jsiiir
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Animal Waste Runoff - A Major Water Quality Challenge
Anthony V. Resnik and
John M. Rademacher
Animal Wastes — A Major Pollution Problem
Richard R. Dague
Regulatory Aspects of Feedlot Waste Management
Melville W. Gray
Manager,lent of Animal Feedlot Wastes - Land Spreading as a Disposal Process
G. E. Smith
Design for Feedlot Waste Management "Using Feedlot Waste"
Lynn R. Shuyler
Design for Feedlot Waste Management - History and Characteristics
R. I. Lipper
Contribution of Fertilizers to Water Pollution
G. E. Smith
Cattle Feedlot Water Quality Hydrology
T. E. Norton and
R. W. Hansen
Major Problems of Water Pollution Created by Agricultural Practices
Walter F. Robohn
Agriculture as a Source of Water Pollution
Eugene T. Jensen
Effect of Agriculture on Water Quality
T. R. Smith
The Economics of Water Pollution Control for Cattle Feedlot Operations ...
T. R. Owens and
-------
ANIMAL WASTE RUNOFF - A MAJOR WATER QUALITY CHALLENGE
ANTHONY V. RESNIK
and
JOHN M. RADEMACHER**
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this paper is to discuss the causes and effects of animal waste
pollution on water quality. Present accomplishments relative to pollution
control by regulation are set forth.
The feeding of livestock in confinement has created a new major industry —
having become firmly established in the United States by the late 1y501s —
it continues to rapidly expand.
During the emergent stage, designers of cattle feedlots selected sites based
primarily on two criteria: drainage and accessibility. The lots were situated
on the nearest draw where the rains could scour the waste materials from the
lots into nearby gullies and streams. Since, traditionally, animal wastes
were considered as "natural" or "background" pollution, control measures
were not implemented. In the absence of positive control measures, pollution
of the surface waters resulted.
**Samtary Engineer and Director, respectively, Missouri Basin Region,
Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, U.S. Department of the Interior
-------
Page 2
Now it is known that animal wastes contaminate water supplies, destroy fish
and aquatic life in streams, and generally degrade water quality. More
important, it is also known that animal wastes are a controllable major
source of water pollution necessitating immediate attention.
However, there are still gaps in our knowledge concerning the most efficient,
effective and efficacious means of controlling pollution. This will require
that we delineate specific research needed relative to the expected trends
of the feedlot industry. Not only must this research answer the most pressing
present problems, but also must be simultaneously part of long range plans
for developing sufficient technology to control feedlot pollution 5, 10, — 25
years from now. For instance, the interregional adjustments (shifting of
location), size, density and other factors are of vital importance in planning
research activities. We must, as accurately as possible, project these
adjustments.
Prevention and control of animal waste pollution cannot wait while all the
data are collected and assembled. To wait for all the answers before taking
action would squander time —- time that we do not have. To wait may mean the
degradation of many waters beyond the point of recovery — with accompanying
1
health hazards of undefined proportions —. To quote Robert H. Finch ,
"echoing Aristole, that the ultimate end — is not knowledge, but action. To
be half right on time may be more important than to obtain the whole trutn too
-------
Page 3
Increased control is imperative now. To date, the kaleidoscope of alternatives
to animal waste pollution control have been honored more fully in principle
tnan in practice. Feedlot runoff pollution could be greatly reduced with a
minimum expenditure by utilizing known information. The majority of feedlot
operators have not used techniques which minimize the quantity and strength of
runoff waste. For instance, research has shown that feedlot runoff may be
2-3
reduced by adjusting stocking rates and utilizing optimum feedlot surfaces
What does the future portend? Is it possible that animal wastes and city
4
garbage disposal may both be operated on a public utility basis ? Furthermore,
is this the mechanism to bring together an entire animal production unit to
research methods for the utilization of these products?
A much broader view of waste management may be dictated by socio-economic
changes. While the return of the wastes to the land may not be competitive
with commercial fertilizers on an immediate crop production basis, it may be
highly profitable in terms of public welfare over both the short and long range
to use these wastes to reclaim marginal lands. We are losing approximately a
million acres of agricultural land each year as a result of urban growth,
highway construction, and other natural and man-made incursions into the
4
reserve of productive land . It is difficult to equate the true worth to
society for the reclamation of lands. Certainly it extends much beyond the
yearly crop production.
The residents of the arid and semi-arid regions realize the value of water.
Ground water in the semi-arid regions of the Southwest is being mined at an
-------
Page 4
declining as much as 20 feet per year. In many locations the quality of the
water deteriorates as the water table lowers. Much of the water now pumped
in Central Arizona does not meet minimum agricultural and public health
5
standards . Since the agricultural industry consumes the overwhelming portion
of the water used, it has the greatest stake in protecting and enhancing
water quantity and quality.
ANIMAL PRODUCTION
There are approximately 110 million cattle in the United States. Dairy cattle
outnumbered beef cattle in this country until 1942. Since that time the
upward trend in beef consumption, the downward trend in milk consumption per
capita, and the upward trend in milk yield per cow have combined to shift this
cattle population emphasis to almost four to one in favor of beef — in just
25 years!
Approximately one-half of the two billion tons of livestock wastes produced
annually in the USA comes from animals in confined feeding. The magnitude of
the problem caused by feedlot operations is reflected in the statistics for
8
feeder cattle. Data compiled by Loehr show the waste population equivalent
of feeder cattle is greater than the human population in each of the 10
Missouri River Basin States.
The Missouri Basin States of Iowa, Nebraska, Colorado, Kansas, Missouri,
North Dakota and South Dakota, feed approximately 50 percent of all slaughter
cattle. Iowa leads tre Nation in the number of cattle and calves on feed.
-------
Page 5
The majority of the cattle are in small farm feedlots and the average size
lot in Iowa feeds less than 70 animals. Only four percent are in feedlots
9
of more than 1,000 head .
Nebraska ranks second with approximately 35 percent of the fed cattle in
feedlots of more than 1,000 head. Third is California, with an average of
1,800 head per feedlot. There was an 87 percent increase in cattle marketings
in California between 1957 and 1963 with virtually all the growth occurring in
feedlots with 10,000 head or more capacity. Texas, Colorado and Kansas,
respectively, rank fourth, fifth and sixth.
The new glamour area for cattlemen is the Central and High Plains areas
including parts of Kansas, Nebraska, Colorado, and the panhandles of Oklahoma
and Texas. A recent survey (1968) conducted by the Southwest Public Service
Company of Amarillo, Texas, enumerates 274 large commercial feedlots in a
42 county area in Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and New Mexico. They have a total
one-time capacity of over 1 million head -- 300,000 more than the year before
10
and almost a half-million more than in 1966
The Texas High Plains has become the center of the rapidly expanding fed cattle
industry in Texas experiencing a remarkable 146 percent increase in cattle
inventories between 1965 and 1968. Fed cattle inventories for the State
increased 66 percent in the same three year period. The exceptional growth
of the fed cattle industry on the High Plains is attributed to an availability
of feed, adequate supplies of feeder cattle, an adequate transportation net-
work, rapid growth of irrigation wells, and a favorable climate. Livestock
-------
Page 6
11
summer nights are cool and humidity is low .
Surveys reported by Colorado, California and USDA during the early growth of
the commercial feedlot indicated that optimum feedlot capacity ranged between
10,000 and 20,000 head. Today 30,000 head capacities are routine with 40,000
70,000 head lots becoming more prominent in the panhandle area of Texas.
13
Thus, it becomes apparent that growth is still a part of this industry . It
has been estimated that by tne early 1970's, approximately 2,500 large
commercial feedlots in the United States will supply nearly 70 percent of all
10
the Nation's finished cattle .
There does not appear to be an optimum size feedlot. The continuous decline
in costs with increases in size seem to justify continued increases in the
size of tne lots. However, additional studies considering both internal and
12
external costs of operation are needed . Studies to date have largely
dealt with internal costs — tax benefits, buying advantages, and other
external factors have not been fully evaluated.
COMPOSITION AND QUANTITY OF RUNOFF
3
The runoff from cattle feedlots can be potent. Miner, et al_, reported COD
concentrations from 3,000 to 11,000 mg/1, ammonia nitrogen concentrations
ranged from 16 to 40 mg/1 and suspended solids ranged from 1,500 to 12,000 mg/1.
These data provide a basis for an example of the significant difference between
population equivalent (PE) values based on runoff and values based on manure
10-14
-------
Page 7
The oft cited PE values based on total animal production have little meaning
with regard to water pollution. What we are really concerned with is the
amount that enters ground and surface waters. If the objective is to quantify
the magnitude of the potential stream pollution, PE values should be based on
the strength and volume of wastes which can enter a stream by storm water
14 '
runoff rather than the total manure production. Dague cites calculations,
for a given set of conditions, which demonstrate the BOD actually contributed
to the stream is about five percent of the total BOD production of the animal.
Other investigators have, using developed models, made estimates of the total
annual pollution loads generated by runoff from feedlots. These investigators
also demonstrated the quantity and strength of the wastes which enter the
streams to be considerably less than that defecated by the animals. Let us
now attempt to place this problem into perspective.
Sixty six thousand feedlots, ranging in capacity up to 100,000 animals blanket
7 of the 10 Missouri Basin States. Animal wastes — from the more than
20 million cattle, 16 million swine and 7 million sheep defecate wastes
equivalent to 370 million people. Using the previously cited 5 percent
figure, then the magnitude of the stream pollution from animal wastes is
more than 18 million PE in the Missouri River Basin. The human population
of the Missouri Basin Region is 7.9 million. Thus, the calculated stream
pollution from animal wastes is more than twice the human population equivalent.
We must use caution in predicting and interpreting stream pollution from
feedlots. There are many variables which influence the effect of feedlot
-------
Page 8
of the region and the area and nature of the feedlot surface. Also, the
antecedent moisture condition of the accumulated waste and the rate at which
precipitation occurs are of primary importance in determining the quantity and
2 2-10
quality of runoff from a feedlot . It has been noted by various investigators
that the greatest pollutant concentrations are obtained during warm weather,
during periods of low rainfall intensity, and when the manure has dissolved by
water soaking.
During warm, dry weather, especially in the semi-arid regions, the most
noticeable change in the deposited manure is evaporation of moisture. The
wastes become ground and pulverized by the hooves of cattle. If the accumulated
waste on the feedlot floor becomes tightly compacted and dry, it provides a
relatively imperious barrier to the initial rain resulting in large quantities
of organic runoff. However, if the accumulated manure on the feedlot floor is
slightly damp when precipitation begins, it can readily absorb a large quantity
of rainfall at a rapid rate, resulting in lesser amounts of runoff during the
early stages of the precipitation.
The dry, high altitude of the Texas High Plains provides excellent drying
conditions for the huge quantities of feedlot wastes. During the summer months,
the moisture content of the finely pulverized dehydrated feces and urine solids
2
may go as low as 2 percent .
It must be remembered, however, that generalizations concerning feedlot runoff
are necessarily lacking in precision. For example, weather conditions alone
can be quite important. Data reported by Kansas State University indicated
-------
Page 9
a heavy rainstorm with lot surfaces wet when the rain began. Three inches of
precipitation fell during an eight hour period. Suspended solids were 26,850
mg/1 in samples taken 2-1/2 hours after the storm began and 4 hours later
10
were 45,200 mg/1
EFFECT OF ANIMAL HASTE POLLUTION ON WATER QUALITV
Since feedlots have generally been located without regard to the soil inventory
and topographic characteristics, surface runoff to streams with subsequent
damage from high BOD wastes is common. Infiltration of nitrates from manures
6-7
to well waters is well documented . Field disposal of large concentrations
of manures can lead to contamination of underground supplies.
Field investigations of fish kills and other water pollution episodes sub-
stantiate that the degradation of water quality due to animal wastes is indeed
a serious matter. The release or runoff of these wastes to surface streams
during periods of rainfall runoff produces "slug" loads of the polluting material
which can traverse the receiving stream for many miles, kill all desirable
aquatic life in its path, disrupt or prohibit the use of the affected stream
15
for water supply purposes, and generally create public alarm
The slug flow and resultant adverse effects of animal wastes can be felt
hundred of miles from their point of entry. Spring rains in Kansas in 1967
washed tons of cattle feedlot wastes into receiving streams resulting in fish
16
kills and ruining the water supply of downstream towns
The Missouri Water Pollution Board conducted dissolved oxygen analyses of the
Missouri River in June and July of 1967 during and after a fish kill in the
16
-------
Page 10
Kansas City, Missouri - The dissolved oxygen level
dropped to 1.5 mg/1 in the river water, and was less
than 4 mg/1 for 11 days, and did not reach 5 mg/1
for 19 days.
St. Joseph, Missouri - At times, the dissolved
oxygen level was virtually zero and was less than
4 mg/1 for 7 days, and did not reach 5 mg/1 for
15 days.
Jefferson City, Missouri - The dissolved oxygen
content dropped to 2.1 mg/1 and was less than
4 mg/1 for 7 days and remained less than 5 mg/1
for almost a month.
The flow in the Missouri River at all three stations ranged from approximately
80,000 to 260,000 cfs with an average of 180,000 cfs at Kansas City. Based on
the above flows and dissolved oxygen deficiencies, the oxygen demand was
equivalent to the waste BOD from 80 to 120 million people. Approximately
3 million population equivalent is the maximum that can be accounted for from
16
municipal and industrial sources . Animal wastes are one of the prime suspects
for the large unaccountable pollution load.
Surface water supplies in Kansas have been seriously disrupted by feedlot runoff
17
pollution. One such incident is described by an Official of the Kansas State
-------
Page 11
"In 1967 one small Kansas conmunity using surface
water as a supply source was forced for a period
of two weeks to treat water with the following
characteristics: ammonia content up to 20 mg/1;
BOD,, up to 75 mg/1; dissolved oxygen 0.0 mg/1;
total coliform count 4 million; fecal coliform
count 2 million, and total fecal streptococcus
count at 5 million per 100 m/1 sample. Additionally
the water was heavily loaded with pungent and
difficult-to-describe organic materials which
produced a finished water product highly offensive
to the senses of taste and smell. The city was
forced to use activated carbon and increase
cnlorination by a factor of 10 in order to not-too-
successful ly continue operation of the water
17
treatment plant ."
There is additional evidence that animal wastes are a major source of water
quality degradation. During the past year, an estimated 12 million fish were
killed by pollution in our waters. This terrible toll reflects only the
actual kills discovered and reported. Many more thousands of dead fish go
18
unnoticed or unreported each year . Thirty six fish kills in Kansas streams
were investigated by the Kansas State Department of Health and the Forestry,
Fish and Game Commission during 1967-1968. Twenty two of these were attributed
19
to runoff from commercial feedlots . Spring rains in Kansas in 1967 washed
-------
Page 12
500,000 fish. This is not to say that fish kills are unique to Kansas, but
rather suggests a greater awareness by Kansas officials of the pollution caused
8
by animal wastes .
Another example -- recently, in Kansas, a large dairy herd was decimated after
drinking from a well polluted by the runoff from beef cattle waste. This
dramatically illustrates the serious contamination that can be caused by
8
uncontrolled animal wastes .
Animal waste pollution is not restricted to the Midwest; it is a national problem.
20
In early 1966, the Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin reported :
"Every time it rains ... enormous amounts of animal
wastes are washed from farmyards into the river,
rendering it unsafe for swimming .. although only a
quarter-of-,a-minion people live in the river basin
above Great Falls, it has been estimated that the
number of farmyard animals — cows, sheep, pigs,
chickens, turkeys -- is the equivalent of a human
population of 3.5 million. While most of the human
population is served by some sort of sewage
treatment plant, there is no comparable treatment
for the animal wastes."
Still another affected area is in the great Southwest. For example, the
residents of Mil ford, Texas, have brought numerous damage suits involving
21
pollution against a large feedlot located a mile from the community . The
-------
Page 13
and High Plains areas has resulted in the concurrent development of a major
water pollution problem.
Numbers of cattle on feed and feedlots with a capacity of 1,000 head or more
2
increased five-fold within the Southern Plains since the mid 19501s . The
problem starts with the cumulative build-up of large quantities of organic
waste on cattle feedlots subjected to sporadic and intense rainfall.
Evaportation rates are high in summer and the limited rainfall (15-20 inches
annually) comes in sporadic bursts over short time periods and unless
controlled, this runoff will enter the water courses.
One of the most pressing needs in water pollution control is to slow the
eutrophication of lakes (aging process) which is accelerated by overenrichment
due to agricultural, industrial and municipal wastes. Lake Erie is the most
dramatic -- and potentially tragic -- example of oxygen depletion in the
water caused by nuisance aquatic plants filling the lake. Many other lakes --
large and small -- are in the same desperate condition but have not achieved
the national recognition afforded Lake Erie.
Although other nutr-ent sources such as municipal sewage and industrial
discharges are big contributors to eutrophication, the vast amount of manure
being produced in this country is one of the major causes of the killing of a
22
lake or river by accelerated eutrophication . Nitrates and phosphates
cause eutrohpication, and manure contains both of these plant nutrients.
-------
Page 14
enter the waterways.
In Minnesota, attention to :he problem of eutrophication was brought forth by
the study on the Big Stone Lake where preliminary investigations indicate a
large amount of the nutrients entering the lake is from cattle feedlots. The
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency stated "there are places in the country
where three or four times as much raw sewage enters our streams from animals as
23
from human beings "
Studies on Lake Mendota near Madison, Wisconsin, points the accusing finger at
manure carried by spring runoff into the lake as the source of unwanted nutrient
enrichment and growth of water plants. Limnologists see eutrohpication taking
24
place in other beautiful lakes in Minnesota and other states .
EFFECT OF ANIMAL WASTES ON GROUND WATER
In a statewide survey the University of Missouri analyzed more than 6,000 water
samples in Missouri. Forty two percent of the water samples contained more
25
than 5 parts per million as nitrogen nitrate . In come counties in Northwest
Missouri, over 50 percent of the wells sampled contained sufficient nitrogen
to be of concern in livestock production. Data obtained indicated animal
manure to be one of the major sources of nitrate in water supplies. There was
a definite statistical relationship between livestock numbers and shallow
wells containing nitrate.
Agriculture's effect on nitrate pollution of ground water was also investigated
in the South Platte River Valley of Colorado. Most of the 621,000 cattle in
-------
Page 15
showed that nitrate under feedlots is moving through the soil and into the
ground water supply. Since the feedlots are usually located near the
homestead, they may have a pronounced effect on the water quality from
domestic wells. The findings that water under feedlots frequently contained
ammonium and organic carbon cause further concern about the effect of feedlots
26
on underground water supplies .
ACCOMPLISHMENTS: KEYS TO THE PROBLEM
The culmination of comprehensive Federal water pollution control legislation
came with the enactment of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, Public
Law 660, in 1956. This law is the basis for the Federal role and responsibility
in water pollution control and prevention and stresses the recognition of the
State responsibility in water pollution control. The amendments represented by
the Water Quality Act of 1965 and the Clean Water Restoration Act of 1966 were
extensive and far reaching.
The official state enforcement agencies are assuming their responsibility in
animal waste control. For example, eight of the 10 Missouri River Basin States
have enacted or are now in the process of enacting, feedlot regulations.
Regulations are, in effect, the blueprints for the animal waste control program.
They act as a guide to planning, construction and enforcement. Regulations
are needed to ensure the feedlot operator that the measures he is taking will
guarantee a reasonable tenure of operation. It is necessary that the operator
know the controls being installed are adequate, and secondly, that frequent
changes will not be sought by the official agency. Uniformity which con-
-------
Page 16
requirements may constitute an economic barrier and are especially confusing
to operators conducting business in two or more states.
Tne existing legislation pertaining to feedlot pollution control should be
thoroughly evaluated. Many of the basic concepts contained in the regulations
are sound. However, more attention should be directed to management practices
which would prevent the wastes from entering surface or ground waters.
For instance, the percent removal concept of municipal sewage treatment is not
applicable to the control of feedlot pollution. Cattle feedlot runoff is a
hignly concentrated organic waste. The strength may equal that of normal
domestic sewage or may be 10, 100, 1,000 or more times greater. Feedlot runoff
may still contain, after treatment, as high pollutional parameters as domestic
sewage, before treatment, if percent removal is the only criterion used for
treatment. Therefore, a "residual" concept of waste treatment is proposed.
That is, acceptable treatment is that which reduces the pollution to a
prescribed level or residual which would assure adequate treatment.
Our laws must give due consideration to the location of feedlots. Feedlots
nave generally been located without regard to the soil inventory and associated
topographical characteristics. It may be not only desirable, but also necessary,
to employ zoning regulations to prevent not only the encroachment of the animal
population into urban areas, but also prevent the encroachment of the human
population into the feedlot areas. Hawaii and California have shown the way
with the passage of land conservation acts. Basically, their legislation
prevents encroachment of urban development into agricultural areas and also
-------
Page 17
Regulations should also provide for a continuing, comprehensive animal
inventory, state by state, drainage bain by drainage basin, which would provide
definitive data on the character and composition of agricultural effluents,
points of discharge and other pertinent information. Just as we census the
human population, we must also keep up to date inventories of animal populations.
Leadership in animal waste control is not limited to the official agencies.
Research has been underway in the state agricultural experiment stations
regarding the characterization, handling, and utilization of animal manures
since the turn of the centruy. The U. S. Department of Agriculture and many
other Federal and State agencies are conducting studies related to agricultural
pollution.
CONCLUSION
An enlightened public has shown in all fields of environmental protection,
including water pollution control, that it is willing to pay, in dollars, the
added costs of maintaining a high quality environment, rather than risk its
own destruction. Enlightened leadership will continue to create its own
consensus. The program before you today is a step toward progressive
leadership.
SUMMARY
This paper has presented an overview of the causes and effects of animal waste
pollution on water quality. The extent of the problem as well as the effects
on surface and ground waters are illustrated with research data. The present
status of legislation in regulatory control of pollution is discussed. Measures
-------
REFERENCES
1. Finch, R. H., "Finch is Energizer in the Administration."
The Kansas City Times, (May 29, 1969).
2. Grub, W.; Albin, R. C.; Wells, D. M.; and Wheaton, R. J.,
"Engineering Analyses of Cattle Feedlots to Reduce Water
Pollution." Presented at the 1968 Winter Meeting American
Society of Agricultural Engineers, Chicago, Illinois,
(Dec. 1968).
3. Miner, J. R.; Lipper, R. I.; Fina, L. R.; and Funk, J. W.,
"Cattle Feedlot Runoff — Its Nature and Variation."
JWPCF, 38, 1582-1591, (1966).
4. Gilbertson, W. E., "Animal Wastes : Disposal or Management."
Presented at the National Symposium on Animal Waste
Management, East Lansing, Michigan, (May, 1966).
5. National Academy of Sciences, "Water and Choice in the
Colorado Basin." A Report by the Committee on Water of
the National Research Council Publication 1689,
National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D. C., (1968).
6. Smith, G. E., "Nitrate Problems in Water as Related to Soils,
Plants, and Water." Water Forum, Special Rpt. No. 55,
University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri, 42-52, (1965).
7. Stewart, B. A., et al, "Distribution of Nitrates and Other
Water Pollutants Under Fields and Corrals in the Middle
South Platte Valley of Colorado." USDA - ARS Pub. 41-134,
Beltsville, Maryland, (1967).
8. Loehr, R. G., "An Overview—Wastes from Confined Animal
Production Facilities—The Problem and Pollution Potential."
Presented at the Conference on Animal Feedlot Management,
University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri, (Nov. 6, 1968).
9. U. S. Department of Agriculture, "Agriculture Statistics—1967."
U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C.
10. Lipper, R. I., "Design for Feedlot Waste Management." Presented
at the Continuing Education Seminar, Topeka, Kansas,
-------
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Owens, T. R., and Griffin, W. L., "Economics of Water Pollution
Control for Cattle Feedlot Operations." Special Rpt. No. 9,
International Center for Arid and Semi-Arid Land Studies,
Texas Technological College, Lubbock, Texas, (Sept. 1968).
Williams, W. F., Texas Technological College, Lubbock, Texas,
Informal Communication, (May 1969).
Schake, L. M., Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas,
Written Communication to FWPCA, (May 20, 1969).
Dague, R. R., "Discussion." Cattle Wastes - Pollution and
Potential Treatment by Loehr, R. C., and Agnew, R. W.,
Sanitary Engineering Division, Proc. Paper 5379.
Mayes, J. L., "The Kansas Animal Waste Control Program."
Presented at the Animal Waste Management Conference,
Kansas City, Missouri, (Feb. 20, 1969).
Lightfoot, E., "Waste Utilization and Conservation." Presented
at Joint Seminar between University of Missouri and Missouri
Pollution Board, Columbia, Missouri, (April 9, 1968).
Gray, M. W., "Regulatory Aspects of Feedlot Waste Management."
Presented at the Continuing Education Seminar, Topeka, Kansas,
(Jan. 23, 1969).
Moore, J. G., Jr., Remarks before the Western Regional Conference
of Trout Unlimited, Denver, Colorado, (Sept. 27, 1968).
State of Kansas, "Plan of Implementation for Water Quality
control and Pollution Abatement." (June 1967).
Fry, K., "Land Runoff—A Factor in Potomac Basin Pollution, 1966."
Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin,
Washington, D. C.
U. S. Department of Agriculture, "Wastes in Relation to
Agriculture and Forestry." U. S. Government Printing Office,
Washington, D. C., (March 1968).
Smith, G. E., "Pollution Problems—How Much is Agriculture to
Blame?" Agricultural Nitrogen News, (March-April 1968).
Badalich, J. P., "Current and Proposed Regulations." Presented
at the Symposium on the Disposal of Animal Waste in
-------
24. Corey, R. B., et al, "Excessive Water Fertilization." Rpt. to
the Water Sub-Committee, Natural Resources Committee of
State Agencies, State of Wisconsin, Madison, (Jan. 31, 1967).
25. Keller, W. D., and Smith, G. E., "Ground Water Contamination by
Dissolved Nitrate." Presented at the 164th Meeting of the
Geological Society of America.
26. U. S. Department of Agriculture, "Distribution of Nitrates and
Other Water Pollutants Under Fields and Corrals in the
-------
ANIMAL WASTES -- A MAJOR POLLUTION PROBLEM
* By Richard R. Dague
In the past, wastes from humans and industries have been considered
the major sources of water pollution. With increases in population, the
migration of people from rural to urban areas, and increasing industrial
development, these waste sources have become even more significant.
Along with population growth and the shift from an essentially rural to an
essentially urban society has come increasing demand for food and fiber.
This demand has been satisfied by decreasing numbers of farm operators
on fewer farms. This has led to the concentration of greater numbers of
livestock on fewer farms. In recent years, it has been recognized that
the concentration of large numbers of livestock in small areas for feeding
represents a significant source of water pollution.
WATER POLLUTION POTENTIAL
The population equivalent (PE) of livestock on Iowa farms, based on the
biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) of the animal wastes, is near 100 million.
Iowa is the leading state in the U.S. in the production of swine and beef cattle
and is among the leaders in the production of other meat animals. In 1966,
Iowa farmers produced 24 per cent of the swine, 17 per cent of the beef cattle,
7 per cent of the turkeys, and 5 per cent of the sheep and lambs produced in
the U.S.* The number of beef cattle marketed from Iowa feedlots each year
is impressive. In 1967, this number was 4, 057# 000 compared to 3, 066, 000
from Nebraska, 2, 049i 000 from California, 1, 654, 000 from Texas and
2
1, 321, 000 from Kansas . In Iowa the PE of the waste from beef cattle alone
approaches 40, 000, 000, on a BOD basis.
-------
2
The human population of Iowa is 2.8 million. This number seems minute
when compared with the PE values of farm animal wastes. One might ask:
Why worry about water pollution from human sources ? It can be concluded
that animal wastes do represent a significant problem in Iowa. But it does
not follow that wastes from human sources can be ignored. First, the magni-
tude of the actual water pollution which can arise from farm animals is not as
great as the PE numbers indicate. Animal wastes are different than human
wastes, both in composition and the manner in which the wastes are commonly
released into the environment.
Human wastes released to sewers are delivered to the treatment plant on
a nearly continuous basis. In comparison, the transport of wastes from an
animal feedlot to surface waters is intermittent. Wastes are transported from
the lot only when rainfall and runoff occurs. Thus, of the total waste defecated
by an animal on a feedlot a portion may be transported to surface waters in run-
off. The remaining portion of the waste will remain on the feedlot surface as a
manure accumulation. The volume, strength and rate of delivery of feedlot
runoff to streams is a function of the topographic, meteorlogic, ar.d hydraulic
characteristics in the feedlot area. Factors such as the antecedent moisture
conditions, temperature, nature of the lot surface, and animal density on the
3
lot also affect the volume and characteristics of feedlot runoff .
The intermittent nature of the delivery of feedlot wastes to streains has
both advantages and disadvantages. The advantage is the fact that all of the
animal waste does not reach the stream. A large part of the waste accumulates
on the feedlot surface and must be disposed of in the semi-solid form. The dis-
advantage is the fact that when rainfall and runoff occurs, wastes are washed to
the stream on a slug basis. This tends to shock load the receiving stream, the
extent of the shock depending on the strength and volume of the runoff and the
nature of the receiving stream.
It is farm animals on open feedlots which are of major concern with regard
to water pollution potential in Iowa. However, the feeding of animals in covered
-------
3
in the open, is limited at this time.
ANIMAL WASTE CHARACTERISTICS
The characteristics and quantities of the wastes released from animals
varies considerably between different types of animals. This has resulted
in considerable differences in numerical values for waste characteristics
given in published reports. Several workers have presented data on animal
4 5
waste characteristics ' . Typical guide values are presented in Tables 1,
2 and 3 for cattle and swine, the two animals of principal concern in Iowa.
The data in Table 3 indicates that the organic material from bovine
animals is much less subject to biological decomposition than human wastes.
Typical domestic wastewater has a 5-day BOD to COD (chemical oxygen
demand) ratio of about 0.5. Swine wastes are also less biodegradable than
human wastes. From the data in Table 1, the BOD to COD ratio for swine
is 0.27. In general, all animal wastes tend to exhibit the characteristic of
being less biodegradable than a comparable quantity of organic material from
humans. This is significant when considering biological processes as methods
for treating animal wastes.
The data in Tables 1 and 2 indicate the potential pollution of the environment
that might result from swine and cattle. However, the quantity of stream pol-
lution from the wastes released from farm animals depends on occurrences
after defecation of the wastes by animals. In many cases, farm animal wastes
are deposited on feedlot surfaces. In order to cause water pollution, these
wastes must be transported to the water.
ANIMAL WASTE REGULATIONS
Several slates are establishing regulations for the control of animal wastes.
Kansas was the first to regulate agricultural wastes. Iowa and Nebraska are in
the process of establishing regulations, primarily for the control of wastes from
-------
4
Table 1.
Characteristics of Swine and Cattle Wastes.
[From Taiganides and Hazen^]
Item
Units
Swine
(100 lbs. )
Cattle
(1000 lb. )
Wet Manure
lb. /day
7.0
64. 0
Total Solids
% Wet Basis
16.0
16. 0
Volatile Solids
% Dry Basis
85.0
80. 0
Nitrogen
% Dry Basis
4.5
3.7
Phosphorus (P O )
c 0
Potassium
BOD
COD
% Dry Basis
% Dry Basis
—^lb. /day/100 lb.
—Ab. /day/100 lb.
2.7
4. 3
0. 34
1.25
1.1
3. 0
0.13
1. 05
Values are per 100 lb. live weight.
Table 2. Quantities of Major Fertilizing Elements from
Swine and Cattle Wastes.
[From Taiganides and Hazen^]
Item
Swine
lb. /day
lb. /yr.
Cattle
lb. /day
lb. /yr.
Nitrogen (N)
0.50
185
0. 38
138
Phosphorus (P_0 )
Z 5
0. 26
110
0.11
41
Potassium
0.48
172
0. 31
112
-------
5
Table 3. Ratio of BOD to COD.
[From Witzel, etal."*]
Animal
BOD/COD
Dairy Bull
Dairy Cow
Beef Steer
0. 18
0.23
0. 31
The Kansas regulations became effective on March 1, 1967. These
regulations require an operator of any feedlot containing 300 or more cat-
tle, 100 or more swine, or 500 or more sheep to obtain a water pollution
control permit from the State Department of Health. The regulations estab-
lish minimum waste control facilities required to obtain a permit. As a
minimum, cattle feedlots must be provided with a retention pond capable of
containing three inches of surface runoff from the feedlot area, Similar
criteria apply to sheep feedlots. For swine, waste retention lagoons must
be capable of retaining all animal excreta, litter, feed losses, wash waters
and, in addition, be capable of retaining three inches of rainfall runoff from
all contributing drainage areas. The regulations permit the use of other
control systems if it is judged that effective results can be obtained by the
alternate procedure. In addition, the rules permit the Health Department
to waive the regulations for any feedlot operation which, due to location,
topography, or other reasons, does not constitute a water pollution problem.
From the standpoint of operation, the Kansas regulations permit the controlled
release of liquid from retention ponds to streams in some areas. Waste solids
must be spread on land surfaces and mixed with the soil in a manner which will
prevent runoff of wastes.
In Iowa, regulations to control wastes from cattle feeding operations are
-------
6
Pollution Control Commission has held public hearings at four locations in
Iowa. The hearings were for the purpose of explaining and receiving public
comment on tentative regulations and design standards proposed by the Com-
mission. The regulations proposed require cattle feedlot operators to con-
form to certain standards governing the management of wastes. Since the
regulations have not been completed, it is not possible to summarize the
requirements for obtaining a permit.
In Nebraska, regulations to control cattle feedlot wastes are being pre-
pared by the Water Pollution Control Council. At this time, the voluntary
registration of feedlots is being used as a preliminary step in the development
of regulations.
FUNDAMENTALS OF CONTROL
In Iowa, and other midwestern agricultural states, the major source of
water pollution from livestock is open feedlots. Of principal concern are
feedlots for swine, cattle, and sheep. In Iowa, potential pollution from other
animal sources, such as'poultry, are small in comparison. For these rea-
sons, the discussion of control fundamentals will be limited to open feedlots.
Feedlot wastes arise from a single source, the animal, but two wastes
with vastly different characteristics result. One is the manure accumulating
on the lot. The other is the runoff from the lot. The fresh wastes defecated
by swine and cattle contain a moisture content of about 84 per cent (Table 1).
However, after a period of accumulating and drying on the feedlot surface
the wastes may have a moisture content of 40 to 50 per cent or less^. The
runoff from feedlots is a liquid. The quantity and strength of the runoff por-
tion of the wastes depends on several factors. Among these factors are the
climate of the region and the area and nature of the feedlot surface. The con-
-------
7
delivery of the waste is extremely variable, even for a specific feedlot site.
Delivery of the waste to a stream or treatment facility is intermittent occur-
ring only as the result of runoff-producing stroms. Therefore, the hydrology
of the area, including rainfall, runoff, and stream flow, is a major factor to
be considered when selecting waste management techniques. The actual vol-
ume and rate of runoff is a function of the rate of rainfall, the area of the
feedlot, and the infiltration capacity of the feedlot surface. In working with
experimental cattle feedlots at Kansas State University, Miner et al. found
that the infiltration capacity of an unsurfaced feedlot surface was very small,
after an initial period of rainfall sufficient to satisfy antecedent moisture
. 3
defecits. Although data from other feedlots is lacking, one might expect
runoff coefficients for feedlots to be high as a result of compaction of the
feedlot surface by the animals.
From the standpoint of feedlot runoff, the animal stocking rate is an
important factor. Animal densities in cattle feedlots are generally in the
range of 100 to 200 head per acre. Thus, for two cattle feeders each with
1, 000 head of cattle but one providing one acre per 100 head and the other
providing one acre per 200 head, the volume of liquid waste from the former
feedlot would be about twice as great as from the latter, all other variables
being equal. This results from the fact that the area of the first feedlot
would be twice the area of the second.
Disposal of feedlot manure accumulations is a major problem, partic-
ularly for a large cattle feedlot. The dry weight of the total solids defecated
each day from a 1, 000 lb. beef animal is about 10 lb. (Table 1). For a feed-
lot containing 1, 000 head of cattle, daily solids production would be 10, 000
lb. with about 8, 000 lb. being volatile solids. The nitrogen content of the
waste solids is about four per cent (Table 2). Thus, daily nitrogen produc-
tion would be about 400 lb. Phosphorus production would be about 100 lb.,
as (Table 2). The problem is to merge this quantity of wastes into
the environment without creating undesirable conditions -- and at a tolerable
-------
8
There are few feasible alternatives available for the disposal of feedlot
manure wastes. The biological treatment of solids from cattle feedlots has
6
been proposed . However, even with a completely mixed anaerobic system
operating at a temperature of 35°C, the reduction in total solids will amount
6
to only about 50 per cent . For 1, 000 head of cattle, about 5, 000 lb./day
(dry weight) of solids would remain fo.* ultimate disposal. Another signifi-
cant factor is the moisture content of the manure. Fresh manure defecated
from cattle has a moisture content of about 84 per cent but with proper tim-
ing of feedlot cleaning operations, the manure accumulations may have a
moisture content as low as 40 to 50 per cent. This means a weight reduction
of nearly 50 per cent by taking advantage of natural drying. In comparison to
the use of an anaerobic lagoon to achieve a reduction in solids, the direct dis-
posal of feedlot manure accumulations to the land appears best.
The disposal of feedlot manure to the land is not without problems.
Ideally, it would seem best to utilize the manure on crop lands to obtain the
benefit of the fertilizer elements in the waste. However, the recovery of
nutrients by growing crops requires large areas of land. For example, 1,000
head of cattle will defecate about 80, 000 lb. of nitrogen (as N) in a 200-day
feeding period. Even with a nitrogen application of ZOO lb/acre on crop land,
an area of 400 acres would be required. This calculation assumes that all
nitrogen defecated by the beef animal is recovered and is available as a crop
nutrient. Neither of these assumptions is entirely correct. Some nitrogen
will be lost from the feedlot manure accumulation as a result of runoff. Some
loss of ammonia to the atmosphere will occur, but this loss should be small
at the pH of 7 to 8 common in feedlot manure accumulations. However, even
if allowances are made for possible losses of nitrogen in runoff and to the
atmosphere, it can be seen that a large area of land would be required for
the disposal of manure from 1, 000 cattle, if the aim is the recovery of nitro-
gen in crops. A complicating factor in efforts to apply manure to crop land
-------
9
tinuous production of manure by the animals. If manure is to be applied to
crop landi stockpiling of the manure during periods of the year when land
is not available, due to standing crops or other reasons, will be required.
Another alternative for the disposal of feedlot manure is application
to the land for the sole purpose of manure disposal, without regard to
nutrient recovery. In this case, the manure may be applied heavily to the
land. The danger in this practice is the potential pollution of ground and
surface waters resulting from the heavy concentration of organic matter
and fertilizer elements in a small area. When this practice is adopted,
the area for manure disposal must be selected carefully. The practices
employed in site selection and subsequent management are not unlike those
applied to sanitary land fills used for municipal refuse disposal. However,
the potential for environmental pollution resulting from cattle manure is
even greater than from municipal refuse. This is particularly true with
respect to pollution of ground waters with soluble forms of nitrogen. This
problem can be minimized by proper site selection followed by proper oper-
ation. An ideal site would be one where surface runoff from surrounding
areas does not flow across the disposal area; where underlying soils are
tight, to minimize the percolation of water through the deposited manure and
into the ground water; where pollution of deep aquifers is impossible, due to
an aquiclude, and where the possible loss of some nitrogen to a shallow aquifer
will be of small consequence; where the area is relatively isolated from human
habitation, to reduce potential esthetic problems; and where sufficient soil is
available for use as a cover material for the deposited manure. The consider-
ations in the previous list are presented as goals and not as requirements that
must be met in every case. As with all industrial wastes, each feedlot manure
disposal problem must be analyzed separately and a method of disposal selected
on the basis of considerations of public health, esthetics, and economics.
Management of the liquid portion of the wastes from feedlots, the surface
runoff, poses a problem quite different from the disposal of the solid portion
-------
10
sarfece runoff. Therefore, the quantity of waste from this source is tied to
the hydrology of the area. As with other industrial wastes, the first con-
sideration should be reduction of waste releases at their source. For 1, 000
head of cattle, a feedlot area of from 5 to 10 acres is likely. For purposes
of discussion, an annual precipitation of 36 inches might be assumed for
Iowa. Assuming a minimal loss as a result of evaporation and infiltration,
a runoff totaling 24 inches could result. For these assumptions, the annual
waste volume for the 5 and 10 acre feedlots, both containing 1, 000 head of
cattle, would be 10 and 20 acre-feet, respectively. From the standpoint of
potential stream pollution from runoff, it is important that animal densities
on feedlots be as high as feasible. A higher animal density results in a more
rapid manure accumulation on the lot, per unit of area, but this does not re-
sult in a proportionate increase in the strength of the runoff. Starting with a
clean feedlot surface, Miner et al. found that the strength of runoff from feed-
lots having a cattle density of 200/acre reached a maximum after about two
3 .
weeks of manure accumulation on. the lot . This indicates that ~ increasing
animal densities on the feedlot is an effective method for reducing
the volume of liquid waste arising from a given number of cattle. Obviously,
there is a practical limit to the amount the animals can be concentrated on the
feedlot without impairing the welfare of the animals. Information on these
density limits must be obtained from workers in animal husbandry and related
areas.
A number of other factors affect the nature of feedlot runoff. Miner et_
al. found that the quantity and strength of runoff from experimental cattle
feedlots was a function of temperature, rainfall rate, and the moisture content
3
of the manure accumulated on the lot . There is little that can be done to
control these variables. However, these workers also found that the nature of
the feedlot surface had a significant effect on the pollutional strength of the
runoff. Runoff from a concrete-surfaced lot was more heavily polluted than
3
runoff from a nonsurfaced lot, all other conditions being the same . Based on
suspended solids, losses from a concrete-purfaced lot ranged from 1, 100 mg/l
-------
11
li 100 to 7, 000 mg/l. In addition, the suspended solids from the concrete lot
3
were 75 per cent volatile compared to 39 per cent for the dirt lot . There-
fore, from the standpoint of stream pollution, nonsurfaced feedlots are pref-
erable.
Another factor to be considered in controlling feedlot runoff is the topo-
graphy of the area. Runoff from areas outside the feedlot should not be allowed
to flow into the feedlot. Also, feedlot slopes should not be excessively steep.
Steep slopes favor the scour of manure from the feedlot surface. The require-
ment of flat slopes, to minimize the transport of solids from the feedlot, is at
odds with the cattle feeders desire for a well-drained area. The goal should
be a feedlot surface as flat as possible, but not so flat as to create problems
with ponded water.
Once everything possible has been done to minimize the quantity and
strength of the runoff waste, as suggested above, the next step is the man-
agement of the liquid waste which remains. There are four basic procedures
that might be followed. These are: 1) uncontrolled release of the runoff to a
stream, 2) controlled release to a stream following a period of retention in a
pond, 3) release to the land after a period of retention in a pond, and 4} bio-
logical treatment followed by release to the land or to the stream. The actual
method employed for a given feedlot should be selected on the basis of the
degree of treatment required for the receiving waters. However, a few gen-
eral guidelines can be presented.
Uncontrolled release of the feedlot runoff to the stream is not always the?
least desirable alternative. Runoff from feedlots occurs during periods of
rainfall. Likewise, runoff from adjacent areas occurs during rainfall. The
amount of dilution of the feedlot runoff which can occur during a runoff-
producing storm depends on the relationship between stream flow and flow from
the feedlot. For example, the five-acre feedlot, previously used as an example,
would require a runoff of equal depth from an area of 500 acres to accomplish
dilution of the feedlot runoff by a factor of 100. Miner et al. found BOD ranges
3
-------
12
Assuming the highest value for discussion purposes, a dilution factor of 100
would reduce the concentration of BOD to 10 mg/l. Dilution factors will often
be much higher than 100, further reducing the effects of feedlot runoff on re-
ceiving streams. The decision regarding the use of some form of feedlot
runoff control or treatment facility should be made only after it is shown that
uncontrolled release of the runoff will impair the water quality for some legit-
imate downstream water use.
The use of a runoff-retention pond, followed by controlled release to the
stream, is another possible control procedure. The collection of feedlot run-
off in a retention pond will result in a reduction in the suspended solids and
BOD of the runoff as a result of plain settling. The writer observed COD
reductions ranging from 25 to 40 per cent as a result of solids removal from
cattle feedlot runoff by plain settling for time periods ranging from 2 to 24
hours. Plain settling can result in a significant decrease in the strength of
cattle feedlot runoff. However, the solids removed by plain settling must be
disposed of in some way. The fixed fraction of these solids may be quite
high, perhaps 60 per cent. Therefore, the benefit in solids reduction which
may be accomplished by anaerobic digestion of the solids is low. Even with
a 50 per cent reduction in volatile solids, 80 per cent of the original total
solids would remain for ultimate disposal. Therefore, a significant reduc-
tion in solids as a result of biological activity in retention ponds should not
be expected. The solids collected from feedlot runoff should be disposed of
along with the feedlot manure accumulations.
A danger in the use of retention ponds for the collection of feedlot runoff
is the rapid filling of the pond with solids. In Kansas, some ponds designed
to hold three inches of runoff became full of solids within three years after
construction. A pond full of manure solids is more costly to clean than the
original cost of pond excavation. It is essential that the retention ponds be
protected from filling with solids or be shaped so that they can be easily
-------
13
long, flat-sloped ditches to transport tie runoff to retention ponds. These
ditches are effective in allowing solids to settle prior to discharge of the
runoff into the retention ponds. The accumulated solids are then cleaned
from the outlet ditches at intervals.
^fter settleable solids are removed from feedlot runoff, the problem
of disposal of the liquid remains. One alternative is the controlled release
of the liquid waste to the stream. A second possibility is spreading the liquid
on land. A third choice is the further stabilization of the waste by biological
treatment followed by release of the effluent to the stream.
The simplest method for disposing of the pre-settled liquid runoff is
controlled release to the stream. In many cases, this practice will provide
the necessary degree of waste control. Plain settling will prevent the release
of large quantities of settleable solids to the stream. The gradual release of
the liquid will prevent shock loading of the stream. Thus, this relatively
simple runoff control practice can accomplish a great deal in preventing
stream pollution.
The discharge of accumulated feedlot runoff to the land is a possible method
for disposal of pre-settled feedlot runoff. However, unless a large retention
pond is used to collect runoff, the method may not be a significant improvement
over controlled release to the stream. A pond having a volume equal to two
inches of feedlot runoff has been suggested for application to Iowa feedlots. With
a storage volume of only two inches, it is certain that direct releases to the
stream will occur frequently during periods of short rainfall recurrence interval.
These periods tend to occur during the spring when the land areas which are to
receive the feedlot runoff are likely to be wet and in the worst condition to re-
ceive further liquid. In selecting a volume for a retention pond to act as a buf-
fer between feedlot runoff and subsequent waste releases to land, careful con-
sideration must be given to hydrologic factors, including rainfall intensities,
durations, and recurrence intervals. Once this is done it will be possible to
-------
14
any given critical period.
Another alternative for possible application to the management of the
liquid portion bf feedlot runoff is biological treatment. One author has
proposed a biological treatment system involving an anaerobic lagoon,
aerated lagoon, and an oxidation pond in series^*. Ponds can be operated
in a manner to equalize surge flows which occur during runoff. A high
degree of waste stabilization is possible. The problem with this technique
is the large amount of land required and costs, both first costs and opera-
tional costs. Although biological treatment will accomplish the stabiliza-
tion of pre-settled feedlot runoff, it appears best to avoid this method if
possible.
TREND IN FEEDLOT OPERATIONS
The trend to meat consumption in the U.S. is upward. The consumption
of beef has increased at a rate of 3.6 lb. per person per year for the last
seven years^. Based on 1964, when the per capita annual consumption of
beef was 100 lb. per year, the rate of increase has been over three per cent
per year. Although increases in consumption of other meats, such as pork
and mutton, have been moderate compared to beef, the overall trend in meat
comsumption in the U.S. is upward.
Increased demand for meat has resulted in increased production. Also,
the larger quantity of meat is being produced by decreasing numbers of farm-
ers. Thus, feeding operations are getting fewer in number and larger in
individual size. This trend increases the potential for environmental pollu-
tion. In the future, feeding facilities must be designed and operated not only
-------
Regulatory Aspects of Feedlot Waste Management
by
Melville W. Gray, P. E.
Traditionally, animal wastes have been considered a part of the general agri-
cultural community, and little or nothing has been done to control the&c wastes
from the standpoint of water pollution. Considerable effort has been expended
over the past years in the control of silt through the general principles of con-
servation; however, it has not been until recent years that silt and animal
wastes in general were considered as specific water pollutants.
The* Department of Health first became concerned with'feedlot operations in
about 1956. The concern was brought about by people living in the immediate
area of feedlots who complained of nuisances due to odor and fly production.
Departmental concern was shifted to water quality control in 1959, when fish
kills began occurring downstream from the very few feedlots existing in the
state at thai time. Interest in the animal feedlot industry by the department of
health resulted in the conclusion that feedlots could become a significant water
pollution problem with continued growth, so that detailed investigations of pollu -
tion characteristics and growth patterns were undertaken in conjunction with
research investigations at Kansas State University and the University of Kan.'ap.
While at the present time major emphasis for control of animal wastes from the
water quality standpoint is directed toward the commercial cattle feedlot, it
should be understood that with increased population, industrialization, and an
expanding economy in general, these factors contribute to the overall problem
^Assistant Directpr, Environmental Health Services, Kansas State Department
-------
created by increased numbers of livestock in the state. As an example, during
the period from 1940 to 1968, the total number of cattle in Kansas grew from
2. 75 million to approximately 6 million head. In 1956 there were only 30, 000
head of cattle in commercial feedlots, whereas on 1 October 1968 there were
in excess of 400, 000 head of cattle in commercial feedlots. A commercial
feedlot is defined as having 1, 000 or more head of cattle. Each of the 6 million
head of cattle in the state contributes to the degradation of our environment.
Due to the large concentration in tern.s of numbers of cattle in commercial
feedlots, there is a significant point source pollution potential which has the
capability of upsetting the balance of our environment and must be controlled.
Environmental Significance of Feedlots Wastes
Animal wastes in general and feedlot wastes in particular, because of their
concentration, significantly influence the environment in four principal areas
as follows: (1) fish and other aquatic life; (2) sources of water supply, both
surface and ground water; (3) body contact recreation areas in surface water,
and (4) creation of nuisances which offend the esthetic realm.
Fish kills are dramatic and provide easy-to-compare numbers for purposes of
cause and effect. It is of interest to note that the Federal Water Pollution
Control Administration, which is responsible for the reporting of pollution-
caused fish kills throughout the United States, indicates that in 1967 pollution-
caused fish kills by agricultural wastes replaced municipalities and industry
as the number one cause of fish kills in the United States during the calendar
year. Kansas contributed greatly to this number one causative agent during
-------
1967 by recording almost 10% of the total numbers of fish killed in the United
States and this was due to agricultural waste pollution. In the calendar years
1963 through 19G7, there were 84 significant fish kills as reported by the
Kansas Forestry, Fish and Game Commission. Of these 84 significant fish
kills, 65% were caused by animal wastes. During the same period of time
the percentage of numbers of fishes killed directly attributable to animal wastes
ranged from a low of 82% to a high of 99%. The principal cause of fish death
as the result of animal wastes in receiving streams is depression of the oxygen
content of the water below that which will sustain life, and in most instances
investigated by the department of health, the oxygen content of the receiving '
stream has been 0. 0 milligrams per liter. There are some instances where
t he ammonia content in the receiving stream, as the result of animal waste
runoff, is sufficient to strip the mucous membrane covering from the fish body
and allow extreme irritation of the flesh so that hemorrhaging occurs. Under
these circumstances the gills of the fish are also extremely irritated, hemor-
rhaging occurs, and death results.
The writer has observed plug flow of animal wastes in the receiving stream
over a distance of several miles where fish were surfacing, trying to obtain
oxygen from the air, and crayfish were alternately crawling up the bank out of
the water and back into the water again. The flow in the stream at the time
was estimated at 500 cfs. The BOD5 was 105 mg/], dissolved oxygen 0.0 mg/1,
and the ammonia content 7. 0 mg/1 as nitrogen.
-------
Surface water supplies in Kansas can be seriously disrupted for a period of
from one day to two weeks by a single incident of feedlot waste runoff. In
1967 one small Kansas community using surface water as a supply source
was forced for a period of two weeks to treat water with the following charac-
teristics. ammonia content up to 20 mg/1; BOD^ up to 75 mg/3; dissolved oxy-
gen 0. 0 mg/1; total coliform count 4 million; fecal coliform count 2 million,
and total fecal streptococcus count at 5 million per 100 m/1 sample. Addi-
tionally the water was heavily loaded with pungent and difficult-to-describe
organic materials which produced a finished water product highly offensive
to the senses of taste and smell. The city was forced to use activated carbon
and increase chlorination by a factor of 10 in order to not-too-successfully
continue operation of the water treatment plant.
Kansas contains sufficient surface water reservoirs to allow considerable body
contact recreation in the form of swimming, water skiing, etcetera. Over
the past few years, the economic value to the state associated with recrea-
tional boating is estimated to be $40-$50 million per year. In June of 1S67
considerable quantities of animal waste runoff reached the main body of John
Redmond reservoir. The Kansas State Department of Health has established
a bacteriological quality objective of less than 1000 coliform per 100 ml sample
for body contact recreation areas. Upon reaching John Redmond reservoir,
the animal waste runoff produced total coliform counts per 100 ml sample
of from 1000 to 100, 000 bacteria throughout the reservoir area. There are
-------
probably in excess of 200 diseases capable of being transmitted from domestic
animal to man, and in excess of 50 diseases which can be transmitted to man
from animal via water. As a result of this pollution it was necessary for the
department of health to notify the general public that John Redmond reservoir
was unsafe for body contact recreation until further notice. The unsatisfactory
bacteriological conditions existed within the reservoir for a period of approxi-
mately two weeks before the department of health was able to advise the public
that it was again safe for body contact recreation.
Esthetics and nuisance factors as related to animal feedlot wastes are princi-
pally involved with odors as a result of continuous quantities of manure and
feed products, and fly production and high rodent population as a result of
availability of manure and waste feed products. These factors can become
serious to the immediate community if a dynamic insect and rodent control
program and adequate sanitation measures are not implemented.
¦Field Investigations and Waste Characteristics
Because of the sheer numbers involved, the cattle feedlot animal waste problem
is the most severe in Kansas. Waste deposited within the feeding pens having
a density of 200-300 head of cattle per acre becomes intimately mixed with the
topsoil, and in dry weather becomes firmly packed. The most extreme con-
ditions of water pollution from the feedlot surface occur when a light rainfall
of approximately one-half inch is followed one or two days later by one and one-
half to two inches of rainfall where considerable surface runoff occurs. After
the initial one-half inch rainfall, the hoof activity of the animals will produce
-------
a semi-liquid state of the manure and urine laden topsoil so that considerable
amounts of material are readily dissolved, suspended and carried off in the
succeeding runoff. During this period of runoff, the water pollutants may be
several times the population equivalent of the animals within the feedlot.
Runoff under these conditions is characterized by extremely high bacterial
counts, high BOD5, and significant concentrations of ammonia in solution.
The quantity of waste derived from domesticated animals is significant in the
numbers with which we are involved today. These wastes can be equated in
terms or population equivalent as follows:
Population Equivalents Wet Weight of Wastes
Sheep 1-2 4-5 lbs
Hogs 3-4 15-25 lbs
Cattle 8-10 40-60 lbs
Dairy Cal.tle 7-9 60-80 lbs
The wet weights in the tabulated data include both feces and urine and in the
case of cattle, the urine amounts to 15-20 lbs. per day. These population
equivalents and wet weights of the wastes are rule-of-thumb figures used by
the department of health with the recognition that they are variable figures,
being functions of individual animal weight and diet, and do not represent a
daily waste discharge to waters of the state. A surface water pollution poten-
tial as the result of runoff is highly variable and dependent upon rainfall fre-
quency, rainfall intensity, land surface topography, lot surface or soil type,
and lot sanitation procedures.
Since 19G0, the Kansas State Department of Health has investigated in excess
of 150 fish kills which were the direct result of animal wastes. The details
of these are attached as an appendix to this paper. These investigations have
-------
ranged from the very cursory and obvious by determination of source of
pollution and the- ascertaining of the depressed oxygen content within the
stream, to the very complete investigations as conducted by Smith and Miner
in ]9G3. Examples pf two relatively thorough fish kill investigations are
attached as part of the appendix.
Investigations conducted by the department result principally due to a report
of local citizenry or officials from the Kansas Forestry, Fish and Game Com-
misbion. Notification may be obtained by the department within a period of
time ranging from a few hours after the fish kill commences to as late as
seven to ten days after the kill. In most cases of investigation, the maximum
runoff directly from the feedlot surface has already occurred at the time of
sampling. The maximum BODg and ammonia content of direct runoff from
feedlot areas the department has measured are 8000 mg/1 and 285 mg/1 res-
pectively. Maximum observed pollutant characteristics for a river of substan-
tial flow were obtained at an estimated 500 cfs flow from the Cottonwood River
as follows: BOD5, 105 mg/1; ammonia 7. 0 mg/1; total coliform, 12. 0x10 per
100 ml; fecal coliform, 9. 1x10® per 100 ml, and fecal streptococcus, 41.0x10®
per 100 ml sample. Maximum observed characteristics for effluent from
feedlot retention ponds designed for a retention capacity of two to three inches
of surface runoff are as follows:
Primary Cell Secondary Cell
BOD5 2800 mg/1 5500 mg/1
NH3 as N 232 " 400 "
It can be said with certainty that pollution characteristics of feedlot runoff
-------
and runoff retained in retention ponds will vary considerably from time to
time dependent upon frequency, intensity and distribution of rainfall, physical
chai acter i.stics of the feedlot area, and the result on the receiving stream
will be affected by the same variables in addition to water temperature.
Applicable Law and Regulation Requirements
Kansas statutes applicable for the purposes of this discussion governing
water pollution control from municipalities and industries (including feedlots)
are contained in KSA 65-161 through 65-171h as revised in 1967. Within
these statutes, the authority and definitions are set forth enabling the Kansas
State Department of Health to prohibit and otherwise control water pollutants.
A brief review of these statutes follows:
The term "waters of the state" shall include all streams and springs, and
all bodies of surface and of impounded ground water, whether natural or
artificial, within the boundaries of the state.
Sewage is defined as any substance that contains any of the waste products or
excrementitious or other discharges from the bodies of human beings or
animals, or chemical or other wastes from domestic, manufacturing, or other
forms of industry.
Pollution is defined as such contamination, or other>alteration of the physical,
chemical, or biological properties of any waters of the state as will or is likely
to create a nuisance, or render such waters harmful, detrimental, or
injurious to public health, safety or welfare, or to the plant, animal, or
aquatic life of the state, or to olher legitimate beneficial uses.
-------
State law provides that to enable the discharge of any sewage to waters of the
state, a permit must be obtained from the State Board of Health. If the issuance
of a permit is deemed to be in the best interests of the state, the Board of
Health shall stipulate in the permit the conditions on which such discharge wil]
be permitted and shall require such treatment of the sewage as is determined
necessary to protect beneficial uses of the waters of the state. Permits for
discharge of sewage are revocable on due notice. The length of time after
receipt of a notice within which discharge of the sewage shall be discontinued
may be stated in the permit, but in no case shall it be less than 30 days or
exceed tvo years, and if the length of time is not specified in the permit it
shall De 30 days. On the expiration of the period of time described, after
service of notice of revocation, modification or change from the State Board
of Health, the right to discharge sewage into any waters of the state shall
cease and terminate, and the prohibition of the act against such discharge
shall be in full force, as though no permit had been granted.
Upon making application for a permit to discharge sewage into waters of the
state, the application shall be accompanied by plans and specifications for the
construction of the sewage collection systems and/or sewage treatment or
disposal facilities, and any additional facts or information as the state board
of health may require to determine adequate protection of the public health
of the state and th<2 beneficial uses of waters of the state.
The Kansas State Board of Health is empowered to adopt rules and regulations
including registration of potential sources of pollution, for the purpose of
-------
preventing surface and subsurface water pollution and soil pollution detri-
mental to public health or to the plant, animal and aquatic life of the state, and
to protect beneficial uses of the waters of the state. In making rules and
regulations, the state board of health, taking into account the varying conditions
that arc probable for each source of sewage and its possible place of disposal,
discharge, or escape, may provide for varying the control measures required
in each case to those it finds to be necessary to prevent pollution and protect
the beneficial uses of the waters of the state.
Failure to comply with the rules, regulations and orders of the state board of
health is deemed to be a misdemeanor and upon conviction shall be punished
by a fine of not Jess than $25 and not more than $250. The failure to comply
v.ith such requirements and orders in each day in which failure is made, shall
be considered to constitute a separate offense.
Tne penalty for discharge of sewage into waters of the state without a duly
issued pei mit is $1000 and a further penalty of $1000 per day for each day the
offense is maintained. Penalty for failure to comply with requirements of
the state board is a fine of not less than $50 and not more than $500, and failure
to full;> comply with requirements of the board is $25 and not more than $100
for each offence with each day in which such failure is made considered as
a separate oftep.ee.
Regulations for Agricultural and Related Wastes Control
Regulations for agricultural and related wastes control are contained in Kansas
State Board of Health regulations 28-18-1 through 28-18-4. These regulations
-------
were adopted as emergency regulations, as provided for in state statutes,
in mid-1967 and were re-adopted as permanent regulations effective 1 January
1968. It is the intent of these regulations to control water pollution from the
confined feeding of animals and they are applicable to (1) the confined feeding
of 300 or more cattle, swine, sheep or horses at any one time, or (2) any
animal feeding operation of less than 300 head using a lagoon or (3) any other
animal feeding operation having a water pollution potential, or (4) any other
animal feeding operation whose operator elects to come under these regulations.
Effective 1 July 1967, the operator of any newly proposed confined feeding
operation was required to register with the Kansas State Department of Health
prior to construction and operation of the lot, or construction of the waste
control facilities. The operator of an existing confined feeding operation was
required to register by 1 January 1968; however, due to apparent misunder-
standing among feedlot operators, the Board of Health extended this registration
date to 1 April 1968. A water pollution control permit is required when water
pollution control facilities are necessary. The permit will not be issued until
satisfactory completion of construction in accordance with plans and specifi-
cations approved by the department of health. The water pollution control
permit is revocable for cause on 30 days' written notice. Upon revocation
of the water pollution control permit, the owner of a confined feeding operation
is allowed to finish feeding the existing animals at the time of revocation, but
is not allowed to bring any additional animals in to the feeding operation until
requirements for water pollution control have been met, and a new water
pollution control facilities permit has been issued.
-------
The implementation of these regulations are rather unusual in that they pro-
vide for considerable flexibility for departmental engineers in that greater or
lesser requirements may be imposed based on engineering judgment, and the
I
specifics of each individual case. Average rainfall in Kansas varies from 16
inches per annum in the far west to 40 inches per annum in the east, and with
these highly varying conditions it becomes apparent that each individual in-
stallation must be evaluated on its own merits if we are to realize satisfactory
water quality control at reasonable cost. We do have extensive rainfall records
at numerous locations throughout the state, and have developed factors for
the design of animal waste water pollution control facilities which we feel will
be adequate. Within the central portion of the state, two-day rainfall proba-
bilities are five inches and eight inches for 10-year and 100-year probabilities
respectively, while a ten-day rainfall of seven inches and 11 inches can be
anticipated for 10-year and 100-year probability of occurrence respectively.
The probable maximum six-hour rainfall for 10 square miles is 26 inches.
It becomes obvious we cannot be expected to provide water quality control re-
tention structures for the maximum probable rainfall occurrence, nor are they
needed. Additionally, due to the highly varied rainfall occurrence between the
western and the eastern portions of the state, it is not logical to impose uniform
requirements statewide.
The basic premise for water pollution control facilities with respect to feed-
lots has been based on the following factors:
1. The characteristics of wastes associated with runoff from feedlot areas
-------
are independent, of the population equivalent of the feedlot.
2. Dry-cleaning - that is mechanical removal of the deposited wastes
within the feedlots-is impracticable in that it is not feasible to dry clean
the lot except during periods of feedlot pen turnover, which in the case
of catlle occurs between 90 and 120 days. Research has further shown that
unless dry-cleaning of the cattle feedlot surface can be provided at in-
tervals more frequent than two weeks, pollution characteristics of sur-
face runoff remain unchanged.
3. Because of the extreme organic content of the wastes, both on a daily basis
and surface runoff, it is technically impracticable and economically im-
possible to treat the wastes from cattle feedlots so that they can be
discharged to the environment with immunity.
4. Waste water evaporation ponds for large area installations are infeasible
because of the large areas required in all except the western portion of
the state, where rainfall is minimal and evaporation may exceed 80 inches
per year. Even so, the area required for evaporation approaches the area
of the feedlot if there is to be no overflow at any time.
It is the intent of the department to provide the necessary water pollution control
at minimum expense to the owner, while at the same time maintaining the ob-
jectives and requirements of water quality.
Cattle Feedlot Facilities
Under the philosophy that it is not economically practicable to treat the surface
runoff from cattle feedlot areas, or even if it was determined that treatment
-------
was desirable, it behooves us to exercise control only over that portion of
surface runoff which becomes polluted from the waste materials involved.
It is recommended that the owner divert all extraneous surface flows around
the catllc feeding area so that it can flow to the normal drainage course un-
affected by the waste material. Tf the operator does not choose to divert ex-
traneous flows he must make allowance in retention or treatment facilities for
this additional flow. It is the current policy to assume that under normal con-
ditions of rainfall occurrence and intensity, the owner can successfully main-
tain water quabty control by the provision of retention ponds with a capacity
to retain three inches of surface runoff from the contributing drainage area.
Dev/atering facilities (usually in the form of an irrigation system) must be
provided, with the capability of emptying the retention structures to a satis-
factory disposal site within a period of five days. It is present policy that the
retention ponds must be emptied within a period of ten days after rainfall.
This will allow for a minimal period of time for surrounding land surface areas
to partially dry before application of the liquid wastes. In most instances, two
or more retention ponds operated in series are required. Because of the nature
of the runoff water and waste materials consisting of large quantities of silt,
manure and grain, this "shud" will settle out rather rapidly in a primary cell.
The primary cell can be sized to accommodate more readily available means,
that is draglines or pumps, in removing the shud from this small cell than could
be done in one large retention pond.
The solid waste materials removed from the surface of the feedlot pens and
solids removed from retention ponds must be disposed of in a manner which
will not contribute to water pollution, both ground and surface waters. The
-------
conventional method for disposal of these materials is to spread them on
agricultural land and turn them under as soon as possible. Land application
rates of these materials are highly varied and at the present time range from
as little as five tons per acre per year to as much as 300 tons per acre per
year. Land application of the solid wastes can be complicated by the seasonal
status of crops and the moisture content of the fields. It is therefore usually
necessary to stockpile the solid wastes until conditions will permit application
to the field. The stockpiling of these materials should be conducted in a loca-
tion not subject to contact from significant surface runoff, and in some in-
stances diking is necessary around the stockpiled material to prevent runoff
or leaching into surface water streams.
Swine Feedlot Facilities
There is normally greater variance in the quantities of waste materials and
liquids in swine feeding operations than is the case with cattle feedlot opera-
tions. Some swine feeding operations are conducted in the manner of the cattle
feedlot operations with open dirt surfaced pens, and in this instance the approach
is identical with that of the cattle feedlot waste control requirements. Many
swine feeding operations are completely enclosed so that rainfall and surface
runoff are not involved. In this event, waste material storage can be provided
for the convenience of the operator dependent upon the frequency with which he
desires to haul or otherwise remove waste materials to agricultural land for
ultimate disposal. Where surface runoff and rainfall is not a consideration,
50 cubic feet of storage capacity per head is considered adequate with removal
of waste from the retention facility no more than one time per year. In some
-------
instances, cooling water sprays will be utilized by the operator during
periods of hot weather. In this case, volumetric considerations must be
made for the cooling water and allowances made in the retention facilities.
Slotted floor operations or those where all materials are scraped into receiv-
ing pits are suitable for the application of racetrack lagoons. These systems
as currently employed on the market cannot be considered satisfactory treat -
ment for effluent to be discharged to receiving streams. They will reduce
the strength oi wastes by 90% or more; however, effluent characteristics can
still be considered to have a BOD of 500 to 1000 mg/] and effluent from the
racetrack lagoon must be contained within a holding lagoon or holding basin
for ultimate disposal to agricultural land. The ractrack lagoon application
will sometimes approach balance from a liquid standpoint with little or no
effluent discharge due to evaporative losses. It can maintain enclosed hog-
feeding houses in a relatively odor-free condition.
In all but very unusual instances, true waste treatment facilities by means of
anaerobic and/or aerobic lagoons are not feasible because the water balance
dictates that complete retention can be attained with lesser volume requirement
than would be the case for aerobic treatment with effluent discharge. Where
treatment rather than retention is considered feasible, an average value for
strength and volume of waste per hog is 0. 3 lbs of BOD5 per day, and 0. 3
cubic feet per day respectively.
Sheep Waste Control Facilities
Water pollution control facilities consisting of waste retention ponds for runoff
-------
fi om sheep feeding operations are designed on a basis identical to that of
cattle feedlot operations. In the event a sheep feeding operation were com-
pletely enclosed similar to that in the swine feeding operations, the population
equivalents would be one to two persons per day, the wet weight of wastes
four to five pounds per day, and a volumetric waste factor of 0. 07 ft per
animal per day.
Summary of Animal Waste Regulations
All existing animal feedlot operations having 300 or more head of animals at
any one time, or any animal feeding operation utilizing a lagoon, must be
registered with the Kansas State Department of Health. Any newly proposed
animal feeding operation having 300 or more head of animals or one which
proposes to use a lagoon must register with the department of health prior to
operation of the feedlot, and obtain approval for waste control facilities prior
to construction and operation. Department of health engineers will visit an
existing or proposed feedlot site and advise the owner regarding required water
pollution control facilities. Department of health engineers have the authority
to exercise professional judgment regarding the degree of water pollution con-
trol required. In several instances, due to the location, topography and
other influencing factors, it has been determined that water pollution control
facilities are not required for the present time. Due to unusual conditions
involved within a specific location or one in which downstream water quality
requirements are critical, the department of health may require treatment
and/or retention to the extent that is necessary to protect the area concerned.
The requirements for water quality control as it relates to feedlot operations
-------
may be increased al any time it becomes evident thai existing facilities are
not providing adequate protection for the beneficial use of waters of the state.
Conscientious operation and maintenance of the water pollution control facili-
ties is essential, particularly in the dewatering of retention ponds as soon
as possible after rainfall. Requirements for additional water quality control
facilities or revocation of a permit can be anticipated if satisfactory operation
is not provided.
The Kansas Livestock Sanitary Commissioner has the authority and juris-
diction over the sanitary conditions within the animal feedlot area for commer-
cial fcedlots. The Commissioner requires that all feedlot surfaces be ade-
quately drained to prevent insanitary nuisance conditions, that concrete or
other impervious material be placed around feed bunkers to facilitate cleaning,
and prevent insect production, and that a satisfactory overall program of in-
sect and rodent control be implemented within the feedlot. At least quarterly
inspections are performed by personnel from the Livestock Sanitary Commis-
sioner's office on all commercial feedlots.
Future Emphasis and Program Objectives
New or revised regulations for water quality control relative to animal feed -
lots are not anticipated in the foreseeable future. Additional emphasis will be
placed on operation of the control facilities. The importance of operation in
dewatering waste retention lagoons to agricultural fields cannot be over-
emphasized if we are to obtain our objectives.
There is the additional problem of protecting fresh ground water supplies. The
-------
application rate of manure from feecllots must be intelligently determined to
balance ciop uptake of waste materials applied. An application rate of 300
tons per acre of^solid waste derived from dry-cleaning a feedlot surface will
greatly exceed the nitrogen uptake of any crop produced, and as a result the
excess nitrogen will become dissolved as nitrates into rainfall or irrigation
water and percolate to the ground water table. There the nitrate becomes a
threat not only to human consumers of ground water as a cause of methemo-
globinemia, but also poses a threat to the stockman by causing cattle abortion
and reducing weight gain in animals. It becomes apparent that in the over-
all contro] of these wastes by methods currently considered feasible, we must
be cognizant of the capability of the complete cycle: that is, soil application
rates and crop production requirements.
The necessity for feedlot operations having 300 or more animals at any one time
to comply with existing regulations is administrative rather than factual, and
the number of animals is highly arbitrary. This does not allow animal wastes
from an installation having fewer than 300 head to be discharged to the environ-
ment with immunity. At any time water pollution is evident, the state depart-
ment of health, under authority of the state statutes previously discussed, can
issue a direct order requiring water pollution control facilities for any animal
feeding operation regardless of size and number of animals involved. This
would be appropriate in any instance and for- any cause resulting in walcr
pol lution.
At the present tune, the Kansas State Department of Health is operating a semi-
formal control program as it relates to dairy farm wastes. By reason of
federal and state regulations for Grade A dairy farm operations, the operator
-------
rtf the dairy farm must provide satisfactory disposal of his household waste
so that these materials will not provide a breeding source for flies and other
insects which would be detrimental to the sanitary conditions within the milk-
ing parlor. The sanitary requirements within the dairy farm milking parlor
dictate that the area must be cleaned and washed down regularly. It is common
practice for waste materials involved with this cleaning operation to be dis-
charged to the surface of the ground or to the nearest drainage ditch. Volumes
of this waste material may vary from as little as two to three gallons up to
15 gallons per dairy cow milked, and will have a BOD5 of 1000 to 2000 ng/1.
It is possible to provide a satisfactory lagoon system which will accommodate
the residential household wastes at the dairy farm and in addition, wastes
generated in the cleaning of the milking parlor, at a lesser cost than would
be required for installation of a septic tank-tile field which would lake care
of the domestic wastes only. The accepted method of treatment is to provide
an anaerobic lagoon followed by an aerobic lagoon for receipt of these wastes.
The anaerobic cell is designed on the basis of 30 lbs. BOD5/IOOO ft^, with the
aerobic cell designed on the basis of 35 lbs. BOD5/acre/day, assuming 60%
reduction of BOD^ in the anaerobic cell. The volumetric flow from the house -
hold wastes is considered to be 75 gped. As is the case for any waste treat-
ment facility, permits are required from the department of health for construe
tion and operation of dairy farm lagoons.
The significance of quantity and quality of waste from any source is a relative
item, dependent upon the receiving watercourse and its flow characteristics.
-------
It lias been necessary to require water pollution control facilities for very
small animal installations including individual dairy farms.
Outlook for Animal Feedlots
Groat strides have been made in developing Kansas as a major beef producer
and red meat producer in general. In 19G4 the annual average meat consumption
in the United States was approximately 100 pounds per person. In 1967 the
average consumption reached to between 110-115 pounds per person. The
present growth rate of our nation's population together with annual meat con-
sumption averages indicates there will be an increasing demand for slaughter
cattle at a rate of several hundred thousand head per year.
Nutritional advance in feeder cattle is significant. Approximately live years
ago feeders were providing 30 lbs. of feed per day with a weight gain of 2
to 2-1/2 lbs. per day. In 1967, the feeder was providing approximately 23 lbs.
of feed per day and getting a 3 to 3-1/2 lb. weight gain.
We can sec nothing but continued increase in the number of commercial
feedlots and feeder cattle. Nationally, Kansas ranks Number 1 in silage and
sorghum grains. Additionally, we rank Number 1 in the production of wheat
which can be an important feed element dependent on market prices. Farmers
in general are being encouraged to diversify operations and bring along calf
crops to be finished in commercial lots.
In 1967, Kansas plants killed 1.6 million cattle. In 1968, projections were
that Kansas will have killed 1. 6 million cattle even though for several months
-------
seme ivajor kill plants were out of operation for expansion purposes. The
dcpirtmont of health obtains information on meat processing plants due to
the requirements of water quality control. Slaughter plants in Kansas, both
large and small, approach 300 in number. At this time there are 15 major
slaughter plants (two of which are under construction and one in planning)
which have a total annual capacity of killing in excess of 2. 6 million cattle.
It is o^r estimate that cattle feedlots and feeder cattle will more than double
in the next few years. Increase in the numbers of hogs are not expected to
be as great as in cattle but still should be significant. The numbers of sheep
are expected to remain relatively stable. The problems of environmental
control will be magnified but we are confident that success will prevail if
there is cooperation among all concerned.
-------
F] K S 0 96
UNITED STATES
KANSAS
Year
: No.
I States
icpori-
'"Total No.
Fish Kills
I Reported
Total No.
Fish Killed
(millions)
Max. Single
Fish Kills
(millions)
Total No.
Fish Kills
All
Causes
Feed-
lots
Total Fish
Killed (mil. )
i
All
Causes
Feed-
lots
% Total
Fish Killed
Attributed
to Feedlots
No. Cattle
Comm.
Feedlots
1 Jan.
1960 1
1951
19G2
1963 !
19G4
1966
1967
106R
36
45
37
40
1965 i 44
46
40
149
263
233
300
385
446
372
303
6. 023
14. 91
6. 2
6. 8
17. 9
11. 4
8. 7
11. 2
5. 0
5. 39
5. 0
3. 2
2. 0
2. 0
1. 0
7. 9
2. 0
3. 0
1. 25
1. 2
1.0
1. 0
0. 73
6. 6
No Report
26
23
29
16
""Only those reports giving numbers of fish killed.
' I '•
! S
16
16
18
3
No Report
0. 005 i 0
0. 14
1. 35
0. 57
1. 2
1. 0
0. 4
0. 12
1. 12
0. 57 !
1. 0
1. 0
-123-
0
89
82
99
90
94
7
58,000
88,000
99, 000
150,000
183,000
200,000
260,000
311, 000
-------
FISH KILLS BY ANIMAL WASTES
Da to
oI Kill
, D 5 Jun G3 15 Jun 63
I ..IT .> 0
25 Jun 63
10 Jun 03
Fish Killed j Day Rain j Flew
1 Inches j cfs
Max.
BCD
Mm.
DO
Max Nil,
as (N)
0. 96
1. 32
5, 000
1. 23
0. 73
i 0. 0
1. 25
1, 000
8, 000
1. 78
53.
12.
3. 3
28.
53.
T ofcal
mg/I j mg/1 j mg/1 i Coli-orrr.
1. 6x10
e,
2. 4x10'
95x 10
-------
Dcte i
of Kill 1
Date of
Samples
Paver and
Location
Est. No.
Fish Killed
j Max.
> Day Rain
I Inches
River
Flow
cfs
Max.
BOD
mg/i
Min. j
DO !
mg/1 ,
Max NHr
as (N)
m g /1
; M ax.
! To^i
i _ .
1 L.c orm
15 J".ly 63 1 15' July 63
Level Creek
Herington
li Tulv G3 j 26 July 63 N. Br. P.iackberry( 2t 000
21 Oct 63 •
i
7 Nov 03 |
11 Nov 63 !
25 Oct 63
7 Nov 53
Gov:
Level Creek
Herington
Level Creek
Herington
Level Creek
Herington
115, 000
1. 0
0. 73
!. 8
6. 5
90.
2. 2
0. 0
0. 0 j
2. 2
i. 6
0.5x10
5 Apr 64
14 Apr 64
11 Aor,64 ! 13 Apr 64
22 jr 04 j
l
5 A or c
i
»
I Mav 64 1
i
I
II May 64 j
i
i
21 May 04 ;
t
23 Mav C-4 |
0 M.iy 34
?2 Apr 64
1 May 64
28 May 64
Spring Creek
Fair view
Elk
Elk City
Owl Creek
Yates Center
Pawnee
E,ozel
Owl Creek
Yates Center
Buckner Creek
J ptmore
Farm Pond
Hcwiland
Elk River
Elk City
Wet Walnut
Great Bend
31, 500
1, 000
1, 500
0. 77
0. 17
0. 5
0. 61
13
12
26
100
100
2, 000
20,000
0. 63
0. 56
1. 53
0. 87
98
120
540
25
8
0. 0
2. 6
0. 0
26.
0. 0
i3.
0. 7 j
1. 4
-------
Date
of Kill
Date of
Samples
i - ¦ ¦
I
River and
Location
Est., No.
Fish' Killed
Max.
Day Rain
Inches
River
Flow
cfs
Max.
BOD
mg/1
T 1 ¦ 1
Min.
DO
mg/1
Max KH3
as (N)
/1
mg/1
Max.
Toxal
Colrform
31 May 64
2 June 64
1
! Arkansas
Dodge City
365, 000
1. 08
66
3. 9
3. 8
1 June 64
Cottonwood
Emporia
to
O
407
4. 8
6. 3
1. 3
4. 3xl05
5 June 64
Sawlog Creek
Dodge City
22 J'me 64
22 June 64
Wet Walnut
Great Bend
1. 03
16
67.
0. 0
23 June 64
Otter Creek
Climax (Hogs)
500
0. 70
16
30 June 64
S. Cottonwood
Hillsboro
2, 000
1. 18
31 July 64
Arkansas
Dodge City
3, 000
3. 28
98
14 Aug 64
14 Aug 64
Bachelor Creek
Elk City
CO
C"-
iH
220.
0. 0
21
CD
O
X
CD
V
19 Aug 64
19 Aug 64
Bachelor Creek
Elk City
0. 1
230.
0.0
22
20 64
20 Aug 64
Arkansas
Bucklin
2, 000
2. 71
426
85.
0. 0
20 Aug 64
S. F. Ninnescah
Pratt
1. 94
210.
0. 0
20 Aug 64
Whitewater
Pot win
55, 900
1. 19
10
29 Aug 64
I
31 Aug 64
Spring Creek
Fairview
40, 000
1. 25
125.
0. 0
5. 7
l
5 Sept 64 |
1
1
5 Sept 64
Wet Walnut
Great Bend
360.
1
1
r
i
i
-de-
-------
Date
of Kill
Datq of
Samples
River and
Location
Est. No.
Fish Killed
Max.
Day Rain
Inches
River
Flow
cfs
Max.
BOD
mg/1
Min.
DO
mg/1
Max NH3
as (N)
mg/1
Max.
Total
Corforin
11 Sepi 64
Cottonwood
Cedar Point
18, 000
0. 52
15
14 Sept 64
17 Sept 64
Cottonwood
Strong City
340,000
1. 94
38
43
0. 0
14
2. 3xl06
15 Sept 64
Pawnee
La^ned
2, 000
0. 70
17 Oct 54
17 Oct 64
Labette Creek
Parsons
2. 6
30 Oct 64
30 Oct 64
Cottonwood
Emporia
240, 000
2. 69
50
35
0. 0
7. 5
24xl06
17 May 65
Gooseberry Cr.
Newton
1, 000
21 May 65
Whitewater
Potwin
0.84
0. 5
1750
0. 0
80.
6 Ji'ne 63
6 June 65
Spring Creek
Fairview
45, 000
0. 79
2.0
45
0. 0
5. 6
4.3xl06
6 June 65
7 June 65
S. F. Ninnescah
Pratt
20, 000
3. 52
0. 0
7 June 65
Arkansas
D?dge City
500, 000
1. 15
20 July 65
Fall River
Eureka
5, 000
0.80
15 Aug C5
17 Aug 65
Labette Cr.
Parsons
3, 000
0. 59
2.0
60
0. 0
1. 4
43xl06
20 Aug 65
S. F. Ninnescah
Pratt
0. 54
23 Aug 65
Salt Creek
Hutchinson (hogs)
-21
i
1
i
-------
Date
of Kill
Date of
Samples
1
1
| River and
i Location
1 .
Est. No.
Fish Killed
Max.
Day Rain
Inches
River
Flow
cfs
Max.
BOD
mg/1
Min.
DO
mg/1
¦ ¦ l
Max NH3
as (N>
mg/1
Max.
Totai
Coliform
15 Mar G6
Cottonwood -
Neosho-Emporia
300, 000
288
17-20 May 66
Spring Creek
Fairview
10,000
20 May 66
1 June 66
,
27 May 66
¦
Cottonwood
Cedar Point
Four Mile Cr.
Augusta
100, 000
500
1
186
4. 5
26 June 66
27 June 66
Spring Creek
Fairview
10, 000
55.
0. 0
2. 4
1. 8xl06
21 July 66
S. F. Ninnescah
Pratt
60,000
3
23 July 6S
S. Walnut Creek
Dighton
2, 000
3 Aug 66
Big Crefek
Yocemento
2, 000
13 Aug 66
Arkansas
Dodge City
5, 000
71
25 Aug 66
Solomon
BHLoit (Hogs)
5, 000
76
25 Se'rf 66
Cottonwood
Emporia
300, 000
119
26 Sept 66
Cottonwood
Cedar Point
35, 000
22
23 Sept 66
1
1
I
1
I
Cottonwood
Saffordville
20, 000
25
1
}
!
! !
-28
-------
Date
of Kill
Date of
Samples
River and
Location
Est. No.
Fish Killed
Max.
Day Rain
Inches
River
Flow
cfs
Max.
BOD
mg/1
Min.
DO
mg/1
Max NH3
as (N)
mg/1
Max.
Total
Coliform
2 Feb 67
3 Feb 67
Neosho
Emporia
225,000
0. 5
40
50.
0. 4
6. 4
27 Mar 67
27 Mar 67
Cottonwood
Strong City
25, 000
27
290.
0. 0
17.
17xl06
31 Mar 67
4 Apr 67
Cottonwood
Cottonwood Fa.
80, 000
41
21.
0. 0
2. 6
31 Mar 67
4 Apr 67
Cottonwood
Emporia
90,000
63
18.
2. 2
1. 9
1 Apr 67
3 Apr 67
Four Mile Cr.
Whitewater
100.
0. 0
7. 2
3 Apr 67
4 Apr 67
Lightning Cr.
Girard
175.
0. 0
4. 6
10 Apr 67
Doyle Creek
Peabody
1, 000
1.
12 Apr 67
S. F. Ninnescah
Natrona
200
12 Apr 67
14 Apr 67
Cottonwood -
Neosho-Emp.
50, 000
58
105.
0. 0
7. 0
.
15 May 67
17 May 67
Cottonwooc-
Neosho-Emp.
425, 000
49
0. 0
11.
31 May 67
Doyle Creek
Peabody
25, 000
4 June 67
7 June 67
Cottonwood
Emporia
58
55
0. 0
8.3
14 June 67
24 June 67
Jester Creek
Newton
50,000
-2S
1.
19
3. 5
2. 6
-------
Date
of Kill
Date of
Samples
River and
Location
Est. No.
Fish Killed
21 June 67 " i
8 Julv 67
28 July 67
18 Sept 67
18 Sept 67
.S. Walnut Cr.
Dighton
Solomon
Beloit (Hogs)
Solomon
Glen Elder (Hogs
Whitewater
Potwin
5, 000
2, 000
4, 000
-30-1
Max.
Day Rain
Inches
River
Flow
Max.
BOD
mg/1
Min. i Max NH3
DO
mg/1
as (N)
mg/1
M ax.
Total
Coliform
400
0. 0
215
-------
FEEDLOT FISH KILL INVESTIGATION
Cottonwood River, Kansas
30 October 19G4
Rainfall 28 October 1964
240, 000 Fish Killed
Approx.
River
Mile
-8. 9
-1.5
0.0
_'rib. to R.
from feedlot
0.9
Secondary ef-
luent from
0, 000 P. E.
city between
lese stations
2.7
5. 4
10. 8
12. 3
oins main
stem Neosho
bove Cotton-
'ood
13. 9
14. 9
] 5. 5
16. 8
19. 8
D. O.
mg/1
9. 2
5. 9
0. 0
0. 8
2. 0
0. 0
0. 0
2. 7
0. 0
0. 0
0. 0
1. 1
3. 0
library
PBCtfic Northwest
200 South 35th St
Corvallis 0'eeon \
BOD 5
mg/1
9. 5
7. 2
140.
8. 5
30-40
14.
32.
30.
5. 5
30.
35.
21.
4. 8
3. 8
Vater Laboratory
eet
7330
nh3
(as N)
mg/1
0. 40
0. 74
5. 4
0. 56
2.8
4. 4
4. 8
0. 34
5. 3
5. 4
7. 5
2. 8
3.7
-31
cr
mg/1
79
51
159
61
68
75
75
75
77
75
68
58
64
Total
Coliform
xlO
6
0.0023
0. 023
2. 3
0. 23
0. 93
4. 3
24. 0
0.0093
2. 3
0. 75
0. 23
0.0075
0.0023
r ecal
Coliform
• xl0fi
0. 0023
0.0043
4. 3
0. 23
0. 93
4. 3
24. 0
0.0093
2. 3
0. 23
0. 093
0.0075
-------
FEED LOT FISH KILL INVESTIGATION
Sprntg Crcck-Walnut Creek, Kansas
6 June 1965
45, 000 Fish Killed
Approx.
Rjver
Mile
D. O.
, mg/1
BOD 5
mg/1
nh3
(as N)
mg/1
Cl"
mg/1
Total
Coliform
xlO6
Fecal
Coliform
xlO6
Fee.
Stre
xl0b
4. 0
8.5
0. 8
0. 4
7. 0
0.00093
0. 00015
¦ (
0,. 0i 0
3. 8
Trib. from
fcedlot joins
Spring Cr.
0.0
65.
18.
95.
9. 3
4. 3
23. 0
3. 4
6. 9
4. 0
0. 78
3. 0
0. 093
0. 023
' '0. llr
t '
3.0
1. 9
45.
5. 6
32.
4. 3
1.5
5. 2
1. 8
0.0
30.
2. 9
28.
0. 93
0. 23
0. 59
1. 4
5.7
1.0
0. 48
6.0
0.0043
0.0043
0'. 0i 5
0.0
Mainstem
Walnut Cr.
downstream
mileage
1. 7
7. 4
0.8
0. 45
17.
0. 0043
0. 00093
O'.'OI 3
-------
Feedlot Runoff Characteristics
No Retention Ponds
Date
Location
BOD 5
mg/1
NH3 as (N) 1
mg/1
1 May 1964
Yates Center
2800
225
11 Apr 66
Saffordville
8000
11 Apr 66
Strong City
4650
11 Apr 66
Strong City
5700
29 July 66
Saffordville
3550
285
3 Apr 67
Strong City
1830
41
3 Apr 67
Strong City
GT 1950
102
-33-
-------
Feedlot Retention Pond Effluent Characteristics
Date
Location
BOO 5
mg/1
NBj as (N)
mg/1
NOq
mg/1
CI
mg/1
7 Nov 63
Herington
320
24
24 Jan 64
Primary Cell
Potwin
2500
232
62
306
24 Jan 64
Secondary Cell
Potwin
2050
225
71
364
24 Jan 64
Primary Cell
Potwin
72
22
7. 5
146
24 Jan 64
Secondary Cell
Potwin
62
20
8. 8
147
1 May 64
Primary Cell
Yates Center
2800
225
9.7
1610
21 May 65
Secondary Cell
Potwin
5500
400
2.0
475
2) May 65
Primary Cell
Potwin
330
41
5. 3
195
21 May 65
Secondary Cell
Potwin
60
25
4.3
187
6 June 65
Primary Cell
Fair view
700
18 Jan 66
Secondary Cell
Potwin
780
220
16
275
25 Sept 67
Secondary Cell
Potwin
630
310
19 June 68
Secondary Cell
Potwin
600
350
19 Aug 68
Secondary Cell
Potwin
390
230
1
1
1
-------
Kansas State Department of Health
Environmental Health Services
CHAPTER 28. STATE BOARD OF HEALTH REGULATIONS
ARTICLE 18. AGRICULTURAL AND RELATED WASTES CONTROL
28-18-1. DEFINITIONS
For purposes of the regulations in this article, the following words, terms
and phrases are hereby defined as follows:
(a) The words "confined feeding" shall mean the confined feeding of animals
for food, fur, or pleasure purposes in lots, pens, pools or ponds which
are not normally used for raising crops and in which no vegetation, intended
for animal food, is growing. This will not include a wintering operation for
cows in lots or on farming ground unless the operation causes a pollution
problem.
(b) The words "confined feeding operation" shall mean (1) any confined feeding
of 300 or more cattle, swine, sheep, or horses at any one time, or (2) any
animal feeding operation of less than 300 head using a lagoon, or (3) any
other animal feeding operation having a water pollution potential, or
(4) any other animal feeding operation whose operator elects to come undt-r
these regulations.
(c) The term "operator" shall mean an individual, a corporation, a group of
individuals, joint venturers, a partnership, or any other business catity
having charge or control of one or more confined feeding installations.
(d) "Food animals" shall mean fish, fowl, cattle, swine, and sheep.
(e) "Fur animals" shall mean any animal raised for its pelt.
(f) "Pleasure animals" shall mean dogs and horses.
(g) The words "waste retention lagoon" or "retention ponds" shall mean
excavated or diked structures, or natural depressions provided for or
used for the purpose of containing or detaining animal wastes consisting
of body excrements, feed losses, litter, cooling waters, wash voters,
whether separately or collectively, or any other associated materials
detrimental to water quality or to public health, or to beneficial uses of
the waters of the state. A waste retention structure shall not be construed
to be a treatment facility and discharges cf waste water therefrom shall
not be allowed except as authorized by regulations 23-18-3 and 28-18-4.
-------
(li) The words "waste treatment facilities" shall mean structures and/or
devices which stabilize, or otherwise control pollutants so that after
discharge of treated wastes, water pollucion does not occur and the public
lkidlth and the beneficial uses of the waters of the state are adequately
protected.
(i) The words "water pollution control facilities1' shall mean waste retention
lagoon^, retention ponds, or waste treatment facilities.
(j) The term "department" shall mean the Kansas State Department of
Health. (Authorized by K. S. A. 65-164, K. S. A. 65-l7lf, K. S. A. 65-165
as amend., K. S. A. G5-167 as amend., K. S. A. 65-17Id as amend.,
K. S. A. 65-l71h aa amend.; effective 31 May 1967.)
28-18-2. REGISTRATION AND WATER POLLUTION CONTROL FACII,1TIES
PERMITS.
(a) Effective July I, 1967, the operator of any newly proposed confined feed-
ing operation as defined in regulation 23-18-1(b) must register with the
Kansas St^.te Department of Health prior to construction and operation of
the lot, pen, pool or pond. The operator of any existing confined feeding
operation as defined in regulation 28-18-1(b) must register by January
1, 1968. Application for registration shall be made on a form supplied
by the department.
(b) Applicants shall submit the completed application form to the department
together with supplemental information regarding general features of
copc/p'aphy, drainage course and identification of ultimate primary re-
ceiving streams. Additioral information which may be deemed uecessa-ry
for satisfactory evaluation of the application may be required by arid shali
be submitted to the department.
(c) If in the judgment of the department, a proposed or existing confined feed-
ing operation does not constitute a potential water pollution problem
because of Jocation, topography, or other reasons, provision of water
pollution control facilities will not be required.
(d) Jf in '.he opinion of the department a confined feeding operation doc.s con-
stitute a water pollution potential, or if water pollution occurs aj a result
of any confined feeding operation, the operator shall provide water pollu-
tion control facilities which shall be constructed in accordance with plans
and specifications approved by the department.
(e) Water pollution control facilities shall not be placed in use until a permit
has been issued. Permits for water pollution control facilities will be
-------
issued by the executive secretary of the Kansas Strife Hoard of lie: Lth upon
satisfactory completion of construction in accordance v/iih plans ami
specifications approved by the department. Water pollution control faci-
lities permits shall be revocable for cause on thirty days' written no'ice.
If a water pollution control facilities permit is revoked, the owner or
operator of the confined feedii g operation involved shall be allowed to
finish feeding existing animals in the lot, pen, pool or pond at the time
of revocation bul shall not place 6r allow to be placed in the lot, pen pool
or pond any other animals until the minimum requirements for wator
pollution control as set forth in regulations 28-18-3 and 28-18-4 have
been met and a new water pollution control facilities permit lias been
issued. (Authorized by K. S. A. G5-164, K. S.A. 65-17If, K. S. A. Gfi-ifcT)
as amend. , K. S. A. 65- 166 as amend., K. S. A. 65-167 as amend. , K.S.A.
65-171d as amend., K. S. A. 65-l71h as amend.; effecti /c 31 J/i'xy 19GY.)
28-18-3. REQUIREMENTS FOR FACILITIES
V/aier pollution control facilities required shall be kept a^ the minimum r equirc-
merirs ytaied in the following paragraphs; provided that when rite topography,
operating procedures, and other available information indicate that adequate
water pcUution control can be effected with less than the minimum re quirem-antr-1,
the minimum acquirements may be waived; provided further that if site topo-
graphj, operating procedures, experience, and other available information in-
dicate that more than the minimum requirements will be necessary to euect
adequate water pollution control, additional control provisions may be required.
(a) CATTLE. The minimum water pollution control facilities for 1he confined
feeding of cattle shall be retention ponds capable of containing three inches
of surface runoff from the feedlot area, waste storage rreas, and other
waste contributing areas. Diversion of surface drainage prior to co'irac.
with the confined feeding area or manure or sludge storage areas shed1
be permitted. Waste retained in detention ponds shall be disposed of as
soon as practicaole to insure adequate retention capacity for future needs-1.
(b) SWINE: Waste retention lagoons for swine fading operations may be
allowed in lieu of waste treatment facilities. Waste retention lagoo.is
must be capable of retaining all animal excreta, litter, food losses,
cooling waters, wash waters, and any other associated materials and
shall additionally be capable of retaining three inches of rainfall runoff
from all contributing drainage areas. Diversion of surface drainage
prior to contact with the confined feeding area or manure or sludge storage
areas shall be permitted. Provision must be made for periodic remove]
of v/aste material from retention lagoons.
•(c) SIIEEP: The minimum water pollution control facilities for the confined
feeding of sheep shall be retention ponds capable of containing three ¦ nci.er.
of surface runoff from the confined feeding area, waste storage areas, sn
-------
and all other waste contributing areas. Diversion of surface drjipagc prior
to contact v/ith the confined feeding area or manure or sludge storage areas
shall bo permitted. Waste retained in detention ponds shall he disposed of
as soon as practicable to insure adequate retention capacity for future needs
(d) OTHER ANIMALS: Each confined feeding operation registered involving
other animals fJhall be evaluated on its own merits with regard to the water
pollution control facilities required, if any. The confined feeding of other
animals shall not cause or lead to the pollution of the waters of Die state
by runoff wa+er from confined feeding areas, release or escape of water
from pools or ponds, improper storage or disposal of waste materials re-
moved from the confined feeding area, or by any other means.
(e) Waste treatment facilities shall be designed, constructed, and operated m
conformance with tne provisions of regulation 28- 18-4. If waste treatment
facilities consist only of pond or lagoon type structures, there shall be a
minimum of two such structures for series operation.
(f) CKher methods of watrr pollution control shall be permitted where in the
judgment o5 the department effective results will be obtained. (Authorized
by K. S. A. 65-104, K.S.A. 65-171f, K.S.A. 65-165 as amend. , K.S.A.
G5-16G as amend., K.S.A. 65- 167 as amend., K.S.A. G5-171d as amend.
K.S.A. 65-17lh as amend.; effective 31 May 1967.)
28-18-4. OPERATION OF FACILITIES.
(a) The water pollution control facilities shall be operated and maintained s<>
as to prevent water pollution and to protect the public health and the bene-
ficial uses of the waters of the stale.
(b) Waste discharges from retention ponds, lagoons, or waste treat men! faci-
lities into any watercourse shall be in conformance with the water quality
requirements of the appropriate river basin cr iteria as set forth in chapter
28, article 16 of regulations adopted by the Kansas State Boaid cf Ilea If1
and regulation 28-18-3.
(c) Waste materials removed from retention pond:,, waste treatment fru-ih'ies,
and/or confined feeding areas shall be disposed of or stockpiled in v\auu.
which will not contribute tc water pollution. Wastes may b^ used for lr: 2
gation or spread on land surface and mixed with the soil in a manner w'.u^'r
will prevent runoff of wastes. Other methods ol' disposal of wastes from
retention ponds, retention lagoons, waste treatment facilities, anri/or
confined feeding areas shall be evaluated and permitted if in the jud^.no. ¦
oi the department effective water pollution control will be accnmplt^heo.
(Authorized by K. S. A. 65-1G4, K.S.A. 65-1711', K.'S. A. 65-| 65 tl - amo.x1
K.S.A. 65-1GC as amend. , K.S.A, GO-] G7 as amend. , K.S.A. 65-17 Id .
as amend., K.S.A. C5-17lb n3 amend. ; effective 31 [V7ay 1 9G7
V _
-------
Management of Animal Feedlot Wastes
* * * *
LAND SPREADING AS A DISPOSAL PROCESS
G. E. Smith*
Beef and pork produced in the mid-continent area has furnished
a major portion of the protein consumed by the American people. Per
captia consumption of meat is greater than in moat countries, a
significant portion of the housewife's grocery dollar goes for these
products from the farms and feedlots of the midwest. Future demands
for meats and animal proteins will grow.
Since our forefather's day farm production in the midwest has
been tied to humus, a thin layer on the surface of soils. This
organic material supplied over 95 percent of the nitrogen and about
half of the phosphorus required by crops. Until 15-20 years ago the
manure from farm animals was considered essential for maintaining
the productivity of land. Many of the early field experiments
(including those on Sanborn Field—established in 1889—on the
University of Missouri Campus-Columbia) were devoted to experiments
with manure. In the 1939 Yearbook of Agriculture the section** on
Farm Manures states; "One billion tons of manure, the annual product
of livestock on American farms, is capable of producting §3,000,000,
000. worth of increase in crops.... The crop nutrients it contains
would cost more than six times as much as was expended for commercial
fertilizers in 1936. Its organic matter content is double the amount
of soil humus annually destroyed in growing the nation's grain and
cotton crops...." Textbooks on soil fertility and management written
prior to the start of the last decade devoted considerable space to
methods of handling manure that would prevent volatilization of
nitrogen and losses of phosphorus and other nutrients required by
crops that might be lost by leaching or runoff. Numerous experiments
were quoted where a ton of manure would produce increases in crop
yields worth two-three dollars per ton. However, recent changes in
chemical technology and crop and livestock production has made
animal manures, in many areas, unwanted wastes that can cause both
water and air pollution, and create disposal problems.
* Director Water Resources Research Center and Professor of Agronomy,
University of Missouri.
-------
Chemical Developments Have Provided Lover Cost Fertilizers
Since the late 1940's fertilizer manufacture has become a major
chemical industry. The petroleum industry, with ample capital, has
become the ma;]or supplier of fertilizers. The term "petro-chemical"
is almost synonymous with the synthesis of anhydrous ammonia from
air and natural gas. Since elements other than nitrogen are required
by crops, many of the oil companies have also become suppliers or
distributors of the other elemeints essential in plant nutrition.
Over production of chemical fertilizers has made these compounds a
"best buy" for farmers. At present anhydrous ammonia can be purchased
at one-fourth or one-third the cost of other forms of chemical
nitrogen available in former years when farm manures were the nucleus
of many soil fertility programs. Phosphorus and potassium can also
be purchased at prices comparable to those of more than a decade ago.
Major increases in the use of chemical fertilizers has taken
place in the fertile grain and livestock producing area of the mid-
west. Animal manures are still considered valuable in improving
soil tilth and crop yields. However, manures alone will not give as
high or economically produced yields as will the proper balance of
essential nutrients in chemical form. Claims of other benefits
from manures, than nutrient content,have not been substantiated.
Shortages of farm labor, the low cost of chemical nutrients, the
greater production of crop residues and changes in livestock feeding
practices has made animal wastes a necessary evil to business-minded
farmers.
Crop Production Methods Altered
Chemical nitrogen (balanced with proper mineral additions) has
replaced rotations where legumes were turned under as a source of
nitrogen for gram crops. Benefits to soil tilth from organic
additions that permit greater water penetration and less erosion and
rur.off, have been offset by the more vigorous growth of properly
fertilized row crops. Erosion from liberally fertilized corn fields
can be lower, than from management systems where a rotation with
legume crops is practiced and little chemical fertilizer is added.
The amount of residues returned under these new management systems
is greater than was ever added by farm manure and the smaller crop
residues produced without chemicals. Crops of corn that produce 100
or more bushels of grain annually will add 3—4 tons of dry matter
in residues. Where corn is grown continuously and only the grain
removed the annual return of residues adds more organic material to
the soil than is obtained from most rotation systems where hay is
removed or where forage crops are grown for green manures. Total
return is greater where a cash crop is harvested each year than
where a portion of the land is utilized for "soil-improving" crops.
-------
Livestock Production Methods Changing
Large specialized cattle and hog feeding operations are
increasing in size and number although probably not as rapidly in
Missouri as in some other states. These large operations can
provide a steady supply of uniform and desired product and produce
at a lower unit of profit than can the smaller farm operator. Where
the livestock feeding is only a part of a general farm operation and
most of the grain is produced, manure is still returned to the fields.
Manure spreading is done when convenient with regular labor. However,
where the acreage involved is small, livestock numbers large, and
most of the feed is purchased, large amount of manure will accumulate.
In many cases the operator may have no fields for spreading. Although
this waste is of value when applied to the soil the profit from
handling and spreading is frequently less than the returns from
applying chemical nutrients to crops. Manures from feedlots or from
confinement storage may have lost so much nitrogen that the material
is a "poor buy" for grain farmers in the area. When rains flush these
wastes into streams the oxygen levels can be reduced or the growth
of aquatic plants stimulated. Returning these wastes to soils
producing crops is probably the most logical method of disposal.
However, the feedlot operator and meat consumers must consider this
disposal as an added cost of the product rather than a by-product
that can add profit to the feeding operation or lower the cost of the
finished product to the consumer.
Composition of Manures and Chemical Changes
Traditionally industry has looked to agriculture as a potential
market for waste products (many worthless or harmful to plants).
Fortunately the wastes from animal feeding can be utilized in crop
production. As large amounts of feedlot manures or fluid materials
are applied to valuable crop land, the composition and soil reactions
with these products need attention as yields and crops composition
may be adversely affected by improper use. Relatively little
information is available on the variation in composition of feedlot
or liquid manures. Differences in composition have made difficult
the processing to fullfill inspection laws in selling to the home
garden trade. However, most of the soluble nitrogen in both feedlot
an^J-rquid manures are lost by volatilization^9£__detfrtrificatibn.
ytfen temperatures are above" bu°f.—Much oE-^tWepotassium from the
¦feedlo-1- wastes will have been leached in humid areas. Most of the
information available on manure composition and soil reactions is
older data that pertains to the use of stall manure as a
Manures vary greatly in composition, but it is generally
considered that a ton of stall or barnyard manure will contain
about 10 pounds of total N, 5 pounds of total P2°5 ten pounds
of K2O.
-------
Manure contains inadequate phosphorus to serve as a optimum amendment
for most Missouri soils. Most of the phosphorus and more than one-
half of the nitrogen is in the solid portion, while potassium is
largely secreated in the urine. The kind of animal, feed composition,
litter and method of handling influences the composition.
The experiences of some sound thinking grain producers in using
feedlot or liquid manures as soil amendments have been disappointing.
Some are not interested in having the material applied to their land
at no charge. Apparently, in some seasons, so much of the nutrients
have been lost before applying, the effect on crop growth is much
less than manures from stalls or dairy operations. The total fresh
wastes from swine and cattle will contain 2/3 to 3/4 water. Manure
from large feedlots that has been subjected to precipitation and
alternate drying will have a lower content of nutrients and a higher
content of dry matter. When handled in liquid form from pits the
solids content would probably range from 20-30 percent.
When manure is first dropped it undergoes rapid-fermentation.
Aerobic decomposition occurs with heat, carbon dioxide and ammonia
being released to the atmosphere. Nitrogen, either as ammonia
or elemental nitrogen, and carbon dioxide from decomposing organic
matter account for the principal losses due to volatilization. The
nitrogen in manure is chiefly in the form of urea, undisgested
protein, or microbial tissue. The urea readily undergoes hydrolysis
to ammonium carbonate, and this reaction may go to completion within
a few days. The ammonium carbonate is unstable and tends to form
gaseous ammonia and carbon dioxide under open feedlot conditions,
du_-mg warm weather. The change to ammonia is greater at higher
temperatures. Most of the urea nitrogen would probably be lost to
the atmosphere in less than a week. Drying speeds ammonia loss.
Losses are also increased by freezing since the concentration of the
solution is increased by the crystallization of water. Manure
spread on a field in freezing weather has been found to lose as much
as one-half of the ammonia in a few days. When liquid or semi-
solid manure is allowed to accumulate in pits there will be anaerobic
reactions. Much of the soluble nitrogen will be lost by denitnfi-
cation. The solubility of phosphorus will probably increase.
Concentration of other minerals should be similar to quantities in
fresh manure, unless water is added to increase fluidity.
Some of the ammonia released in open feedlots will be
nitrified (or absorbed on litter if bedding is used). Nitrification
requires oxygen. More nitrification will probably occur under fc' l-
lct conditions than where manure is piled or trampled in barns.
-------
Where the temperature rises to 120-140 F, nitrifying organisms will
be killed. Where nitrates are formed and leach into a mass of
material or wet soil anaerobic decomposition will occur and elemental
nitrogen may be lost by denitrification. Measurements have been
made showing that cow manure stored in loose heaps in the open for
three, six and nine months lost 24, 34 and 38 percent of the total
nitrogen respectively*. Where measurements have been made on manure
rotting (a condition not too different than trampling in a feedlot)
from one-fourth to one-half of the nitrogen would be lost in a few
weeks. Phosphorus solubility would probably increase. Most other
mineral elements would change but little except that with leaching
the potassium and some other minerals would be lost.
The undigested feed protein and microbial protein in feces
are somewhat resistant to further decomposition and the nitrogen
becomes soluble only under prolonged microbial action. Experiments
have shown some of this nitrogen may not become available to plants
until a year or more after application to soil. Much of the
undesirable odor from feedlots is derived from the anaerobic
decomposition of nitrogen containing compounds.
The rate and nature of carbohydrate decomposition in manure
depends greatly on the degree of aeration. It would be expected
that the rate would be much higher under open feedlot conditions
than where measurements have been made on compacted manure in
barns.
The solid portion of manure is largely carbohydrate compounds,
cellulose, hemicellulose, lignin and some portions of the feed that
was not disgested. The lignin and protein combine to form complexes
similar to the humus compounds produced in soils. These compounds
are only slowly available to plants.
Reactions of Manures in Soils
Management practices with manure to return maximum amounts
of nutrients for crops, emphasize the need for adequate bedding
to absorb liquids, and the use of acids or phosphates to react
with ammonia. Maximum conservation is obtained by hauling the
manure daily and immediately plowing or disking into the soil.
Such practices have been followed by conservation minded farmers
with Grade A dairies where sanitation must meet public health
requirements.
* Ohio Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 605, 1939
-------
Spreading of manure on snow or when the soil is frozen is convenient.
However, with sncw melt and runoff substantial pollution of streams
¦n^y result. Some losses of nitrogen have been reported of about
3 percent in 12 hours when manure was spread on a soil at a
temperature of 68°F and the air was still. However, when a wind
movement of 8': miles per hour was provided losses increased to more
than 25 percent. After 3h days the losses had increased to 32
percent in still air and about 36 percent when there was air move-
ment. Higher percentage losses have been found when filter paper
p.as been soaked with fermented urine.
When manures are incorporated in soils, the reactions similar
to those which occur in barns or feedlots will continue. Simple
organic compounds containing nitrogen will release ammonia which
•-/ill be absorbed on the soil exchange complex. If temperatures
are below 55-60°F the nitrogen will remain as ammonia. With
higher temperatures nitrates will be formed and will be subject
to leaching unless absorbed by growing crops. Inorganic phosphorus
added or formed will react with iron, aluminum, calcium or other
cations. The reaction will be influenced by soil pH. Potassium
calcium, magnesium and the trace elements will be held by exchange
bonding on soil colloids or in some chelated form.
All of these reactions that occur when manures are added to
soil are similar to those that have permitted the productive
soil of the corn belt to develop from the mineral-rich parent
ii3terlal. Although the nutrients contained in the manure may not
be a bargain at the price of chemical fertilizer nutrients today,
che effect of the added humus will be of some benefit on most
soils. Where subsoils have been exposed by erosion or by other
-.eans (land forming, terracing) the manure is valuable to improve
-ration and oxidation, increase water penetration and reduce
erosion.
Nate of Application
Vfnere barnyard manures have been applied to crops, yields have
not substantially increased when more than 6-10 tons per acre are
applied annually. It is probable that feedlot or liquid wastes
could be applied at heavier rates than barnyard manure because of
the lower soluble nitrogen content. In some cases supplemental
c'-.eirical nitrogen might also be required to produce optimum crop
yields. Best results have been obtained when the manure is
supplemented with phosphate fertilizer. Excessive rates of manure
addition may result in abnormal vegetative growth and lodging of
^orne crops.
-------
V.'^ere drouth or excessively wet soil conditions prevail during the
crowing season, the manure may not decompose and anaerobic
decomposition could produce compounds that are toxic to plants.
Too much organic material in the root zone could result in drying
of the soil so germination and stand could be adversely affected.
Pasture or silage crops produced on old feeding areas may
contain so much nitrate that the feed is toxic to ruminants.
Agronomists frequently recommend corn or sorghum produced on
heavily manured areas should be harvested for grain. Crops for
milage should be grown on soil:; receiving chemical fertilizers
so the amount of nutrients available during the critical growing
season can be more accurately controlled.
Crops Removed of Nutrients Greater Than Fertility Additions
Despite the great increase in use of chemical fertilizers m
recent years, crops in this country are still removing from soils
nore minerals and nitrogen than are being returned. Average
amounts of chemical nutrients applied per acre in this country
are much less than is used in many European countries. Conservation
of nutrients from animal feeding operations will not only reduce
pollution, but can aid in effecting a balance between nutrient
return to soils and crop removal of essential elements.
SUMMARY
1. Returning feedlot and animal confinement wastes is an effective
disposal method and can increase crop yields. Feedlot wastes
and liquid manures will usually have a lower nutrient content
then will fresh or barnyard manures. Most of the soluble
nitrogen will be volatilized as ammonia or denitrified before
application. Potassium will be leached from feedlots in region',
with high rainfall.
2. In many situations the cost of applied nutrients in chemical
fertilizers will be less than the cost of labor and equipment
for spreading feedlot or liquid wastes.
3. For optimum crop yields, chemical nutrients will frequently
be needed to supplement livestock wastes.
4. Where substantial amounts of feedlot or liquid manures are
to be applied to soils, chemical analyses should be made to
determine the actual amount of plant nutrients that will be
added.
(7)
-------
Corn and grain sorghum are the crops in Missouri that can best
utilize heavy applications of manures. These crops, when
heavily manured should be harvested for grain. These species,
when grown for silage with excess manure treatment may contain
high levels of nitrate.
Most retention in soils, most desirable soil reactions and
the most efficient crop returns will be obtained when rates
of manure application are no more than 10 tons per acre
annually.
Manures should be incorporated into soils as soon as possible
after applications.
V7hen the location of large feeding operation is being planned,
sufficient acreage of cropland should be available so that some
fields wi.ll be available in most months of the year for spread-
ing wastes.
When the economics of large livestock feeding operations are
being considered, disposal of wastes may be a cost of operation,
rather than a by product that will produce income.
Improved equipment is needed for handling large amounts of
liquid manure and feedlot wastes, to minimize odors and to
efficiently spread under a wide range of conditions.
-------
Design for Feed lot Waste Management
"Using Feedlot Waste"
Lynn R. Shuyler, P. E.
Extension Irrigation Engineer
Kansas State University
The basic idea in the past of management of animal waste has always been for
this waste to be applied to the land. This was a simple matter when the large herd
roamed the free range or even today, when we have cattle on pasture. The problem
of the farmer, who fed cattle on the farm in the past, also had no disposal problems.
As many of us can remember, I am sure, when we spoke of manure disposal, this meant,
getting out the manure spreader, and loading it to haul the manure to the field.
This was a simple matter for the man who had only a few head on feed. This type of
fertilizer was needed on most farms to treat that "poor" sand hill or that "bad"
piece of land.
Today the cost of moving manure onto the land is usually more than the benefits
derived from the manure. Even the farmer-feeder would find it cheaper to apply
commercial fertilizer than to haul the manure on his land. The most pressing problem
today is not the farmer-feeder, but the larger feeder or feedlot. We are not dealing
with 20 to 50 head of cattle in one location, but we are talking in terms of many
hundreds or several thousand head of cattle in one location. It is obvious that
this is not a one-spreader operation for the feedlots.
The feedlot operator is stuck with the problem of how to get rid of tons and
tons of dry waste from the lot. In Kansas, he must also control and dispose of anv
liquid waste from his feedlot.
It is the opinion of many of us in Kansas, that the best way to dispose of 1..i
material is to apply it to agricultural land. It is not a point m mosL cases o;
making money trom animal waste, but one of breaking even or losing as little moin
possible disposing of the wasLc from the Iol. If you look very ilosely at most
industrial plants, you will find that Lhey are very happy Lo geL rid of their w.isn
-------
or scrap at a fraction of its value, as long as it does not cost the plant very
much. They figure this cost as a part of the overhead involved in their operation.
I think this is the way feedlots are going to have to solve the problem of dry waste.
Some lots today will load dry waste for the farmer, just to get him to haul it away.
This seems to be a step in the right direction. The problem of liquid waste is not
this simple, as most farmers will not haul water to get a little fertilizer.
In this session, I will try to give you some of the concepts and basic ideas of
how to utilize the liquid runoff from a feedlot in a profitable manner. At least we
hope it can be profitable for some operation. We will also discuss how to utilise
dry waste, how much can be spread on an acre of land, and how much it is worth in
terms of commercial fertilizer.
Once the operator and designer of a feedlot have decided to dispose of the liquid
waste material from the lot by applying it on agricultural land, there are several
items they need to investigate before trying to design such a system for liquid waste.
I will try in a few minutes to make crop fertility, soils and irrigation experts
out of you. At least, I hope to give you enough information to be able to discuss
these points with the experts in each field. This will allow you to modify the
information from this seminar to fit each feedlot in question.
The most important factor is how much land is needed, and what crops arc going
to be grown on this land. You will most likely want to grow a high volume cr.ip
such as a forage crop or a pasture crop. Crops such as these will remove large
amounts of nutrients from the soil, therefore, you can apply more nutrients to eai l\
acre of soil.
Since the most urgent problem is liquid waste, we will want to consider irri-
gation as a means of disposing of liquid waste and growing crops.
When we speak of crop fertility, let us concern ourselves with forage--corn
and sorghum, grairi--corn and sorghum and pastures--wheat and grass.
The fertility needs of these crops can be seen in Table 1. We must keep these
-------
disposal system, we can get too much of any one element on the land. In many cases,
an excess of nutrients can have a toxic effect on plants. We must work out a system
where we apply enough fertility for the plant with waste, and balance this with
commercial fertilizer, if necessary.
The irrigation needs of these crops can be seen in figures 1 through 5 (corn-1,
sorghum-2, wheat-3, tame grass-4, and sorghum and wheat-5.) These maps indicate
how much irrigation water is needed to produce a crop in most years. This shows
that in the western part, these crops will use as much extra water as they receive
in yearly rainfall. The most important factor in water use, is the daily use or
monthly use of the crop. As can be seen from figures 6-7, we can determine the
total water used each month and subtract rainfall from this to predict how much water
we can dispose of in any month. The peak use of most of these crops is about .3
mches per day. An irrigation system should be able to deliver this amount" of water.
The water-holding capacity of a soil is very important in designing an irri-
gation system or a disposal field. Figure 8 shows the amount of water per fool tha,t
a soil might hold. As you can see, this will vary from 2 inches to less than 1 inch
per foot. It should be pointed out that the plant can use only about 507o of this
water without causing damage to the plant. Therefore, we can only apply enough
water to replace what the plant has used. If we add more than the crop has used,
we will drive water below the root zone and to a position where it will eventually
end up in the ground water and cause pollution of the ground water.
The root zones of various crops are shown in figure 9. This gives us a clue
as to how much soil we have to work with for any crop, relating tins to the si>i I typr
we have to work with, will tell us how much water we can apply to the soi J at any
one lime.
Once we get the factors of crop fertility, water use of a crop, water-holding
capacity of soil and crop root zone depth well in mind, we are ready to apply this
knowledge to a design for use of liquid waste.
-------
It has already been pointed out at this meeting, that we can expect the dry
material to contain 15 pounds of N, 9 pounds I*2®5> ^ Pounds 1^0 plus other elements
per ton. The liquid waste will contain from 135 to 1485 pounds of N with the average
being 500 pounds, 70 pounds an<* pounds 1^0 per acre foot. The nutrients
contained in either the liquid or dry waste are not totally available each year.
Many experts feel that only about 50% of the total is available the first year. The
second year, only about 50%. of the carry-over will be available. With the fact m
mind that not alL the nutrient is used each year, you can understand how the fern lily
level for the crop can be maintained with chemical fertilizers.
The first step in designing a disposal system is to decide how much liquid
will be generated by the lot. This is determined by the rainfall patterns at the
location of the lot. The runoff from feedlots at several points in Kansas has been
studied in a report by Fred Bergsrud. These values are shown in figures 10 and 11.
In designing the system at Pratt, we decided to use 14 inches of runoff as a maximum
valve. This exceeds the 12 inches at a 20% chance. Using this figure, we would use
about one acre of land for one acre of feedlot. When you get into an area of higher
rainfall, you may need to use two or three acres of land for each acre of lot.
You may ask, "What about excess plant nutrients when we apply 12" per acre7"
The answer to this is that we will not be applying this much waste in 8 out of 10
years. It appears from the amount of NPK in the waste, that we should consider usluk
about 6" of liquid waste per acre of crop land. This would be an average year.
The problem of how to figure the acreage need for the disposal can be easily
figured, bu L it takes time and could lend itself to a computer program. If you wouJil
Lake the 14 inches of runoff (1920) we used at the Pratt Feedlot, you will see from
the following example how the system would work.
(See tabulation nexi
/ 1
-------
Date
Rainfall
Feedlot
Runoff
Effective
Crop Rainfall
Crop
Use
Pit
Storage
Water
In Soil
/I) ni)
January
0.19
0.00
0.00
2.00
8.00
February
0.35
0.10
0.15
2.00
.10
6.15
March
1.00
Pump pit
0.55
dry — add
0.60
3" fresh water
3.00 .65
(pre-irrigate)
3.75
7.40
April
2.26
0.80
1.00
1.00
.80
7.40
May
4.19 1.62
During May pump
3.00 4.50
pit dry — no fresh water
.00
5.90
8.32
June
2.76
Pump pit
1.00
dry and
add
2.00
5' fresh water
6.50
.00
3.82
9.82
July
3.59
Pump pit
1.62
dry and
add
2.90
2" fresh water
6.50
.00
6.22
9.84
August
5.25 3.13
Pump pit dry
4.00
6.50
7.34
10.47
September
October
November
December
Total
3.11 1.37
Pump pit dry
A.28
3.00
2.30
2.00
5.00
3.00
1.86 0.58
Pump pit dry
1.30 0.56
Pump pit dry
.95
30.14 14.33 20.20
Irrigation water add 10.00"
1.00
43.00
7.77
9.14
8.14
(One rain 3.51" field runoff of 2.00") Pump pit dry 11.14
1.30 2.00
10.44
11.02
10.97
11.53
As you can see from the above data, we were able to use the 14 inches of runofl on
ine acre of land without any real problems. We would have applied about 588 pounds or
^3 pounds of P205» and 448 pounds of K20 to one acre of land. We must remember that onb
about 1/2 of this is available.
If we were growing a forage corn during the summer, and wheat pasture durinR the
winter, we would have used 250 pounds of N, 90 pounds of P20s» an^ ^25 pounds of K2*' *¦'
-------
20 pounds of P2O5 at planting time. The following year 1 would not apply any fertilizer
early in th<2 year.
You can see from this example that an average of 6 to 8 inches of runoff would
not cause any problems in fertility or water use.
When you considei the fresh water supply need for a project of this kind, you
should consider this as an irrigation project. Figure 12 shows you how much Writer is
needed for the number of acres irrigated. The reason for using this amount of water
is that you will be trying to grow a crop planted for irrigated conditions, and you
must be able to supply it water during the stress period for the crop. This stress
period will usually come at a time when you have no water from the feedlot runoff.
The storage that is provided for runoff from the lots should be more than the
minimum required. I would like to see an extra 50% more storage built into each pro-
ject. This would enable the operator to carry over and manage the runoff in a manner
that it can be used by the crops.
We should build at least enough storage to be able to blend the waste water in
equal parts with fresh water when we are using waste water. The situation will occur
when it is necessary to use only waste water. When this happens, I would hope that wr
could limit our application rate from 2 to 4 inches. Here we are trying to apply sm.i I 1
amounts of plant nutrients at any one time. When we have to go through a season using
only waste water, we will have to balance our fertility program for the next year wirli
what will be carried over from the last season. When a program of this nature is loli
ed, we will lessen the risk of ground water contamination.
The blending of waste water with fresh water might be accomplished in a pLpelir.c,
but 1 have chosen to use a small pit for blending.
The equipment used Lo transport waste water will vary with the personal pi i»u*ron.
of the design engineer. However, there are several items which should be considered u
selecting this equipment.
-------
The pumps selected should be of the chopper type, or they should at least be able
o discharge any material that can enter the Intake side of the pump. These pumps should
be as corrosion proof as possible.
The valves used on a project of this type do not need to be costly. There are
iany irrigation type flap valves which will work very well In most cases. The
valves should be located above ground or in an area where they can be serviced easily,
he check valve used on the fresh water supply must meet the standards for the city
water supply. It must not leak any of the waste water back into the well.
When we discuss pipelines to move waste water from the pits to the irrigation
fields, we should consider underground pipe. I would suggest using either plastic
)r asbestos-cement, since both of these will not be affected by corrosion from waste.
Since most of these systems will be low pressure, gravity irrigation systems,
we can use low head pipe which is considerably less expensive than high pressure,
vater main pipe.
Once we have the water delivered to the filed, we should consider using gated pipe
to control the release of this water to the crop. We know that the waste water will
be harmful to the aluminum pipe and the gates. However, we do not know how long this
pipe will stand up under these conditions, but I suggest that all pipes be flushed
with fresh water after each use period. This procedure should prolong the life of the
pipes.
bach field or system must have a tailwater recovery system built into it. The
tailwater recovery system will trap any waste water which is allowed to run off of
the irrigation fieJd. The tailwater system should be equipped with an .iutom.i(. lc. pump
which will return the taiJwaler, either back to the head end of the field or b.uk
llie fei.dlol runoff pLts. The pump for this system should be sized to return 20/.' oi »
flow delivered to the field. If 1000 GPM is delivered, then we need 200 (Jl'M retui ium
llie pump should also be manually controlled to allow them to be shut off when the trvti
tion system is not in operation. The pits or pumps used for the tailwater system, sii.u. u.
be constructed to allow storm runoff water to by-pass them.
-------
Dry waste from feedlots may be more of a problem than liquid waste. Dry waste will
contain only about 15 pounds of N, 9 pounds of ^2^5' an(* ^ Poun<*8 ^2^ ^er ton"
you were to buy this as commercial fertilizer, it would cost about $3.00 per ton.
It would appear that you can apply 20 tons per acre yearly, if it is incorporated
well and irrigation is used. There are areas in Kansas where 50 tons per acre were
used for the last two years. I feel that this amount might be used for a few years,
but should not be a regular program until we know more about this system.
Nutrient Needs of Crops (Table 1)
Crop
N
p2o5
k2o
Corn, 120 bu.
180//
70//
140//
Corn, Forage
180
70
180
Sorghum, Forage
160
70
180
Sorghum, Grain
145
50
110
Wheat
70
20
25
Grass
160
70
120
-------
21
22
20
ton] : mar:
FUUEY /pi^ttakhhTOmie
THOMAS
.AV
ISCH
RPON
COFFEV
ORD
22 21 20
CORN
Irrigation Water Requirements
Unit Values in Inches
(Eased on 80$ Precipitation Chance and 6yf> Irrigation Efficiency)
Figure 1
-------
20
22
NORTON
CLOUD
6MH«m\ [ ROOKS
CL AY
RUSH
SCOTT
MC PHERSON
RENO
ITT
STT".
21 20
22
Irrigation Water Requirements
Unit Values in Inches
(B&s-'-i or. 80/3 Precipitation Chance and 65$ Irrigation Efficiency)
Figure 2
-------
10
12
11
iTON !
«LJF* /PI. rMWTGMS
a.Mr
I SON
r*M9HJM/r MIAMI
RUSH
IRION
ACC
SWTDI
-TON
HARVEY
RCI
OJ
10
11
12
20
WHEAT
Irrigation Water Requirements
Unit Values in Inches
^ (Based on 8C$ Precipitation Chance & 65# Irrigation Efficiency)
Figure 3
-------
OCCATUR
JON
•TON
CLAY I 1 WLEYf/POTTt
T COO
LIS
GC;
! COT7
WtCHTTA
MC,
EY
Hrf RVEY
RfiNO
BUTLER
PRATT
.SON
EL!
STF>
TAME GRASS
Irrigation Water Requirements
Unit Values in Inches
(Bpse^ on 8o£ Precipitation Chance and 65$ Irrigation Efficiency)
Figure 4
-------
hi k2 M he 10 V* 37 33 3?+ 33 3 2 31
ICATUR
NORTON
[CLAY
iSON
I SON
BARTON
RUSH
SCO\T
,RK *
iS£
.coffe'
FORD
BUT I
CRAY
ITT
DOUBLE CROP - SORGHUMS & '.HEAT
Irri nation .fcter Re qui renents
Unit Values in Inches
{. cr. 2% Precipitation Chance a 6% Irrigation Efficiency)
Figure 5
-------
Daily Water Use of Crops (Figure 6)
Inches per day
Crops
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Alfalfa
.30
.32
.30
.24
Corn
.07
.31
.33
.15
Sorghums
.07
.24
.29
.10
Pasture
.26
.29
.27
.21
Wheat
.26
o
o
o
o
.00
Total Consumptive Use of Crops (Figure 7)
Crops Consumptive Use (inches)
Alfalfa 29 - 37
Corn 24 - 27
Sorghums 20-23
Pasture 25 - 32
Wheat (winter use) 13 - 17
- 9 -
-------
Water Holding Capacity of
Texture
Very light, coarse sand
Fine sand
Silt loam
Heavy clay loam
Heavy clay
Soils (Figure 8)
Inches per Foot
.75
1.25
2.00
2.20
2.00
Root Zones of Crops (Figure 9)
Crop Depth (feet)
Alfalfa 6-8
Corn 4 - 6
Sorghums 4-6
Pasture 3-5
Wheat 4-6
-------
Eighty percent chance occurrence runoff in inches interpolated from
station data.
10 11
Horton
Burr Oa
Francis
Mamhatt. n
iMinneipotLi
Hays
Healy
hersfoi
Infield
Columbus
Elkh/rt
8
9
10
11
12 13 14 15 ]6
Figure 10
Normal annual runoff in inches interpclated from station data.
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
orton
St.
Burr 0.
Francis
Minneapolis
Manhattan
Hays
Healy
Mcrherso
Medicine
Lodge
Winfleld
Elkhar
6
7
8
9 10
11
14
12
13
-------
Average Diversion Rate - Gallons Per M-tm.t-g
ULL IRRIGATION
500
Method for Determining Acres to be Irrigated Annually
Based on Average Diversion Rate
Figure 12
-r/
-------
DESIGN FOR FEEDLOT WASTE MANAGEMENT
History and Characteristics
R. I. Lipper, Associate Professor
Department of Agricultural Engineering
Kansas State University
The reason this seminar is being held is that the cattle feeding industry in Kansas
las i ndergone vast changes in the past ten years. The trend established by these changes
appears likely to continue into the future. And these changes have posed some new
iroblems rn preserving the quality of our environment.
Some of our people have reacted to the problems by advocating that the cattle feeding,
industry be throttled. This is not the way we have reacted to other problems associated
nth industrial expansion. It is my purpose to illustrate the value of this industry
to the state of Kansas; to relate its growth in the state to the emergence of a water
Dollution problem; and to make an attempt to describe the nature and magnitude of the
problem in the best perspective we can achieve at this time.
Americans are beef eaters and Kansas has the opportunity to supply a significant
share of the demand. The United States per capita consumption of poultry and meat
increased by about one-fourth since World War II while that of beef increased about
~ 0°/!. Until the mid-fifties, the beef consumption cycle ranged from 56 to 65 pounds
per person. It then broke out of the pattern. It has climbed to about 107 pounds n. 1
and has not yet reached the top. Herrell De Graff, President of the American Meat.
Institute recently predicted a per capita annual consumption of 130 pounds in I^HU
Somu rjf the beef producers are talking about 200 pounds. Even at present consumption
rates (and slaughter weights) each additional million people will require another
172,000 beef cattle.
The problem we are discussing relates only to the cattle that are finish-fed tur
slaughter. Animals go Into feedlots weighing 600 to 800 pounds and are fed a ration
rs
-------
high in grain and protein concentrate for about four months. They gain 2 to 3 pounds
per day. Most cattle slaughtered in this country go through feedlots to meet the market
demand for quality. About 2/3 go tluough feedlots now as compared to 1/3 before World
War II. Production of fed beef now is nearly four times that of the 1940's and accounts
Cor nearly .ill the increase in beef production.
There are over 10 million head of cattle on feed for slaughter in the nation. Aboui
5 percent of the total are in Kansas but our share is increasing. Finish-feeding of
cattle has grown more than twice as fast in Kansas than it has in the nation during the
past decade. A study by the USDA Economic Research Service shows that fed cattle tnarkci
ings in Kansas and Nebraska have increased an average of 12 percent a year between 1955
and 1967. The current annual rate of expansion in western Kansas probably is well in
excess of 20 percent. Kansas presently ranks sixth among the states in the number of
cattle on feed. Iowa still is No. 1 with most of its cattle in small farm feedlots.
Nebraska is No. 2 and growing at about the same rate as Kansas. California, with an
average of 1,800 head per feedlot is No. 3 but is slipping. Texas is fourth--Colnrado
fifth. The new glamor area for cattlemen is the Central Plains area including parts of
Kansas, Nebraska, Colorado, and the panhandles of Oklahoma and Texas. This is Lhe
growth area for the large commercial feedlots. And these are the feedlots with the
greatest need to control water pollution.
A recent survey (1968) by the Southwest Public Service Company of Amarillo, Texas,
shows 274 large commercial feedlots in a 42 county area in Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and
New Mexico. They have a total one-time capacity of over 1 million head--300,OUU motr
than the year before and almost: a haLf-million more than in 1966. It lias boon o>.t m.i.ii nl
iliai by Llie early J970\s, approximately 2,500 large commercial feedlots In Lho II. S wi
supply nearly 70 percent of all the nation's finished cattle.
Kansas is in the forefront of the boom. In the past ten years the total cattle
grain feed in the state has increased about 340 percent. Cattle in feedlots with over
1,000 head capacity have increased almost 770 percent. Ten years ago, about one-fourth
-------
of our fed cattle came from large feedlots--now it is well over half. There is a sound
ase for the expansion and it appears likely to continue. Western Kansas in particular
Las what seems to be an ideal combination of resources.
While the shift to fed beef was being made, it was discovered feedlots could be
eveloped on a large scale, at a low cost, in arid areas. Feeders feel that cattle per-
formance is better at higher elevations where summer nights are cool and humidity is
ow. The situation becomes almost ideal where irrigation is possible so forages and
;rain can be produced locally. These conditions led to rapid feedlot expansion in
Jolorado, California, and Arizona in the 1950's. California and Arizona were cJose
o the highly concentrated, rapidly expanding, affluent beef-eating population centers
ot the West Coast. But with advances in meat packing and shipping efficiency, Lhe cost
>f transporting beef to market is trending downward. Packing-houses are gaining more
flexibility in choosing locations and are less concerned over having a source of finished
:attle near big population centers. Since I960, two major changes have accounted for
¦apid feedlot growth in Kansas, Colorado, and the Oklahoma and Texas Panhandles. These
are the rapid growth of well irrigation and huge expansion in grain sorghum production.
It is estimated that less than 30 percent of the sorghum now produced in the region is
fed to cattle so there still is feed for further expansion. On top of this, it is (.lie
neart of the largest feeder calf producing area in the country. Nearly half (lu- nation'-
aeef cows are in a band running from the Gulf to the Canada line and extending from
Missouri to the Continental Divide.
Large feedlots have a tremendous economic impact. Each animal requires 23 pounds
feed per day--eighty percent of it grain. The cost of feeding including labor, taxes,
and other overhead runs about 60 to 65 cents a day per head in a typical operation on
a year-around basis. Direct payrolls probably run about two men per 1,000 head capac ii
Facilities require huge capital outlays for pens, drives, water systems, and sophistic.,
feeding and mixing equipment. The investment in a 10,000-head capacity feedlot is
about J million dollars.
-------
New capital is generated on many fronts ranging from irrigation equipment and farm
machinery to packing plants. Dodge City today is moving more cattle than it did during
the fabled days of Front Street when in 1884, 106 Texas longhorn herds came to Dodge City
totaling more than 300,000 head. In 1967 the McKinley-Winter Livestock Commission Com-
pany sold 350,000 cattle worth more than 57 million dollars. The Dodge City Livestock
Company added another 100,000 head. In a 46-county area, more than 3,200 applications
for irrigation water wells have been filed with the state since 1962. Corn growing has
moved into western Kansas where yields under irrigation are surpassing those in the corn
belt in the northeastern part of the state. Sorghum production has boomed. New irriga
varieties give yields unheard of a few years ago.
Official conservative estimates of the dollar value of livestock in Kansas is 8U0
million. In reality it probably is closer to one billion. This is about matched by
tne value of the meat packing industry. Packing plants are moving out of the cities
into the beef producing areas. Kansas plants slaughtered 1,617,000 head of cattle in
1967 which means that animals were brought in from out of state for processing in Kansc'
plants. New plants at Garden City and Liberal will ship out beef caracasses and keep
of the money at home. Iowa Beef Packers at Emporia is being expanded to replace the
ki 11-and-chill operation with cut-and-fabricate. The new operation ships out boxed
wholesale and retail cuts and requires major expansion for refrigerated cutting rooms.
Large-scale cattle feeding is a growth industry suited to Kansas resources ant I on<
that the state can ill afford to ignore.
It was a shock to livestock producers to find that their efficient production
methods had given rise to a water pollution problem. The concentration of up to 200
animals per acre on areas ranging from 5 to well over 100 acres was quite a differen:
matter thqn having the wastes thinly scattered over many acres of grazing land. Every
900-pound steer daily defecates about 60 pounds of wet manure (43 pounds of feces ant
17 pounds of urine) so each acre of feedlot is treated with about 6 tons of fresh
-------
nariure every day. Since the land is exposed to rainfall, erosion and transport of the
organic wastes is a natural result.
The State Department of Health started sampling streams below feedlots in 1963.
Immediately after runoff occurred, they found high ammonia concentrations and zero
dissolved oxygen extending for several miles in the receiving streams. Polluted slugs
traveled downstream trapping fish and giving little warning to downstream users. Run-
off from feedlots was blamed for killing over 2.6 million fish in Kansas in 1964, 1965,
and 1966, Sometimes towns got into difficulty in treating the water for their use.
Feedlots had come to be considered the most important uncontrolled source of stream
pollution in the state.
Sportsmen and conservationists rallied to the cause. For lack of better informa-
tion they sometimes used data on pollution by animals that failed to fit the context.
Data can be found that shows the population equivalent of cattle wastes to be anywhere
from 10 to 30 people. The most reliable current estimate places the value of the waste
produced by one beef animal as being equivalent in five-day biological oxygen demand
to that produced by 7.7 people. On that basis, if all the wastes from a 10,000-head
feedlot were water carried as are most human wastes, a treatment plant like one for a
city of 77,000 would be required. Fortunately, only a fraction of the organic wastes
from feedlots is carried in the stormwater runoff.
Kansas State University used two small experimental feedlots to find the pollution
potential of runoff. Precise data was not obtained because of the many variables in-
volved but we have a much improved concept of the problem. Analysis of Simula led .uul
real stormwater runoff samples showed ammonia nitrogen concentrations ranging from lt>
to 140 mg/1. Suspended solids varied from 1,500 to 12,000 mg/l. Chemical oxygen
was 3,000 to 11,000 mg/1. The ratio of chemical oxygen demand to biological oxygen
demand was 8.8 to 1. High concentrations of total coliforms, fecal coliforms, am
streptococci were found. Pollutant concentrations were approximately twice as greai
-------
from a concrete lot as for an unsurfaced lot. Factors contributing to high concentra-
tions vere warm weather, low rainfall rates, and feedlot surfaces already wet before
rainfall began. Doubling cattle population densities from 200 per acre to 400 per acre
increased pollution potential by about 25 percent. Cleaning lots reduced pollution in
the runoff for no more than two weeks following cleaning. Accumulating manure in packe
mounds in the lots over extended periods had little if any effect on the nature of Lhe
runoff.
Avoiding muddy conditions in lots could be quite important. During a heavy rain-
storm in late summer 1968, with lot surfaces wet when rain began, all pollution para-
meters greatly exceeded previously measured values. Three inches fell over a period of
about eight hours. Suspended solids were 26,850 mg/1 in samples taken 2.5 hours after
the storm began and 45,200 mg/1 an hour before it ended. COD exceeded 19,000 mg/1 at
both samplings. Manure had worked into a slurry by animals tramping and the prolonged
rain. Similar conditions sometimes are encountered in commercial feedlots. Under
such conditions, the large amount of suspended solids could cause excessive silting
in pollution control structures.
Hydrologic observations were made to relate runoff rates to rainfall intensities.
"Soil cover complex" numbers as used by the Soil Conservation Service appealed Lo ade-
quately depict the relationship when values of 94 and 91 were used for the concrete lot
and for the soil surfaced lot respectively.
Since the quality parameters of runoff were also related to rainfall intensities,
it is possible, within broad limits, to estimate the total annual pollution l.vnls
generated by runoff from feedlots. These estimates, made with the aid of weaLher
bureau records of rainfall, are lacking in precision but any estimates of pollution
loads made on a per animal basis are meaningless in this context. Estimates made
on a per acre basis using the type of data described offer a rational approach to
showing the dimensions of the problem in a proper perspective.
-------
The following example is an estimate made for the north central Kansas area where
t average annual rainfall is about 30 inches. As a starting point, Table 1 shows the
a >roximate amount of runoff from various size storms that might be expected from feed-
lots with surface characteristic:: similar to the Kansas test lots.
Table 1. Expected Runoff from Feedlots from Indicated
Precipitation
Precipi tation
Runoff
inches
inches
gal./acre
0.50
0.21
5,700
0.75
0.36
9,800
1.00
0.52
14,100
1.50
0.95
25,800
2.00
1.40
38,000
2.50
1.85
50,100
3.00
2.30
62,500
Table 2 is a hypothetical "average rainfall year," based on fifty-year data for
r.uith central Kansas.
Table 2. Average Number of Various Sized Rainfalls During
the Four Seasons in North Central Kansas*
Rainfall amount (inches)
Season 0.01-0.25 0.25-0.5 0.5-1.0 1.0-1.5 1.5-2.0
Winter
Dec. ,
Jan. ,
Feb.
10
2
]
0
0
Spring
Mar. ,
Apr. ,
May
12
4
3
2
0
Summer
June,
July,
Aug.
12
5
5
3
1
Fall
Sept.
Oct. ,
Nov.
10
3
2
1
0
*Based on Kansas State Board of Agriculture data.
-------
Table 3 combines the information in Tables 1 and 2 to predict feed lot runoff per
acre during each season of the hypothetical year.
Table 3. Amount of Runoff Per Acre of Feedlot During
Indicated Season
Runoff*
Season
Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
TOTAL
inches
gal./acre
0.8
21,800
3.2
87,200
4.8
130,100
2.0
54,500
10.8
293,600
* Amounts and intensities of precipitation causing run-
off were averages for fifty years.
Table 4 shows the BOD concentrations of the runoff during indicated seasons.
Table 4. BOD Concentrations in Cattle Feedlot Runoff
During Indicated Seasons
Concrete lot, Soil surfaced
mg/1 lot, tng/1
Winter
Typical concentration 450 250
Rangi 300-600 150-350
Spring and Fall
Typical concentration 900 450
Range 750-1,050 350-550
Summer
Typical concentration 1,300 680
Range 1,100-1,400 550-750
The data from Taly.^ 3 and 4 used to calculate the typical annual BOD discharge
per acre of feedlot, show 2,500 pounds of oxygen required to satisfy the demand of the
annual runoff from an acre of concrete surfaced lot, or 1,200 pounds per acre of unsur-
fi>^
-------
faced lot. Sixty-two oounds of oxygen is the generally accepted amount required per year
r person to stabilize domestic sewage. On that basis, the annual average human popu-
lation equivalent of a one-acre, concrete feedlot is 40--or 20 with an unsurfaced lot.
the runoff from a feedlot were discharged uniformly each day, the estimated discharge
om a 50 acre unsurfaced feedlot would be equivalent to the flow of untreated sewage
trom a community of 1,000 people. However, the storm water flow from the hypothetical
edlot occurred only 30 days a year. On that basis average runoff on one of the 30
days was an organic load equivalent to the untreated sewage from 250 people. A 10,000-
ad feedlot on 50 acres on such a day would be equivalent to a community of 12,500
ople. But rainfall and runoff are seldom "average". In the sample area at least one
two-inch rain can be expected each summer. The runoff from a 50 acre feedlot for such a
orm would be roughly equivalent to a day's sewage flow from a city of 60,000 people.
Since it is expected that in many pollution control systems, runoff water will be
iught in detention lagoons and later pumped onto cropland, its total nitrogen content
mid be a useful parameter. Kjeldahl nitrogen concentrations in the Kansas State
studies ranged from 50 to 500 mg/1. This is 11 to 122 pounds per acre-inch. The
ltrite and nitrate forms were low, ammonia and organic nitrogen being the principle
forms. A good design value for nitrogen content is not available but about 40 pounds
Lemental N per acre-inch was estimated as a mean value for runoff from the University's
:st feedlots.
More information is needed on the concentration of salts in runoff water if n is to
e used for irrigation. There is some indication of a possible hazard to soil structure
because of the combined sodium, potassium, and ammonium ion concentrations. It ls hoped
hat more information on these properties will be available in the near future.
-------
CONTRIBUTION OF FERTILIZERS TO WATER POLLUTION
G. E. Smith
Director, Water Resources Research Center, and Professor of Agronomy
The use of chemical fertilizers has increased during the same period there has been development of public
awareness of water pollution (16), A shift of an increasing population from rural to urban areas has created
problems of both water quality and quantity in many areas. Chemical fertilizers have been essentia] to adequate
food supplies. Crop production in the United States would probably be one-third less if chemical fertilizer use
was at 1948 levels.
Recent legislation requires cities and industries to improve waste treatment facilities to reduce water
pollution. Emphasis is being placed on water quality. Inference is made that where existing stream quality is
above approved standards the quality will be maintained. Where chemical elementa in water could originate
either from metropolitan areas or from crop production; there is need to understand the soil reactions of these
elements, the fate of chemical plant nutrients applied in fertilizers, and to determine the quantities that could
enter surface and ground water.
More than 37 million tons of fertilizers were used in the United States in the year ending June 30, 1967
This is more than double the nearly 18 million tons used in 1948. In Missouri total tonnage increased from 35r>
thousand to over 1.3 million tons during the same period. Much of the fertilizer is now being used in the Mis-
souri-Mississippi-Ohio River Basins. In 1967, Illinois, Iowa, Indiana, Ohio, Minnesota, and Missouri were
all in the "top-ten" states in the amounts of nutrients applied from chemical fertilizers. (Other states In this
group were: California, Texas, Georgia, and North Carolina.) Past concepts of using fertilizers only on low
fertility soils have changed to application on those soils that have desirable terrain, the capacity to store rain-
fall - or where water for irrigation is available to produce high crop yields.
Most fertilizer is applied to supply nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium. The compounds that contain
these elements also add other ions. However, to reduce freight and handling costs; the percentage of nitrogen,
phosphorus, and potassium in fertilizer material is increasing. The total-average N-P 0 - K d contents ot
mixed fertilizers registered for sale in Missouri in 1948 was 21.4%. This figure had increased to 40. 7^ in
1963 and 44. lar in 1967. This trend to higher analysis is occurring in all states. While the total tonnage of all
fertilizers used in the United States doubled between 1948 and 1967, nitrogen increased from 856 thousand to
nearly 6 million tons; P9O5 increased from 1.8 to 4.3 million tons; and K,,0 consumption changed from less than
one to more than 3.5 million tons. This trend to higher N, P and K content has eliminated some other element*
formerly present as impurities that may be essential for plant growth. This has resulted in the increased u.se
of trace or secondary elements for crop production on some soils.
A relatively few chemical compounds make up most fertilizer materials;
• Nitrogen - Anhydrous ammonia, either applied directly or as a base material for other
nitrogen compounds, accounts for more than 90% of all nitrogen fertilizers
in the United States. Nitrogen from the atmosphere is combined with hvdrogen
from natural gas. An Increasing percentage of the nitrogen Is applied to si>i!
as NH . This gas is usually applied 6-9 inches below the surface. The NH ~
formed by the reaction of anhydrous ammonia with soil water is held '' ih"
negatively charged soil and little moves more than 4-5 inches from the pomi
of release until the ammonia is converted to nitrate.
Solid forms of nitrogen such as: ammonium nitrate; ammonium phobphntes
and ammonium sulfate; are made by reacting ammonia with the respective
acids. Urea is synthesised by reacting ammonia with carbon dixolde undei
suitable conditions.
Nitrogen solutions are made from combinations of water with ammonia (aqua
ammonia); or of urea and ammonium nitrate with aqua nmmonla, or of anhvdrou
ammonia with ammonium nitrate. There is little difference in soil react*
whether nitrogen is applied to moist soil as a liquid or as solid prills.
Project supported in part by Public Health Service and Federal Water Pol- f ,
-------
• Phosphates - Four phosphorus-containing compounds make up the bulk phosphates applied
in crop production. (Higher plants can use only the ortho phosphate form.)
Mono and di, calcium and ammonium phosphates account for most of the phos-
phates in fertilizers. The superphosphates contain phosphorus largely as
mono-calcium phosphate. Complete mixed fertilizers will contain mixtures
of mono and di calcium phosphate with some ammonium phosphates. As the
trend to higher analysis continues, more phosphoric acid is being used in
manufacture and the proportion of ammonium phosphates is increasing.
Missouri and Illinois apply considerable tonnage of ground phosphate rock.
This is a low solubility tn-calcium phosphate that usually contains about ,10
percent total anc' ^rom 3-4% fluorine (apatite.)
Small amounts of phosphoric acid are applied in some western status where
soils are alkaline.
• Potassium - Probably more than 95% of the potash salts used as fertilizers are applied as
muriate of potash containing 95-99% KC1. For some specialty crops such as*
tobacco, grapes, and potatoes; potassium sulfate may be substituted for the
chloride. For soils that may be deficient in magnesium, a double salt of
potassium-magnesium sulfate is promoted. However, the tonnage of these
latter two materials used is relatively small.
Other materials:
• Calcium - Most calcium is supplied in ground limestone. Missouri applied nearly 4
million tons in 1967. In the western states, gypsum (CaSO^) is added to aid
in the removal of excess sodium. Some gypsum is added as an impurity in
lower analysis fertilizers, but the quantity is declining as more ammonium
phosphate is used. Gypsum is added to muddy ponds to flocculate suspended
material.
• Magnesium - Most magnesium added to soils is in dolomitic limestone or in potassium-
magnesium sulfate.
• Chlorine - Chloride is the anion that accompanies potassium in most fertilizers. There
is some question that this element is essential for plant growth. Some
experiments have shown toxicity of chloride to plants in excessive amounts.
Potash fertilizers are frequently applied in the fall to permit time for the
chloride ion to leach from the root zone.
Sulfate - Sulfate may be added in gypsum or potassium sulfate. Sulfur shortages are
causing shifts to alternate manufacturing processes and the amount in [ci-tllwers
is decreasing. Some soil areas will require sulfur additions for optimmu pl.u.t
growth.
• Trace minerals - These include boron, zinc, iron, copper, and manganese and are added to
specific soils or crops to correct deficiences. The amount used per nci-p is
small. Most of these ions are tightly held by the soil colloidal complex.
Boron and zinc are the only elements in this group that have demonstrated
need in Missouri.
Fertilizer Reactions in Soils
Most of the charges in soils that hold nutrients are on the colloidal fractions and are negative, Ion-*
in fertilizers with a positive charge such as ammonium, potassium, and magnesium ure less mobile than
the anions such as nitrate, chloride, and sulfate. Phosphate is also an anion; but because of its rapid ron
-------
/ ^
mith calcium, iron, magnesium und aluminum to form insoluble compounds, It becomes immobile (20). (IJecausc
illis? "fixation" soluble phosphate fertilizers are often applied in concentrated bands near seeds to increase
percentage absorption by plant roots).
TABLE 1--1UN1C BONDING ENERGIES
FOR
VAMOUS IONS IN SOILS
(calories per mole)*
H
Na+
i.
K
NH4
Ca"
Mg
++ +
A1
CATIONS
1800
800
1200
1200
2800
2600
4000
CI
no3
so.
PO®
4
PO ®
4
ANIONS
0
0
0-1000
1600 (calcarious soils)
2000-3000
(non-calcarious soils).
Total adsorbed
Bonding Energy = 1364 log Amount In solution phase
(1364 calories corresponds to ratio 1-10, solution to 9olid phase)
(2728 calories (2 x 1364) corresponds to ratio of 1-100)
Table 1 Rives the relative energy of adsorption on colloidal surfaces of some of the more common element -
>und in agricultural soils. In addition to surface adsorption of the potassium and ammonium ions, they can :iKi>
nter the expanded lattice of some clay minerals and become firmly fixed and removed from the biological system
Nitrate is the ion required in plant nutrition that is the most mobile and is of primary concern in water
Dilution. Figure 1 shows the reactions that occur when protein material from humus or plant residues are
ecompoaed by soil organisms to form nitrates. These processes become more rapid above 60* F and ,i ri-
ve ry slow below 50* F. The reactions are similar regardless of the source of the nitrogen. It is well doi-u
tented (1)(2) that on sandy soils the nitrates may be lost from the plant root zone by leaching. Where soils
ave a high clay content and become water-logged the nitrate may be reduced and lost back to the atmospheri-
cs elemental nitrogen or as nitric oxide (24). (This reduction of nitrate under water-logged conditions is the
-eason for ammonium salts being used in the fertilization of rice).
Fertilization practices with nitrogen differ depending on soil properties and climatic conditions. Where
water movement is slow all of the nitrogen may be applied before or at time of planting. On manv open &oil>
ne or more side dressings may be used. Growing roots are effective in reducing downward movement of
Urates. Addition of nitrogen in the ammonium form can have only limited effects on leaching since much
ammonia is converted to nitrate before it is taken up by plants. Probably more than 80% of nitrogen in mam
-roteins is absorbed from the soil as nitrates.
i0
-------
f f U
I
R-NH'
ORGANIC N
©
AMMONIUM NITRITE
/ N
NITRATE
"V V
AMMONIFICATI ON NITRIFICATION
(Tins reaction occurs in soils at temperatures above 60^F.)
Lost to Air
N2Ok
NITRATE
NITRITE
\
NITRIC OXIDES
ELEMENTAL II
/
DE NITRIFICATION
(This reaction occurs when soils are very wet)
Figure 1 - Soil reactions that occur when nitrogen is added to soil.
.Methemoglobin and Eutrophication
Methemoglobinemia is a word coming into common usage by those concerned with high nitrate intake by
livestock. (It is well known in the medical profession as a condition that can develop in infants caused by water
high in nitrates.) Methemoglobin is the compound formed if nitrate (changed to nitrite) reacts with the blood to
reduce the oxygen-carrying capacity. This can cause oxygen starvation (one cause of blue babies) or suffocatio
in some animals. Public Health standards (6) list 45 parts per million of nitrate (10 ppm NO^-N) as the amount
that should not be exceeded in infant feeding. Many shallow wells in the midwest and weetern states have been
found to contain nitrate in excess of this amount.
Eutrophication is the aging process where the addition of phosphate and nitrate to surface water will
stimulate the growth of aquatic plants, and a bog or swamp will eventually result. The concentration of phos-
phate in the water is usually more critical than the nitrate in this process. Except in areas of very low fer-
tility soils, drainage water will usually contain sufficient nitrogen to support the growth of algae.
Engineers responsible for providing potable water for domestic use are concerned about "nutrients" in
water that stimulate this aquatic growth and refer to phosphates and nitrates. When the excess growth decays,
oxygen is consumed and undesirable odors and flavors develop. The cost of water treatment for domestic use
is increased and there is difficulty in maintaining quality. Also the growth may affect recreational uses of
water and shorten the life of reservoirs.
The concentration of phosphorus in fresh water that will limit the growth of aquatic plants is about .02
ppm and for nitrate N it is from .05 to 1.0 ppm. The phosphorus content of sea water varies with location,
but the average content has been estimated at about .07 ppm of phosphorus (3). An increasing and balanced
exchange of nitrogen and phosphorus between organisms and their environment is essential for the continuity of
life in the sea or in fresh water. Research workers in the field of aquatic biology refer to a ration of 1-8 for
phosphorus and nitrogen in a living system as being important (21). When this ratio is below 8, phosphorus is
relatively high. When the ratio is less than 8, more nitrogen is available than can be utilized and phosphorus
is in short supply. In most instances a low level of phosphorus may limit aquatic growth more than the supply
of nitrogen.
-------
/' /
lii aicas of highlv weathered soils, fertilizers high in phosphate may be added to ponds to stimulate the
giouth of fish food. However, in more fertile soil areas the drainage water from unfertilized land may con-
tain sulficicnt nutrients fo cause eutrophication. There is little data available on the amount of nitrate and
phosphate in natural dra.nage water from productive soils that may have received no chemical treatment, but
ma\ have been growing legumes or receiving regular applications of farm manures. There can be little
argument that liberal fertilization could contribute more of these nutrients.
Phosphate in the streams and the ocean is derived from mineral weathering and recycling the ions from
previous organic assimilation. Rainfall contains sufficient nitrogen, largely as ammonium compounds, to bo
a factor in eutrophication. Near cities or in industrial areas, nitrogen in amounts of 30 or more pounds per
acre in precipitation are common. This quantity declines in open country or in areas of low rainfall. From
T-]<) |x>unds ol total nitrogen per acre is frequently mentioned as the average for the entire country (H)(9).
Most nitrogen would probablv come down with the first portion of a rain. However, the quantity of nitrogen
added on a national basis through rainfall would be a large amount and could be a contributing factor in eutroph-
ication.
The amount of both nitrate and phosphate lost from agricultural land could be too small to be aecurateh
measured bv conventional chemical methods, but could be sufficient to influence the growth of some aquatic-
plants. The amount of fertilizer nutrients that will speed eutrophication presents distinctly different problems
for agricultural interests than does the higher levels of nitrate that can be tolerated in water for animal or
infant consumption.
Nutrient Losses in Leaching and Erosion
In irrigated sections of this country, water may be applied in excess to remove salts that arc toxic to
plant growth. Natural high concentrations of sodium and chloride are the ions of main concern. When this
water leaves the land it will contain other elements, including nitrate and other mobile ions.
Stout and Burau (18) in California concluded that a major portion of the nitrate reaching underground
aquifers was from urban areas and sewage fields. They further found that agricultural crops reduced the
amount of nitrate in irrigation water that returned to lower soil depths.
In Missouri where precipitation exceeds evapo-transpiration, soils are acid in the surface. In this humid
climate salts that weather from soil minerals are regularly leached and are a normal constituent of drainage
witer. Elements from land that can pollute streams are derived more from erosion sediments than from
leachates. Losses of soil from agricultural land, highway construction, and from urban developments, art-
main sources of sediment. that enter water courses.
Sediment is an important source of stream pollution. The type and vigor of cover on a watershed is n
major factor to consider in determining the life of a reservoir. Losses of essential mineral nutrient* din
the past half century in the United States have been much greater from erosion than from crop removal. On low
exchange capacity soils, leaching of nitrate can be serious. However, most soils in humid regions arc so low
in the other mobile anions (4) thoy can be disregarded as contaminants in percolating water. Phosphorus,
potassium, calcium, magnesium, sulphur, and the trace elements are held by colloidal material--the particle-
removed in greatest quantity by erosion. Studies (5) of nutrients removed by erosion from thiec unfei tili/ed
midwestern soils, show losses several times greater than are removed by crops. Hesults obtained k» \ :
Shelby loam are shown in Table 2. Most of these measurements were made prior to 1940 when little chi-mu i!
fertilizers were used and farm manures or legumes were the source of added nutrients. Little intormntion . i-
been obtained on leaching losses under soil management practices with excessive fertiliser addition, but -miu-
data (22) is accumulating particularly on open soils, where percolation of the mobile anions (Nil CI, and
may be greater in areas of high rainfall or with excessive irrigation, than had been expected. Losses ot po-
tively charged ions from soils with average clay content have apparently not increased more than enough !.<¦
balance the negatively charged ions removed.
Also numerous measurements of leaching losses have been made by workers in different parts ot thu
country using lysimeters. Kohnke, et. al (12) have reviewed work with lysimeters involving agriculti: >i
and found calcium is the cation lost in largest amounts. Most nitrogen leached from soils was in the niwan
I'l
-------
TABLE 2 — ANNUAL NUTRIENT REMOVAL IN RUNOFF AND EROSION —
SIIKLBY LOAM, 3.6%SLOPE, NO FERTILIZERS;
POUNDS PER ACRE*
CROPPINC. S1STEM Total N NO P Ca S
Not rultnatnil <»9 6.1 48 379 101
Spaded *<" drop 74 2.5 33 226 64
Bluegrass sod .6 .3 .1 .6
Wheat annualh 30 1.4 11 76 19
Rotation - corn,
whent, clover 6 ,8 2 41 7
Corn annually 40 1.0 8 103 25
* Adapted from F. Duley and M. Miller
form, and originated from decomposition of organic matter. The leaching of phosphate from agricultural lands
was very small and the movement of other anions and cations was too small to have significant effects on the
concentration in underground water supplies. Most of these measurements were made on 9oils receiving little
chemical treatment and are of only limited value in supplying information on the downward movement of surfaop
applied c hemical soil amendments. Some work using the ceramic cup technique indicated that heavy field appli-
cations <>f ammonium nitrate may move beyond the root zone in greater amounts in clay soils than was formerly
behoved (_'¦')). Stallings (17) has pointed out the importance of vegetative cover in reducing soil and water losses
It is now being recognized that adequate soil fertility treatments* can provide adequate soil cover, reduce run-
off and cM iosjon, and reduce the quantity of fertilizer nutrients that could enter surface water supplies.
Soil analyses have been made on soil to a depth of 4 feet on Sanborn Field Plots (Missouri Agricultural
Experiment Station) that have received chemical fertilizers annually since 1888. Results given in Table 3
show little difference in nitrate, phosphate, potassium, calcium, or magnesium at the lower depths, from
other plots that have received little fertilization. There is a suggestion of greater calcium movement with
higher fertilization.
I ARLE 3 —POUNDS PER ACRE OF NUTRIENT CONTENT OF THE 36-48 INCH DEPTH or
SANBORN TIELD PLOTS AFTER 75 YEARS OF CHEMICAL SOIL TREATMENTS
Continuous wheat
Corn in rotation
No
treatment
Full*
No
treatment
Manure t
Full '
35
25
147
90
1.. »
138
30
360
370
t r>
155
94
410
205
1 17
855
850
850
960
. 00
3990
4590
3450
3525
3h00
(>. 3
6.9
6.4
6.3
6.2
5.8
6.5
5.9
6.0
5. S
2.0
1.0
2.0
1.5
o.s
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.6
0 7
P O. (weak Hrav)
(strong Bray)
Potassium
Magnesium
Calcium
pH, water
pH, salt
Ex. H, m.e./100 g
Organic matter, %
* N-P-K from inorganic salts applied annually in amounts removed in grain and straw of 40 bu/acre yield
t Six tons barnyard annually.
J N-P-K from inorganic salts in amounts removed by crops (80 bu corn, 60 h- oats, 40 bu wheat, 3 ions
clover and timotty, per acre 6 years' rotation).
-------
ff~>
Nitrate Studies of Water Supplies
AnaUses of mute than 0,000 water samples from rural Missouri collected since 19C3 show that 42^ con-
ained more than 5 ppm NO^-N. These studies indicate that animal wastes, improperly constructed shallow
wells, and septic tank drainage are the main sources of this contamination (11)(15).
When livestock numbers by counties in Missouri (cattle and hogs) are correlated with nitrogen use an r
/alue of t . 75 is obtained. (Counties with the largest number of livestock use the most fertilizers.) The number
of water supplies containing nitrate varied from a low of 12% to over 75% in Individual counties. In some
counties in the northwestern part of the state where the deeper aquifers contain a high salt content, and shallow
wells are the only ones available, over 50% of the wells sampled contained sufficient nitrate to be of concern in
livestock production. In many cases the yield of water is so low, little casing is done so a maximum amount
is obtained from the near-surface layers.
There was a definite statistical relationship between livestock numbers and shallow wells containing
nitrate. Nitrites were found in only 1-2% of rural wells during the winter months but this increased to 3-4"3?
in warm weather. Highest contamination was found in areas with the largest livestock production. There was
good correlation between the nitrate content in well water and hydrologic-geologic areas, but only a limited
relationship with soil types. The greatest number of water supplies with high nitrate (and nitrite) were in the
northern part of the state where previous loess overlies low-permeability glacial clays, and where the water
accumulates at the junction of these two materials. This area has been farmed for 75-100 years and livestock
production is the main source of income. Many of the farm water supplies are located close to feed lots or
silos. There is a high degree of correlation between the occurrence and concentration of nitrate in these wells
and their proximity to livestock feeding areas.
Little correlation was found between use of nitrogen fertilizer (Figure 2) and high nitrate or nitrite in
idjacent water supplies, except in some sandy alluvial soils of the Mississippi and Missouri flood-plains. In
hese soils where the water table is from 10-20 feet below the surface, the heavy use of chemical nitrogen
appears to have been a factor in the nitrate found in some shallow wells. In areas of sandy alluvial soils,
shallow wells (sand points) show a high nitrate contents when located within cattle or hog feeding operations.
In the level, heavily fertilized alluvial soils in Missouri, the concentration of nitrate is much lower in
well wat?r than in the loessial-glacial areas with dense livestock populations.
A number of shallow wells supplying small towns have been found to contain significant amounts of
nitrate. In most cases the source of this nitrate could be traced to inadequate sewer systems, cespools and
lagoons contaminating the ground water.
The residual limestone area of south Missouri is largely in forest and unimproved pasture, and little
chemical nitrogen fertilizer is used. Many large springs, caves and sink holes are found in this area. A
mtrate-N content of 5-15 ppm in the spring water could be accounted for by natural soil leachate and/or bat
juano in the caves.
For example, Big Spring in Carter County, has a maximum flow of over 800 million gallons of wuter
Jaily. An average dally flow of 252 million gallons has been found over a 17-year period. Analyi es ot the
water in 1964 showed a NO -N content of 2.4 to 3.0 ppm. Three ppm in 252 million gallons of waiei is ovoi
3000 pounds of nitrogen. The drainage area of Big Spring has been estimated at 440 square miles. Assumm;-
hat one-fourth of the 48 inches of annual rainfall percolates through the soil, an average of 250 million gulli us
Jaily would be obtained. A discharge of 0,000 poundB of nitrogen daily would amount to less than 8 pounds . i
nitrogen per acre per year, a realistic leaching loss even on the low fertility forest soils of the area. 1'ivc f nitrogen in rainfall could account for most of the nitrate discharged by this spring. (On a state-wiile basis
an average of 5 pounds of nitrogen per acre annually on the 45 million acres would be more than 110,000 tons.
>r about one-half the amount sold in chemical fertilizers in Missouri last year.)
-------
/ /
z
I
O
O
z
5
a»
a.
m
A
tn
LU
a.
5
<
CO
a:
UJ
t—
<
$
IL.
o
u
ae
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
.
> •
1
•
...
•
V
RELATION OF NITROGEN
FERTILIZER APPLIED (PER COUNTY)
TO PERCENTAGE OF WATER SOURCES
CONTAINING >5 PPM, NO^-N
9 I
¦< » f
B
•
=
Y =
•
~1,54-
0047(x
-378.1
9
¦ ©
•
€
•
•
-2)
•
•
•
•
•
r = .
3927
20 4
10 60 8
0 100 120 1-
40 160 1(
POUNDS N PER COUNTY, 1963, (000 omitted)
Figure 2 This Diagram Shows the Lack of Correlation Between
the Amount of Nitrogen Fertilizer Used in Individual
Missouri Counties and the Percentage of Wells Con-
taining O^er 5 PPM of Nitrate-Nitrogen
Many caves in Missouri (and in other parts of the United States) have been used in the past as sources, of
potassium nitrate for the manufacture of gunpowder. This caliche was secured as crystalline KNO from will lb
and crevices (probably infiltrates and from leaching from bat guano deposits). About one-third of the 1450
known caves in Missouri contain bat guano. Good correlations have been obtained for nitrate in spring water
flowing from caves and guano deposits. Watercress in water courses is an indicator of nitrates in water in
south Missouri. Watercress has been analysed and found to contain from .25 to .96%nitrate-N (dry weight
basis). Watercress has not been found in spring water discharge that does not contain nitrate at some season
of the year.
Because of the highly fissured and cavernous nature of the soluble limestone-dolomite rocks in the Ozark
Region, it is plausible that leachates from bat guano deposits could descend to deep aquifers and provide a high
nitrate content in water from strata reached by deep wells that are improperly cased.
Numerous surface rural water supplies (ponds from 1/3 to 5 acres in size) were sampled. Few contained
more than 0.5 to 0.75 ppm of nitrate nitrogen even though they received drainage from livestock areas. A\thou|
unconfirmed reports have been received of nitrogen fertilizers eroding into surface impoundments with heavv
rains; no reservoirs were sampled in which fertilization of crops on the watershed with nitrogen caused
concentration of nitrate in the water. Little correlation was found between nitrate concentration in water nnn ai
growth. This result would be expected, since any large amount of nitrate added to the water woulo >robnbtv rv,
rapidly absorbed by the vegetation. An equilibrium would probably be reached whore the aquatic plants
reduce both the concentration of both nitrate and phosphate In the water to some uniform level.
-------
// >
mm Is Under Feed Lots Contain Nitrates
Soil cotes to depths of 20-25 feet were taken in feed lot areas and near wells that showed high nitrate con-
?nt. Where livestock had been fed for more than 50 years, from 2,000 to 4,000 pounds of nitrate nitrogen per
acre were frequently found. Many layers of soil under the feeding areas in some soils contained, at depths of
"-10 feet, 500 to 600 pounds of nitrate nitrogen per acre-foot. Interestingly, some of the deeper horizons con-
uned very few bacteria. It is believed that where the subsoil was extremely low in organic matter there was
uttle reduction of the nitrate, and it accumulated. In the Midwest, where summer droughts are frequent, soils
<"rack to a considerable depth. When rains do come, they may be heavy and carry the nitrate to lower depths
efore the soil fissures close from hydration and swelling.
Soil cores have also been taken in areas where feed lots were abandoned 5 to 15 years past, and {in some
ases) where new lots were in the same area. This gave information on the residual effects of previous con-
imination. Generally there was a uubstantial drop in nitrate content of the surface 2-4 feet of soil on .abandoned
lots after a few years, but the nitrate persisted at the lower depths. A sufficient number of areas near well*
""iigh in nitrate were studied where no obvious source of contamination was evident. At some locations it wat.
ossible to establish that nitrate was derived from some long abandoned privy or livestock feeding operation.
Lateral Movement of Nitrates
Deep soil cores have also been collected at various distances from concentrated livestock feeding areas,
.rom septic tank tile fields, and below sewage lagoons; see Tables 4 and 5. Although the lateral movement of
nitrates through the soil is influenced by soil texture, the concentration usually diminished 200 to 300 feet from
he pollution area. Where sampling extended into liberally fertilized cropland the amount of nitrate found wnb
nsigmficant in comparison with that in the feeding pens or near the waste disposal systems.
TABLE 4—NITRATE NITROGEN CONTENT OF TWO SOILS AT VARYING DISTANCES FROM
OLD FEEDLOTS
Distance from
contaminated area, ft
FARM A *
FARM B +
Pounds N/acre
0-18 ft
NOgN in
groundwater, ppm
Pounds N/acre
0-13 ft
0
2425
73
1375
150
1475
48
357
300
1014
13
317
600
780
Trace
275
5280
958
. . .
227
* Loess soil, level topography, approximately 80% silt,
t Silt loam, but with 25-40% clay below 24 in.
TAriLR 1--NJTRATE NITROGEN CONTENT OF SOIL AND GROUNDWATER AT VARYING DISTANCKS
FROM SEPTIC-TANK DRAINAGE FIELD
SALINE COUNTY, MISSOURI
)istance from Pounds N/acre N ground
septic tank, ft 0-13 ft soil water, ppn
60 474
86 375
112 308
-------
//6
losses of Nitrate in Runoff Water
Mcisurements made of the nitrate content of runoff water from the Missouri Claypan Station, McCredle,
erosion plots are shown in Table 6. Nitrogen lost from two rains during June of 1964 was very small. The
loss was greater from unfertilized fallow plots than from liberally fertilized, continuous corn. It could be
reasoned that except where severe storms immediately followed nitrogen application, little nitrate would move
from fields. Nitrogen would not be applied by wheeled vehicles unless soils were below field capacity of mois-
ture and initial rainfall would carry the nitrate below the land surfuce. Nitrogen would be applied only when
soils are sufficiently dry to absorb initial precipitation. The mobile nitrate ion would be carried into the soil
and onlv lost under conditions of severe erosion.
TAHI-E G--NITRATE-N IN RUNOFF WATER FROM CORN,
McCREDIE, MISSOURI, JUNE 1964*
Cropping
System
N-treatment
Ft Runoff
NO -N lost
per A.
Fallow-
clean tilled
Corn-oats
Rotation
Continuous Tom
Continuous Corn
None
None
9
9
177
140/acre
1170
64
28
7
. 8 lbs.
.3
.4
.09
.01
'Total of two rains
(4.5"), June 16 and 30
These results agree with other studies (19) and indicate that for most rains in the Midwest a very small
percentage of fertilizer nitrogen applied to well managed soils is lost in runoff. A fertility program that pro-
vides a vigorous, dense cover could be effective in increasing transpiration and reducing runoff and sediment
loss. Adequate soil fertility treatments are a most effective soil conservation practice.
Studies of Lake Mendota in Wisconsin (14) indicate that runoff from frozen fields, that had received appli-
cation of farm manure, was the main source of nitrogen in the lake water from an agricultural source. Nitrogen
in precipitation, urban runoff, domestic wastes, and nitrogen fixation by aquatic plants, made up most of the
other nitrogen inputs. The possibility of runoff from frozen land could be sufficient reason for not applying
manures or chemical fertilizers to frozen soil during winter months.
Residual Accumulation of Fertilizer Nitrogen
A major portion of the chemical nitrogen used m the Midwest is applied to corn. This crop grown annualh
in thicker stands, is replacing the old rotation systems. The amount of chemical nitrogen frequently applied
may be above immediate crop needs. It is when rates of nitrogen application are in excess of crop removal
there is concern of nitrate moving into groundwater.
Soil cores to depths of 10-20 feet have been collected from experimental plots where liberal nitrogen
treatments (chemical N or farm manure) have been applied for years. On Sanborn Field (silt loam with cli^pan)
where treatments have been made since 1889, the nitrogen treatments have had little effect on total N or rutraic
N below the mot zone. It is believed most nitrogen that cannot be accounted for in crop removal from thes«
experimental areas has been lost by denitrification or by erosion.
Table 7 shows the quantity of nitrate nitrogen found in the surface 10 foot depth of a Mexico silt lonn^ iiftt
20 years of continuous corn where 120 pounds of nitrogen have been applied annually.
-------
f (
TABLE 7—NITRATE NITROGEN IN PUTNAM SILT LOAM AFTER PRODUCING
CONTINUOUS CORN FOR 20 YEARS AND RECEIVING 120 POUNDS
OF NII'ROOKN (AMMONIUM NITRATE) PER ACRE ANNUALLY.
Depth, ft.
No Nitrogen
120 lb N/A Annually
Pounds per Acre
0-1
17
88
1-2
6
38
2-3
5
13
3-4
2
16
4-5
2
24
rj-B
2
18
b-7
2
10
7-8
3
9
8-9
2
4
9-10
2
2
Total
42
222
These results (samples collected in February 1968) show 180 pounds more nitrate nitrogen in the surface
feet of soil where the 120 pounds of N had been applied annually for 20 years, than where the soil received
no nitrogen. This is 9 pounds per acre per year. This is not a large amount, but assuming that a portion
uld eventually enter water courses by seepage, this could be sufficient to stimulate plant growth in lakes or
reams.
Nitrate movement has also been measured in complex nitrogen rate X com population studies on soils
widely ditferent characteristics. The nitrate content of these soils shown in Figures 3, 4, and 5, were made
aiier seven years of annual nitrogen treatments. The rainfall ranged from about 30 to nearly 50 inches each
vpar, but varied with the season. No supplemental irrigation was used in these experiments. Yields of corn
ictuated with location, season, and population, but ranged from low yields of about 60 to more than 150 bushels
r acre. The effect of population on yields has varied with rainfall. It has been difficult to measure r relation
ship between stalk count and nitrate accumulation. These results show that the more open the soils the greatei
e downward movement of nitrates. Also there is a lower amount of residual nitrate in the sandy soil than in
ose with a higher silt and clay content.
Under these Missouri conditions it appears (Figure 3) there has been little accumulation of nitrpt ¦ when
e annual rate of application of nitrogen is 100 pounds per acre or less. Where the treatment exceeded this
nount (all rates not shown) the nitrate accumulation Increased. On the sandy soil (the only location i^> receive
a 300 pound rate of nitrogen) there was little difference in accumulation with 200 pounds or less per acre of
trogen treatment. These results would suggest that to keep nitrate from leaching into groundwater the rate
nitrogen treatment should be no higher than is required for optimum yields.
Some Conclusions
Prior to the last quarter century production of food crops in the Midwest depended on nitrogen from soil
imus, from legumes (atmospheric fixation) and from animal manure. Phosphorus available to plants and oth<
inerals w?re the decomposition products of soil minerals. The productivity of land was largely determined
the amount of nutrients present and availability of moisture to crops during the growing season. Within the pus.
J-30 years nutrients supplied by the chemical industry (fertilizers) are substituting for the elements formerh
\>n
-------
/' "
800
<
-O
600
00
I
o
Z
i
r-
o
z
400
200
t- 1 1 1 —i— i r
SOIL TYPE
Claypan
Silt
Sand
x
JL
X
X
X
X
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Pounds N/A applied annually
FIGURE 3
NITRATE NITROGEN IN SURFACE EIGHT FEET OF SOILS AFTER ANNUAL APPLICATIONS
OF NITROGEN FERTILIZER FOR SEVEN YEARS TO CONTINUOUS CORN
supplied by now exhausted soils, or are furnishing the nutrient elements to other land that had been leached of
minerals in the geologic past. Through proper management soils are producing an abundance of tood for a
growing population. Without these chemical soil amendments the United States would be a food importing nation
Despite liberal fertilizer use, crops are removing more nitrogen and minerals than are being added in soil
amendments.
Many shallow wells in rural Missouri contain sufficient nitrate to affect the efficiency of livestock pro-
duction. Most of the nitrate contamination has been the result of leaching from livestock feeding operations.
Only in a few isolated cases could the association of nitrates in surface or groundwater, that could affect live-
stock, be associated with losses from fertilized farm fields.
Minimum concentrations of nitrate (and phosphate) that will stimulate eutrophicntion is of little com ern
when consumed by livestock. Both of these ions, as well as other soil minerals, have entered both streams and
ground water during the period of landscape development. Most of these nutrients have been transported in
sediment through losses from erosion. It has only been since waste problems of industrial and metropolitan
areas have multiplied that attention has been given to chemical fertilizers as sources of nitrates and phosphate*
in streams, other elements in water that could have-had their origin from mineral weathering are now of little
concern.
Relatively little data is available on the portion of plant nutrients in water originating from different seg-
ments of our economy. Most soil chemistry research concludes that with good management leaching losses of
phosphates are too small to be of concern and the major portion of nitrogen applied in fertilizers is absorbed by
crops. Ft has also been generally assumed that losses of nitrogen per unit area from soil organic matter in
past years was probably greater than at the present time with liberal use of industrially produced nitrogen.
w*
-------
//?
\
\
\
\
>
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
O-N
100-N
200-N
20
60
40 60
N03-N, lbs ./A
FIGURE 4
DISTRIBUTION OF NITRATE-NITROGEN IN THE PROFILE OF A
SILT SOIL AFTER SEVEN YEARS OF ANNUAL APPLICATION OF
NITROGEN FERTILIZER TO CONTINUOUS CORN
-------
/ V-
0)
4>
u.
I
_C
GL
&
o
00 7
/
0-N
100-N
300-N
I /
!/
20 40 60
NOj-N, lbs ./A
FIGURE 5
DISTRIBUTION OF NITRATE-NITROGEN IN
THE PROFILE OF A SANDY LOAM SOIL AFTER
SEVEN YEARS OF ANNUAL APPLICATION OF
NITROGEN FERTILIZER TO CONTINUOUS CORN
There is little question that some of the nutrients applied in chemical fertilizers is moving into both sur-
face and ground water. The amount will depend on many factors. The percentage is thought to be relatively
small, but generalized statements cannot be made. One of the best means for purifying polluted water is for it
to percolate through soil (10). Information is required on the nutrient content of percolates from soils receiving
different treatments. Where the applied nutrients correct deficiencies, plant cover and transpiration is in-
creased. It is possible that nutrient losses may be less where good fertilization practices are followed than 011
unfertilized soils. However, if future pollution controls for streams will require no reduction in present quality
the sources and amounts of nutrients entering streams must be known.
Chemical fertilizers are essential if our people are to be well fed. Crop management must be adjusted to
obtain maximum efficiency of applied nutrients. The quantity of fertilizer nutrients added in crop production
should not be in excess of plant needs.
t_D
-------
f '
References
1. Allison, F. E. The enigma of soil nitrogen balance sheets. Adv. in Agron. Monograph 7: Am. Soc. Agron.
213-250, 1955.
2. Evaluation of incoming and outgoing processes that affect nitrogen. Monograph 10; Am. Soc. Agron.
578-606, 1965.
3. Armstrong, F. A. J. Chemical oceanography - phosphorus, Chapt 8: 323-364. Academic Press, New York,
1965.
4. Bray, Roger, H. Correlation of soil tests with crop response to added fertilizers and with fertilizer require-
ment. Diagnostic Techniques for Soils and Crops. Am. Potash Inst. Wash., D. C. 11: 53-55. 1948.
5. Browning, G. M. et al. Investigations in erosion control and the reclamation of eroded land. U.S.D.A.
Tech. Bui. 959, 1948.
6. Drinking water standards. Public Health Service Pub. 956, 1962.
7. Duley, F. L. and Miller, M. F., Erosion and surface runoff under different soil conditions. Mo. Agr. Exp.
Sta. Bui. 63, 1923.
8. Feth, J. H. Nitrogen compounds in natural water. Water Res. Res. 2:1. 31-58, 1966.
9. Junge, Christian E. The distribution of ammonia and nitrate in rainwater over the United States. Tr. Am.
Geop. Un. 39, 2:241-248, 1958.
10. Kardos, Louis T. Waste water renovation by land - a living filter. Agr. and Quality of our Environment.
AAAS I*ub 85: 241-250, 1967.
11. Keller, W.D. and Smith, George E. Ground-water contamination by dissolved nitrate. Geo. Soc. Am. Sp.
Paper. 90: 47-59, 1967.
12. Kohnke, H. et. al. A survey and discussion of lysimeters. USDA mise Publ. 372, 1940.
13. Marshall, C. E. Univof Mo., Dept. of Agronomy, private communication.
14. Nutrient sources of Lake Mendota, Mimeographed report of Lake Mendota problems committee, 41 page -
1966.
15. Smith, George E. Nitrate problems in water as related to soils, plants, and water. Univ of Mo. College
of Agr. Sp. Rpt. 55. 42-52, 1965.
16. . Fertilizer nutrients as contaminants in water supplies. Agr and Quality of our Knvnonmen.
AAAS Pub. 85- 173-186, 1967.
17. Stallings, J. H., Continuous plant cover the key to soil and water conservation. Better Crops with Plain
Food NN: 12-53, 1953.
18. Stout, Perry R. and Burau, R. C. The extent and significance of fertilizer buildings in soils as rev *uie«-
by vertical distribution of nitrogenous matter between soils and underlying water reservoirs. Agi int.
Quality of our Environment. AAAS F>ub. 85: 283-310. 1967.
19. Stewart, B. A., et. al. Distribution of nitrates and other water pollutants under fields and corralb in t,*»»
middle south Platte Valley of Colorado. USDA-ARS Pub. 41-134, 1967.
-------
21. Verdun, Jacob. Eutrophication and agriculture In the United States, Agr. and Quality of our Environment.
\AAS r>ub 85: 163-172, 1967.
22. Wagner, G. H. and Smith, (I. E. Recovery of fertilizer nitrogen from soils. Mo Agr. Exp. Sta. JJul.
73$, 196".
23. Changes in nitrnte-N in field plot profiles as measured by the pourres crop technique. Son
Sci. 100, fi: 397-402, 1965.
24. Wullsten, Leroy H. Soil nitrogen vulatilization. Agr. Sci. Rev. 2nd Quarter 8-13, 1967.
-------
CATTLE FEEDLOT WATER QUALITY HYDROLOGY
T. E. Norton,! P.E. and R. W. Hansen,2 P,E«
The mass production of beef in confinement feeding operations
has become a sizable industry in recent years. Economics of size
for specialized beef feedlots indicate the trend will continue to-
wards large feeding operations. An example of one large feeding
operation is at Greeley, Colorado Where approximately 100,000 head
of cattle are fed continuously.
The size of the feedlots and the manure production, which is
about 64 pounds per day per animal (1), is indicative of the poten-
tial problems. The actual pollution may result from the disposal
of the manure in two forms. One form is the solid waste which is
mechanically removed from the surface of the feedlot and used as
fertilizer on crop land. The other is the liquid runoff wastewater
resulting from precipitation, which, if not impounded, finds its
way to the natural water courses. This paper is concerned only with
the runoff wastewater.
The quantity and the concentration of pollutants in the runoff
are both of interest. The quantity of runoff is a function of the
hydrologic conditions, which include rainfall intensity and duration,
lot slope, and length of overland flow. The pollution quality of
the runoff requires a determination of how much organic and inor-
*Graduate Research Assistant and Project Engineer on leave from
Nelson, Haley, Patterson and Quirk, Inc., Engineering Consultants,
Greeley, Colorado.
2
'Associate Professor, Agricultural Engineering Department,
Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado.
-------
2
ganic matter is suspended in the wastewater and'removed with it*
The organic pollutant considered in this study was the ultimate com-
bined BOD and the inorganic was the dissolved solids content and al-
kalinity. Additional determinations of conductivity, pH, and voli-
tale solids were also made.
The overall objective of the study was to determine if the hy-
drology characteristics could be correlated with the quality char-
acteristics through a modification of the flat plate model of over-
land flow. The results of the correlation could then be used to
predict the quantity and quality of the runoff from existing feedlots.
Equipment and Procedure
The field equipment used to collect the data for the correla-
tion consisted of two basic units. One was the rainfall simulation
equipment and the other was the sample collection and control device.
The rainfall simulation equipment used was similar to that used
previously by Tovey (2). It included a trailer-mounted water recir-
culating unit and a sprinkler head operating inside a circular shield.
The trailer-mounted water recirculating unit provided water storage
and pumping capacity to allow from 0.25 to 1.25 in/hr of rain to be
put on the test plot.
The runoff control and sample collection equipment included a
9V X 3' test area, within the sprinkler pattern, enclosed by a 10-
gauge reinforced sheet metal fence approximately 9 inches high. Eight,
rain gauges were located at uniform intervals along the sides to re-
cord application rates. The test area was drained into a catch basir
equipped with sampling equipment., and a Stevens continuous float
-------
3
This equipment ip" transported to feedlots currently in use,
and set uj. for each of the experimental runs. Eighteen separate
runs j. re ;3de at 13 different feedlots in north-central Colorado.
Wh1 tv-. equipment was set up, it enclosed a lot area, with an un-
distuilec manure surface, of approximately 28 square feet. The catch
basin provided storage for all of the runoff from a run. The level
recor< er provided the time versus volume record of the runoff. Ad-
ditiorilly, the equipment was placed so that the lot slope was paral-
lel to the length of the test plot. The slopes on the individual
runs varied from 1 to 12.5 percent. Once the equipment was set up
and the slope and area of the test plots were determined, the rain-
fall event was started. Then, when runoff started, samples were
taken for laboratory analysis on an hourly basis.
The data obtained from the field measuremfents were used to de-
termine the runoff-rainfall relationship. The runoff samples were
analyzed, and the resulting pollution concentrations were correlated
with the runoff data.
Hydrology
Runoff from developed surfaces was investigated by Izzard (3),
resulting in a dimensionless hydrograph of overland flow. Using
this hydrograph as a basis and modifying it to fit the conditions
of undeveloped cattle feedlot surfaces, results in the dimensionless
hydrograph shown in Figure 2. The hydrograph of Figure 1 is based
on a unit width of overland flow and to be practically useful, re-
quires knowledge of:
1. The maximum runoff rate per unit width.
-------
4
3. The time runoff becomes constant.
4. The time rainfall ends.
5. The volume of water that will run off after the end of the
rain.
The necessary relationships between these factors are shown in the
following equations:
=
iL
43,200
a _ 60qeta
8
v = itn r i
° 32-4 [i
v_
gs
ce "
120S*
1/3
44.4
i LV
gs
1/3
- t.
t0 - 0.45
N
(60)
(eq - 1)
(eq - 2)
(eq - 3)
(eq - 4)
(eq - 5)
Where: i = rainfall intensity, in/hr
L = length of the lot, ft
qe = rate of overland flow at equilibrium per unit
width, ft /sec-ft
8 = dimensionless runoff ratio after the end of rain
R = dimensionless runoff ratio before constant runoff
V = volume of water in storage that will run off after
0 the rain stops, ft^/ft
v = kinematic viscosity of the water, ft^/sec
g = acceleration of gravity, ft/sec2
s = slope of the lot, ft/ft
S„ = the amount of water stored in the manure that will
N
not run off, in. of rain
tfl = any time after the and of the rain, min.
t = the time runoff starts
t^ = any time between the start of runoff and the time
runoff becomes constant, min.
t = the time runoff becomes constant, min.
e '
Equations 1 and 2 were developed by Izzard (3) and Equations 3, 4
and 5 were developed by Norton (4) for application to feedlot sur-
faces. They were based on laminar flow conditions and a Reynolds
-------
Runoff
Equals
Rainfall
08
cr
04 -
0 2 !-
10
2.0
30
02
04
06
— ^»)
0.8
-------
6
flow limitation in terms of the rainfall intensity, length of lot
and kinematic viscosity of:
vX 10 = 432 (eq - 6)
The hydrograph indicates that all of the rain runs off after
time te and therefore that the water which does not runoff is stored
in the manure soil complex. This is demonstrated in Figures 2 and
3. Figure 2 shows a plot of the surface storage measured, using
Troxler nuclear moisture equipment, compared to the surface storage
observed from the volume versus time graph of each run. Figure 3
shows a plot of the average rain rate obtained from rain gages com-
pared to the runoff rate observed during each run. The resulting
indication is that for rain durations used in this study, 2 to 8
hours, the infiltration to the ground water is so small that it can
be neglected when determining the total runoff from cattle feedlots.
Additional support for this conclusion comes from the fact that the
manure was observed to be a dry hard crust, 2 to 4 inches below the
surface of the manure after the runoff had ended.
The use of Equations 1 through 6 requires the determination of
the rainfall intensity and the amount of surface storage. The rain-
fall intensity is a design term and its variation with storm frequen-
cy and duration, in equation form, can be given by (6):
m
1 = ^ (eq - 7)
(td + d)"
where: c, d, m and n are constants determined from a given
set of storm records (8)
Ty= storm frequency, yrs.
t = storm duration, min.
a
-------
1.10
.00
CO
090
080
-------
8
available in graphical form for all first order Weather Bureau
stations in the United States (8). Substitution of Equations 5 and
7 into Equation 4 and setting the time to constant runoff equal to
the duration of the storm gives the following equation:
93 ^ + d)" + 44.4
'd "
C Tym
Ly
1/3
(td + ^
2/3
C T m
L y „
(eq - 8)
Equation 8 gives the storm duration, t^, that results in the maximum
rate of runoff because runoff equilibrium is attained at t and ad-
ditional rain will runoff at the supply rate.
The surface storage, S , is also a design factor and is primar-
N
ily a function of the antecedent weather conditions. Miner (9)
observed the surface storage of cattle feedlots to vary from 0.06
to 0.6 inches of rain. A similar range of surface storage was ob-
served on the lots included in this study as shown on the arithmeti-
cally normal frequency distribution of Figure 4. The mean value of
surface storage shown on Figure 4 is 0.64 which is higher than the
upper limit suggested by Miner. This is believed to be due to the
fact that all runs in this study were conducted in the summer during
relatively dry lot conditions and consequently high storage capacities.
Using Equations 1 through 8 and Figure 1 allows calculations of
the unit width hydrograph of overland flow by assuming a reasonable
surface storage from Figure 4. Flood routing of the flow obtained
from the overland flow hydrograph will provide data for the design
of the drainage collection system.
Pollution
The pollution characteristics previously mentioned were corre-
-------
1.20
J.00
.80
.60
40
.20
0.00
j
1 '
\ '
/\
1
i 1
! !
* >
I /
( /
l/
i i
! :
1 1
! ' '
» i
O
i i ; !
i i i i ¦
i i 1 '
ill1'
1
JFi
/ j
o
1 ! | | : j
l I ! 1
y/Q
°S
; ; i 1,1 i
. | 1 * I ¦
i i . j :
i • ; f ! ¦ !
pro
o
\
!
i
r
i
' : i ¦
; ! ! ' !
i i ! ¦ !
a-
1 i
i
! !
:
i
1 ;
0 01 0.1 0.5
2 20 40 60 30 90
Percent equal to or less than
99
99.S9
-------
10
i
-------
40
11
20
o>
#>
o
-------
\
1 1 1
i i
V
(- slope = —1854
! 1
i
1 i
° S
o
i
¦
t *
1
1
i i 1
: i
•
»®
A
1
1
I i : i
i
i
>
3°
i
i
i ; ¦
1
1
•
o
o
e
C9
V
a
i
i
i i
1 i
i
i
,of'a545s ~1
! 1 !
i : i
! ¦ I
i
G
o
9
V
•v
\
«
a
— 30D =333,C
v ¦ •
\ 1 1
\ ; 1
o
o
i
<
>
o
O I c
o i I _w\ i ! 1
i i
1
o
I
- I O I
i j
1 '
„ - <\ - 1 1 • 1
o
• 1 \. , '
©
a
. i 1
j
1
1 A
' 1 ! IV
o
i
i
!
j
1
0
1
'
A
i
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
10
12
14
l.D
1.8
2.0
Ds, (ft.) x |03
F igure 6
-------
I
I
slope =-635
O
I
T
o
!
i
i
i
i
i
kt =
(60.
I)(I0)
-635C
>s
o
o
Q
O
° _
°
o
i ! | 1 1 : !
i • •' | I ! t
1 . ' ; ! 1
j 1 I j ! 1 f
. ! i i ! i i
i
!
\ « i 6 Tc-> i ! i I
! i -J
; ° i „ o ¦ • i
| i
> O n _
©
o 1 ! co ! i 1 i i '
y. Q 1 » ' ^"s*. r.
1 1 ^
1 w I 1
i c .
1
>
o
I
O
^ i ....
1 ¦ !
o
o
r'.
! : :
! 1
l 1
I
-
1
,
J
>° 1
j
!
! ! i
! i !
u>
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2
Ds,(ft) x I03
1.6
.8
20
-------
60,000
40,000
e
o
—
in
O
sz
e
o
U-
u
£
20,000
o
*o
c
o
o
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
02 04 0.6 08 10 12
Ds, (ft) x I03
I 4
16
1.8
! i ! i 1
L
\ ! ! i
i
i '
sl0De = - 830
4
i
i
i
i
i
i
! !
1
!
1 i
1 1
1 i
i i
1 i ¦'
1
\
>
!
i
-—K = 7
' J ®
\o ^1
8,70
o
o
0 (IC
U> I
in !
O j
00 !
1 1
l-~S
i ; 1
ill
i ! !
<
o
1
O
¦
o
•
p
i
i
i
I
i
1
1 !
| !
J
i*
O \ " ? 1 j 1 1 1 ' 1
w
° i i ! ! i i j i 1
1 O
A
3 "i O i i 1 1 ' '¦ '
o
A
oS 1 W ol ! i I 1 i |
o
!a ®
1w rs
l vsi © i i
i o 1
1 1 1
' 1 !
ft
o
o
¦' TV w! 1
; * i i
1 - -i
i
A
o
0 1 « !
1 O ! N,
i
{
I
1
-
>-
~ w
O
v. V i
!
1 ^
2 0
-------
15
total alkalinity, (Alk^) and conductivity (K) are shown in Figures
6, 7 and 8 respectively.
The equations of the lines shown on Figures 6, 7 and 8 are the
best fit of the upper limit of the concentrations expected at a given
D . The upper limit consideration is due to the change in the char-
s
acteristics of the manure with time. This change with time has been
investigated by Grub et. al. (11). They indicate that the BOD in
the runoff can either increase or decrease with time, depending on
the feed ration. This may at least partially explain the scatter
in the data of Figures 6, 7, and 8.
The ultimate combined BOD values in Figure 6 were calculated
from manometrically determined, 5 day-20°C BOD values and the equa-
tion:
BOD5 = 0.716 (BOD, Lj) (eq - 10)
Equation 10 is the reduced form of an equation developed by Jex (12)
for cattle feedlot wastewater and in this form is applicable only
at 20°C for the 5 day BOD. Additionally, Jex (12) showed, by di-
lution methods, that the ultimate combined BOD at 20°C for undiluted
beef cattle manure to be 45,940 mg/1. This is significant because
it establishes 45,940 mg/1 as the upper limit of BOD in Figure 6.
The maximum conductivity of beef cattle manure established by
Jex (12) is 81,000 micromhos/cm which is very nearly the same as
the intercept of Figure 8.
The alkalinity data obtained from the composite sample of each
run were reduced to the three forms, plus C^, using the equation
given by Fair et. al. (13). The range of values obtained for the
-------
16
4 000
2000
1000
800
600
400
200
o>
E
N
O
o
[C02 J --20I6X iq0-'068Ph
01 i
40
>0
6.0
70
PH
80
90 100
-------
17
Table 1. Forms of Alkalinity for Cattle Feedlot Runoff
Ion Range of Concentration
me/1
HCO3 2.5 to 21.5
CO3 0.005 to 0.673
OH" 0.00001 to 0.03
The CO2 values obtained were plotted versus pH of the wastewater as
shown in Figure 9. The solids data obtained from laboratory analysis
of the runoff samples are shown in Figures 10, 11 and 12.
Estimating the forms of alkalinity, the CO^, pH or solids con-
tent of the runoff at any time can be accomplished by calculating
the D as previously described and using the D graphs in conjunction
S s
with the equation or graph of the desired wastewater characteristics.
The only exception is the determination of settleable suspended solids
which were so variable within individual runs that a frequency dis-
tribution was used to represent this information.
What is generally of more interest than the concentration of
pollutants at some particular time and flow rate, is the composite
concentration of the wastewater in a holding pond or treatment unit.
The composite BOD of a design storm can be estimated by graphical
integration of the overland flow hydrograph. This is accomplished
by taking finite units of time and multiplying them by the average
rate of runoff for that time, resulting in an incremental volume of
runoff. Also, using the average rate of runoff, D for the incre-
s
mental time can be calculated from Equation 9 and the BOD for the in-
cremental volume can be obtained from Figure 6. Then the BOD can be
-------
40
20
10
8
6
4
2
I
08
06
04
02
0.1
18
OOJ&
90 85 GO 70 60 50 40 30 20 15 10 5 2
Percent equal to or greater than
Figure 10. Frequency Distribution of Settleable
-------
19
9000
8000
7000
Slope = 0.92
6000
= 0 92 L, + 1240
4000
3000
2000
intercept = 1240
1000
0
1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 80C0
BOD, Lj, (mg/f)
-------
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
I
o measured at 25°C
[0Ao+
-------
21
their respective BOD, summing the products and dividing by the total
volume. The above procedure was varified in this study by mathimat-
ically compositing the individual BOD runoff samples and comparing
the results with the composite BOD sample taken from the catch basin
after runoff had stopped. This comparison is shown in Figure 13.
The alkalinity and conductivity can be similarly composited
with the exception that conductivity should be converted to inorgan-
ic solids, then the inorganic solids volumetrically composited and
converted back to conductivity. This exception is do to the non-
linear relationship between conductivity and inorganic solids.
Example BOD Prediction
The length of the feedlot pen of interest is 250 feet and the
siope is 2%. Assuming a design storm rainfall intensity of 1.7
in/hr and a mean value of surface storage from Figure 4 of 0.64 in.,
the time tQ from Equation 5 is:
0.64
¦ °-4r]
60 = 0.45
1.70
60 = 10 min
Assuming a wastewater temperature of 74°F resulting in a kinematic
^ c n
viscosity of 1 X 10"J ft /sec, the time to constant runoff from
Equation 4 is:
t„ - i££?i! + Ui_J 1/3. t
i 1 |_gs J
120 (0.64) 44.4 |"(1.70) (250) (1
1.70 1.70 I (32.2)(0.
X 10"5)
02)
1/3
- 10 = 41 min
from Equation 3, the volume of water that will run off after the
1/3 „e«x4/3
rains stop, V , is:
i>/3 M-
vo = 3^4 LirJ
(250)
32.4
-5,
(1.70)(1 X 10 J)
1/3
(32.2)(0.02)
= 1.46 ft]
-------
22
I0,000_
8000
6000
O 2000
T3
•g 1000
c 800
600
400
200
100
100
500
1000
5000 10,000
Mixed Composite
BOD,L.j, (mgAP)
Figure 13. Mixed Composite BOD, L* Versus
-------
23
The rate of overland flow at equilibrium, q£, from Equation 1 is:
q = ^ = JLlZ (^50) = 9 85 X 10"3 ft3/sec-ft
qe 43,200 43,200 * 5 X '
and the runoff ratio after the end of the rain, ,from Equation 2 is:
_ SOq^tg __ (60) (9.85 X 10~3)t . „ 4
Vq 1.46 a
Then assuming that the duration of the storm is equal to the time
to constant runoff, and assuming various times from the start of
runoff and the end of the rainfall, the unit width hydrograph shown
in Figure 14 can be developed using the R and 3 ratios from Figure 1.
Using the plotted points of Figure 14 as the midpoint of the incre-
mental volume and the average runoff rate per unit width of the in-
cremental volume, the various Dg values can be calculated from Equa-
tion 9, when L from Figure 5, is 10.2 ft. After obtaining the D
S 8
values, the BOD, for each is obtained from Figure 6. The re-
maining calculation is simply tne volumetric composition of the BOD,
Lj. The necessary calculations are shown in Table 2, resulting in a
composite BOD, Lj of 8396/10.43 = 800 mg/1 and a volume of runoff
3
-------
24
Table 2
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
Time
Rate
Volume
Effective
Interval
of
of
Depth of
AT
Runoff3
Runoif
Overland
q X 10
Flow 3
min
ft^/sec-ft
ft3
Dg X 10
ft
(5)
mg/1
(6)
BOD, L.
' J
X Volume
ft
3
mg/1
(Source of Information)
Fig. 14 Fig. 14 (1)X(2)X60 eq - 9 Fig. 6 (3)X(5)
5
0.25
0.07
0.59
27,000
1890
5
2.07
0.62
1.19
2,060
1280
5
5.15
1.55
1.61
350
544
5
7.58
2.28
1.82
140
319
5
9.06
2.72
1.91
97
264
4
9.85
2.36
2.00
65
153
2
3.74
0.45
1.45
680
306
4
1.08
0.26
0.96
5,550
1440
5
0.39
0.12
0.68
18,300
2200
10.43
8396
A similar calculation for a rainfall intensity of 0.17 in/hr
requires 100 min. before runoff starts and 400 min. to constant run-
off, the resulting D values are small, resulting in a composited
s
BOD, Lj approximately equal to 10,000 mg/1. This BOD is higher than
any observed in this study and some of the BOD values in the example
are lower than any observed in this study, thereby demonstrating the
fact that the prediction method proposed requires extrapolation of
the data beyond the observed values. Therefore, additional infor-
mation obtained from studies of runoff from full-scale feedlots
would be advisable in determining the validity of this extrapolation
in addition to the validity of the effective length term previously
-------
q= qe =9 85x10 3 ft3/sec-ft, td=te=4lmiR
ro
O
>c
80
i
o
^ 60
cr
40
20
0
10
20
30
40
50
Time.t, (min.)
-------
26
BIBLIOGRAPHY
(1) Taiganides, E. P. and Hazen, T. E., "Properties of Farm Animal
Excreta," ASAE Annual Meeting Paper 64-315 (1964).
(2) Tovey, Rhys., Pair, C. ij., "Measurement of Intake Rate for
Sprinkler Irrigation Design," Transactions of ASAE 1966, P-sge
359.
(3) Izzard, C. F., "Hydraulics of Runoff from Developed Surface,"
Proceedings Highway Research Board, Vol. 26, pp. 129-159, 1949.
(4) Norton, T. E., "Cattle Feedlot Water Quality Hydrology," M.S.
Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, Colorado State Univ-
ersity, Fort Collins, Colorado, 1969.
(5) Owen, W. M., "Laminar to Turbulen Flow in Wide Open Channels"
Proceedings ASCE, 79, Separate No. 188, April, 1953.
(6) Fair, G. M., Geyer, J. C., Okum, D. A., Water and Wastewater
Engineering, Volume 1 Water and Wastewater Removal, John Wiley
and Sons Inc., 1966, p. 7-10.
(7) Ibid (6), Chapter 7.
(8) "Rainfall Intensity - Duration - Frequency Curves," U.S. De-
partment of Commerce, Weather Bureau, Technical Paper No. 25,
Dec., 1955.
(9) Miner, J.R,, "Water Pollution Potential of Cattle Feedlot Run-
off," Ph.D. Dissertation, Kansas University, 1967, p. 69.
(10) Ibid (4).
(11) Grub, W., Albin, R. C., Wells, D. M., Wheaton, R. Z., "Engin-
eering Analysis of Cattle Feedlots to Reduce Water Pollution"
Paper No. 68 - 929 presented at the Winter Meeting ASAE, 1968.
(12) Jex, E. M., "Cattle Feedlot Waste Characteristics," M.S. Thesis,
Department of Civil Engineering, Colorado State University,
Fort Collins, Colorado, 1968.
(13) Fair, G. M., Geyer, J. C., Water Supply and Wastewater Disposal.
-------
MAJOR PROBLEMS OF WATER POLLUTION
CREATED BY AGRICULTURAL PRACTICES*
by
Walter F. Robohn**
It is a pleasure to be on your program this evening, representing the
Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, to discuss some of the
major problems of water pollution resulting from agricultural practices.
This is a very broad subject so I will try to confine my remarks to those
major problems pertinent to the area of the United States in which our
office has prime responsibility for the administration of the Federal Water
Pollution Control program. This area, the entire drainage of the Missouri,
Souris, Red, and Rainy river basins includes parts of Montana, Wyoming,
Colorado, Kansas, Missouri, Iowa, Minnesota, nearly all of South Dakota,
and all of North Dakota and Nebraska. This area is about 1/6 of the total
area of the 48 contiguous states. It has about 400,000,000 acres and a
total population of about 8 million people. About 3.5 million of these
people are classified as rural dwellers, but only about 1.5 million are
actually classified as farmers and ranchers.
The magnitude of the water pollution abatement problem in this region
can be vividly illustrated by considering the Nebraska-Iowa-Missouri reach
of the Missouri River. Stream surveys indicate that this stretch of the
river carries an organic pollution burden equal to that of the discharge of
*To be presented at the 13th Annual Great Plains Waste Water Design
Conference to be held March 25, 1969 at Omaha, Nebraska.
**Supervisory Sanitary Engineer, Missouri Basin Region, Federal Water
-------
- 2 -
the untreated wastes of 80,000,000 people. This loading, exceeds by 10
times the human population of the basin. The population equivalent of the
pollution caused by industrial activity may equal that of the population.
The balance of the pollutional loading represents that caused by so-called
natural sources and agricultural endeavors.
Agricultural and associated agri-business activities are common to the
entire basin except some of the high mountain headwaters areas. Return flows
from irrigated agriculture with loads of silts, salts, and nutrients affect
nearly all the Western tributaries of the Missouri River. The Garrison
Diversion which will bring one million acres under irrigation in the James,
Souris and Red River Basins of North Dakota, will contribute heavy silt and
salt loads to these Rivers.
The changing character of animal production, both feeding and processing
is having a profound impact on the Missouri Basin. Only a decade ago, the
major meat packing centers in the basin were concentrated in the Sioux City,
Omaha, St. Joseph, and Kansas City areas. Today many of the packing plants
are being moved closer to their source of the raw material - the tremendous
feeder lots which have literally sprung up overnight. This decentralization
of the packers to more rural settings where only limited water resources may
be available makes for serious water quality control problems. The usual
pollution problems of the meat packers are compounded by the vast feedlots
in the same area.
Sugar beet processing which was formerly concentrated in the South
Platte, North Platte, Yellowstone and Red River subbasins, has now appeared
-------
- 3 -
beet sugar will keep rising and while no dramatic dispersion of this industry
is forecast, any increase in sugar beet production and processing must be
carefully watched because of the pollution potential.
In the Red River Valley the processing of potatoes, a seasonal operation
as is sugar beet processing, is expanding at a great pace. The products are
"easy-to-cook and serve table foods" and commercial starch. The waste control
problems of this activity are complicated due to extremely rigorous climate
of the Red River Valley. Many of the processing plants are close to the
irrigated production fields. The vegetable processors of this area all have
waste handling problems due to seasonal operation and rigorous climate.
The Missouri Basin Region is not a large milk producing area. Much of
the milk consumed in the area is imported from adjacent basins. The
Minnesota portion of the Red River Basin does, however, have many milk
processing plants.
Sediment derived from land erosion constitutes by far the greatest
mass of all the waste materials arising from agricultural operations. The
Report of the Senate Select Committee on National Water Resources states
that the suspended solids loadings reaching the streams from agricultural
lands are at least 700 times the loadings caused by sewage discharges.
The Mississippi River system of which the Missouri River is a major
tributary, dumps more than 500 million tons of sediment into the Gulf of
Mexico annually. This amounts to almost one ton for every acre of farm land
in the Mississippi Basin. The average sediment yields of the Missouri Basin
exceed those of other basins due to the high percentage of areas especially
-------
- it -
exceed 100 tons per acre per year unless proper soil management programs are
followed. It is this sediment load and not the municipal or industrial
wastes that cause the Missouri River to be known as the "Big Muddy".
The 500 million tons of sediment carried by the river system includes
about 17 million tons of plant nutrients. Of particular interest because of
their affects on water quality are the 500,000 tons of nitrogen and
750,000 tons of phosphate contained in this sediment.
So far I have simply mentioned major activities which are contributing
to water pollution. Let us now discuss some fundamentals of pollution of
interest to this region. Generally speaking, pollution from any source can
be placed into one of three categories: physical, chemical (sometimes calLed
inorganic) and biological, which includes bacterial and viral pollution.
In pollution from agricultural sources, the physical parameters such as
temperature change, color, taste, odor and turbidity are closely connected
with the chemical and biological phases. For example, an increase in
turbidity, generally attributed to soil erosion, and the resultant sediment
load, almost always is accompanied with an increase in chemical load and
bacterial population. Inorganic chemical pollution usually is only one
part of an overall pollution problem.
As an example, lets take a look at the Missouri River. Heavy rains
cause large amounts of silt, debris and other solid materials to be carried
into the river, as the river level rises, turbidity increases tremendously
as does the biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and bacterial count. After the
river crests and falls back to lower stages, the turbidity, BOD and bacterial
-------
- 5 -
result of surface runoff of agricultural areas.
Lets talk about a specific cause of pollution, one resulting from meat
production. Over 150 pounds of meat per capita are consumed each year.
With the population booming and incomes rising, the demand for meat, and
other farm produce, is bound to continue to rise. Animal husbandry
specialists are working to find ways to produce a pound of meat at less cost.
This search for economical production has lead to the large feeding
A
operations in which as many as 100,000 head are fed in extremely close
quarters, or to put it another way, the animal population per acre, in
feedpens, has risen sharply. The cattle are fed their feed ground, mixed
and otherwise prepared in these large lots. Feedlots are literally well
mechanized "meat factories".
Last year, Iowa with over 2 million cattle on feed led the nation in
numbers of slaughter beef animals fed. Nebraska was third, just below
Illinois. There are over 46,000 feedlots in Iowa and over 24,000 in
Nebraska.
A lot containing 10,000 cattle has a pollution potential equal to a
city of from 80,000 to 180,000 people depending upon the waste parameter
select for comparison. A major point of difference between normal municipal
pollution loads and cattle feedlot loads is the mode of occurrence. A
city contributes its load daily at a somewhat uniform rate. The feedlot
pollution may accumulate on the ground and appear as a "slug" load washed
into the stream after moderate to heavy rains. This partially decomposed
material consists of animal feces, urine, fresh and some partially digested
-------
- 6 -
drugs. Hay, straw and other fibrous materials also are a part of the slug
reaching the stream. As this mass of material starts to move downstream,
the bacterial count rises dramatically, not only the coliform organisms but
also the streptococci and the salmonella groups. These groups contain
pathogens which can cause contagious diseases and serious illnesses in both
man and animals. The first parameter usually noted, however, is ammonia
derived from the readily soluble urine. Ammonia almost immediately exhausts
the oxygen and creates obnoxious septic stream conditions. Fish and other
aquatic life soon die. As the ammonia is eventually coverted to nitrates,
more problems arise. Water containing excessive nitrates can cause illness
and death to both man and animals. Our Regional Office recently compiled a
"Compendium of Animal Waste Control", which contains some major studies of
the 'problem, some papers of more general interest and copies of legislation
enacted to help control this problem.
*Most of the States in the Missouri Basin Region have either enacted
feedlot legislation or regulations or are in the process of doing so.
Enactment of legislation or the establishment of rules and regulations can
and do assist, but by themselves will not cure a problem. Some regulations
call for registration of feedlots handling over 300 to 500 feeder cattle or
other animals or fowl with numbers adjusted to fit the potential waste
loadings. For example, the Nebraska regulations call for registration of
(1) any pen or other place of confinement with more than 300 feeder cattle,
100 beef cows, 100 dairy cows, 500 hogs, 2,000 sheep, 3,000 turkeys or
10,000 chickens, ducks or geese; (2) any lot, of smaller capacity, that is
-------
- 6A -
The office also held a conference on animal wastes problems. Two
hundred experts from 24 states participated in sessions. Work groups on
inventory problems, regulations and research need was organized. They will
serve as a focus for defining the information gaps and suggesting reasonable
-------
- 7 -
located within 500 feed of a watercourse; or (3) any other feedlot that has
a pollution potential. Any other operator not required to register his lot
may do so if he wishes.
Such registration gives a State water pollution agency the location and
magnitude of potential water pollution problems. The necessary remedial
work to control pollution can be ordered under an appropriate State statute.
Generally, the remedial work must at least prevent the carrying of wastes
to watercourses by surface runoff coursing through the lot.
The most probable treatment methods consist of lagoons to handle the
liquid portion of the wastes. The so-called dry or solid portions of the
wastes will be stockpiled in a manner so that the drainage from the piles
will not contribute to water pollution.
There have been stockpiles several city blocks long, a city block in
width and over 20 feet in height awaiting some means of disposal. As you
must realize, any rainfall on this pile will generate a considerable amount
of liquid waste. The largely fibrous material does not decompose readily and
does not lend itself to any conventional waste treatment process. The sheer
volume of these wastes has thwarted most attempts to utilize them as soil
conditioners or fertilizers. To date, just how to dispose of this large
amount of solid waste has not been completely solved.
As pointed out earlier, the animals formerly were slaughtered and
processed in a few large centers located directly on the Missouri River.
Unwanted wastes were discarded directly to the river. This extremely
undesirable means of waste disposal eventually lead to a public demand for
-------
- 8 -
water quality degradation that is now occurring in smaller streams below
feedlots and relocated meat processing plants. To properly control the
wastes from meat processing plants, will require waste treatment facilities
which will provide a degree of treatment generally thought unattainable a
few years ago. In time past an industrial waste treatment plant capable of
removing 65 to 7 5 percent of the BOD was considered an adequate installation.
Today plants routinely removing 90 to 98 percent of the raw BOD may be
inadequate as far as stream protection is considered. Even treated wastes
are not stable. The small streams in the vicinity of the relocated meat
processing plants simply cannot assimilate these treated effluent waste load-
ing and remain in a condition acceptable to the citizens today.
The public acting through their congressmen and senators has demanded
better water quality in the nations streams and lakes. A small stream
receiving even these effectively treated wastes may become an unsightly mass
of green algae and weeds. Fish and other aquatic life is discouraged,
stifled, or even killed and what once was a pleasant creek or brook has
become an ugly eyesore. Satisfactory treatment of these wastes will involve
the usual secondary or biological treatment followed by a tertiary biological
treatment which in turn will be followed by a nutrient removal process.
Disinfection may be required in those localities where close downstream uses
occur. Consulting engineers will be faced with many hours of brain work and
pencil sharpening in the coming months to design such facilities. It is
also true that many individual industries arc going to have to re-examine
their financial ledgers to discover ways to finance the required treatment.
-------
- 9 -
move to another State or go out of business because their competition does
not have to conform to strict treatment requirements no longer holds because
all industrial plants in all States are now faced with the same requirements.
The competition will be between consulting engineers to come up with an
effective economical plan to provide the necessary treatment. Just what this
cost will mean to the housewife when she purchases a steak has not been
thoroughly researched, however, in other industries facing a similar problem,
the extra cost has been about 1 percent to 2 percent and even now better
designs are bringing costs down.
The sugar beet industry generally has not dispersed to the extent of
the meat industry. Except for one or two new plants in the Missouri and
Red Basins, it does not appear that it will do so in the near future.
Many studies have been performed on the treatment of sugar beets
wastes using biological systems including activiated sludge, trickling
filters, lagoons and other means. In general, pilot plant studies have not,
to date, yielded consistant results. These wastes are deficient in
nitrogen and phosphorous, and these nutrients must actually be added before
conventional treatment schemes are effective. This raises costs and adds to
operation and maintenance problems. One successful scheme involves a closed
system with reuse of step process effluents. This not only prevents wastes
from entering the stream but lowers the net water demand. At the end of the
campaign the smaller volume of concentrated waste can be satisfactorily
handled. Since most sugar beet mills are in areas faced with water shortages,
this reuse of effluents becomes an additional benefit. Several plants in
-------
-10-
In the Red River Valley, the potato processing industry is attempting
to adapt lagoons to the treatment of their wastes. In the past many of the
waste treatment schemes included some storage of wastes with subsequent
release of the waste during the high spring runoff. This never was completely
satisfactory even when the volume of the wastes was small. The combination
of low temperature, large volumes, nutrient deficiencies, and seasonal
operation has given this industry some of the same problems of the beet
sugar industry. Lagoons with supplemental aeration and nutrients derived
from domestic sewage appear to have merits. A full scale test Is under way
at Grand Forks, North Dakota to develop design criteria.
Lagoons appear to provide acceptable treatment for vegetable processing
wastes although care must be taken to consider the peculiar characteristics
of the waste at each installation. Characteristics of the waste vary
considerably with the vegetable being processed and the process used. Sugar
content, pH, and salt are examples of variables encountered. Vegetable
processing is a seasonal operation. When the processing is done during
warm weather wastes handling by spray irrigation may also give good results
if enough suitable land is available.
The wastes from animal feedlots, sugar beet and potato processing
plants and vegetable canneries all have extremely high bacterial populations
and biochemical oxygen demands (BOD). These wastes must be given some form
of treatment which drastically reduces this population and reduces the BOD
if water quality standards are to be met. Chlorination and long retention
are being used to reduce these bacterial populations in some installations.
-------
- 11 -
phase of pollution and much remains to be done.
The dairy industry is not a major industry in the Missouri or Red
River Basin. However, there are milk collecting stations and milk
processing plants in many small communities. These wastes are frequently
discharged to the city sewers. Milk wastes are unusually strong. Even a
small plant will generate a waste load greater than all households or other
local endeavors of a small community. These wastes can over load a waste
treatment plant. The small volume and the watery appearance of the wastes
is deceiving and their discharging into the community sewers without
allowance for their characteristics is generally accepted practice. Unless
consideration of the additional waste loading is included in the treatment
plant design, serious operation troubles will develop. These wastes can be
treated in conventional plants with domestic wastes if proper allowance is
made for their high organic strength.
Volumes of words have been written describing the necessity of fertile
soils to meet the demands for food. The soils are aided by the addition of
furtilizers and other agri-chemicals. When the soil is eroded and the
chemical washed into a stream they both become serious pollutants. Aside
from filling stream channels and reservoirs used for water supply and
detracting from pleasant appearance, sediment impairs the reoxygenation
capacity of waters. Reduced oxygen hurts fish life. Fish population is
also further reduced by sediment blanketing fish nests, spawn areas and
food supplies.
AquaLic plants need nutrients to flourish, and flourish they will if
-------
- 12 -
algal "blooms" that frequently result in off-taste and an unpleasant odor in
the water. In extreme cases the streams may reach the "green soup" stage
of algae and plant growth, and the over growth kills itself, the odor of
decaying plants becomes offensive, fish die and there is interference wiLh
many water uses.
Little information is now available on the role of sediment as the
transporting agent for residues of pesticides and other chemicals in
streamflow. Some organic compounds have a known affinity for soil sediment.
It can be presupposed that many organic compounds are moved from the fields
to the waterways through erosion silt movements.
The potential of land management and use practices for alleviating
sediment problems needs stuJy. Economically feasible erosion control
techniques are needed not only for the farm and ranch; but also for suburban
and industrial areas. The Soil Conservation Service and other agencies of
the U.S. Department of Agriculture are actively engaged in trying to control
soil losses from our cultivated fields, our pastures and our forests; but
no one agency has assumed the lead in attempting to solve suburban and
industrial soil erosion problem. This represents a gap in our water pollution
control operations.
One should not leave the problem of sediment and associated chemical
runoff without a few words regarding another form of agricultural pollution.
The pollution from nonfertilizer chemicals used to increase farm production
is rising at very great rates. Many of the chemicals used to control animal
and insect pests, weeds and fungi are toxic to aquatic life in minute amounts.
-------
- 13 -
fish kills often result. Sprays used to control flies in and around barns
or feedlots can be carried into streams by surface runoff. Orchard spraying
results in residues finding their way into streams. Aerial spraying, can
result in chemicals being washed or wind blown into streams. Sprays used
to control brush and weeds along road ditches, irrigation ditches and
drainage ways are also carried into the waterways.
The Department of Agriculture has recognized the problem and is carrying
on extensive research to develop either effective non toxic chemicals or
to develop nonchemical means of control. The development of resistant
varieties of crops, and changes in farming practices, such as changing to
fall plowing which results in high death rates in corn borer populations, are
examples of nonchemical controls. Means of attacking insect populations
through genetic changes or disturbance of insect reproductive cycles have
been sought and good success has been achieved. An example of this type of
control is the irradiation of the male screw-worm flies which renders them
sterile and since screw-worm flies only mate once and then die, no offspring
is generated. This control has been effective in the Southwest. Time
precludes delving deeper in this highly interesting area, but it will suffice
to say much is being done to keep the use of harmful chemicals to a minimum.
The use of chemical fertilizers such as ammonium sulphate, ammonium
nitrate, ammonium phosphate and anhydrous ammonia, has grown at tremendous
rates. They are easier to apply than farm waste materials. The fertilizers
must be dissolved in water before plants can utilize them. Dissolved, they
are not only available to the plant, but they can also be carried into the
-------
- 14 -
detrimental plant overgrowths causing eutrophication of the streams and lakes.
Better means of using chemical fertilizers are being sought. Certainly
losing fertilizer to the stream does not increase crop production but results
in an actual monetary loss to the farmer and rancher.
Irrigation itself gives rise to another form of agricultural pollution.
Of the water diverted from massed supply (reservoirs) and consumptively used,
90 percent is used in irrigation. The irrigation water brought onto a field
always carries some dissolved salt. Plants extract water; but most of the
salt is excluded by the roots. The water evaporated from the surface is pure
water. The salts remain in the soil. In arid climates where nature has
left an accumulation of salt in the soil, the application of water will
fortify this salt concentration unless the process is countered with excess
applications of water to pick up the salt left by the irrigation process and
carry it back to the streams or ground water. The salt appearing in the
irrigation return flows is that brought in by the irrigation water plus
that which may have been naturally present in the soil. In the early years
of an irrigation project the salts in the return flow tend to be high.
Irrigation takes salts into solution from the soil which had little exposure
to water in recent geologic history. So the return flow from an irrigated
area is invariably saltier than the incoming water. As a general rule
about 25 to 35 percent of the water applied to the soil is returned to the
streams or ground water. Assume a salt balance, ignoring the salt normally
occurring in the soil, we can see that the concentration of the salt in the
return waters will be increased 3 to 4 times. Areas in the Colorado Basin
-------
- 15 -
original concentration. Stream flow composed of largely return flows from
irrigated fields, may have a total salinity which will render the water
unpalatable to humans, impair its use for animal watering, negate its use
in heaters and boilers, and may even prevent further use by downstream
irrigators. Some of the fertilizers or pesticides which were applied to the
field are dissolved by the water and carried to the streams. The water thus
enriched and generally warmed contributes to a more lush growth of vegetation
(usually only weeds and algae).
Satisfactory solutions to the problems caused by present irrigation
practices are needed. Alternative procedures for handling return drainage
flow along some rivers may have to be devised, especially where downstream
uses include potable water supplies. A great amount of effort is being
expended to develop a solution acceptable to all concerned.
In the past, the pollution control efforts were largely aimed at
municipalities and industries. We have made progress in controlling such
sources of pollution. The knowledge and technical skills necessary to do
this job are now fairly well developed. The big job is the application of
this knowledge.
Conversely, the control of pollution from agricultural sources is
severely handicapped by lack of knowledge. It has only been in the last
decade that the full pollution potential of agricultural operations has been
even indirectly appreciated. It must also be realized that the many changes
in agricultural activities themselves have added to the pollution potential
of this segment of our economy.
-------
- 16 -
treatment plant operators, city officials, agricultural people and as
citizens in general, the problems of alleviating water quality degradation
are very great. Agricultural problems are just part of our overall problem;
but major part here in the heart of the food producing section of our
country. To the design engineers present here tonight I would like to
admonish them to learn all they can about the latest developments in advanced
waste treatment and to incorporate such knowledge in their new designs.
Research does no good unless the results are placed into use, and you as
designers are in the key spot to see that the new concepts are put to good
use. To the treatment plant operators, you also are going to be called upon
to do your part. Some of the new concepts will call for closer control in
operation and maintenance. To keep abreast of the new developments you,
too, are going to have to upgrade your knowledge by attending short courses,
completing correspondence courses and other similar training. To the city
officials, industrial and agricultural executives, and citizens, you must
be prepared to accept the overall administrative, legal, and financial
responsibility required to solve our mutual problem of water quality
preservation. As individual citizens we must all add what personal talents
-------
AGRICULTURE AS A SOURCE OF WATER POLLUTION *
by
Eugene T. Jensen **
We Americans -- blessed with masses of undeveloped land and a
richness of natural resources -- have just recently awakened to what
we were doing to our country and the very resources that have made
us rich.
As a result of this new appreciation of our environment, we are
beginning to take steps to stop the needless abuses of our resources
and to correct the damages that have accrued. One big step has been
the recent strengthening of the National legislation dealing with
the problem of water pollution.
Let me take just a minute to highlight this legislation; it has
increased the commitments and involvements of your Federal government.
-- The Water Resources Research Act of 1964 provides National
encouragement and support of State water resources research centers
and promotes more adequate water resources research.
-- The Water Quality Act of 1965 and the Clean Water Restoration
Act of 1966 commit the national government to working with States and
communities to preserve high quality water and clean up dirty water.
-- The Water Resources Planning Act of 1965 provided the Federal
vehicle to encourage, promote, and support river basin commissions.
* Prepared for presentation at the National Pork Industry Conference,
Hotel Sir Walter, Raleigh, North Carolina, December 12-13, 1968.
** Director, Middle Atlantic Region, Federal Water Pollution Control
Administration, U. S. Department of the Interior, 918 Emmet Street,
-------
-2-
-- The National Water Commission Act of 1968 set up a National
Water Commission to oversee a comprehensive review of national water
resource problems and programs.
Additional legislation to control oil pollution and speed con-
struction of critically needed waste treatment plants was a casualty
of the closing rush of the past congressional session.
These recently established Federal programs -- along with new
State and community programs -- are both a cause and a reflection of
the changing approach to water pollution control in America.
In the past, too often we regarded waterways as transport systems
for municipal, industrial, and agricultural wastes. Emphasis was on
treating waste only to the point that the receiving waters did not
become a nuisance.
Now, our efforts are toward maintaining existing water quality
where it is high and improving water quality where it is low.
We have, in my opinion, finally realized that high quality water
provides many benefits, and we are willing to p»ay the costs to gel
the benefits.
Municipalities -- with financial and technical assistance from
the Federal and State level -- are moving, if they have not already
done so, to treat the wastes generated by the city. In many areas,
in fact, municipalities are faced with moving to advanced waste
treatment processes over and above the traditional "secondary treatment"
if the quality of the water in the stream absorbing the waste is to
-------
-3-
Industry, too, is recognizing that it has not only a social
responsibility to clean up its wastewater but that this makes good
business sense. Polluted water can become an expense to an industry
when the pollution interferes with the industry's needed uses of the
same waters.
From the agricultural standpoint -- which is of most concern to
you here today -- water pollution still contains a lot of unknowns,
both with respect to the effect of the pollution as well as practical
ways to avoid it.
Four problems of real significance to farmers and livestock
growers are those caused by nutrients, sediments, chemicals, and
animal wastes.
Nutrients -- primarily nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium -- can,
when they find their way into surface waters, result in the unwanted
growth of nuisance aquatic plants. The unwanted growth -- algae --
affects the taste and odor of water, and can impair the flow in irrigation
and drainage ditches. Many of you, I am sure, have seen farm ponds
almost completely filled with blue-green algae in the late summer.
Such growth can rapidly "kill" a pond.
In urban areas, most of the unwanted nutrients come from municipal
waste in the form of raw or inadequately treated sewage. In rural areas,
nutrients find their way to ponds and streams as water washes animal
waste and commerical fertilizer from pastures, barnyards, and feed lots.
In many respects, the urban problem is an easier one to solve.
The nutrient sources are under greater control, and wastewaters can be
-------
-4-
removed before the water is discharged into the receiving stream. Animal
waste, fertilizers, of course, are not so easily handled.
Moreover, we have only lately come to realize the significant extent
to which animal waste contributes to water pollution. We know that, in
some watersheds, domestic animals contribute more to the problem of
excessive nutrients than do people. One cow, for example, generates
as much waste as 16.4 humans. One hog produces as much waste as two
people, and seven chickens can provide a disposal problem equivalent
to that created by one person. In total, farm animals in the United
States produce ten times as much waste as the human population. And
in this country, the animal population increases along with the human
population, and is also inclined to increase in even greater proportion
as the levels of living rise.
The second major agricultural contribution to water pollution I
mentioned was sediments.
Some four billion tons of sediment are washed into tributary streams
in the United States each year. The results are costly. The annual bill
to the American people now exceeds half a billion dollars. Moreover,
water carrying excessive sediment needs extensive treatment to make it
fit for municipal and industrial use, and is harmful to fish and other
aquatic life. The Nation also suffers the loss of the top soil.
The FWPCA, along with other Department of Interior agencies, the
Soil Conservation Service of the Department of Agriculture, and the
Corps of Engineers, are tackling this problem. Sediment is one of the
-------
-5-
The ultimate answer lies in developing and applying sound land
management practices to keep sediment out of watercourses, not an
impossible task.
Before leaving the sediment problem, however, it is well to note
that road construction and urban development often are -- as in the
Washington, D„ C. area of the Potomac River Basin -- a greater source
of sediment per acre than the rural areas.
Agricultural chemicals -- insecticides, herbicides, fungicides,
nematocides, rodenticides, growth regulators -- while bringing about
tremendous increases in productivity and the quality of agricultural
products, also pose some threat to our environment. Many of the
products are so new, and have so recently been used on a mass scale
that we do not, as yet, know what effects their usage has on the
environment or how harmful effects can be prevented. We do know,
however, that agricultural chemicals find their way into waters used
for home consumption, for livestock, and into ponds and streams.
These chemicals in unwanted places can and do kill fish, affect the
health of livestock, and otherwise affect water quality.
The FWPCA is sponsoring research to determine the effects of
these agricultural chemicals on water quality, and what can be done
to control them.
The fourth problem I identified was that caused by animal waste.
I have defined some of the problem in speaking of the nutrient load
in our waters. Needless to repeat, runoff from animal feedlots is
a serious pollution problem affecting both surface and ground waters.
-------
-6-
and poultry to barns and lots concentrates the waste and increases the
disposal problem. Ten thousand head of cattle on a feedlot produce
260 tons of manure a day. What to do with this manure? If allowed
to accumulate, it can cause offensive odors, become a breeding ground
for vermin, produce runoff high in nutrients, and may become a source
of infectious agents found in streams. No single method of control
now in use has proved generally satisfactory in dealing with wastes
from confined livestock operations. In some situations controls
involving incineration, dehydration, field spreading, composting or
lagooning are effective.
Nutrients, sediments, agricultural chemicals, and animal waste.
These are the conditions of water pollution that are of direct concern
to you. And I'm confident that the agriculturist and livestock grower
-- with help from his government -- will find a way to control pollution
caused by his agricultural operations. In the final analysis, this is
simply a cost of doing business -- the cost of operating and of disposing
of waste in such a manner as to not harm the environment.
Actually, I should state that more positively, for I think the
real solution is not how to dispose of waste but rather how to use
waste so that it is restored to the earth for whatever values it has.
Nutrients in water cause troublesome growth. Nutrients in fields can
bring profitable growth, as the American farmer so well knows.
Whatever steps are required to control agriculturally generated
water pollution, it may comfort you to know that you are not alone.
I know of no group of producers, or any particular activity in the
United States that does not have some form of water pollution problem
-------
-7-
The maintenance of water quality is, indeed, a national problem, a
complex interwoven problem, whose total answer will be found only in a
total approach. This is the course we are taking in our comprehensive
basin-wide planning effort. For purposes of this program, emphasis is
placed on developing water quality management programs on a river basin
basis. Each basin includes rivers and their tributaries, coastal waters,
sounds, estuaries, bays, and lakes plus the lands they drain. For the
most part, each can be considered as a separate hydrologic unit.
Effective planning is essential to assure that the large investment
in the costs of abating pollution and enhancing water quality in cleaning
up of entire river systems will yield optimum returns. Federal water
quality management planning is oriented to the development of action
programs for meeting current and projected water supply and quality
problems on a basin-wide basis. Through the use of scientific engineering,
and economic data developed in the basin studies, present problems are
defined, future problems are anticipated, and a comprehensive approach
is developed for undertaking measures for the immediate clean-up of
pollution within a framework that will provide for long-range prevention
and control.
The thrust of Federal river basin water quality management planning
is to encourage State and local water quality management planning
activities and to foster the application of measures which will make
a long-term contribution to the enhancement of water quality for public
water supply, propagation of fish and aquatic life and wildlife,
-------
-8-
An integral factor in cleaning up our waters and keeping them
clean is the development of the technical know-how necessary to maintain
economic progress while, at the same time, eliminating the accompanying
problems of water pollution.
The FWPCA carries out a rather broad and comprehensive research
program.
Research grants and contracts are awarded to support basic and
applied research projects relating to the causes, control, and prevention
of water pollution. These projects are directed toward the discovery
and development of new information and technology in the chemical,
physical, biological, and social sciences and in engineering. We are
also interested in the identification, fate and persistence of pollutants
in water and their effects on water uses and treatment processes,
non-treatment methods of pollution control, and the ultimate disposal
of treated wastes. Grants are awarded to public or private agencies,
institutions and to individuals. Demonstration grants and contracts
are awarded to assist investigations and studies of an applied nature,
and to develop and demonstrate the feasibility of new methods related
to the causes, control, and prevention of water pollution. We support
projects in the field of water pollution control to public or private
agencies, institutions, and individuals which evaluate and apply new
information and technology.
The Federal Water Pollution Control Administration also has
enforcement authority for the abatement of pollution affecting interstate
waters, including coastal waters. The mechanism through which the
-------
-9-
to abate pollution of Moriches Bay, Long Island. In this case, the
wastes produced by one arm of agriculture -- duck farming -- caused
damage to another group of farmers -- oystermen. Under the conference
procedure, which is specified by the Federal Water Pollution Control Act,
representatives of the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration
i
and the State of New York examined all the data having a bearing on
pollution of this Bay.
The presence of the duck farms has resulted in the discharge of
suspended solids and nutrients to waters of the Bay. These discharges
have produced extensive deposits of sludge which has covered the natural
bottom and created a habitat unsuitable for the growth and propagation
of shellfish and introduced nutrients which have stimulated prolific
algal growths.
As a result of the enforcement conference action, waste treatment
facilities for the removal of suspended solids and oxygen demanding
material have been constructed at all operating duck farms.
Facilities for the removal of nutrients are required to be completed
by 1970. This result of the conference shows a corrective action program
was agreed upon and remedial action is being taken.
In the overall search for knowledge in water pollution control,
agricultural activities have recently begun receiving increased
attention. In 1967, FWPCA supported 17 projects, totaling $377,000
with colleges and universities throughout the Nation to study problems
and demonstrate solutions varying from the complex effects of pesticides
to the management of feedlot wastes in concentrated growing operations.
A recently funded project at North Carolina State University here
-------
-10-
operations on water quality. This study will provide an engineering
basis for assessing water pollution contributions by animal growing and
reduce the somewhat careless speculation that has surrounded this waste
problem. The first year of the project will deal with swine growing;
unconfined grazing operations, as well as confined feedlots, will be
evaluated. The evaluation will consider such factors as feed, topography,
rainfall, and type of growing facility. If the initial efforts are
successful, a second year would study beef and poultry growing operations.
The ultimate objective is to enable engineers and scientists to predict
water pollution loads from varying types of animal growing operations.
The Research and Development effort is not restricted to study
alone. An active program to demonstrate the practicability of improved
waste management and treatment is underway. Feeding pens designed for
i
more efficient waste transport have been demonstrated along with improved
lagoon systems for more effective treatment. Most important is the
development of valid engineering information to enable the animal grower
to provide an adequate system at reasonable cost and to know the limits
of the system so that he can expand production and waste treatment
coincidentally to avoid future pollution problems.
Realizing the demand for more effective treatment, we are supporting
research and development in advanced waste treatment and joint treatment
projects -- to assist in the development of advanced waste treatment and
water purification methods (including the temporary use of new or improved
chemical additives which provide substantial immediate improvement in
existing treatment processes), or new or improved methods of joint
-------
-11-
We are also assisting projects which will develop and/or demonstrate
new or improved methods controlling discharges into any waters of
untreated or inadequately treated sewage or other wastes from sewers
which carry stormwater or both stormwater and sewage or other wastes.
Research fellowships are provided to increase the number of specialists
needed to carry out programs of water pollution control. These fellowships
support specialized education and training in a variety of areas relating
to water pollution control. These are awarded to qualified individuals
j
on the basis of favorable review of their applications.
In summary, water pollution is a serious problem in the United States
and the farmer, along with industry and municipalities, is going to have
to operate in such a way as to reduce the effect of waste on water.
I hasten to say that we cannot retreat to the past and cease
feedlot operations, stop using pesticides or chemical fertilizers.
Rather , we must find and utilize ways to eliminate or minimize water
pollution within the context of our current complex agricultural operations.
This will cost money. It's going to cost money to finance the
necessary research to give us the knowledge to do the job. And it's
going to cost money to apply that knowledge.
But there are no alternatives. We have passed the point where we
can expect our waterways to assimilate our untreated wastes. The need
for clean and usable water demands that we build the cost of clean
water into all of our operations.
Nationally and individually, I think Americans are committed to
-------
EFFECT OF AGRICULTURE ON WATER QUALITY*
BY
T. R. SMITH**
I am pleasea to have this opportunity to represent the Federal
Water Pollution Control Administration and to discuss the effect of
agriculture on* water quality.
We never stop to think, that we have a right arm. But if, "by
accident, it is "broken, we are painfully aware that we have this
resource and that all is not well with it. When it finally heals
and again obeys our every command, we soon lose awareness of this
vital resource. Our natural resources are likewise taken for granted.
But when our water, for example, develops a foul smell and a "bad taste,
we become concerned and remain so until the bad qualities are remedied.
We may then again take for granted this resource so necessary to life.
Water quality can be affected by many different agents. If not
properly treated, municipal sewage and industrial wastes have deleterious
effects on water. Similarly, the effects of agricultural activities on
water quality is an important factor to consi4er.
Municipal and industrial wastes can be collected by sewers and
given proper treatment at sewage treatment plants before they are dis-
charged into streams. However, it would seem that for agricultural
activities, preventative measures would play an important role.
* Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Hoosier Chapter of the Soil
Conservation Society of America, Lafuy<-' , Indiana, January ^, 1969.
** Soil Scientist, Evansvillc, Indiana Ofi'-L-j , -...-cr Ohio Basin Office,
Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, U. S. Department of
-------
2
The nam sources of agricultural-associated, water pollution in
hunid regions are: (l) silt from soil erosion; (2) fertilizers, mainly
phosphorus and nitrogen compounds; (3) pesticides; and (U) organic
wastes from feed lots. In arid regions, irrigation return flows are a
problem.
Let's consider the effect each of these sources can have on water
quality and suggest some preventative measures. In so doing, reference
will be made to the Wabash River Basin. Since the FWPCA made a study
of the effect of agriculture on water quality in this area, I will
cite some problems existing there.
As it is throughout the Nation, silt resulting from soil erosion
is the most damaging form of agricultural pollution in the Wabash River
Basin.^ Seventy-four percent of the land in the basin is crop and
pasture land, and only about one-third of it is subject to good soil
conservation practices. As a consequence, silt pollutes the basin
streams after every storm of any magnitude. Silt also reduces the
storage capacity of reservoirs. The reservoir that supplies water for
Danville, Illinois, for example, is losing about one percent of its
original capacity each year. This reduces the reservoir's life to about
65 years, a short life for a reservoir. Silt increases the treatment
costs for municipal and industrial water supplies. It erodes power
turbines and pumps, and plugs filters. Silt reduces fish and shellfish
-------
that some species may be eliminated. Suspended sediments reduce the
amount of light available to green aquatic plants that help maintain
dissolved oxygen supplies in water, thus reducing a stream or lake's
capacity to assimilate oxygen demanding organic pollutants. Silt
pollution is so serious that legislation making it unlawful to permit
excessive soil erosion has been suggested.
The deposition of sediment in streams and reservoirs is directly
related to soil erosion. To reduce sedimentation to a practical mini-
mum, it is necessary to treat the entire landscape. The best'way to
achieve this is to first put every acre of land to its best use. The
most effective soil conservation practices that are economically fea-
sible should then be applied to every acre of cultivated land, pasture
land, and woodland on every farm. This is a time consuming process.
In 30 years, soil conservation practices have been applied to approxi-
mately 35 percent of the Wabash River Basin. The national picture is
substantially the same.^ It is urgent that this process be speeded
up. Farmers can ill afford to lose precious topsoil, and the people
downstream can ill afford to have this same topsoil pollute their water
supply. The Danville, Illinois reservoir would have had a slower rate
of sediment accumulation had a good soil conservation program been main-
tained on its watershed.
Precipitation intensity and duration and other climatic factors
-------
1+
stream, sediment concentrations. Important environmental factors are
topography, soil type, vegetation, and land use. Studies show that
three-fourths of the soil loss from experiment station plots at seven
locations throughout the United States occurred during four storms a
year, and that most of the sediment is carried downstream during flows
that occur three or four times a year. This means that 67 to 75 per-
cent of the soil loss must occur during about one percent of a year's
time. Methods effective in holding down soil losses during critical
storm periods would reduce significantly the sediment load potential.
Land use is the decisive environmental factor in controlling soil
erosion and sedimentation. Regardless of soil type, a well managed
pasture or forest can effectively control soil erosion. But agricul-
tural production is based largely on field and row crops that require
cultivation of the land. On this land, every feasible soil conservation
practice should be applied in order to reduce erosion to a practical
minimum. Soil type is an important factor governing the severity of
erosion on cultivated land. Sloping soils are usually more erosive
than nearly level soils. On comparable slopes, highly permeable soils
are less erosive than slowly permeable soils. Although much of the
cultivated land in the Wabash River Basin is level to gently sloping,
most of it ranges from moderately to very slowly permeable. As a con-
sequence, a large part of the cultivated land in this basin is subject
-------
5
is applied to every acre of the Wabash River Basin, soil erosion and
silt pollution and sedimentation of streams and reservoirs will con-
tinue to be problems.
Nutrients in runoff water from farm land contribute indirectly
to water pollution. In 1961+, 1,100,000 tons of fertilizer were applied
to 7,370,200 acres of crop land in the VJabash River Basin, a 25 percent
increase over fertilizer use ten years earlier. We can expect the use
of fertilizer to increase. It must increase if the future demand for
food is to be met.
Nitrogen and especially phosphorus carried into streams from farm
land are our chief interests. Very low concentrations of these nutrients
in water can stimulate nuisance algae blooms which, upon dying and de-
composing, impart taste and odor problems to water supplies. To keep
the nutrient picture in its proper perspective, I want to point out that
municipal and industrial wastes account for an estimated 70 percent of
the phosphorus in water, and rural runoff the remaining 30 percent. It
is, however, well to remember that municipal and industrial wastes, un-
like rural runoff, can be treated to remove 90 to 95% of the phosphorus.
When this is accomplished, phosphorus from agriculture will be about
five times greater than that from municipalities and industry.
The Evansville Field Station in 1966 and 1967 studied four Upper
Wabash Basin streams that drained farm land in watersheds ranging from
21.5 to 92 square miles in size. In these areas there were no industrial
-------
6
Tne average soluble phosphorus content of tnese streams ranged from
0.Q1+ to 0.03 sig/l, Average nitrate nitrogen ranged from 2 to 2.5 Kg/1.
Tnese concentrations of phosphorus and nitrogen are not great enough to
stimulate nuisance algae blooms in these streams but are much rr.ore than
enough to stimulate nuisance algae blooms in lakes and reservoirs. A
concentration of 0.01 mg/1 of inorganic phosphorus and 0.3 mg/1 of in-
organic nitrogen in reservoir water in the spring of the year can be
(U)
expected to cause nuisance algae blooms. This is much less than the
concentration of phosphorus necessary to promote growth of farm crops.
Investigators have found that concentrations of phosphorus in solution
necessary for optimum growth of different farm crops vary from 0.2 to
(5) *
0.7 mg/1. This means that farm crops requite concentrations of
phosphorus 20 to 70 times greater than algae do.
, Nutrients in water appear to be related to land use. Present
evidence indicates that nutrients in runoff from agricultural areas are
higher than the threshold that will stimulate nuisance algae "blooms in
reservoirs; nutrients in runoff from forest areas are below this thres-
hold.^ We can generally expect nutrients in runoff from agricultural
land to be higher than the threshold that will stimulate nuisance algae
blooms in reservoirs and lakes unless preventative measures are taken.
As in controlling soil erosion and sedimentation, application of
every feasible soil conservation practice will "be necessary to minimize
(7)
the amount of nutrients carried from farm land into streams. In
-------
7
growth should ever "be applied. Fertilizers are rarely applied ir. such
amounts ox present, tut as increasing world population demands r.ore
food, more fertilizer will "be used to increase crop yields.
Pesticides in water are also of great concern. Pesticides that
persist for a long tine and are highly toxic are of special concern.
Fish kills have been traced to very low concentrations of highly toxic
pesticides. In 196^, pesticides were used on U,Q6l,136 acres of crop-
18)
land in the Wabash River Basin. This is 19 percent of the basin's
area. Crops most commonly treated are corn, small grain, hay, seed
crops, vegetables, fruits, and pasture. Cattle, hogs and sheep are
treated externally to control insects. The most intensive use of
pesticides is on fruit and vegetable crops. Pesticides commonly used
are aldrin, amiben, atrazine, carbaryl, diazinon, heptachlor, malathion,
trifluralin, and 2, U—D.
There are several ways by which water may be polluted by the agri-
cultural use of pesticides. Pesticides may enter surface water from:
(l) runoff from treated farm land; (2) direct application to water sur-
faces to control weeds or mosquitoes; (3) drift resulting from aerial
applications to farm land; (U) washing and processing of fruits and
vegetables; and (5) washing spray equipment and disposal of excess spray
material.
We cannot be sure what the cumulative or future long-term effects
-------
3
pesticides following their application to plants, animals, or soils.
Some pesticides are known to break down after being in the soil for
a short time but are very pcrsietent in water. As they break dovn,
some pesticides form compounds more toxic than the original product.
While agricultural use of pesticides is an important factor in
increased crop yields, increasing care mist be exercised with their
use. Pesticides less toxic to non-target organisms should be sub-
stituted and alternate methods of pest control used wherever possible.
Rapidly aegradable pest control agents should replace non-degradable
or slowly aegradable agents wherever possible. Pesticides should never
be used in excess of the recommended amounts. Excess spray material
should never be discharged into surface water and spray equipment should
never be washed in surface water. A sound program of soil conservation
will lower the amount of pesticides entering surface water from treated
farm land.
If these principles are observed, surface water should not be
grossly polluted by agricultural pesticides.
Livestock feed lots are a troublesome factor in some areas. The
Kansas Board of Health ranks large livestock feed lots as that State's
major water pollution problem. Since World YJar II, cattle feed lots
containing up to 10,000 animals have been developed. Ten thousand
(9)
cattle will produce as much organic waste as a city of 16^,000 people.
-------
9
in fish kills ana pollution of the water supply of downstream towns.
As a result, Kansas now has a state lav designed to control feed lot
pollution of surface water.
According to the I96U census, livestock, in the Wabash River Basin
totaled 1,7^7,000 cattle, ^,20^,000 hogs, 312,500 sheep, 10,^09,000
chickens, and 18,600 turkeys. This was livestock on farms ana did not
include marketed livestock. This livestock population will produce as
much organic waste as 38,900,000 people.The basin had a I960
human population of 3,1^5,300. Small herds of livestock dispersed on
pastures have little effect on water quality. But, improperly treated
wastes from large feed lots are a real threat to water quality.
A 1967 canvass of county extension agents in the Wabash River Basin
produced the following information: Six hundred and nine feed lots,
each holding 200 or more cattle were reported; wastes from 596 cattle
feed lots were spread on the land, waste from two were treated in
lagoons, and 11 were not spreading or treating wastes. Four hundred
and forty-one feed lot, each holding 1,000 or more hogs, were reported.
Wastes from 332 hog feed lots were spread on the land, 99 were treated
in lagoons, and 10 were not spreading or treating wastes.
Present available information indicates that gross stream pollution
from livestock wastes is not occurring in the Wabash River Basin. Pollu-
tion from other agricultural sources can be minimized by the application
-------
10
measures. Animal wastes may be spread on the land or treated in lagoons.
In Kansas, livestock wastes treated in lagoons nay be used as liquid
fertilizer.
In conclusion, since the beginning of widespread cultivation of
the land, agriculture has affected water quality. Consequently, it is
necessary that agriculturists plan to control pollutional effects of
their activities. Fortunately, ve have at hand much of the technology
-------
11
REFERENCES
Resources in Action-Agriculture 2000-USDA, June 1967, P 6.
Vermilion River Basin Study, Illinois Division of Waterways, 1967.
Stall, J. B., Sediment Movement and Deposition in Illinois Im-
pounding Reservoirs, Journal American Water Works Assn., vol. 56,
no. 6, pp 755-766, 196U.
Some New Aspects of Phosphates in Relation to Lake Fertilization,
Sawyer, C. N., Sewage and Industrial Wastes, vol. 2ht no. 6, pp
768-776, 1952.
Millar, C. E., Soil Fertility, 1955, p 159.
Sylvester, R. 0., 196l, Nutrient Content of Drainage Water from
Forested, Urban, and Agricultural Areas. Algae and Metropolitan
Wastes, U. S. Public Health Service, SEC TR W61-3, pp 80-87.
Weidner, R. B., Christianson, A. G., Weibel, S. R., and Robeck,
G. C., Rural Runoff as a Factor in Stream Pollution, U. S. Depart-
ment of the Interior, Federal Water Pollution Control Administra-
tion, January 1968.
United States Census of Agriculture, 196U.
Wadleigh, Cecil H., Wastes in Relation to Agriculture and Forestry.
Miscellaneous Publication No. 1065, U. S. Department of Agriculture,
-------
ECONOMICS OF WATER POLLUTION CONTROL FOR
CATTLE FEEDLOT OPERATIONS
T. R. Owens and Uade L. Griffin
Department of Agricultural Economics
TexaB Technological College, Lubbock, Texas
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors wish to express their appreciation to the members of
the Feeders Division, Texas and Southwestern Cattle Raisers Association
who initiated and partially funded the research for this report. Spe-
cifically the authors acknowledge their indebtedness to Mr. Lloyd
Bergsma, formerly director of the Cattle Feeders Services (TSCRA) and
currently director of Texas Cattle Feeders Association. A note of
appreciation is also extended to Mr. Dudley Campbell and Mr. Don King
of TSCRA for their excellent cooperation in all phases of the study.
A special note of thanks is also due the members of the staff of
Texas Technological College who assisted and gave freely of their time
and advice on all phases of the study. Specifically the authors wish
to thank Dr. James Osborn and Dr. Wlllard Williams of the Department of
Agricultural Economics, Dr. Dan Wells, Department of Civil Engineering,
Professor Walter Grub, Department of Agricultural Engineering, and Dr.
Robert Albln, Department of Animal Husbandry.
-------
Table of Contents
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS i
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ill
INTRODUCTION 1
The Problem 1
Objectives 3
QUANTITY AND QUALITY OF RUNOFF 4
Quantity of Runoff 4
Collection Systems 5
Collection Basin Capacity 5
Number of Overflows - Mechanical Discharge Systems .. 8
Number of Overflows - Evaporative Discharge Systems . 11
MODEL FEEDLOT ASSUMPTIONS 15
PHYSICAL SPECIFICATIONS AND COST COEFFICIENTS 18
Land Improvement Components ¦. 18
Diversion Terraces and Waterways 18
Collection Basins 20
Open Field Disposal Areas 20
Mechanical Equipment 22
Investment Cost Comparisons 24
Annual Costs 29
Depreciation 29
Interest on Investment 30
Electricity 30
Maintenance 31
Taxes 34
Annual Cost Summary 34
SYSTEM SELECTION 37
Least Cost System - Open Field Disposal Modification 38
Least Cost System - Playa Lake Disposal Modification 45
Least Cost Evaporative Discharge Systems 45
Cost Comparisons - All Systems 46
LIMITATIONS 51
-------
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The fed cattle industry has shown a remarkable rate of growth in
Texas over the last few years. Fed cattle inventories for the state
recorded as of January 1st each year increased 66 percent between 1965
and 1968. The Texas High Plains which has become the center of this
rapidly expanding industry experienced a 146 percent increase in cattle
inventories in the same three-year period. The exceptional growth of
the fed cattle industry on the High Plains can be attributed to a
favorable climate, availability of feed grains, adequate supplies of
feeder cattle and an adequate transportation network.
The expansion of the fed cattle industry on the High Plains has
resulted in the concurrent development of a major water pollution
problem. This problem originates in the cumulative build-up of large
quantities of organic waste on cattle feedlots in conjunction with
sporadic and intense precipitation. The combination of these two
factors in turn creates large quantities of heavily polluted feedlot
runoff which constitutes a major source of surface water pollution.
The primary objective of this study was to develop and determine
the economic feasibility of various methods for controlling or disposing
of feedlot runoff. The approach to the problem of water pollution from
feedlots used here involved control of runoff by establishing collection
basins and subsequently discharging the runoff to one of two disposal
areas (open field disposal and playa lake disposal) or alternatively to
hold the collected runoff until natural evaporation emptied the system.
Secondary sources were used to develop the average relationship between
inches of precipitation and resultant runoff. Subsequently, this
-------
relationship and 41 years of local rainfall data were used to develop
design criteria for a range of sizes of mechanical and evaporative
discharge systems. The various design criteria were then applied to
three different sizes of model feedlots: CI) 5000 head, (.2) 10,000
head, and (3) 25,000 head. Budgets were developed for each feedlot
and for each size and type of system and total capital and annual
costs were computed.
It was assumed that a part of the cost of operating any particular
system would be the penalty imposed by the state water pollution control
authorities for overflow. On the basis of current law, this penalty
ranges from a minimum of $50 per day to a maximum of $1000 per day.
Three levels of penalty charges were utilized in the analysis of
the various budgets. Annual penalty charges for each system were added
to annual costs for each system to develop total expected costs for
the system. A comparison of these total expected costs yielded an
estimate of the minimum cost system. Finally, minimum costs systems
providing only minimum overflow protection were compared with higher
cost systems providing more adequate overflow protection. Cost
differences between the two systems were then evaluated to determine
the increase in annual costs associated with additional protection.
An evaluation of total expected costs for mechanical discharge
systems utilizing the open field disposal technique indicated that
5"-.4", 6"-.2", 5"-.2" systems achieved minimum costs for the 5000,
10,000 and 25,000 head model feedlots respectively at the $1000/day
-------
penalty level.^ Total expected costs at this penalty level amounted to
$1011, $1596 and $3125 for the 5000, 10,000 and 25,000 head model feed-
lots respectively. Expected overflows in turn amounted to 4 overflows
for the 5000 and 10,000 head model feedlots or one overflow every 10
years, and 8 overflows for the 25,000 head model feedlot, one overflow
every 5 years.
The playa lake disposal modification achieved slightly lower total
expected costs than the open field disposal modification for the 25,000
head model feedlot for the same level of protection and at the same
penalty level. Differences in total expected costs between these two
modifications were relatively small ($304) and in any case were somewhat
dependent on the distance pumped to the playa lake disposal area. Longer
distances than those assumed by this study would necessarily incur
higher costs.
Costs of all mechanical discharge modifications were compared with
costs Incurred by the less complex evaporative discharge system. This
latter system achieved minimum costs for the 5000, 10,000 and 25,000
head model feedlots when constructed with a 16" capacity collection
basin and budgeted at the $1000 per day penalty level. The number of
overflows from this minimum cost evaporative discharge system amounted
to 7 overflows in the 41 year period or approximately one overflow every
6 years. In general, evaporative discharge systems were considered
^System sizes are described in terms of the number of Inches of
rainfall equivalent held by the collection basin at capacity and the
rate of discharge of the system in inches of rainfall equivalent per
day. Thus, a 5"-.2" system will hold a maximum of 5" of rainfall equiva-
lent in the collection basin and will discharge at the rate of .2" of
rainfall equivalent per day.
-------
inferior to their mechanical discharge counterparts because of the lower
degree of protection provided and the rather extensive land requirements
for construction of the collection basin.
A city treatment plant disposal modification was considered and
subsequently eliminated as a possible runoff control alternative for
the model feedlots. The analysis indicated that a 2"-.2" system in
association with a 5000 head feedlot would incur treatment costs of
approximately $25,000 per year. Similarly a 5"-.A" system providing a
higher degree of overflow protection in association with a 25,000 head,,
feedlot would incur treatment costs of approximately $1,080,000 per year.
The analysis of the city treatment plant disposal modification is not
included in the text of this report.
-------
/?>•
INTRODUCTION
Cattle feedlot operations in Texas have experienced a phenomenal
rate of growth over the last few years such that the state has moved
into a position of primary importance in the fed cattle industry.
Texas feedlot inventories as of January 1, 1965, amounted to 488,000
head. This figure had increased to 810,000 head by January 1, 1968, or
an increase of 66 percent in the three-year period. In the same period
feedlot inventories in the 32 major cattle feeding states increased
from 9,348,000 head to 11,297,000 head or an increase of 12 percent.
Increases in fed cattle inventories in Texas made up 17 percent of the
1,949,000 head increase in inventories indicated for the 32 major cattle
feeding states.
The thirty-three county High Plains area has become the center of
this rapidly expanding industry in Texas. Fed cattle inventories in
this area increased by 146 percent in the period January 1, 1965, to
January I, 1968. In 1967 in excess of 1.5 million head were fed out in
the High Plains area. Preliminary estimates indicate that total fed
cattle output will amount to 1.7 million head in 1968, and that the
current expansion phase of the industry may peak out by 1970 at approxi-
mately 2.0 million head annually.
The Problem
The expansion of the fed cattle industry in Texas has resulted in
the concurrent development of a number of management problems dealing
with solid and liquid waste that have broad social and economic implica-
-------
large number of animal units required for efficient feedlot operations.
The most acute of these problems from the standpoint of feedlot operators
is the potential of the feedlot as a source of water pollution. Only a
few years ago, designers of cattle feedlots selected feedlot sites based
primarily on two criteria: drainage and accessibility. Consideration
of the drainage factor practically insured location on the nearest draw
which in the absence of positive control measures made ultimate pollution
of the surface water course a certainty. Today, a change in public aware^r
ness of pollution problems and a concurrent development in the attitudes
and responsibilities of public agencies charged with enforcing anti-
pollution laws have created an entirely new socio-political environment.
These latter factors coupled with rapid expansion of the industry and
intensification of the problem have created a situation wherein pre-
vention of water pollution has become a matter of serious concern to the
fed cattle industry.
The environmental characteristics of the High Plains area contribute
in a large degree to the magnitude of the water pollution problem. This
area has a semi-arid climate with 15-20 inches of annual rainfall. Evapo-
ration rates are high in summer and the limited rainfall received comes
in sporadic bursts over relatively short time periods. Pollution prob-
lems are intensified by the intermittent character of their occurrence
following heavy rains. The resultant polluted runoff from one acre of
feedlot can equal the sewage load of a community of 2730 people. Con-
sequently, unless controlled this runoff will in time gravitate to the
nearest public water course for which it constitutes a major pollution
source.
-------
Objectives
The general objective of this study was to develop and determine
the economic feasibility of various procedures or methods for con-
trolling and disposing of feedlot runoff. More specifically, the
objectives were:
1. To determine the quantity and quality of runoff from representa-
tive feedlots under High Plains conditions.
2. To design procedures for controlling and disposing of runoff
water from representative feedlots on the Texas High Plains.
3. To determine the physical and engineering requirements for alter-
native methods or systems of controlling and disposing of runoff water
from representative feedlots.
4. To evaluate the economic feasibility of alternative methods or
systems of controlling and disposing of runoff water from representative
feedlots.
5. To develop and provide baseline data which will enable feedlot
operators to select the most appropriate control and disposal system.
-------
QUANTITY AND QUALITY OF RUNOFF
Characteristics of Runoff
A determination of BOD from simulated feedlot runoff studies at
Texas Technological College indicated a range of 500 Mg/1 to 3300 Mg/1
2
with a mean of 1687.5 Mg per litter. In Kansas studies, Smith and Miner
found that runoff water from cattle feedlots created a waste slug of
3
polluted water in an adjacent stream. The BOD of the polluted slug was
calculated at 345 Mg/1. This compares to a dry weather average of 2.b
Mg/1 BOD for the same stream.
Quantity of Runoff
The magnitude of the pollution problem, as measured by the volume of
runoff which must be controlled, is a function of the amount of precipi-
tation falling on the lot and that fraction which will become runoff.
The quantity of runoff will depend on the quantity of waste on the lot
and its physical condition. When feedlots have a heavy dry cover of manure,
considerable quantities of precipitation will be absorbed before runoff
occurs. In contrast, for saturated lots very little precipitation falls
before runoff begins.
The Kansas runoff studies provided data on the average annual
4
relationship between precipitation and runoff. Utilizing these data
2
BOD (Biological Oxygen Demand) is defined as that quantity of
oxygen utilized in the biological oxidation of organic matter during an
incubation period of five days at 20 degrees centigrade.
3
Stanley M. Smith and J. Ronald Miner, Stream Pollution From Feedlot
Runoff, Environmental Health Service, Bulletin No. 2—1 (Topeka, Kansas:
January 1964).
A
Letter from Dr. R. I. Lipper, Department of Agriculture Engineering,
Kansas State University, August 1, 1967.
-------
an equation (1) was developed to determine inches of runoff for given
inches of precipitation as follows:
K = -0.3819 + 0.8732 P (1)
where: K = inches of runoff
P = precipitation in inches
This equation, determined by the method of least squares, explains
91.2 percent of the variation in runoff observed in the Kansas studies.
The volume of runoff was determined by the following equation:
G = I2 x A x 43560 x 7-481
= K x A x 27156
G = gallons of runoff water
A = acres of feedlot (pens and roads)
43560 = square feet per acre
7.481 = gallons of water in a cubic foot
Collection Systems
Design criteria for collection basins which will minimize waste
collection costs are the ultimate basis of low cost pollution control.
Runoff water in this study was limited to that precipitation falling
directly on the feedlot to minimize collection basin size. Accordingly,
foreign water was excluded by construction of diversion works on the
perimeters of the feedlot.
Collection Basin Capacity
The required holding capacity for any runoff collection system is a
function of the quantity and frequency of precipitation, the total feedlot
acreage contributing to runoff, the physical character of the surface of
-------
the feedlot, and finally, the acceptable degree of tolerance with respect
to periodic overflow. With respect to the latter characteristic, total
protection, although physically feasible, can be achieved only at a
relatively high cost. The acceptable degree of tolerance in any case
will tend to vary with individual management's attitude toward risk of
overflow. Consequently, in developing design criteria for model feedlot
collection systems, due recognition should be given to the existence
of varying management attitudes ranging from relatively low risk
acceptance to high risk acceptance. A method of recognizing this
variability is to select a series of capacities which would incur a
relatively high frequency of overflow ranging upward to capacities
which would incur a relatively low frequency of overflow.
Design capacities for the development of runoff water collection
systems in this study were based on rainfall data covering a 41 year
period."' Data covering a 42 year period were examined, however, the
year 1941 was excluded since rainfall received in that year exceeded
more than twice the annual average rainfall. This latter occurrence
represents a fortuitous event which would fall in the same category of
natural happenings such as earthquakes and other rarely occurring phe-
nomena for which protection cannot be provided.
Rainfall data and equation 1 were used to compute the quantity of
runoff flowing into each system, and given the size of each system, the
resultant probability of overflow. Only rainfall amounts equal to or in
excess of .44" were considered subject to runoff. The limiting quantity
of .44" was determined from equation 1. That is, when K (runoff in
^Rainfall data supplied by United States Government Weather Bureau
-------
z*t
inches) is equal to zero, P (precipitation in inches) is equal to .44
inches.
Collection basin designs were formulated on the basis of two
distinct types of runoff control technology. The technologies and the
resultant systems were termed "mechanical discharge systems," and
"evaporative discharge systems." The former system involved discharge
of accumulated runoff in the collection basin by pumping to one of two
ultimate disposal areas. Design of the latter system, the evaporative
discharge system, contemplated discharge of accumulated runoff in the
collection basin by complete evaporation over time.
Mechanical discharge systems were designed to hold the runoff equiva-
lent of either 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6 inches of cumulative precipitation. In
contrast, evaporative discharge systems were designed to hold the runoff
equivalent of 12, 13, 14, 15, or 16 inches of cumulative precipitation.
Collection basins for mechanical discharge systems have relatively small
capacities as determined by the difference between the expected cumulative
runoff and the discharge capacity of the pump. Design criteria for these
systems assumed no evaporation losses due to shortness of the holding
period. Similarly, design criteria for the evaporative discharge sys-
tems made no provision for seepage losses since it was assumed the
collection basin would be self-sealing.
A measure of the degree of runoff protection afforded by either a
mechanical or evaporative discharge system of a specific capacity is the
number of overflows. Smaller capacity systems of either type will have
a greater frequency of overflow than larger ones. Given the size of the
system, frequency of overflow can be determined through analysis of
-------
historical rainfall data, assuming specific discharge and evaporation
rates for the mechanical and evaporative discharge systems respectively.
Number of Overflows - Mechanical Discharge Systems
Three specific discharge rates of 0.2, 0.4, and 0.6 inches of rain-
fall equivalent per day were selected for each of the five sizes of
collection basin. Overflow calculations were based on the holding
capacity of the collection basin in terms of rainfall equivalents.
Similarly, discharge rates are also stated in terms of rainfall equivalents
though at a latter stage, pumping costs were computed in terms of runoff
equivalent or runoff actually discharged. For example, a 3-inch system
has an actual holding capacity of only 2.2 inches of runoff since .8
inches will be absorbed by the feedlot (equation 1). To simplify the
overflow calculations, all systems including discharge capacities were
stated in terms of rainfall equivalents.
The procedure followed in determining the number of overflows for
mechanical discharge systems is illustrated in Table 1. On June 6,
rain fell in the amount of .06 inches. Since this figure is less than
.44 inches, no runoff occurred, hence, it was not added to the system.
On June 7, rain fell in the amount of .82 inches. This latter figure
is greater than .44 inches, consequently, it was added to the collection
basin. The same procedure was followed for the remainder of the period;
that is, rainfall amounts of less than .44 inches were not counted, and
rainfall in excess of .44 inches was added to the quantity in the collec-
tion basin up to a cumulative total rainfall equivalent of 3.00 inches
after which overflow would occur. Table 1 indicates that on June 10th,
-------
z*i
Since the capacity of the system is 3.00 inches of rainfall equivalent,
then .40 inches constituted overflow. The data for the 10th of June,
were subsequently adjusted to balance the system at a capacity of 3.00
incnes, and an entry made indicating that overflow had occurred. The
same procedure was followed for the remaining system sizes at three
selected discharge rates. Table 2 indicates the size of the system, the
applicable discharge rate, and the number of overflows which would have
occurred in the 41 year period for which hydrological data were available.
TABLE 1
OVERFLOW CALCULATIONS FOR JUNE, 1949,
3 INCH MECHANICAL DISCHARGE SYSTEM, .2 INCH DISCHARGE RATE,
TEXAS HIGH PLAINS
Day of Month
Rainfall
Inches
Discharge
In Inches/24 hrs.
Balance
Inches in Basin
(Rainfall Equivalent)
6 .06 0 0
7 .82 0 .82
8 .58 -.2 1.20
9 1.48 -.2 2.48
10 1.12 -.2 3.40
Overflow .4" Corrected Balance 3.00
11 0 -.2 2.80
12 0 -.2 2.60
13 .40 -.2 2.40
The average number of gallons of water pumped from each collection
basin was determined simultaneously with number of overflows. Gallons
of water discharged were determined by summing the total Inches of rain-
fall that occurred in amounts of over .44 inches, subtracting the total
-------
^ • f
inches of overflow from the system, and dividing by the number of years,
41. In other words, If T is the sum of the quantities of rainfall In
inches occurring in amounts in excess of .44 inches, and t is the sum of
the rainfall equivalents in inches that overflowed the collection basin,
T-1
then —jrj = average rainfall equivalents subjected to discharge (3)
TABLE 2
NUMBER OF OVERFLOWS, MECHANICAL DISCHARGE SYSTEMS,
FIVE SELECTED SYSTEM SIZES, THREE DISCHARGE RATES,
41 YEAR PERIOD (1926-1967)a, TEXAS HIGH PLAINS
System Size in
Discharge Rate
Rainfall Equivalent
Rainfall Equivalent
Frequency of Overflow
Inches
Inches/24 hr
2
.2
75
.4
59
.6
50
3
.2
36
.4
29
. 6
19
4
..2
17
.4
11
.6
8
5
.2
8
.4
4
.6
4
6
.2
4
.4
4
.6
3
The year 1941 was excluded.
Rainfall equivalents removed from the system by pumping are converted
to inches of runoff by equation 1 (K = -3819 + 0.8732 P) and to gallons
-------
£•*'
of runoff by equation 2 (G = R x A x 27156).
The following example indicates the method utilized in computing the
quantity of water discharged from each system given the quantity of over-
flow which occurred. The value of T for all 2" systems at a .2" dis-
charge rate as derived from the 41 years of rainfall data amounted to
483.44 inches of rainfall equivalent. In the same 41 year period, a 2"
system discharging from the collection basin at the rate of .2 inches
of rainfall equivalent per 24 hours would have a total overflow t equal
to 66.59 inches of rainfall equivalent. Therefore:
T-t = 483.44 - 66.59 = 10.17 inches of rainfall equivalent to
41 41
be removed from the system each year. Inches of rainfall equivalent were
converted to runoff by equation 1.
K = -0.3819 + 0.8732 (10.17)
K = 8.50 annual inches of runoff
Gallons of runoff per acre were subsequently determined by:
Gallons of Runoff per acre = Q = R x A x 27156
= 8.5 x 1 x 27156
= 230,826
Number of Overflows - Evaporative Discharge Systems
The cumulative amount of runoff retained in a collection basin in
any time period is a function of the amount of rainfall, the rate of
evaporation, the design depth of the system, and the number of overflows.
This latter quantity, number of overflows, is a necessary element in
determining the appropriate size of the optimum system. Consequently,
given the expected precipitation rates, evaporation rates and design
depth, the number of overflows may be estimated.
-------
Evaporation from the collection basins of evaporative discharge
systems was assumed to take place at the same rate as evaporation from
playa lakes on the High Plains. Data on average evaporation rates in feet
for each month are given in Table 3.
TABLE 3
EVAPORATION RATES BY MONTHS FROM PLAYA LAKES,
TEXAS HIGH PLAINS*
Month Evaporation Per Month (feet)
January
.160
February
.233
March
.460
April
.617
May
.716
June
.845
July
.883
August
.801
September
.625
October
.493
November
.295
December
.202
Total
6.330
Data on daily evaporation rates presented in "Hydrology, Conser-
vation, and Management of Runoff Water in Playa Lakes on the Southern
High Plains," Conservation Report No. 8, (Agricultural Research Service,
USDA) Washington, D. C., August 1966, p. 12.
Evaporative discharge systems were assumed to have reached full
capacity when the collection system was filled to a depth of eight feet.
Preliminary estimates indicated that systems of less than eight feet in
depth appeared to require an excessive quantity of land and systems
greater than eight feet experienced a high rate of overflow. This latter
phenomena was the result of the relationship between surface area and
evaporation rates. That is, deeper systems with smaller surface areas
-------
2
had less evaporation, hence, large accumulations of runoff and more
frequent overflows. The eight foot limitation was thus selected as a
practical alternative to either deeper or more shallow systems. Expected
precipitation rates were determined on the basis of the analysis of rain-
fall data for Lubbock, Texas;. To determine the number of overflows
from any given evaporative discharge system, evaporation rates expressed
in feet in Table 3 must be converted to evaporation expressed in rainfall
equivalent inches. This change in units of expression may be
accomplished by the following equation.
X = S Y., i = 1, 2, ..., 12
i l
8
where: = evaporation expressed in inches of rainfall equivalent
for the month i
Y^ = evaporation in feet for the month i
S = size of the collection basin in rainfall equivalent
inches
8' = depth of water in the collection basin when filled to
capacity
For example, the evaporation rate expressed in rainfall equivalent
inches for the month of July for the 15" collection basin was calculated
as follows:
_ (-883)(15)
7 8
X? = 1.66
Therefore, a 15" system will experience a loss through evaporation
of 1.66 inches of rainfall equivalent. To illustrate the example further,
suppose that at the beginning of July, a 15" collection basin contained
5 inches of rainfall equivalent. Assume that during the month of July,
-------
two inches of rainfall occurred, and that this rainfall was all subject
to runoff. Then the balance in rainfall equivalent inches contained in
the collection basin at the beginning of August would be 5.34" (5+2-1.66 =
5.34). The range of sizes for evaporative discharge systems considered
in this study and the number of respective overflows for the 41 year
period are given in Table 4.
TABLE 4
NUMBER OF OVERFLOWS, EVAPORATIVE DISCHARGE SYSTEMS,
FIVE SELECTED SYSTEM SIZES, 41 YEAR PERIOD (1926-1967)*
TEXAS HIGH PLAINS
System Size In
Rainfall Equivalent Inches
Number of Overflows
12
111
13
83
14
58
15
16
16
7
a,
The year 1941 was excluded.
-------
?of
MODEL FEEDLOT ASSUMPTIONS
The relevant cost data were developed through use of a synthetic
model analysis which gave tangible form to the various design criteria.
The synthetic model analysis began with various assumptions such as feed-
lot size, cattle density, total feedlot area and slope. Next, a specific
control and disposal system was selected, the necessary input-output
relationships developed and subsequently costs were determined for each
system. Three sizes of feedlots; 5,000 head, 10,000 head, and 25,000
head were considered in the analysis.
Mechanical discharge systems were limited to discharging from any
of five selected capacity collection basins to one of two alternative dis-
posal areas: (a) an open field and (b) a playa lake. These disposal
techniques are currently used by a number of feedlots on the High Plains.
Technique (b), although a relatively efficient method of disposing of
runoff water from a physical standpoint, is rather inflexible since it
depends on prior location of the feedlot in proximity to a playa lake of
sufficient size to efficiently absorb the pollutant. Technique (a),
open land disposal, appears to furnish the most readily utilizable alter-
native for any existing lot.
Specific assumptions relative to the physical environment of the
model or representative feedlots are enumerated as follows:
1. Hydrological data used in the study is specific for Lubbock
County, Texas area. Similarly, the various cost coefficients such as
labor rates, tax rates and construction and equipment costs are specific
for the Lubbock County area.
2. The model feedJots are designed in the form of a square on land
-------
2t u
with an assumed average slope of 5 percent. The associated runoff control
facilities are also constructed on land with a slope of 5 percent.
3. Land above the feedlot elevations utilized for parking, feed
storage, administration, shipping, receiving or other agricultural use
is assumed to be equivalent to 30 percent of the total area of the model
feedlots. The total volume of runoff from this area will depend on
total acreage, soil permeability, and vegetative cover. It was assumed
that 50 percent of the precipitation falling on this area will become
runoff and that this runoff water can be diverted around the feedlot.
4. Cattle density was stipulated at 150 sq. ft. of pen space and
1.5 feet of bunk space per animal with a total of 200 animals per pen.
Roads and alleys or service ways were assumed to be equivalent in area
to 20 percent of the total pen space. Total acreage (pens, roads, and
alleys) amounted to 20, 40, and 100 acres for the 5,000, 10,000, and
25,000 head model feedlots, respectively.
5. It was assumed that there was sufficient land below the feedlot
to construct both the mechanical and evaporative collection basins.
6. It was assumed that for disposal technique (a), the open land
disposal modification, a sufficient acreage of open land adjacent to the
model lots was available and could be used as a disposal facility.
Table 5 indicates the assumed elevations and distances from the collection
facility to the center of the open field for each of the model feedlots.
Disposal technique (b), the playa lake disposal modification, re-
quires the availability of a lake of sufficient size for disposal of the
i
total amount of runoff from each of the model feedlots. It was assumed
that this lake was of sufficient size that the addition of runoff would
-------
lit
not significantly alter the quality of the lake water for irrigation
purposes. Distance to the lake was stipulated at 2,500 feet at zero
difference in elevation from the collection point.
TABLE 5
ASSUMED DIFFERENCE IN ELEVATIONS AND DISTANCES FROM THE COLLECTION
BASIN TO THE CENTER OF THE OPEN FIELD DISPOSAL FACILITY
Lot Size (Head)
5,000
10,000
25,000
Elevation (ft.)
Distance (ft.)
35
700
43
860
62
1244
-------
in
PHYSICAL SPECIFICATIONS AND COST COEFFICIENTS
The model feedlot runoff control system consists of diversion terraces,
waterways, a collection basin, runoff disposal area and associated mechan-
ical equipment for facilitating discharge and disposal of the pollutant.
These various components may be divided into two groups, land improvements
and mechanical equipment. Specification of the physical requirements
and cost determinations for evaporative discharge systems are limited
to land improvements. The more complex mechanical discharge systems in
contrast require specification and costing of both land improvements
and mechanical equipment components.
Land Improvement Components
Diversion Terraces and Waterways
The basic runoff control system for the model feedlots specified the
construction of appropriately sized terraces and waterways around the peri-
meter of each lot in order to minimize the amount of runoff which must be
controlled. These facilities were designed to control the maximum rain-
fall which might be expected to occur in a one hour period with a return
period of 25 years. The maximum 25 year return rainfall per one hour
period for Lubbock County amounted to 2.65 inches.^ Figure 1 is an
illustration of two model feedlots and their associated runoff control
facilities.
Costs for these components will remain constant for each selected
_
U. S. Department of Commerce, Weather Bureau, Rainfall Frequency
Atlas of the United States for Durations from 30 Minutes to 24 Hours and
Return Periods from 1 to 100 years. (Washington, D. C.: Government
Printing Offices, 1961), p. 101.
-------
vO
I
Drainage Area Above Feedlot
Drainage Area Above Feedlot
Diversion Terrace
Diversion Terrace
Feedlot
fM
IaI
Mechanical
Collection
Basin
Diversion Terrace
Evaporative
Collection Basin
-------
?! V
disposal system since size of the facility is based on maximum expected
rainfall, hence, will not vary with the method of collection or disposal.
Collection Basins
Construction specifications for all systems called for an operational
depth of 8 feet for the collection basin plus an additional allowance of
10 percent added depth to the mechanical discharge systems and 25 per-
cent added length to the evaporative discharge systems. These latter
modifications to the basic design provided additional capacity to hold
suspended organic solids which were washed into the collection basin
plus an allowance for precipitation falling directly on the basin sur-
face.
Capital or investment costs for all collection systems include the
cost of construction and the cost of land utilized by the pollution con-
trol facilities (See Appendix A, Tables 1 and 2 for costs). If ample
land is not available, it must be purchased or if available, it must be
diverted from its present use. Either situation represents an additional
cost to the feedlot. Land costs in this study were specified at $500
per acre on the basis of conversations with local feedlot operators (See
Appendix A, Tables 3, 4, and 5 for land requirements).
Open Field Disposal Areas
Specifications and costs of diversion terraces, waterways and collec-
tion basins are common to all systems regardless of the ultimate disposal
of the runoff. This latter function, runoff disposal, however, requires
an additional amount of land for the open field disposal modification
which is in excess of that required by the playa lake disposal system.
-------
'V <
The amount of land required for the open land disposal modification
is a function of the gallons pumped per minute, the absorption capacity
of the soil and the efficiency of the sprinkler system^ (See Table 7,
page 25). Technical sources indicated that light sandy soils have a per-
colation rate of 0.75 to 0.5 inches per hour and medium soils, a per-
g
eolation rate of 0.5 to 0.25 inches per hour. An absorption rate of
0.5 inches per hour was assumed for the model feedlot facilities on the
basis that this rate should constitute a reasonable estimate of the water
absorption capacity of soil in the High Plains area. Specifications for
the sprinkler system were based on manufacturers recommendations which
indicated that 70 percent would constitute a practical estimate of
sprinkler efficiency under High Plains conditions. Acreage require-
ments for the open field disposal modification were computed as follows:
Letting K = 0.5, then A was determined from equation 2 as
G = 0.5 x A x 27156
A ~ (5)
13578 y }
where: G' = gpm x 60 x .70
The procedure is best illustrated by the following example. A 5000
head feedlot with a 3 inch collection basin capacity and a .2 inch per
day discharge rate would require approximately .3 acres of land for
pollutant disposal. This land requirement is arrived at by
G* = 56 x 60 x .70
Efficiency of a sprinkler system is calculated on the basis of that
quantity of water which percolates into the soil compared to total water
emitted by the sprinkler.
g
Rainy Sprinkler Sales, Division of L. R. Nelson Mfg. Co., Peoria,
Illinois, Catalog 67-A, 1967.
-------
G' = 2352
A = 2352
13578
A = .17
Given the calculated values, each requirement was increased by a 50 per-
cent safety factor and rounded upward to the nearest tenth of an acre.
Land for pollutant disposal was priced at $500 per acre and total land
component costs were expanded to include the establishment of a vegeta-
tive cover (Bermuda grass) on the disposal area.
Mechanical Equipment
Design criteria for mechanical discharge systems envisaged two
alternative final disposal areas for runoff. These areas were (1)
open field disposal and (2) playa lake disposal. The basic disposal
system consisted of pumps, motors, and auxiliary piping. The open
field disposal modification also included sprinklers for final distri-
bution. All pumps were centrifical types with automatic controls. Pipe
sizes and weights were selected to meet capacity requirements for each
modification with some variation to accommodate the higher pressures re-
quired for the sprinklered open field modification (See Table 6). Evapo-
ration from the collection basin was not considered a factor in view of
the relatively short holding period prior to disposal.
Runoff discharge rates are expressed in gallons per minute and were
calculated as follows:
CpM = G (t\\
DM (6)
where: CPM = gallons per minute
G = capacity of the system in gallons
-------
?! ?
D = days required for pumping when filled to capacity
M = minutes per day
TABLE 6
FACTORS DETERMINING SIZE OF PUMPING EQUIPMENT, ALTERNATIVE DISPOSAL
MODIFICATIONS, THREE MODEL FEEDLOTS, TEXAS HIGH PLAINS, 1968
Alternative Disposal
Destinations for
Pollutant
Distance Runoff
Water is Pumped
in feet
Difference In
Elevation In
Feet
Type of
Outlet
Playa Lake
Open Field3
5,000 head
10,000 head
25,000 head
2500
700
860
1244
35.0
43.0
62.2
Open flow
pipe
Sprinkler
System
It was assumed that the disposal area had the same slope as the
feedlot and that sprinkler deliveries to the disposal area would be
carried to the center of the disposal area. Consequently, as the disposal
area increases in size, the elevation of the disposal point above the
collection basin increases.
The capacity of the collection basin in gallons (G) of runoff or
pollutant was determined by equation 2 (G = R x A x 27156). For example,
a 3 inch rainfall equivalent collection basin will hold 2.2377 inches of
runoff when filled to capacity. Accordingly, this collection basin will
require 15 days to empty at the specified discharge rate of .2 inches
of rainfall equivalent per day (3" -j .2" = 15). Gallons pumped per minuLe
are calculated as follows:
GPM = ^>215,340— _ 56 27
b (15) (1440)
Equipment selections were made on the basis of the above requirements
according to manufacturers recommendations.
-------
2) 2
Investment Cost Comparisons
Total Investment costs for mechanical discharge systems consist of
facility construction cost, land cost, and mechanical equipment cost
(Pumping equipment) (See Table 8). The open field disposal modification
required the least total investment with the playa lake modification
second in total investment requirements for selected system sizes and
discharge rates for the 5,000 head model feedlot. The same pattern was
observed for the 10,000 head model feedlot with the exception of those
systems discharging at .6 inches per day. The playa lake disposal modi-
fication discharging at .6 inches per day required the least total in-
vestment cost with the open field disposal modification second in total
investment requirements. The playa lake disposal modification required
the smallest total investment cost with the open field disposal modifi-
cation second for all system sizes for the 25,000 head model feedlot.
Table 9 summarizes the order of these investment costs.
Total investment costs for evaporative discharge systems include
only land cost and facility construction cost (See Table 10).
Comparisons of the evaporative and mechanical discharge systems
were made by comparing total investment cost among those systems which
have approximately the same frequency of overflow (See Table 11). Total
investment costs for evaporative discharge systems exceeded total invest-
ment costs for mechanical discharge systems providing a comparable level
of protection for the 25,000 head model feedlot. Similarly, total invest-
ment costs for evaporative discharge systems providing a comparable level
of protection to mechanical discharge systems (open field and playa lake
modifications) exceeded total Investment costs for the latter systems
-------
TABLE 7
COLLECTION BASIN CAPACITY AND TIME REQUIREMENTS FOR DISCHARGE, ALTERNATIVE SYSTEM SIZES,
THREE MODEL FEEDLOTS, TEXAS HIGH PLAINS
System Size in Required
Rainfall
Equivalent
System Capacity
Pumping
Discharge Rate
Inches
Time
Basin
Discharge
5000 Head
10,000 Head
25,000 Head
5000
10,000
25,000
Capacity
Rate/24 hrs.
(20 acres)
(40 acres)
(100 acres)
Head
Head
Head
(20 ac)
(40 ac)
(100 ac)
(Gallons)
(Gallons)
(Gallons)
(Days)
(GPM)
(GPM)
(GPM)
2
.2
741,090
1,482,181
3,705,444
10
51
103
257
.4
5
103
206
515
.6
3
155
309
773
3
.2
1,215,341
2,430,682
6,076,704
15
56
113
281
.4
8
113
225
563
.6
5
169
338
844
4
.2
1,689,591
3,379,190
8,447,972
20
59
117
293
.4
10
117
244
587
.6
7
176
352
880
5
.2
2,165,450
4,327,691
10,819,232
25
60
120
301
.4
13
120
240
601
.6
8
181
361
902
6
.2
2,638,100
5,276,200
13,190,499
30
61
122
305
.4
15
122
244
611
.6
10
183
366
-------
TABLE 8
TOTAL INVESTMENT COSTS, SELECTED SIZES AND TYPES OF MECHANICAL DISCHARGE SYSTEMS,
BY SYSTEM SIZE, THREE MODEL FEEDLOTS, TEXAS HIGH PLAINS, 1968
System Size
in Rainfall
Equivalent
Inches
Open Field
Disposal
Playa Lake
Disposal
Basin Discharge
Capacity Rate/24 hr
5000
Head
10,000
Head
25,000
Head
5000
Head
10,000
Head
25,000
Head
— Dollars
i
ro
o\ o
I J
.2
.4
.6
.2
.4
.6
.2
.4
.6
5235
5491
5936
5643
5913
6456
6052
6399
6864
6783
7648
8146
7691
8571
S147
8482
9362
10368
11950
14183
16533
14173
16676
19181
16193
18702
21750
6125
6239
6739
6546
6647
7147
6954
7055
7555
7379
7879
7962
8249
8749
8911
8963
9497
10001
11358
11941
12827
13518
13966
14938
15427
15875
16847
f\a
N
o
.2
.4
.6
6460
6807
7272
9346
10226
11234
18198
20824
23878
7363
7464
7964
9827
10361
10865
17432
17880
18852
.2
.4
.6
7308
7655
8198
10211
11091
12177
20201
22905
26004
8211
8312
8812
10692
11226
11730
19435
19883
-------
/a
TABLE 9
SUMMARY OF THE ORDER OF TOTAL INVESTMENT COST, MECHANICAL DISCHARGE
SYSTEMS, THREE MODEL FEEDLOTS, TEXAS HIGH PLAINS, 1968
Feedlot Size Alternative Systems (OF-open field,
PL-playa lake)
5,000 Head (all discharge rates OF
-------
y ? ¦>
h (<> C""
TABLE 11
MECHANICAL AND EVAPORATIVE DISCHARGE SYSTEMS COMPARED BY APPROXIMATE
NUMBER OF OVERFLOWS, BY SYSTEM SIZE, TEXAS HIGH PLAINS
Mechanical
System Size in
Evaporative
Rainfall
Equivalent
Estimated
System Size
in
Estimated
Inches
Frequency of
Rainfall
Frequency of
Basin
Discharge
Overflow
Equivalent
Overflow
Capacity
Rate/24 hrs
(41 year period)
Inches
(41 year period)
2
.2
75
13
83
2
.4
59
14
57
4
.2
17
15
16
5
.2
8
16
7
TABLE 12
SUMMARY OF THE ORDER OF TOTAL INVESTMENT COSTS, MECHANICAL AND EVAPORATIVE
DISCHARGE SYSTEMS COMPARED, COMPARABLE OVERFLOW RATES, THREE MODEL
FEEDLOTS, TEXAS HIGH PLAINS, 1968
Feedlot Size
5,000 Head
10,000 Head
25,000 Head
Alternative Systems
(OF-open field)
(PL-playa lake)
(E-evaporative)
0F
-------
Its
for the 5,000 and 10,000 head model feedlots.
Annual Costs
Annual costs for the various collection and disposal modifications
for the three model feedlots include part or all of the following:
depreciation, interest on investment, electricity, maintenance and taxes.
Consequently, annual costs can be defined as the sum of annual operating
costs and annualized fixed costs. Each cost component is considered in
turn in this section.
Depreciation
Specific equipment items will have different spans of operating
life. Thus, depreciation rates will vary from item to item. Depreciation
rates used in this study were based upon estimated equipment life as
listed in the United States Federal Tax Guide and on recommendations
made by a local accounting firm (See Table 13).
TABLE 13
SELECTED DEPRECIATION RATES, EQUIPMENT COMPONENTS
AND LAND IMPROVEMENTS, TEXAS HIGH PLAINS, 1968
Items
Years of Life
Yearly Depreciation
(percent)
Sprinklers
5
20.0
Pump and Motor Combination
8
12.5
Aluminum Pipe
10
10.0
Underground Plastic Pipe
10
10.0
Land Improvements
20
5.0
Source: Estimates are from the Federal Tax Guide, 1968 (Chicago:
Commerce Clearing House, Inc., 1968), Vol. 1, pp. 1, 1347, and Edward
E. Merriman and Company, Lubbock, Texas.
-------
224
Interest on Investment
Interest paid on investment is a cost to the feedlot for the use of
capital or for the use of resources. The magnitude of the interest charge
is determined by what capital would bring in its best alternative use.
The rate of return is usually determined by the going rate of interest.
A 3 percent rate of interest was selected for the land component in this
study on the basis that this is approximately the return that might be
expected for operations involving a similar degree of risk. The rate of
interest selected for investment in land improvements and mechanical
facilities was 6 percent. It was assumed that investment will decrease
to zero at the end of the useful life of an asset for all investments
other than land, consequently, the interest rate was applied to one-half
the original investment in land improvements and mechanical equipment.
Electricity
Electrical costs depend on the quantity of electrical energy consumed
which in turn is a function of the size of the electric motor used and
the number of operating hours. One horsepower, theoretically speaking,
is equivalent to .746 kilowatt, but due to losses in mechanical efficiency,
a more realistic and more generally used estimate equates 1 horsepower
to 1 kilowatt. The number of operating hours for the pumping unit depends
on 'the number of gallons of water discharged from the system which in
turn is a function of the size of the collection basin, the discharge
rate, and the quantity of precipitation.
Electrical rate schedules are usually constructed such that the price
per unit of electrical energy decreases as the total quantity of energy
-------
consumed increases. Consequently, the price per unit of electrical energy
will depend on the quantity of energy currently consumed by the three
model feedlots. Estimates of the marginal electrical rates for additional
electricity consumed by the runoff control operation were provided by a
local utility firm. Electrical costs for the 5,000 head feedlot runoff
control system-amounted to .8 cents per kwh for each additional kwh used
per month. In contrast to the 5,000 head model feedlot, the 10,000 head
lot and the 25,000 head lot were assessed a demand charge in addition to
the energy charge. The demand charge is a device utilized by utility
companies to spread the costs of generating capacity equitably among small
and large energy consumers. A local utility company indicated that a
demand charge of $1.25 per kw for all additional kw of demand per month
would be appropriate for the 10,000 and 25,000 head model feedlots.
Energy charges for these larger feedlots were estimated at .8 cents and
.55 cents per kwh for each additional kwh used by the 10,000 and 25,000
head feedlots, respectively.
Maintenance
System maintenance requirements were divided into two components
for convenience in analyzing the various maintenance costs involved.
These two components and their associated costs are (1) maintenance of
mechanical equipment and (2) removal of organic material from the
collection basin.
Cost of maintaining mechanical equipment will vary between feedlots
because of variations in individual management decisions, accounting pro-
cedures, and the type and quality of initial installation. A figure of
-------
I
five percent of the initial dollar investment was selected as representa--
tive of the annual repair and maintenance cost on equipment items for
each feedlot. This rate is slightly higher than that used in other studies,
however, this upward bias is somewhat compensated by the additional
assumption that labor required to check on the system while it is in
operation is a maintenance function. This latter function was not other-
wise charged against the collection system except for its inclusion in
the higher maintenance rate.
Quantities of suspended solids deposited in a collection system are
increased during warm weather, or under conditions of lower rainfall and
g
under moist conditions. Feedlot suspended solids concentrations in
simulated rainfall studies at Texas Technological College ranged from
3400 to 13400 Mg/1 with a mean of 8950 Mg/1. In this study the mean
value of suspended solids was used to compute the average annual amount
of suspended solids discharged into the collection system. Average
pounds of suspended solids per year per acre of feedlot discharged into
the collection system were computed from the equation:
15 - G 11 8-33 * i,ooo?ooo
= .075 G (7)
where: TS = pounds of total suspended solids/acre
G = gallons of runoff/acre
8.33 = weight of one gallon of water in pounds
Annual average rainfall subjected to runoff was estimated at 11.79
inches, therefore, using equation 1, average annual runoff amounts to 9.91
Q
Miner, J. R., et.al. "Cattle Feedlot Runoff, Its Nature and
Variation," Journal Water Pollution Control Federation, Vol. 38, No. 10,
1966, pp. 1587-8.
-------
ZZl
inches of rainfall equivalent. The average quantity of runoff per acre
per year amounts to 269,116 gallons. Estimated total suspended solids
deposited in the collection basin were computed according to equation 7
as follows:
TS = .075 G
= .075 (269,116)
= 20184 lbs. per acre
It was assumed that approximately 1/3 of the total solids carried
to the collection basin would settle out. Since the holding time for
the mechanical discharge system is relatively short, it was also assumed
that biological activity with respect to these solids will be minimal
such that all suspended solids that settle out must be removed. In
contrast, the evaporative discharge system envisaged a condition under
which some biological activity occurred. Consequently, it was estimated
that 1/4 of the total suspended solids deposited in the basin must be
removed or conversely 1/12 of the suspended solids settling out would
be removed by biological activity. For example, an average of 403,680
pounds of total solids would be carried to the collection basin from a
5,000 head feedlot (20 acres) each year. On this basis, a mechanical
discharge system will require removal of 134,560 pounds of organic material
and an evaporative discharge system the removal of 100,920 pounds of
organic material.
Pounds of total suspended solids discussed above are expressed in
dry weight. The amount of water contained in this solid waste will vary
between cleanings. It was estimated that total pounds of organic material
removed will consist on the average of 60 percent solids and 40 percent
-------
2 ? tf
water yielding approximately 224,267 pounds and 168,000 pounds of or-
ganic material to be retioved from the mechanical and evaporative dis-
charge systems, respectively for a 5,000 head feedlot.
Tne cost of custom hauling and spreading this organic material on
farmland within a radius of 3 miles from the feedlot was determined at
$1.50 per ton for amounts less than 2,000 tons and at $1.00 per ton for
amounts in excess of 2,000 tons. It was assumed that manure from the
feedlot will be removed concurrently with the cleaning of the collection
basin such that the total quantity removed will approximate 1,000 to
2,000 tons and, hence, will qualify for at least the $1.50/ton rate.
Taxes
Property in the State of Texas is. subject to state and local taxes.
The additional tax assessment resulting from the pollution control opera-
tion was based on the initial cost of land, construction cost of facili-
ties and acquisition cost of the equipment. State and county taxes are
levied at the rate of $1.36 per $100.00 of appraised value which in turn
constitutes 40 percent of the actual value. School taxes are levied at
the rate of $1.50 per $100.00 of appraised value which in turn constitutes
approximately 66 2/3 percent of the actual value. Property tax rates
used in this study were obtained from the Lubbock County Tax Assessor-
Collector .
Annual Cost Summary
The open field disposal modification experienced annual costs of
$776.00, $1,157.00, and $2,429.00 for the 5,000, 10,000, and 25,000 head
feedlots, respectively for a minimum protection collection system (2"
system, .2" discharge rate) (See Table 14). Annual costs for a maximum
-------
2ij
protection collection system (6M system, .6" discharge rate) for the
three model feedlots amounted to $1,065, $1,820, and $4,456 for 5,000,
10,000, and 25,000 head feedlots, respectively. Annual costs for the
playa lake disposal modification at the minimum protection level amounted
to $942, $1,234, and $2,101 for the 5,000, 10,000 and 25,000 head feed-
lots, respectively. Annual costs for a maximum protection collection
system (playa lake disposal modification) for the three model feedlots
amounted to $1,241, $1,720, $3,165 for the 5,000, 10,000, and 25,000
head feedlots, respectively.
Annual costs for maximum protection evaporative discharge systems
(16" system) amounted to $788, $1441, and $3487 for the 5,000, 10,000,
and 25,000 head model feedlots, respectively (See Table 15).
Strict cost comparisons between maximum protection mechanical system and
maximum protection evaporative systems are, however, not valid since the
degree of protection provided differs measurably between mechanical
and evaporative systems.
-------
23 0
TABLE 14
ANNUAL COSTS, MECHANICAL DISCHARGE SYSTEMS, OPEN FIELD AND PLAYA LAKE DISPOSAL
MODIFICATIONS, BY SYSTEM SIZE, THREE MODEL FEEDLOTS, TEXAS HIGH PLAINS, 1968
System Size In
Rainfall Equiva-
lent Inches Open Field Playa Lake
Basin
Discharge
5000
10,000
25,000
5000
10,000
25,000
Capacity
Rate/24 hrs.
Head
Head
Head
Head
Head
Head
¦
Dollars
2
.2
776
1157
2429
942
1234
2101
.4
804
1327
2796
970
1326
2234
.6
868
1436
3298
1065
1355
2496
3
.2
809
1288
2587
981
1305
2298
.4
840
1409
3106
1004
1397
2421
.6
919
1522
3681
1099
1456
2671
4
.2
844
1357
2761
1015
1368
2458
.4
879
1477
3279
1037
1475
2580
.6
953
1675
4091
1133
1580
2830
5
.2
878
1428
2930
1049
1438
2625
.4
913
1547
3460
1070
1545
2747
.6
987
1745
4273
1167
1650
2997
6
.2
952
1498
3098
1126
1508
2792
.4
986
1617
3633
1145
1615
2914
.6
1065
1820
4456
1241
1720
3165
TABLE 15
ANNUAL COSTS, EVAPORATIVE DISCHARGE SYSTEMS, BY SYSTEM SIZE, THREE
MODEL FEEDLOTS, TEXAS HIGH PLAINS, 1968
System Size In
Size
Rainfall Equivalent
5,000
10,000
25,000
Inches
Head
Head
Head
Basin Capacity
12
653
1178
2793
13
688
1248
2966
14
720
1320
3137
15
752
1386
3333
16
788
1441
3487
-------
2H
SYSTEM SELECTION
Selection of the least cost runoff control system will depend on
(1) the costs of constructing and operating the system and (2) the degree
of protection desired. Since overflow can result in a penalty ranging
from $50-$1000 per day imposed by the pollution control authorities, cost
of overflow can be quantified by multiplying the number of overflows by
expected penalties imposed. This latter figure, penalty for overflow,
can be considered an additional cost of operating any system since all
systems are subject to some overflow. A $1000 penalty rate was selected
as the maximum penalty imposed and a $50 penalty rate was considered the
minimum penalty imposed. A third or a variable penalty rate was also
developed based on the number of overflows. This latter rate was designed
to vary between $1000 and $50 as follows: 120 to 71 overflows, $1000;
70-41 overflows, $750; 40-21 overflows, $500; 20-11 overflows, $250; and
10-0 overflows, $50 (See Tables 16 and 17).
The sum of overflow cost and annual costs for any system constitutes
the total expected costs of that system (See Tables 18, 19, and 20). As
the size of the system increases, annual costs increase. Conversely,
however, the larger the system, the lower the probability of overflow
and the smaller the overflow cost. Figure 2 illustrates the method used
for selecting the least cost system. The figure indicates that as system
size increases, overflow costs (A) decrease and annual costs (B) increase.
When these two cost components are combined (C) overflow costs decrease
faster than annual costs increase such that total expected costs decline
with increases in system size and reach a minimum for that system having
-------
23 I
high for smaller systems and low levels of protection. Beyond a certain
capacity (5 inches), annual costs increase at a faster rate than overflow
costs such that total expected costs for the system increase.
Least Cost System - Open Field Disposal Modification
At the $1000 penalty level the 5"-.4", 6"-.2", and 5"-.2" systems
achieved minimum costs for the 5,000, 10,000 and 25,000 head model feed-
lots respectively (See Table 18). The number of overflows for these
systems amounted to 4 overflows for the 5,000 and 10,000 head model feed-
lot or one overflow every 10 years, and 8 overflows for the 25,000 head
model feedlot, one overflow every 5 years. In each case, total expected
costs, including overflow costs at the $1000 penalty level for each of
the three model feedlots, decreased rather rapidly as system size Increased,
reached a minimum and then increased.
The $50 penalty level yields an entirely different set of results
from the $1000 penalty level. The data in Table 20 indicate that a
3"-.2" system is the least cost system for a 5,000 head feedlot at the
$50 penalty level. Similarly, at this same penalty level, a 2"-.2"
system yields minimum costs of $1,249 and $2,521 for the 10,000 and 25,000
head feedlots, respectively. The least cost system (3"-.2") at the $50
penalty level for the 5,000 head feedlot incurred 36 overflows in t'.ie 41
year period or approximately one overflow per year. The least cost
system for the 10,000 and 25,000 head feedlots at the $50 penalty level
experienced 75 overflows in the 41 year period or approximately 2 over-
flows per year. Annual cost differences between least cost systems at
the $50 penalty level and least cost systems at the $1000 penalty level
amounted to $104, $341 and $204 for the 5,000, 10,000 and 25,000 head
-------
TABLE 16
NUMBER OF OVERFLOWS AND RELATIVE COST, ($1000, $50 AND VARIABLE PENALTY LEVELS)
MECHANICAL DISCHARGE SYSTEMS, BY SYSTEM SIZE, TEXAS HIGH PLAINS, 1968
System Size in
Rainfall Equiva-
lent Inches Number of Penalty Levels
Basin Discharge Overflows $1000/day $50/day $Variable/day
Capacity Rate/24 hrs. (in 41 year period) Total Annual Total Annual Total Annual
Dollars
2
.2
75
75,000
1829
3750
91
75,000
1829
.4
59
59,000
1439
2950
72
44,250
1079
.6
50
50,000
1220
2500
61
37,500
915
3
.2
36
36,000
878
1800
44
18,000
498
.4
29
29,000
707
1450
35
14,500
353
.6
19
19,000
463
950
23
4,750
116
4
.2
17
17,000
415
850
21
4,250
104
.4
11
11,000
268
550
13
2,750
67
.6
8
8,000
159
400
10
400
10
5
.2
8
8,000
159
400
10
400
10
.4
4
4,000
98
200
5
200
5
.6
4
4,000
98
200
5
200
5
6
.2
4
4,000
98
200
5
200
5
.4
4
4,000
98
200
5
200
5
.6
3
3,000
73
150
4
150
-------
TABLE 17
NUMBER OF OVERFLOWS AND RELATIVE COSTS, ($1000, $50 AND VARIABLE PENALTY LEVELS),
EVAPORATIVE DISCHARGE SYSTEMS, BY SYSTEM SIZE
System Size in
Rainfall Equiva-
lent Inches Penalty Levels
Basin Number of Overflows $1000/day $50/day $Variable/day
Capacity in 41 Year Period Total Annual Total Annual Total Annual
Dollars
12
111
111,000
2707
5550
135
111,000
2707
13
83
83,000
2024
4150
101
83,000
2024
14
58
58,000
1415
2900
71
43,000
1061
15
16
16,000
390
800
20
4,000
976
16
7
7,000
171
350
9
350
-------
TABLE 18
TOTAL EXPECTED COSTS, OPEN FIELD DISPOSAL MODIFICATION ($1000, $50 AND VARIABLE PENALTY LEVELS),
BY SYSTEM SIZE, THREE MODEL FEEDLOTS, TEXAS HIGH PLAINS, 1968
System Size in
Rainfall Equiva-
lent Inches
Basin Discharge 5,000 Head 10,000 Head 25,000 Head
Capacity Rate/24 hrs. $1000.00 $50.00 $Variable $1000.00 $50.00 $Variable $1000,00 $50.00 $Variable
2
.2
2606
868
2606
2897
1249
2987
4259
2521
4259
.4
2243
876
1883
2767
1400
2407
4236
2869
3876
.6
2088
930
1784
2656
1498
2352
4518
3360
4214
3
.2
1687
854
1249
2166
1332
1727
3465
2631
3026
.4
1548
876
1194
2117
1444
1762
3814
3142
3460
.6
1383
943
1036
1985
1545
1638
4145
3705
3798
4
.2
1259
864
948
1772
1378
1462
3176
2782
2865
.4
1148
893
946
1746
1491
1558
3548
3293
3347
.6
1149
963
963
1871
1685
1685
4286
4101
4101
5
.2
1074
888
888
1623
1438
1438
3125
2913
2940
.4
1011
918
918
1645
1552
1552
3553
3465
3465
.6
1085
992
992
1843
1751
1751
4371
4278
4278
6
.2
1050
957
957
1596
1504
1504
3196
3103
3103
.4
1085
992
992
1715
1622
1622
3731
3639
3639
.6
1139
1069
1069
1894
1825
1825
4529
4460
-------
TABLE 19
TOTAL EXPECTED COSTS, PLAYA LAKE DISPOSAL MODIFICATION, ($1000, $50 AND VARIABLE PENALTY LEVELS),
BY SYSTEM SIZE, THREE MODEL FEEDLOTS, TEXAS HIGH PLAINS, 1968
System Size in
Rainfall Equiva-
lent Inches
Basin Discharge 5,000 Head 10,000 Head 25,000 Head
Capacity Rate/24 hrs. $1000.00 $50.00 $Variable $1000.00 $50.00 $Variable $1000.00 $50.00 $Variable
Dollar's
2
.2
2772
1034
2772
3064
1326
3064
3931
2193
3931
.4
2409
1042
2049
2766
1399
2406
3673
2306
3313
.6
2285
1127
1981
2575
1417
2271
3716
2558
3412
3
.2
1860
1026
1421
2183
1349
1744
3176
2342
2737
.4
1711
1039
1357
2104
1432
1750
3128
2456
2774
.6
1563
1123
1216
1920
1480
1573
3135
2694
2687
4
.2
1430
1036
1120
1783
1389
1473
2873
2479
2562
.4
1306
1051
1105
1743
1489
1542
2849
2594
2647
.6
1329
1143
1143
1775
1590
1590
3026
2840
2840
5
.2
1245
1059
1059
1634
1448
1448
2821
2635
2635
.4
1168
1075
1076
1643
1550
1505
2845
2752
2752
.6
1265
1172
1172
1748
1655
1655
3095
3003
3003
6
.2
1224
1131
1131
1606
1514
1514
2891
2798
2798
.4
1243
1150
1150
1713
1620
1620
3013
2920
2920
.6
1314
1245
1245
1793
1724
1724
3238
3169
-------
TABLE 20
TOTAL EXPECTED COSTS, EVAPORATIVE DISCHARGE SYSTEMS, ($1000, $50 AND VARIABLE PENALTY LEVELS),
BY SYSTEM SIZE, THREE MODEL FEEDLOTS, TEXAS HIGH PLAINS, 1968
System Size in
Rainfall Equiva-
5,000 Head 10,000 Head
25,000 Head
lent Inches
Basin Capacity
$1000.00 $50.00 $Variable $1000.00 $50.00 $Variable
$1000.00 $50.00 $Variable
U
V)
Dollars
12
3361
789
3361
3886
1314
3886
5501
2929
5501
13
2713
790
2713
3273
1350
3273
4991
3068
4991
14
2135
791
1781
2735
1391
2381
4552
3208
4199
15
1143
772
1728
1777
1406
2362
3704
3333
4290
16
959
797
797
1612
1450
1450
3659
3496
-------
50 -
40
(C) Total Expected Costs
(B) Annual Cost
20 ..
15 ..
10 ..
(A) Overflow Cost
2 3 4 5 6
Figure 2. Annual Cost, Overflow Costs, and Total Expected Costs,
Open Field Disposal Modification, .2 Inch Discharge Rate/24 hrs.
(Rainfall Equivalent), $1000 Penalty Rate, 25,000 Head Model Feedlot.
-------
Z3
-------
V-
number of overflows for the system in turn amounted to 7 overflows for
the 41 year period or an average of one overflow every 6 years. In con-
trast, at the $50 penalty level, the least cost facility was achieved by
a 15" system for the 5,000 head model feedlot and a 12" system for the
10,000 and 25,000 head model feedlots. Total expected costs for these
systems amounted to $772, $1,314, and $2,929 for the 5,000, 10,000 and
25,000 head model feedlots, respectively. The difference in annual
costs between 15" and 16" systems for a 5,000 head feedlot amounts to
$36. The 15" system overflows approximately once every 2 years, whereas
a 16" system overflows approximately once in 6 years. Similarly,
differences in annual costs between a 12" and 16" system amounts to
$263 and $694 for the 10,000 and 25,000 head model feedlots, respectively.
As in the case of the mechanical discharge systems (open field and playa
lake disposal modifications) these differences, when considered together
with the total investment in feedlot facilities and cattle, are so
small as to preclude economic consideration.
Cost Comparisons - All Systems
Criteria for choosing between mechanical discharge systems and
evaporative discharge systems are only partially economic. Among the
systems considered, mechanical discharge systems provided a greater de-
gree of protection (4 overflows for 5"-.4" and 6"-.2" systems) than
evaporative discharge systems (7 overflows for 16" systems) at a
slightly lower cost for the 5,000 and 10,000 head feedlots. The evapora-
tive discharge system for the 25,000 head feedlot had slightly lower
costs than the mechanical discharge systems with approximately the same
number of overflows. However, evaporative discharge systems are so
-------
extensive relative to the amount of land required, that land availability
may constitute a major problem. In view of the large land requirement
for evaporative discharge systems, mechanical discharge systems which
provide a high degree of protection at reasonably low cost and which
utilize a minimum amount of land would seem to be preferrable (See
Appendix A, Tables 3, 4, and 5).
In selecting between two mechanical discharge systems, open field or
playa lake disposal modifications, the open field disposal modification
achieved the lowest cost and provided a reasonable degree of protection
except for the 25,000 head model feedlot. In this latter case, the open
field disposal modification experienced slightly higher expected costs
($304 annually) than the playa lake disposal modification for the same
degree of protection. If the distance to the playa lake appreciably
exceeds 2500 feet, then the open field disposal modification would incur
lower expected costs than the playa lake disposal modification for a
25,000 head feedlot. Table 21 summarizes that data on the least cost
system (expected costs) for each disposal modification at all penalty
levels for the three model feedlots. If society should refuse to accept
any system experiencing an average of one or more overflows in a 4 year
period then no system considered least cost at the $50 penalty level
would be readily accepted by the Water Pollution Control authorities.
Similarly, under a variable penalty level, the least cost system
developed from the two mechanical discharge systems would also be
unacceptable.
The difference in annual costs per head of annual cattle marketings
between least cost facilities at the $1000 and variable penalty levels
-------
TABLE 21
TOTAL INVESTMENT COSTS AND ANNUAL COSTS PER HEAD OF FEEDLOT CAPACITY AND PER HEAD OF ANNUAL MARKETINGS,
SELECTED RUNOFF CONTROL SYSTEMS, THREE PENALTY LEVELS AND NUMBER OF OVERFLOWS PER SYSTEM, BY SYSTEM SIZE,
THREE MODEL FEEDLOTS, TEXAS HIGH PLAINS, 1968
Items
5,000
Head Feedlot
10
,000 Head
Feedlot
$1000
$50
$Variable
$1000
$50
$Variable
Open Field Modification
Optimum Size System
5"-.4"
3"-.2"
5"-.2"
6"-.2"
2"-.2"
5"-.2"
No. of Overflows
4
36
8
4
75
8
Unit Cost
Total Investment Cost
Per hd. feedlot Cap.
$1.3615
1.1286
1.2920
1.0211
.6784
.9347
Per hd. Annual Mark.
$ .5446
.4514
.5168
.4084
.2713
.3738
Annual Cost
Per hd. feedlot Cap.
$ .1826
.1619
.1756
.1499
.1158
.1428
Per hd. Annual Mark.
$ .0730
.0647
.0702
.0599
.0463
.0571
Playa Lake Modification
Optimum Size System
5"-. 4"
3"-.2"
5"-.2"
6"-.2"
2"-.2"
5"-.2"
No. of Overflows
4
36
8
4
75
8
Total Investment Cost
Per hd. feedlot Cap.
$1.4111
1.3092
1.4726
1.0692
.7379
.9828
Per hd. Annual Mark.
$ .5644
.5236
.5890
.4276
.2951
.3931
Annual Cost
Per hd. feedlot Cap.
$ .2104
.1963
.2099
.1509
.1235
.1439
Per hd Annual Mark.
$ .0856
.0785
.0839
.0603
.0495
.0575
Evap. Discharge Systems
Optimum Size System
16"
15"
16"
16"
12"
16"
No. of Overflows
7
16
7
7
111
7
Total Investment Cost
Per hd. feedlot Cap.
$1.7201
1.6299
1.7201
1.5682
1.2118
1.5682
Per hd. Annual Mark.
$ .6880
.6519
.6880
.6272
.4847
.6272
Annual Cost
Per hd. feedlot Cap.
$ .1576
.1505
.1576
.1441
.1178
.1441
Per hd. Annual Mark.
$ .0630
.0625
.0630
.0576
-0471
-------
TABLE 21 - Continued
Items 25,000 Head Feedlot
$1000 $50 $Variable
Open Field Modification
Optimum Size System
5"-.2"
2"-.2"
4"-.2
No. of Overflows
8
75
17
Unit Cost
Total Investment Cost
Per hd. feedlot Cap.
.7279
.4780
.6477
Per hd. Annual Mark.
.2911
.1912
.2590
Annual Cost
Per hd. feedlot Cap.
.1172
.0971
.1104
Per hd. Annual Mark.
.0468
.0388
.0441
Playa Lake Modification
Optimum Size System
5"-.2"
2"-.2"
CM
1
No. of Overflows
8
75
17
Total Investment Cost
Per hd. feedlot Cap.
.6972
.4543
.6170
Per hd. Annual Mark.
.2789
.1817
.2167
Annual Cost
Per hd. feedlot Cap.
.1050
.0840
.0983
Per hd. Annual Mark.
.0420
.0336
.0393
Evap. Discharge Systems
Optimum Size System
16"
12"
16"
No. of Overflows
Total Investment Cost
Per hd. feedlot Cap.
1.4902
1.1352
1.4902
Per hd. Annual Mark.
.5961
.4541
.5961
Annual Cost
Per hd. feedlot Cap.
.1395
.1117
.1395
Per hd. Annual Mark.
.0558
.0446
-------
(5"-.4" and 5"-.2" respectively) is approximately one quarter of a cent for
both the 5,000 and 10,000 head feedlots for both open field and playa
lake disposal modifications. However, overflow occurs approximately once
in 5 years for the least cost system at the variable penalty level com-
pared to once in 10 years for the least cost system at the $1000 penalty
level. That is, an increase in annual costs of one quarter of a cent
per head marketed will reduce the number of overflows by one-half.
A 5"-.2" system was selected as the least cost facility for the
25,000 head feedlot for the playa lake and open field disposal modifica-
tions. Overflow for the 5"-.2" system occurred once every 5 years. This
overflow could be reduced by one-half with a 6"-.2" system and a re-
sulting increase in annual costs of less than a one cent per head of annual
cattle marketings.
-------
LIMITATIONS
This study leaves a residue of unanswered questions. Most important
are those questions which relate to the effect and extent of seepage
from the collection basin and feedlot surfaces and the percolation of
water under the disposal area and feedlot. These questions are par-
ticularly important with respect to their potential as a source of
pollution of underground water supplies.
Three other problems derived from animal waste management are
odor, dust, and insect control. Odor is of particular interest since
the collection of the runoff in a basin may cause an undesirable odor
in the surrounding area. If the surrounding area is populated, then
a feedlot manager may have to take measures to control this odor.
Estimates made in this study as to the percent of runoff that may
be expected from a given level of precipitation were based on Kansas
data and hence, may be biased due to the influence of environmental
factors. Although the experiments in Kansas were extensive and were
conducted under a variety of conditions, climatic and environmental
factors may be sufficiently different from those experienced on the
Texas High Plains to alter the size of the least cost system. Experi-
ments should be conducted on the High Plains to determine the reliability
of this data in terms of local conditions.
Calculations as to the amount of land required for the open field
disposal modification were based on the water absorption capacity of the
soil. The ability of High Plains soils to absorb large quantities of
pollutant without adverse effects such as pollution of the underground
water supply, nitrite ion accumulation, phosphorous ion accumulation or
-------
I V 4
other effects, is unknown. A 50 percent safety factor was provided in
determining land requirements for the open field disposal modification.
Other studies have suggested land requirements for disposal in the amount
of one quarter to one half of the area of the feedlot. In neither case
are the parameters of the problem sufficiently well known to specify the
land requirements with any real degree of accuracy.
-------
2 V 7
APPENDIX A
TABLE 1
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST, MECHANICAL DISCHARGE SYSTEMS,
BY SYSTEM SIZE, THREE MODEL FEEDLOTS, TEXAS HIGH PLAINS, 1968
Feedlot and
Collection Basin
£
Capacity
Collection
Basin'5
Diversion
Terrace
Waterway
Total
Construction
Cost
—
5,000 head
2
3
4
5
6
2368
2677
2985
3293
3992
67
67
67
67
67
8
8
8
8
8
2445
2753
3061
3370
4068
10,000 head
2
3
4
5
6
2908
3528
4142
4756
5371
105
105
105
105
105
22
22
22
22
22
3035
3655
4269
4883
5498
25,000 head
2
3
4
5
6
4518
6119
7573
9098
10621
206
206
206
206
206
71
71
71
71
71
4795
6396
7850
9375
10898
Collection basin capacity in rainfall equivalent Inches
Includes associated diversion terraces
-------
2 vi?
APPENDIX A - Continued
TABLE 2
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST, EVAPORATIVE DISCHARGE SYSTEMS,
BY SYSTEM SIZE, THREE MODEL FEEDLOTS, TEXAS HIGH PLAINS, 1968
Feedlot and
Collection
Diversion
Waterway
Total
Collection Basin
£
Capacity
Basin*5
Terrace
Construction
Cost
5,000 head
12
4296
67
8
4372
13
4592
67
8
4668
14
4856
67
8
4932
15
5123
67
8
5199
16
5424
67
8
5500
10,000 head
12
7541
105
22
7668
13
8126
105
22
8253
14
8713
105
22
8840
15
9269
105
22
9396
16
9354
105
22
9481
25,000 head
12
17555
206
71
17832
13
19015
206
71
19292
14
20449
206
71
20726
15
21915
206
71
22192
16
23380
206
71
23657
Collection basin capacity in rainfall equivalent inches
^Includes associated diversion terraces
-------
APPENDIX A - Continued
TABLE 3
TOTAL ACREAGE REQUIREMENT, DIVERSION TERRACE, COLLECTION BASINS, AND DISPOSAL AREAS, OPEN FIELD
DISPOSAL MODIFICATION, BY SYSTEM SIZE, THREE MODEL FEEDLOTS, TEXAS HIGH PLAINS, 1968
System Size in
Rainfall Equivalent
Inches
Land Requirement
for Collection Basins
and Diversion Terrace
Basin
Capacity
Discharge
Rate/24 hrs.
5,000
Head
10,000
Head
25,000
Head
Land Requirement for
Disposal Area
5,000
Head
10,000
Head
25,000
Head
Total Land
Requirements
5,000
Head
10,000
Head
25,000
Head
Acres
2
.2
1.6
2.3
4.2
.3
.5
1.2
1.9
2.8
5.4
.4
1.6
2.3
4.2
.5
1.0
2.4
2.1
3.3
6.6
.6
1.6
2.3
4.2
.7
1.4
3.6 .
2.3
3.7
7.8
3
.2
1.8
2.8
5.2
.3
.5
1.3
2.1
3.3
6.5
.4
1.8
2.8
5.2
.5
1.0
2.6
2.3
3.8
7.8
.6
1.8
2.8
5.2
.8
1.5
3.9
2.6
4.3
9.1
4
.2
2.0
3.0
6.1
.3
.6
1.4
2.3
3.6
7.5
.4
2.0
3.0
6.1
.6
1.1
2.7
2.6
4.1
8.8
.6
2.0
3.0
6.1
.8
1.6
4.1
2.8
4.6
10.2
5
.2
2.2
3.5
7.2
.3
.6
1.4
2.5
4.1
8.6
.4
2.2
3.5
7.2
.6
1.1
2.8
2.8
4.6
10.0
.6
2.2
3.5
7.2
.8
1.6
4.2
3.0
5.1
11.4
6
.2
2.5
4.0
8.0
.3
.6
1.4
2.8
4.6
9.4
.4
2.5
4.0
8.0
.6
1.1
2.9
3.1
5.1
10.9
.6
2.5
4.0
8.0
.9
1.7
4.3
3.4
5.7
-------
APPENDIX A -¦ Continued
TABLE 4
TOTAL ACREAGE REQUIREMENT, DIVERSION TERRACES AND COLLECTION BASINS,
PLAYA LAKE MODIFICATION, BY SYSTEM SIZE, THREE MODEL FEEDLOTS,
TEXAS HIGH PLAINS
System Size in
Feedlot Size
Rainfall Equivalent
5,000
10,000
25,000
Inches
Head
Head
Head
Basin
Discharge
Capacity
Rate/24 hrs.
—
Acres --
2
.2
1.6
2.3
4.2
.4
1.6
2.3
4.2
.6
1.6
2.3
4.2
3
.2
1.8
2.8
5.2
.4
1.8
2.8
5.2
.6
1.8
2.8
5.2
4
.2
2.0
3.0
6.1
.4
2.0
3.0
6.1
.6
2.0
3.0
6.1
5
.2
2.2
3.5
7.2
.4
2.2
3.5
7.2
.6
2.2
3.5
7.2
6
.2
2.5
4.0
8.0
.4
2.5
4.0
8.0
.6
2.5
4.0
8.0
TABLE 5
TOTAL ACREAGE REQUIREMENT, DIVERSION TERRACES AND COLLECTION BASINS, EVAPORATIVE
DISCHARGE SYSTEMS, BY SYSTEM SIZE, THREE MODEL FEEDLOTS, TEXAS HIGH PLAINS
System Size in
Feedlot Size
Rainfall Equivalent
5,000
10,000
25,000
Inches
Head
Head
Head
12
13
14
15
16
4.3
4.6
4.9
5.2
5.5
- Acres
7.8
8.4
9.3
9.9
10.7
19.9
21.6
23.3
25.3
27.2
-------
APPENDIX B
TABLE 1
TOTAL INVESTMENT COST, (a) PER HEAD OF FEEDLOT CAPACITY AND (b) PER HEAD OF ANNUAL MARKETINGS,
OPEN FIELD DISPOSAL MODIFICATION, BY SYSTEM SIZE, THREE MODEL FEEDLOTS, TEXAS HIGH PLAINS, 1968
System Size In Rainfall
Equivalent Inches Feedlot Size
Basin Discharge 5,000 Head 10,000 Head 25,000 Head
Capacity Rate/24 hrs. (a) £b) (a) £b) £a) (b)
Dollars
2
.2
1.0470
.4188
.6784
.2713
.4780
.1912
.4
1.0982
.4392
.7648
.3059
.5673
.2269
.6
1.1873
.4749
.8147
.3258
.6613
.2645
3
.2
1.1286
.4514
.7691
.3076
.5669
.2267
.4
1.1826
.4730
.8571
.3428
.6670
.2668
.6
1.2912
.5164
.9147
.3658
.7672
.3069
4
.2
1.2104
.4841
.8483
.3393
.6477
.2590
.4
1.2798
.5119
.9362
.3744
.7480
.2992
.6
1.3729
.5491
1.0369
.4147
.8700
.3480
5
.2
1.2920
.5168
.9347
.3738
.7279
.2911
.4
1.3615
.5446
1.0226
.4090
.8329
.3331
.6
1.4545
.5818
1.1235
.4493
.9551
.3820
6
.2
1.4617
.5846
1.0211
.4084
.6080
.3232
.4
1.5311
.6124
1.1091
.4436
.9162
.3664
.6
1.6397
.6559
1.2177
.4870
1.0401
-------
APPENDIX B - Continued
TABLE 2
TOTAL INVESTMENT COST, (a) PER HEAD OF FEEDLOT CAPACITY AND (b) PER HEAD OF ANNUAL MARKETINGS,
PLAYA LAKE DISPOSAL MODIFICATION, BY SYSTEM SIZE, THREE MODEL FEEDLOTS, TEXAS HIGH PLAINS, 1968
System Size In Rainfall
Equivalent Inches
Feedlot Size
5,000
Head
10,
000 Head
25,000
Head
Basin
Capacity
Discharge
Rate/24 hrs.
(a)
(b)
(a)
(b)
(a)
(b)
2
.2
1.2250
.4900
.7379
.2951
.4543
.1817
.4
1.2478
.4991
.7879
.3151
.4776
.1910
.6
1.3478
.5391
.7692
.3184
.5130
.2052
3
.2
1.3092
.5236
.8250
.3299
.5407
.2162
.4
1.3294
.5317
.8750
.3499
.5586
.2234
.6
1.4294
.5717
.8912
.3564
.5975
.2390
4
.2
1.3909
.5563
.8964
.3585
.6170
.2467
.4
1.4111
.5644
.9498
.3799
.6350
.2540
.6
1.5111
.6044
1.0002
.4000
.6738
.2695
5 .2
.4
.6
6 .2
.4
.6
1.4726 .5890
1.4928 .5971
1.5928 .6371
1.6422 .6569
1.6624 .6649
1.7624 .7049
.9828 .3931
1.0362 .4144
1.0866 .4346
1.0692 .4276
1.1226 .4490
1.1730 .4692
.6972 .2789
.7152 .2860
.7540 .3016
.7774 .3109
.7953 .3181
-------
APPENDIX B - Continued
TABLE 3
TOTAL INVESTMENT COST, (a) PER HEAD OF FEEDLOT CAPACITY, AND (b) PER HEAD ANNUAL MARKETINGS,
EVAPORATIVE DISCHARGE SYSTEMS, BY SYSTEM SIZE, THREE MODEL FEEDLOTS, TEXAS HIGH PLAINS, 1968
System Size in Rainfall
Feedlot Size
Equivalent Inches
5,000 Head
10,000 Head
25,000 Head
(a) (b)
(a) (b)
(a) (b)
Dollars
12
1.3745
.5498
1.2118
.4847
1.1352
.4541
13
1.4636
.5854
1.3003
.5201
1.2236
.4894
14
1.5465
.6186
1.3941
.5576
1.3110
.5244
15
1.6299
.6519
1.4796
.5918
1.4017
.5606
16
1.7201
.6880
1.5682
.6272
1.4902
-------
APPENDIX B - Continued
TABLE 4
ANNUAL COST, (a) PER HEAD OF FEEDLOT CAPACITY, AND (b) PER HEAD OF ANNUAL MARKETINGS, PLAYA LAKE,
DISPOSAL MODIFICATION, BY SYSTEM SIZE, THREE MODEL FEEDLOTS, TEXAS HIGH PLAINS, 1968
System Size in Rainfall
Equivalent Inches Feedlot Size
Basin Discharge 5,000 Head 10,000 Head 25,000 Head
Capacity Rate/24 hrs. (a) (b) (a) (b) (a) (b)
Dollars
2
.2
.1885
.0754
.1235
.0493
.0840
.0336
.4
.1940
.0776
.1327
.0530
.0893
.0357
.6
.2131
.0852
.1356
.0542
.0998
.0399
3
.2
.1963
.0785
.1305
.0522
.0919
.0367
.4
.2008
.0803
.1397
.0558
.0968
.0387
.6
.2199
.0879
.1457
.0582
.1068
.0427
4
.2
.2031
.0812
.1369
.0547
.0983
.0393
.4
.2075
.0830
.1475
.0590
.1032
.0412
.6
.2267
.0906
.1580
.0632
.1132
.0452
5
.2
.2099
.8039
.1439
.0575
.1050
.0420
.4
.2140
.0856
.1545
.0618
.1099
.0439
.6
.2335
.0934
.1650
.0660
.1199
.0479
6
.2
.2252
.0900
.1509
.0603
.1117
.0446
.4
.2290
.0916
.1615
.0646
.1165
.0466
.6
.2482
.0992
.1720
.0638
.1266
-------
APPENDIX B - Continued
TABLE 5
ANNUAL COST, (a) PER HEAD OF FEEDLOT CAPACITY AND (b) PER HEAD OF ANNUAL MARKETINGS, OPEN FIELi.
DISPOSAL MODIFICATION, BY SYSTEM SIZE, THREE MODEL FEEDLOTS, TEXAS HIGH PLAINS, 1968
System Size in Rainfall
Equivalent Inches
Feedlot Size
Basin
Capacity
Discharge
Rate/24 hrs.
5,000
Head
10,000 Head
25,000
Head
Ca)
(b)
(a)
(b)
(a)
(b)
—
—
2
.2
.1552
.0621
.1158
.0463
.0971
.0388
.4
.1608
.0643
.1328
.0531
.1118
.0447
.6
.1737
.0695
.1437
.0574
.1319
.0527
3
.2
.1619
.0647
.1288
.0515
.1034
.0413
.4
.1681
.0672
.1409
.0563
.1242
.0497
.6
.1839
.0735
.1522
.0608
.1472
.0589
4
.2
.1688
.0675
.1358
.0543
.1104
.0441
.4
.1758
.0703
.1477
.0590
.1311
.0524
.6
.1907
.0762
.1675
.0670
. 1636
.0654
5
.2
.1756
.0702
.1428
.0571
.1172
.0468
.4
.1826
.0730
.1547
.0618
.1384
.0553
.6
.1974
.0789
.1746
.1698
.1709
.0683
6
.2
.1904
.0761
.1499
.0599
.1239
.0495
.4
.1973
.0789
.1618
.0647
.1453
.0581
.6
.2131
.0852
.1821
.0728
.1782
-------
APPENDIX B - Continued
TABLE 6
ANNUAL COSTS, (a) PER HEAD OF FEEDLOT CAPACITY, AND (.b) PER HEAD OF ANNUAL MARKETINGS, EVAPORATIVE
DISCHARGE SYSTEMS, BY SYSTEM SIZE, THREE MODEL FEEDLOTS, TEXAS HIGH PLAINS, 1968
Size System in Rainfall
Equivalent Inches Feedlot Size
5,000 Head 10,000 Head 25.000 Head
{a) (b) (a) (b) (a> Cb)
Dollars —
12
.1306
.0522
.1178
.0471
.1117
.0446
13
.1376
.0550
.1248
.1499
.1186
.0474
14
.1440
.0576
.1330
.0528
.1255
.0502
15
.1505
.0625
.1386
.0554
.1325
.0530
16
.1576
.0630
.1441
.0576
.1395
------- |