
37.7
25.4
7.3
39.8
9.9
18.8
46.9
7.1
8.8
NO2-N
mg/1
0.310
0.390
0.160
0.450
0.370
0.160
0.360
0.350
0.490
0.150
0.260
0.120
0.260
0.245
0.065
0.430
0.320
'0.215
0.040
0.815
0.265
0.205
0.160
0.250
0.100
mg/1
0.750
1.
0.
.260
.850
0.320
0.680
0.540
1.960
0.085
2.570
0.580
0.885
Trace
1.785
1.435
0.945
0.440
0.450
0.800
Results were not included in the average because it was considered a slug sample.
-------
TABLE A3
WASTE ANALYSIS SUMMARY SHEET
SEWER DRAINPIPE
Sample
No.
19-P
20-P
21-P
22-P
24-P
25-P
27-P
28-P
29-P
30-P
3L-P
32-P
34-P
35-P
36-P
37-P
38-P
39-P
40-P
41-P
42-P
43-P
44-P
45-P
46-p
47-p
48-P
49-P
50-P
51-P
52-P
53-P
Date
7-27-70
7-29-70
8-01-70
8-03-70
8-05-70
8-12-70
8-17-70
9-09-70
9-11-70
9-15-70
9-18-70
9-21-70
9-25-70
9-28-70
9-30-70
10-02-70
10-05-70
10-07-70
10-12-70
10-14-70
10-19-70
10-21-70
10-26-70
10-27-70
10-29-70
11-02-70
11-04-70
11-09-70
11-11-70
11-13-70
11-16-70
11-18-70
Q
cfs
_
-
1.33
1.75
1.56
-
-
1.45
1.25
1.38
-
1.15
-
1.63
1.22
1.05
1.05
1.63
1.45
1.50
1.38
2.02
_
-
1.15
1.50
1.68
1.33
1.38
1.45
-
1.22
BOD 5
rag/1
80
100
12
45
14
40
35
19
8
18
3
5
8
10
26
8
30
22
6
6
34
18
24
19
16
40
25
8
10
7
16
31
COD
mg/1
205
346
47
41
64
59
25
82
46
90
34
47
47
69
94
28
102
86
66
25
118
86
66
78
82
294
-
37
45
57
65
102
DO
mg/1
5.5
6.0
9.0
7.7
8.2
7.8
7.9
8.3
8.8
8.5
8.9
8.6
9.1
8.6
8.3
9.0
8.0
8.2
8.3
9.3
8.1
8.7
9.0
8.5
7.8
8.3
9.0
9.0
8.9
8.8
8.6
8.2
S04
mg/1
124
138
134
142
116
130
130
130
110
108
122
146
138
128
130
138
128
116
110
128
134
142
118
116
138
122
116
142
130
128
122
116
Total
Solids
mg/1
1182
1310
1026
1174
1020
1116
1260
994
1038
1239
1012
1032
1008
1444
1100
1034
1024
930
1084
1072
922
1484
980
904
944
952
1018
754
802
1934
992
1144
Susp.
Solids
mg/1
120
192
20
97
27
79
106
54
24
24
12
14
35
4.2
30
4
48
24
54
-
76
460
28
30
22
64
66
-
-
268
48
74
Set.
Solids
ml/1
0.7
1.2
0.05
0.25
0.02
0.1
0.08
0.3
0.1
0.15
0.05
0.05 >
0.1
0.4
0.3
0.05
0.3
0.2
0.5
0.1
0.5
1.2
0.2
0.5
0.1
0,2
0.4
0.05
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.5
NH3-N
mg/1
5.0
5.9
2.2
5.8
1.5
6.0
3.4
2.7
3.5
2.5
2.8
1.7
2.7
2.7
2.8
2.5
2.8
2.1
2.1
1.7
3.9
1.8
2.2
3.1
2.8
4.0
31.5*
2.0
1.5
2.8
3.6
2.5
N02-N
mg/1
0.031
0.026
0.026
0.056
0.090
0.040
0.040
0.036
0.036
0.038
0.022
0.039
0.022
0.016
0.029
0.024
0.024
0.029
0.018
0.020
0.020
0.006
0.018
0.024
0.026
0.022
0.015
0.015
0.011
0.015
0.013
0.015
N03-N
mg/1
0.200
0.214
0.274
0.284
0.210
0.280
0.320
0.364
0.284
0.322
0.218
0.711
0.248
0.204
0.321
0.296
0.216
0.271
0.182
0.190
0.320
0.170
0.162
0.206
0.264
0.198
0.155
0.165
0.209
0.195
0.187
0.195
* Results were not included in the average because it was not consistent with the other results
-------
TABLE A3
WASTE ANALYSIS SUMMARY SHEET
SEWER DRAINPIPE
Sample Date
No.
54-P 11-23-70
55-P
56-P
57-P
58-P
59-P
60-P
61-P
62-P
63-P
64-P
11-27-70
12-2-70
12-4-70
12-7-70
12-9-70
12-11-70
12-14-70
12-18-70
12-22-70
12-23-70
Q
cfs
-
1.68
1.22
1.45
1.50
1.38
1.63
1.25
-
-
BOD5
mg/1
8
4
12
12
14
16
9
10
10
10
4
COD
mg/1
40
40
76
92
56
56
44
52
40
40
35
DO
mg/1
9.6
9.5
9.4
8.5
8.9
9.2
9.1
8.9
8.7
8.7
8.6
SO 4
mg/1
108
116
138
138
130
122
134
130
134
124
127
Total
Solids
mg/1
874
910
972
1066
588
776
1204
1068
466
_
Susp.
Solids
8
5
24
22
10
13
11
14
5
_
Set. NH3-N NO2-N
Solids
ml/1 mg/1 mg/1 mg/1
0.1 1.5 0.015 0.185
1.8 0.018 0.162
0.2 2.5 D.013 0.207
0.1 2.1 0.019 0.340
0.2 2.1 0.011 0.189
0.4 2.1 0.011 0.149
0.05 0.7 0.013 0.167
0.1 1.7 0.013 0.187
1.5 1.7 0.013 0.207
0.2 2.2 0.011 0.189
0.1 2.1 0.013 0.207
-------
TABLE A4
WASTE ANALYSIS SUMMARY SHEET
Sample
No.
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
103
159
161
163
166
168
169
172
173
175
177
Date
1-04-71
1-08-71
1-13-71
1-15-71
1-20-71
1-21-71
1-28-71
1-29-71
2-02-71
2-04-71
2-09-71
2-12-71
2-16-71
2-19-71
2-23-71
2-26-71
3-02-71
3-05-71
4-08-71
4-16-71
6-16-71
9-15-71
9-16-71
9-20-71
9-24-71
9-28-71
10-04-71
10-07-71
10-11-71
10-13-71
10-18-71
DRAINPIPE
Q
cfs
_
1.38
1.68
1.63
1.63
1.63
1.56
1.56
1.56
-
1.56
-
1.50
1.50
1.63
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
BOD 5
mg/1
17
11
7
3
9
12
12
6
8
6
7
7
13
13
25
11
17
10
10
56
30
6.4
6.8
16
10.8
20
26.4
14
16.8
13.2
22.8
COD
rag/1
72
64
68
56
64
64
60
40
48
44
60
52
60
52
64
48
44
20
43
225
119
47.2
12
75
35.3
54.9
74.5
51
47
44
124
DO
mg/1
9.2
9.3
9.3
9.9
9.0
9.1
-
9.1
9.3
9.1
9.3
9.7
8.7
8.8
8.8
8.7
8.7
8.4
-
-
6.4
8.3
8.2
8.0
8.5
7.3
7.7
8.3
8.2
8.0
-
so4
mg/1
100
150
128
128
128
108
130
124
116
124
118
104
138
100
128
118
130
124
118
102
110
108
134
138
166
116
122
114
130
122
122
Total
Solids
mg/1
850
978
972
972
894
938
940
954
912
946
954
994
988
986
726
882
1238
1102
1066
1164
1008
692
792
1262
-
1140
882
796
1032
1190
1074
Susp.
Solids
mg/1
14
32
7
7
16
10
13
10
7
5
12
12
16
13
47
21
33
15
25
178
124
2
-
12
33
30
56
18
30
31
44
Set. NH3-N
Solids
ml/1 mg/1
0.05
0.2
0.25
0.05
0.05
0.01
0.05
0.05
0.1
0.05
0.01
0.06
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.0
1.7
2.0
1.4
2.8
1.5
2.2
1.7
1.5
1.4
1.7
2.8
1.7
2.1
2.8
2.2
1.7
1.5
1.6
2.2
6.2
19.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
N02-N
mg/1
0.018
0.013
0.011
0.011
0.011
0.011
0.013
0.011
0.011
0.010
0.011
0.010
0.019
0.018
0.019
0.015
0.019
0.011
0.019
0.104
0.026
0.018
0.240
0.018
0.018
0.040
0.024
0.020
0.037
0.018
0.010
NOa-N
mg/1
0.182
0.207
0.159
0.159
0.139
0.159
0.157
0.139
0.1S9
0.140
0.149
0.150
0.151
0.162
0.161
0.175
0.161
0.139
0.151
0.626
0.024
0.182
0.216
0.142
0.182
0.060
0.266
0.160
0.163
0.152
0.480
-------
TABLE A4
WASTE ANALYSIS SUMMARY SHEET
Sample Date
No.
179 10-21-71
180 10-22-71
182 10-26-71
186 11-2-71
189 11-11-71
190 11-12-71
191 11-23-71
192 11-24-71
193 11-29-71
194 12-1-71
195 12-3-71
DRAINPIPE
Q
Cfs
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
BOD5
mg/1
17.2
164.0
15.6
18.8
9.6
9.6
10.0
22.0
8.6
8.0
-
COD
mg/1
288
56
130
39.6
—
35.7
44
71
52
28
32
DO
mg/1
M
-
7.7
8.4
7.8
7.6
8.1
7.3
8.2
8.4
8.5
S04
mg/1
108
121
110
124
124
130
150
134
146
124
130
Total
Solids
mg/1
1020
684
846
922
752
1390
170
1148
858
874
880
Susp.
Solids
mg/1
37
16
34
-
3
26
0
170
52
2
2
Set.
Solids
ml/1
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
NH3-N
mg/1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NO2-N
mg/1
0.020
0.015
0.018
0.006
0.010
0.008
0.015
0.008
0.008
0.010
0.008
NO3-N
mg/1
0.230
0.205
0.162
0.324
0.250
0.162
0.225
0.222
0.182
0.220
0.192
-------
TABLE AS
WASTE ANALYSIS SUMMARY SHEET
Sample
No.
86
87
88
89
90
91
103
158
160
164
165
167
170
171
174
176
178
181
183
185
187
Date
5-12-71
5-14-71
5-19-71
5-21-71
5-24-71
5-26-71
6-16-71
9-15-71
9-16-71
9-21-71
9-23-71
9-27-71
10-05-71
10-06-71
10-12-71
10-14-71
10-19-71
10-25-71
10-28-71
11-01-71
11-03-71
Q
cfs
BOD5
mg/1
580
432
600
560
280
336
260
275
620
650
700
450
460
490
530
660
470
590
320
390
WASHRACK BEFORE
COD
mg/1
993
1090
1420
1370
1451
1115
710
1741
2156
2007
1411
2352
1239
-
1191
1072
1424
1283
1980
1023
1283
DO SO4
mg/1 mg/1
_ _
188
154
166
110
0.4
2.0 100
-
-
6.4 130
2.6 130
134
122
114
118
108
90
116
100
46
108
SCREEN
Total
Solids
mg/1
2210
2424
2452
2344
4522
2608
2026
2734
3570
3622
5558
2435
2572
2870
2150
2142
2466
2448
2956
2438
2660
Susp.
Solids
mg/1
395
354
552
302
2353
650
209
500
778
650
620
585
640
925
133
560
360
640
1199
1130
1300
Set.
Solids
ml/1
0. 8
0.1
3.0
0.1
8.0
2.0
0.5
-
0.0
1.5
0.5
0.0
0.1
1.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.6
0.0
2.5
0.7
NH3-N
mg/1
23.0
39.0
41.0
44.0
13.0
22.0
2.3
30.8
51.0
42.0
22.4
27.29
32.9
24.1
23.6
39.3
49.3
21.0
15.7
10.1
16.1
NO2-N
mg/1
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.400
0.300
-
0.000
-
0.003
0.070
0.163
0.270
0.080
0.056
0.061
0.056
0.011
0.095
0.043
0.049
0.101
NO3-N
mg/1
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.160
2.140
-
o.ooo
-
0.157
0.170
0.357
0.270
0.150
0.224
0.299
0.244
0.139
0.135
0.227
0.681
0.739
-------
TABLE A6
WASTE ANALYSIS SUMMARY SHEET
ui
Sample
No.
86
87
88
89
90
91
158
160
164
165
167
170
171
174
176
178
181
183
185*
187
Date
5-12-71
5-14-71
5-19-71
5-21-71
5-24-71
5-26-71
9-15-71
9-16-71
9-21-71
9-22-71
9-27-71
10-05-71
10-06-71
10-12-71
10-14-71
10-19-71
10-25-71
10-28-71
11-01-71
11-03-71
Q
cfs
BOD5
mg/1
490
488
575
560
300
292
550
640
610
590
540
470
420
390
600
610
440
490
220
360
COD
mg/1
973
1130
1420
1480
1421
1161
1716
1920
1599
956
1333
1270
1568
1207
1392
1232
1283
1932
271
1156
WASHRACK AFTER
DO SO.
mg/1 mg/1
_ _
172
162
158
116
3.8
-
94
4.5 108
3.8 134
106
164
116
134
138
118
108
116
80
118
SCREEN
Total
Solids
mg/1
2256
2610
2360
2354
4196
2596
2834
3376
3286
4366
2504
2560
2708
2162
2412
2514
2440
2980
1210
1360
Susp.
Solids
rag/1
468
422
530
305
2133
576
381
.796
640
730
550
660
920
116
755
412
620
1065
350
1360
Set.
Solids
ml/1
0.7
2.0
2.0
0.05
7.0
1.0
0.0
1.5
3.0
0.0
1.5
1.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.6
NH3-N
mg/1
37.0
-
37.0
48.0
14.2
-
29.1
53.0
43.7
23.0
25.3
34.1
24.1
24.8
34.3
64.1
21.0
26.4
5.0
17.5
NO N
mg/1
0.000
-
0.000
0.400
0.280
-
-
0.001
0.047
0.104
0.270
0.078
0.033
0.041
0.045
0.008
0.098
0.040
0.040
0.104
NO,-N
mg/1
0.000
-
0.000
0.300
2.780
-
-
0.169
0.153
0.346
0.330
0.202
0.297
0.231
0.255-
0.142
0.202
0.200
0.510
0.686
* Mix from sump disregarded in averages
-------
TABLE A7
WASTE ANALYSIS SUMMARY SHEET
Sample
No.
Date
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114*
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
6-22-71
6-23-71
6-25-71
6-28-71
6-29-71
6-30-71
7-01-71
7-07-71
7-08-71
7-09-71
7-14-71
7-15-71
7-16-71
7-19-71
7-20-71
7-21-71
7-22-71
7-23-71
7-27-71
7-28-71
7-29-71
7-30-71
8-02-71
8-03-71
8-05-71
8-06-71
8-09-71
8-10-71
8-11-71
8-12-71
8-13-71
8-16-71
PRIMARY CELL
Q
cfs
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
BODg
mg/1
14.0
9.0
15.0
32.0
-
20.0
-
-
30.0
12.0
18.0
15.0
12.0
13.0
8.0
25.0
15.0
-
27.0
38.0
18.0
-
-
16.0
20.5
24.5
11.0
24.5
30.0
-
11.0
36.0
COD
mg/1
27.9
51.8
60.0
20.0
76.0
44.0
168.0
136.0
44.0
20.0
28.0
52.0
12.1
-
52.0
153.0
36.0
40.0
-
60.0
44.0
-
44.0
112.0
64.0
42.0
58.0
62.0
30.0
71.0
42.0
-
DO
mg/1
7.2
8.5
9.5
2.6
1.1
1.7
1.0
2.5
2.2
7.1
13.6
11.5
4.2
1.7
2.0
1.3
2.5
3.5
1.6
1.8
2.4
3.0
3.7
2.6
2.8
-
3.6
-
1.6
2.2
-
2.5
so4
mg/1
142
200
121
154
138
130
142
128
124
94
136
138
128
118
98
150
130
118
-
108
118
130
138
150
130
150
150
134
130
118
142
114
Total
Solids
mg/1
870
1100
602
922
-
980
1370
1044
990
988
872
822
950
952
952
1072
1230
754
928
-
994
1028
988
1060
1043
1028
1068
1018
1020
1082
992
1192
Susp.
Solids
mg/1
28
15
3
-
-
12
249
0
_
548
29
34
3
6
1
154
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
2
2
17
-
2
5
3
3
-
Set. NH..-N
Solids
ml/1 mg/1
0
0.05
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NO2-N
mg/1
0.050
0.047
0.080
0.092
0.118
0.089
0.118
0.070
0.059
0.041
0.108
0.104
0.092
0.036
0.045
0.032
0.039
0.072
0.037
0.049
0.056
0.037
0.043
0.061
0.043
0.049
0.041
0.043
0.033
0.053
0.037
0.033
NO3-N
mg/1
0.160
0.173
0.280
0.248
0.232
0.254
0.182
0.130
0.141
0.529
0.262
0.246
0.238
0.084
0.125
0.088
0.121
0.108
0.103
0.117
0.133
0.131
0.104
0.133
0.137
0.139
0.137
0.111
0.109
0.107
0.087
0.070
* Sample of river water at outfall
-------
TABLE A7
WASTE ANALYSIS SUMMARY SHEET
Sample
No.
Date
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
162
8-17-71
8-18-71
8-19-71
8-20-71
8-23-71
8-24-71
8-25-71
8-26-71
8-27-71
8-30-71
8-31-71
9-01-71
9-02-71
9-03-71
9-07-71
9-08-71
9-09-71
9-10-71
9-13-71
9-14-71
9-17-71
PRIMARY CELL
Q
cfs
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
BOD 5
mg/1
30.0
11.0
7.0
3.2
5.3
2.6
3.9
S.4
14.7
8.8
5.2
2.4
18.0
9.0
16.9
10.9
9.5
6.2
12.0
11.6
8.0
COD
mg/1
29.0
33.0
33.0
29.0
46.0
42.2
42.0
77.0
79.0
30.7
38.4
3.8
26.9
69.1
43.3
51.2
27.6
15.7
57.0
74.8
48.0
DO
mg/1
1.9
1.6
0.7
0.7
3.3
2.2
1.3
2.8
1.9
2.7
2.4
2.0
2.2
2.6
1.8
1.6
2.0
0.6
2.9
3.6
4.6
S04
mg/1
134
130
104
124
150
110
134
124
116
138
122
134
128
128
122
114
96
260
110
122
138
Total
Solids
mg/1
1048
1002
-
856
1306
1094
998
1002
1056
1066
1104
1080
928
790
938
1202
1010
864
1034
912
676
Susp.
Solids
mg/1
7
2
_
2
22
5
2
_
10
2
2
—
2
0
7
4
9
2
2
—
2
Set.
Solids
ml/1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
KH3-1
mg/1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NO2-N
0.032
0.033
0.028
0.028
0.022
0.029
0.031
0.032
0.029
0.039
0.029
0.029
0.026
0.024
0.080
0.080
0.067
0.061
0.022
0.024
0.020
NO3-N
mg/1 mg/1
0.078
0.077
0.122
0.082
0.088
0.101
0.069
0.118
0.091
0.129
0.071
0.151
0.114
0.076
0.410
0.140
0.133
0.059
0.078
0.136
0.160
-------
TABLE A8
WASTE ANALYSIS SUMMARY SHEET
oo
Sample
No.
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
Date
5-27-71
5-31-71
6-01-71
6-02-71
6-03-71
6-04-71
6-06-71
6-07-71
6-09-71
6-10-71
6-11-71
6-21-71
6-22-71
6-23-71
6-25-71
6-28-71
6-29-71
6-30-71
7-01-71
7-07-71
7-08-71
7-09-71
7-13-71
7-14-71
7-15-71
7-16-71
7-19-71
7-20-71
7-21-71
7-22-71
7-23-71
7-27-71
7-28-71
7-29-71
Q
cfs
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
__
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
—
_
-
-
BOD5
mg/1
11.0
3.0
5.0
12.8
16.0
4.8
15.6
5.2
10.5
10.4
13.0
12.0
9.0
13.4
24.0
16.0
20.0
16.0
12.0
10.5
7.0
17.0
15.0
14.0
13.5
12.5
11.0
10.0
29.0
7.0
18.0
SECONDARY -CELL
COD
mg/1
84.0
76.4
80.2
-
63.7
75.7
-
-
-
115.0
63.76
43.8
-
35.9
24.0
36.0
24.0
72.0
52.0
76.0
16.0
20.0
40.0
76.0
60.0
20.0
-
40.0
36.0
12.0
24.0
-
40.0
32.0
DO
mg/1
3.8
2.8
4.1
4.0
5.0
4.2
4.8
6.0
8.8
10.8
4.7
2.0
2.1
3.3
2.4
0.1
1.4
1.4
8.4
2.5
4.0
5.8
13.6
12.7
6.3
2.2
3.5
2.3
2.4
3.1
4.7
2.7
4.6
2.1
SO4
mg/1
122
158
138
154
104
142
150
150
142
-
116
128
110
130
138
146
130
118
116
146
116
140
118
118
86
130
130
128
118
158
130
-
130
124
Total
Solids
mg/1
1242
846
1174
914
-
1010
1186
1142
958
1122
1052
838
1016
840
788
1034
-
1092
2786
1550
1008
1264
870
2144
842
914
922
1076
986
1206
762
1000
_
974
Susp.
Solids
mg/1
44
8
0
11
69
100
12
72
0
14
26
20
17
6
2
-
-
16
17
5
-
-
12
7
16
30
16
-
2
-
-
-
—
-
Set.
Solids
ml/1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NH3-N
mg/1
NO2-N
mg/1
NO3-N
mg/1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.089
0.078
0.072
0.074
0.061
0.056
0.061
0.047
0.050
-
0.050
0.053
0.053
0.059
0.061
0.089
0.104
0.086
0.101
0.092
0.061
0.067
0.132
0.118
0.121
0.118
0.083
0.049
0.056
0.050
0.064
0.064
0.052
0.045
0.861
0.630
0.408
0.376
0.359
0.294
0.179
0.253
0.200
-
0.180
0.153
0.117
0.151
0.179
0.251
0.266
0.214
0.189
0.098
0.159
0.143
0.198
0.222
0.239
0.282
0.137
0.111
0.124
0.130
0.146
0.106
0.138
0.125
-------
TABLE A8
WASTE ANALYSIS SUMMARY SHEET
Sample
No.
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
159
Date
7-30-71
8-02-71
8-03-71
8-05-71
8-06-71
8-09-71
8-10-71
8-11-71
8-12-71
8-13-71
8-16-71
8-17-71
8-18-71
8-19-71
8-20-71
8-23-71
8-24-71
8-25-71
8-26-71
8-29-71
8-30-71
8-31-71
9-01-71
9-02-71
9-03-71
9-07-71
9-08-71
9-09-71
9-10-71
9-13-71
9-14-71
9-15-71
Q
cfs
SECONDARY CELL
BOD5
mg/1
-
-
7.0
11.0
23.0
23.5
28.0
30.0
-
18.0
*36.0
21.0
11.0
5.3
3.2
1.0
5.0
2.3
3.0
-
10.0
4.8
5.2
-
11.4
13.6
6.9
7.9
8.2
9.8
4.8
4.4
COD
mg/1
-
40.0
81.0
61.0
42.0
77.0
100.0
33.0
104.0
37.0
21.0
29.0
37.0
71.0
37.0
146.0
65.0
57.0
73.0
58.0
69.0
46.1
11.5
30.7
34.6
125.9
59.0
35.4
19.7
47.0
31.5
39.4
DO
mg/1
3.1
2.6
3.0
5.2
4.9
5.0
-
1.6
2.1
2.2
5.7
5.7
2.7
2.0
2.3
4.7
4.4
2.5
4.0
2.5
2.8
2.8
4.0
4.3
4.6
3.5
2.9
1.5
1.2
3.8
5.6
6.1
S04
mg/1
114
116
150
122
142
150
150
128
158
134
138
110
128
122
128
122
110
122
114
154
124
118
134
138
130
116
114
134
114
134
104
182
Total
Solids
mg/1
1048
960
-
1024
1032
776
1326
1052
1042
1020
1312
904
998
-
886
1090
1158
1298
1002
1000
1162
1080
1046
2076
836
1904
1302
1040
730
864
1210
610
Susp.
Solids
mg/1
0
1
12
2
18
—
2
4
4
3
-
5
2
-
2
0
7
2
-
13
2
0
_
2
1
0
5
2
2
2
_
0
Set.
Solids
ml/1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NH3-1
mg/1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NO2-N
mg/1
0.070
0.040
0.050
0.061
0.040
0.089
0.074
0.050
0.049
0.050
0.052
0.056
0.049
0.033
0.010
0.040
0.037
0.024
0.022
0.033
0.039
0.040
0.033
0.041
0.019
0.180
0.114
0.240
0.074
0.037
0.043
0.041
NO3-N
mg/1
0.110
0.170
0.130
0.149
0.120
0.141
0.146
0.110
0.091
0.110
0.108
0.094
0.101
0.087
0.080
0.080
0.073
0.116
0.078
0.117
0.101
0.110
0.107
0.109
0.141
0.190
0.166
Combined
0.086
0.093
0.117
0.119
Disregard as BOD must be less than COD
-------
TABLE A8
WASTE ANALYSIS SUMMARY SHEET
ui
o
§
3
Z
I
Sample
No.
161
162
163
166
168
169
172
173
175
179
180
182
184
186
188
189
190
Date
9- 16-71
9- 17-71
9- 20-71
9- 24-71
9- 28-71
10- 04-71
10- 07-71
10- 11-71
10- 13-71
10- 21-71
10- 22-71
10- 26-71
10- 29-71
11- 02-71
11- 08-71
11- 11-71
11- 12-71
SECONDARY CELL
Q
cfs
-
—
-
-
-
-
-
—
-
-
—
-
—
—
-
-
—
BOD5
mg/1
5.2
6.9
16.4
14.4
13.6
14.4
10.0
12.8
6.0
24.4
21.0
10.8
7.6
18.0
11.2
7.2
1.2
COD
mg/1
24.0
39.4
79.0
54.9
23.5
66.6
43.0
35.3
20.0
76.0
88.0
43.3
54.0
51.5
16.0
-
15.0
DO
mg/1
5.7
6.4
-
12.1
9.4
7.9
5.3
7.0
7.6
-
-
4.5
3.8
1.9
8.2
7.0
5.6
SO 4
rag/1
158
154
138
122
118
94
110
108
138
124
114
130
124
124
128
146
142
Total
Solids
mg/1
1366
586
1354
-
956
890
810
1066
1132
806
652
812
712
836
1434
1504
1406
Susp.
Solids
mg/1
_
2
15
14
12
5
21
15
0
11
1
_
2
19
0
2
12
Set.
Solids
ml/1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NH,H
J
mg/1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
N02-N
mg/1
0.032
0.045
0.047
0.050
0.061
0.052
0.037
0.010
0.039
0.061
0.045
0.015
0.018
0.026
0.020
0.008
0.013
N03-N
mg/1
0.118
0.125
0.173
0.150
0.219
0.228
0.023
0.150
0.201
0.229
0.135
0.145
0.142
0.314
0.240
0.192
0.267
-------
SELECTED WA TER 1 '• ****"* *«•
RESOURCES ABSTRACTS j
INPUT TRANSACTION FORM | ,;
?. 3. Accession No.
W
Title
Demonstration of a Waste Disposal System
for Livestock Waste
7. Aathor(s)
Moore. Clifford R.
Moore engineering, Inc.
9. Organization Moore Engineering, Inc.
Consulting Engineers
219 West Main Avenue
West Fargo, North Dakota
tt, Spamtoriag Organization U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
5. Report Date
e'
9. fttrffa&iitf. Organization
Repott No.
10. Project No.
11, Contract/Grant No.
13040 FIX
13. Type o f Report and
Period Covered
IS. Supplementary Note-.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Report Number EPA-R2-73-245, May 1973
16. Abstract
Laboratory studies of livestock waste were conducted both before and after the
construction of an enlarged settling basin, a hydrasieve at the truck washtack and a
two cell waste stabilization pond. A determination of the effectiveness of these two
systems and the application of them to feedlots and other livestock facilities in the
area were the main objectives.
The settling basin and hydrasieve were effective in removing solids and COD from
the truck washrack waste. Reductions in COD, total, suspended, and settleable solids
were 23.9, 14.8, 50 and 80 percent, respectively. DO increased 42.8 percent and total
solids decreased 3 percent across the hydrasieve. This 3 percent consisted of straw
and other floating debris which would not be removed at the stabilization pond.
The effectiveness of the stabilization ponds was generally good. The BOD5 of
the final effluent was reduced 48.6 percent over that of the drainpipe which had drained
directly into the Sheyenne River during previous years.
I7a. Descriptors *cattle, *Hogs, *Sheep, *Animal Wastes, BOD, COD, Waste treatment,
Settling basin, Nitrates, Groundwater
I7b. identifiers *Stockyards, *Hydrasieve, Sheyenne River, Truck washrack, Feedlots,
Solids separation
/7c. COWRR Field & Group 05D, 05E, 05F
18. Availability
19.
(Report)
20. Security Class.
21. A'a,
------- |