July 1973
ENVIRONMENT PROTECTING CONCEPTS
OF
BEEF CATTLE FEEDLOT WASTES MANAGEMENT
by
Lynn R. Shuyler
David M. Farmer, Ph.D
R. Douglas Kreis
Marsha E. Hula
National Animal Feedlot Wastes Research Program
Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory
P.O. Box 1198
Ada, Oklahoma 74820
Project No. 21 AOY-05
Program Element 1B2039
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH CENTER
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CORVALLIS, OREGON 97330
-------
EPA REVIEW NOTICE
This report has been reviewed by the Office of Research and
Development, EPA, and approved lor publication. Approval does
not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the views and
policies of the Environmental Protection Agency, nor does
mention of trade names or commercial products constitute
endorsement or recommendation for use.
-------
FOREWORD
jTheJfunction of this manual is to serve as a guide to insure consid-
eration and incorporation of pertinent environmental pollution controls
in the design and operation of beef cattle feedlots. ^ It has been designed
to serve as a reference source for the more detailed information con-
tained in published literature on feedlot design and operation. In
addition, the precepts presented in this manual are applicable to other
segments of the animal industry.
The design and operation of a successful feedlot are the result of
evaluating a myriad of pertinent factors. The authors and editor have
considered a majority of these factors but have limited the text of this
manual to the environmental concepts affecting a feedlot.
As such, this manual is not a guideline, effluent limitation publication,
or compendium of regulations, although these are referenced for the
convenience of those readers concerned with the legal or regulatory
aspects of animal feedlot design and management.
-------
MAJOR TOPICAL INDEX
FOREWORD i
SECTIONS Page
I INTRODUCTION 1-1
n CLIMATIC DESIGN PARAMETERS AND WASTE D-i
MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES (Contents)
LIST OF TABLES H-iii
LIST OF FIGURES II-iv
CLIMATIC DESIGN PARAMETERS AND WASTE II-l
MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES
FEEDLOT DESIGN CLASSES II-1
CLIMATIC CONSIDERATIONS TO DESIGN U-2
SELECTION
FEEDLOT DESIGN AND WASTE MANAGE- H-8
MENT ALTERNATIVES
EVALUATION OF WASTE MANAGEMENT 11-41
SYSTEMS
SECTION II REFERENCES 11-44
in BEEF FEEDLOT SITE SELECTION (Contents) HI-i
LIST OF FIGURES m-ii
BEEF FEEDLOT SITE SELECTION HI-I
REGULATIONS HI-I
SPATIAL REQUIREMENTS HI-2
TOPOGRAPHIC FEATURES DI-13
MICROCLIMATES ni-16
SOILS AND GEOLOGIC STRUCTURES III-19
SOCIAL CONSIDERATIONS m-21
PRACTICAL APPLICATION 111-22
APPENDICES 111-25
SECTION HI REFERENCES UI-30
-------
SECTIONS Page
IV RUNOFF CARRIED WASTES (Contents) IV-i
LIST OF TABLES IV-ii
LIST OF FIGURES IV-iii
RUNOFF CARRIED WASTES IV-1
RUNOFF CHARACTERISTICS IV-2
TRANSPORTATION OF RUNOFF TO IV-11
COLLECTION AREA
DISPOSAL AND/OR TREATMENT SYSTEMS IV-22
SECTION IV REFERENCES IV-37
V SOLID WASTES CONTROL (Contents) V-i
LIST OF TABLES V-ii
LIST OF FIGURES V-iii
SOLID WASTES CONTROL V-l
NATIONAL PROBLEM V-l
CHARACTERISTICS OF MANURE V-l
COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL V-8
TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL V-10
CONCLUSIONS V-l 7
SECTION V REFERENCES V-18
VI LIQUID SLURRY WASTES TECHNOLOGY (Contents) Vl-i
LIST OF TABLES Vl-iii
LIST OF FIGURES Vl-iv
LIQUID SLURRY WASTES TECHNOLOGY VI-1
WASTE COLLECTION AND TRANSPORT TO VI-2
STORAGE
LIQUID AND SLURRY WASTES VI-6
STORAGE/TREATMENT
SECTION VI REFERENCES VI-58
-------
SECTIONS
Page
VII ECONOMICS OF INTEGRATED WASTES CONTROL VH-i
SYSTEMS (Contents)
LIST OF TABLES VII-ii
LIST OF FIGURES VII-iv
ECONOMICS OF INTEGRATED WASTES CONTROL VH-I
SYSTEMS
USE OF ECONOMIC DATA FOR COST VH-4
ESTIMATION
SECTION VII REFERENCES VII-52
APPENDICES VII-56
VIII FEEDLOTS AND SOCIETY IN A COEXTENSIVE VHI-i
ENVIRONMENT (Contents)
FEEDLOTS AND SOCIETY IN A COEXTENSIVE VIII-1
ENVIRONMENT
PROBLEMS OF COEXISTENCE VID-1
NUISANCE PROBLEMS Vm-3
AIRBORNE NUTRIENTS AND GASES VHI-12
CONTROL OF DISEASE ORGANISMS VIII-13
SECTION VIH REFERENCES VHI-17
-------
SECTION I
INTRODUCTION
The beef feeding industry stands today at a crossroad. On one hand,
advances in nutrition» breeding, animal health, and mechanization
have substantially improved labor and feed efficiencies. On the other,
inflation, increased intra-industry competition, growth of competitive
protein sources, regulation of growth promoters, and the need for
environmental protection threaten to reduce the narrow profit margin
of the feeder. Cognizant of these facts, the National Animal Feedlot
Wastes Research Program of the Environmental Protection Agency has
as its goal the solution of environmental problems of the feeding commu-
nity, subject to the constraints of economics and practical technology.
To this end, the manual is intended as a comprehensive summary of
the state of the beef wastes management art. The integrated format
is intended to guide the feedlot designer or operator toward the waste
management system most suited to his individual requirements and to
provide the design and economic information required to make decisions
regarding construction, modification, and waste management of his
system.
1-1
-------
FIGURE I-1. A TYPICAL FEEDLOT IN THE WESTERN U.S.
Besides this introductory section, the manual has been divided as
follows. Section II sets forth the currently viable options for confine-
ment facilities and details the characteristics of each as related to
wastes management, with special attention devoted to designs having
good pollution control potential. Section III relates the factors which
should be considered in choosing a location for a new feedlot or in
modification of an existing lot in order to avoid many of the pollution-
related problems of the industry. Sections IV, V and VI discuss system
components presently considered for processing and handling of solid
manure, slurries, and liquid runoff, respectively; characteristics,
design procedure, and management considerations are detailed for each
1-2
-------
component. Section VII provides information for economic comparison
of alternative systems. Finally, Section VIH presents suggestions for
coexistence of the feeding industry with society. Since the technology
of animal waste management is in flux, a looseleaf format for the manual
has been chosen» and periodic updating will be made based on advances
in the field.
Because of the comprehensiveness of the manual, not all systems or
components discussed will be of interest to the individual. It is not
intended that it be read from cover to cover, but rather used as a
reference volume, to be referred to as need or interest arises. To gain
familiarity with the manual, it is suggested that Section II be read in
its entirety and that the reader peruse the introduction and table of
contents preceding each section. Thereafter, the section headings
and tables of contents should be sufficient to guide the reader to the
subject at hand.
Several important influences on the beef wastes management problems
are not primarily economic or technological, but strongly interact with
these aspects. These include trends in consumer preference, growth
of environmental appreciation by the public, and local, state, and
federal legislation. To examine this interaction and consider the future
direction of the industry, a brief historical sketch is in order.
Because of the diverse and changing legislation governing state regu-
lation of livestock feeding operations, no attempt has been made in the
manual to summarize all applicable state statutes. A 1970 EPA (1)
publication briefly outlines the format of regulations for each state,
and enumerates the enforcement agencies and their addresses.
In many states, feedlot operation is regulated under general pollution
statutes; in the major beef feeding states, however, specific feedlot
regulations have been imposed. In general, these regulations define;
(a) terms used in confined feeding operations; (b) conditions under
1-3
-------
which registration is required; (c) information required for registra-
tion; (d) minimum requirements for runoff retention structures and
waste management practices; and (e) penalties for violations. Selected
provisions of the statutes of Texas. Kansas, and Oklahoma are shown
in Table 1-1.
At this time, no formal requirements regarding construction and opera-
tion of cattle feeding facilities have been issued by federal government
agencies. However, the following suggestions should be considered as
minimal for the design and construction of feeding enterprises:
1. that a 10 year-24 hour storm, or equivalent, be used for
minimum design of all runoff collection and retention facilities;
2". that all runoff collection and storage structures, treatment
lagoons and ponds, and other structures for the storage of
liquid, solid, and semi-solid wastes, as well as those for
storage of ensilage, be constructed to eliminate seepage to
ground or surface waters;
3. that all tailwater resulting from irrigation with runoff-carried
wastes be retained and/or recycled;
4. that appropriate soil incorporation procedures follow land
disposal of all solid and semi-solid manure in order to prevent
contamination of runoff from precipitation on the disposal area;
5. that prior to land disposal, appropriate tests be made to
determine that contaminants from wastes will not percolate
or be leached through the soil to groundwater supplies;
6. that prior to application of wastes to the receptor soils,
sufficient investigation and studies be undertaken to insure
application rates and total amounts of waste incorporated into
the disposal area will not adversely affect present and future
usage;
1-4
-------
TABLE 1-1
SELECTED INFORMATION FROM FEEDLOT LAWS OF THREE BEEF FEEDING STATES
State Jurisdiction
KANSAS 1. Lots handling 300 or more
cattle.
2. Any operation using a
lagoon as a storage.
3. Any other operation having
a water pollution potential.
4. Other operators who wish to
come under the regulations.
Regulations Employed
1. Site inspection.
2. Specification of waste
control and runoff retention
structures.
3. Approval of waste treatment
facility design.
4. Inspection of completed
system.
Penalties
Failure to comply
with registration,
$50-500.
Unauthorized dis-
charge into waters
of the state, $1000
per day that the
offense is maintained.
OKLAHOMA Feeding operations with more Specification of; Fines up to $100 per
than 250 head of cattle. 1. Retention reservoir day and revocation of
capacities license.
2. Manure disposal
3. Drainage structures
4. Pest control measures
TEXAS
Cattle feedlots (excluding
pasture)
Review of:
1. Waste management systems
2. Wastewater management
systems
3. Runoff control systems
1. Fines not less than
$50 nor more than
$1000 per day or per
act of violation.
2. Injunctions.
-------
7. that pollutant concentrations in effluent from treatment proc-
esses be sufficiently reduced to protect and enhance the quality
of receiving waters under all foreseeable circumstances;
and
8. that all techniques for handling, storage, and disposal of
ensilage and manure waste derivatives be designed to prevent
or reduce odor, noise, and other unaesthetic features.
In addition to the information given in this manual, further details on
components or systems discussed may be obtained from the references
listed at the end of each section. Structural plans and technical
assistance are available from the Cooperative Extension Service of the
land grant universities, the Soil Conservation Service, and consulting
engineers.
1-6
-------
REFERENCES
1. Sweeten, J. M., State Agencies Regulating Confined Animal
Feeding Operations. EPA, Division of Technical Operations
Open-File Report (TO 01.0.543/1) 37 pp. (1971).
1-7
-------
SECTION II
CLIMATIC DESIGN PARAMETERS AND WASTE MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES
Contents
Page
No.
FEEDLOT DESIGN CLASSES II-1
CLIMATIC CONSIDERATIONS TO DESIGN SELECTION H-2
Climatic Variables II—2
Facility Types and Waste Management Systems by II—4
Climatic Zones
FEEDLOT DESIGN AND WASTE MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES H-8
Open Feedlots 11-10
Open Feedlot Layout II-10
Extraneous Runoff Diverson n-12
Pen Surface and Stocking Rates 11-15
Unsurfaced dirt lots n-15
Partially paved pens n-17
Totally paved lots II-18
Pen Drainage 11-18
Slope of the Feed Pens n-21
Runoff Collection and Retention 11-22
Environmental Modification 11-23
Open Confinement Feedlots 11-24
Open Confinement Feedlot Designs n-26
Total Confinement Buildings n-26
Types of Confinement Buildings 11-29
Basic Classifications of Confinement Buildings 11-35
Cold Confinement Buildings 11-35
Warm Confinement Buildings 11-35
Pen Stocking Rates 11-37
Il-i
-------
Page
No.
Flooring Types 11-37
Waste Management Systems 11-38
Solid waste handling II-38
Slurry handling II" 38
Deep Pits 11-38
Shallow Pits 11-39
Hydraulic Flushing 11-39
Ventilation 11-40
Advantages of Confinement Buildings 11-40
EVALUATION OF WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS H-41
REFERENCES H"44
II-ii
-------
SECTION II
TABLES
Table Page
No. No.
II-1 SUMMARY OF STOCKING RATES FOR OPEN FEEDLOTS 11-17
II-2 A COMPARISON OF FIVE HOUSING SYSTEMS FOR 11-42
FEEDLOT CATTLE IN WEST CENTRAL MINNESOTA
II-iii
-------
SECTION II
FIGURES
Figure Page
No. No.
II-1 CLIMATES OF THE UNITED STATES BASED ON C-3
TEMPERATURES AND MOISTURE DEFICITS WHICH
AFFECT BEEF FEEDING
II-2 MODERATE TEMPERATURE ZONE II-5
II-3 ARID CLIMATES WITH MODERATE TEMPERATURES II-5
H-4 SEMI-ARID CLIMATES WITH MODERATE II-5
TEMPERATURES
II—5 COOL-DRY CLIMATE II-5
n-6 MOIST-HUMID CLIMATES II-7
H-7 COOL-HUMID CLIMATES II-7
II—8 WARM-HUMID CLIMATES H-7
II-9 HOT-ARID CLIMATES H-7
11-10 COLD-HUMID CLIMATES II-9
11-11 COLD-DRY CLIMATE H-9
11-12 HOT-HUMID CLIMATE II-9
II-13 INTERMOUNTAIN REGION II-9
H-14 SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM OF AN OPEN FEEDLOT WITH II-11
RUNOFF CONTROL
11-15 RADIAL FEEDLOT DESIGN FOR USE ON LOW HILLS 11-13
11-16 SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM OF AN OPEN FEEDLOT WITH 11-14
TOTAL RUNOFF CONTROL UTILIZING THE CONTOUR
OF THE END OF A RIDGE
11-17 THE EROSIONAL FEATURE IN THE CENTER OF THIS 11-16
LOT EXPOSES THE EDGE OF THE LAYER OF
COMPACTED MANURE AND SOIL
11-18 SCHEMATIC OF PEN DRAINAGE SYSTEMS 11-20
11-19 IMPASSIBILITY COULD HAVE BEEN AVOIDED BY 11-21
PAVING AND CROWNING THIS ALLEYWAY
11-20 THE SLOPE ON THIS INTRA-PEN DRAINAGE CHANNEL 11-22
IS NOT GREAT ENOUGH TO ACHIEVE PROPER DRAINAGE
Il-iv
-------
Figure Page
No. No.
11-21 COLLECTION DITCH SERVING AS A SETTLING BASIN 11-24
11-22 LOMBARDY POPLARS USED AS WIND PROTECTION 11-25
FOR ANIMALS
11-23 OPEN CONFINEMENT FEEDPENS WITH A LOAFING 11-27
SHED AND A RUNOFF DRAINAGE SYSTEM
II-24 OPEN CONFINEMENT FEEDPENS WITH COVER OVER 11-28
1/3 OF THE FEEDPEN AREA AND A RUNOFF DRAINAGE
SYSTEM
11-25 WARM CONFINEMENT BUILDING WITH DEEP PIT 11-30
11-26 COLD CONFINEMENT BUILDING WITH DEEP PIT 11-31
11-27 COLD CONFINEMENT BUILDING WITH DIRT FLOOR 11-32
AND CANVAS SIDE CURTAINS
11-28 COLD CONFINEMENT BUILDING WITH SHALLOW PIT 11-33
FOR OXIDATION DITCH
11-29 COLD CONFINEMENT BUILDING WITH SHALLOW PIT 11-34
FOR CABLE SCRAPER
11-30 TOTAL CONFINEMENT BUILDING CLASSIFICATION 11-36
AND FLOORING TYPES
II-v
-------
SECTION II
CLIMATIC DESIGN PARAMETERS AND WASTE MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES
Specific feedlot design and waste handling system requirements are
dependent on the individual needs of the feeder, characteristics of the
site location, and variability of the climate in the immediate region where
the facilities are to be constructed. The primary objective of this section
is to present feedlot designs, pollution controls, and waste management
alternatives to assist the feedlot designer and operator in the reduction
of the environmental impact of their industry. This section includes:
(a) a brief definition of the three basic feedlot design classes, (b) a brief
description of the various climatic variables which are limiting to the use
of these designs, (c) a detailed climatological breakdown of the United
States as related to the limits of the basic designs, and (d) a detailed
presentation of design alternatives available for the basic design classes
as related to pollution control. After the climatic region has been deter-
mined and the basic alternatives regarding facility type, design require-
ments , and waste management are evaluated then specific details concerning
site selection, waste handling and management designs, economics, and
community relations can be ascertained from the succeeding sections,
FEEDLOT DESIGN CLASSES
Feedlot designs are divided into three basic classes: (a) open feedlots,
(b) open confinement, and (c) total confinement. Open feedlots are low
density lots (50 to 400 sq. ft./animal) with little or no cover or protec-
tion for the animals. Open confinement feedlots are medium density lots
(30 to 75 sq. ft./animal) which offer protection for the animals, ranging
from partially roofed to totally roofed pen areas which are enclosed on
three sides. Total confinement feedlots are high density buildings (12 to
30 sq. ft./animal) with controlled environment. Each feedlot class has
unique waste management and animal protection characteristics making
it desirable in specific climatic areas.
II-1
-------
CLIMATIC CONSIDERATIONS TO DESIGN SELECTION
Climatic Variables
Major climatic variables affecting beef cattle performance are air temper-
ature, relative humidity, precipitation, evaporation, solar radiation, and
wind. Different climatic zones, as illustrated in Figure II-1, were
developed for the use of the three variables which exert the greatest
amount of control over feedlot wastes management systems, These zones
are based upon 80° F average July temperature line, a 32° F average
January temperature line (4) and moisture deficit (annual lake evapora-
tion minus annual precipitation) lines of 10 and 30 inches. The 80° F
average July temperature was selected because 80° F appears to be a
maximal temperature for optimum beef cattle performance (6) . Above
this temperature, beef animal production declines for most breeds. The
32° F average January temperature line was selected to keep waste
management systems above freezing conditions as much as possible.
The 20° F average January temperature line was selected because it
appears to be the minimal temperature for optimum beef animal perform-
ance .
The 30-inch moisture deficit line was selected primarily on the basis of
decided advantages for evaporation of liquids from evaporation ponds,
other waste management systems, and feedlot surfaces. With less than
a 10-inch moisture deficit, the required surface area for evaporation
increases very rapidly, and it becomes more difficult to reduce volumes
of excess wastewater. Other climatic factors are integrated in these
basic parameters. For instance, solar radiation and wind influence the
evaporation rate, solar radiation affects average air temperature, and
precipitation and evaporation are included in the moisture deficit lines.
II—2
-------
20°
January Avg,
10 Moisture
\ Defies!
w 20"
JOfluory Avg,
32°
January Avg.
80°
July Avg.
• 80°
July Avg.
Temperature FIGURE II-l. CLIMATES OF THE UNITED STATES BASED ON TEMPERATURES AND MOISTURE
Moisture Deficit DEFICITS WHICH AFFECT BEEF FEEDING
Moisture
Deficit
Moisture
Deficit
^ 32°
Januory Avg.
Deficit
-------
Facility Types and Wastes Management Systems by Climatic Zones
The optimum areas for animal performance in outside open lots and open
confinement lots are in the regions which lie between the 80° F average
July temperature line and the 20° F average January temperature line
(Figure II-2) . Outside open lots in these regions are better suited to
the semi-arid zones of the High Plains and Southwest which have more
than a 30-inch moisture deficit (Figure II-3). There are local condi-
tions within these zones that may not be conducive to open beef feedlots
especially in mountainous areas. Dust produced during the dry season
is one possible detrimental factor affecting feedlots in these zones.
In the dry reaches of the South Central Plains and Northwest, which are
located between the 30-inch and 10-inch moisture deficit lines (Figure
II—4) , there are limited potentials for evaporation of moisture from feed-
lot surfaces, and sloppy pen conditions will exist during portions of
the year. Modifications, providing the animal protection from the wind
during winter months, should be included in areas which have more
than a 10-inch moisture deficit and less than 32° F average January
temperatures (Northern High Plains and Inter Mountain West—
Figure U—5) . These areas have freezing problems which affect the
performance of waste management systems and livestock. Also,
reduced evaporative potentials in these areas during winter months
cause sloppy pen conditions when temperatures are above freezing.
As the moisture deficit decreases below 10 inches per year (East Central,
Eastern United States and Pacific Northwest—Figure II-6), liquid wastes
disposal becomes more difficult. Also» higher humidities and rainfall
affect the performance of animals and increase the amount of liquids to
be handled from open feedlots. Serious water pollution problems for
waste management systems in these areas can result from the application
of liquids to wet soils. Thus, open confinement buildings provide better
waste management and animal performance by reducing or eliminating
the need for liquid waste management systems.
II-4
-------
FIGURE II-2. MODERATE TEMPERATURE ZONE
FIGURE II-3. ARID CLIMATES WITH MODERATE TEMPERATURES
FIGURE I1-4.
SEMI-ARID CLIMATES WITH MODERATE TEMPERATURES
FIGURE II-5. COOL-DRY CLIMATE
-------
Portions of the Corn Belt and Pacific Northwest regions can be classified
as cool, humid areas (Figure II-7) . These areas are high rainfall areas
within the beef cattle temperature comfort zone. Thus, totally covered
confinement buildings that have open fronts facing open lots can be used.
These will protect the animals and manure covered feedlot surfaces from
the high rainfall and the short periods of extreme winter weather.
Southeastern and Northwestern areas which have less than a 10-inch
moisture deficit, higher than 32° F average January temperatures and
lower than 80° F average July temperatures (Figure II-8) can be classi- '
fied as warm, sub-humid, and humid. Primarily from the waste control
viewpoint, totally covered open confinement facilities which reduce or
eliminate the necessity to consider liquid wastes management options are
desirable in these areas. The use of fans installed in the buildings will
aid air movement in the facility, enhancing animal comfort, and, through
increased evaporative potentials, reducing sloppy pen conditions.
There are three examples of typical areas lacking optimal conditions for
year-round open feedlot cattle production. First, there are the hot,
dry, and semi-arid areas of the Southwest with more than a 30-inch
moisture deficit which have higher than 80° F average July temperature
(Figure II—9). Modifications in open feedlots are necessary in these
areas to provide protection from solar radiation and high temperatures.
The second example is the cold, semi-humid and humid zone which lies
north of the 20° F average January temperature line and east of the
10-inch moisture deficit line (Upper Great Lakes—Figure 11-10) . In
this zone, insulated total confinement buildings with environmental
control have the best potential to provide optimum waste management
conditions and beef animal performance. More waste storage area is
necessary during the longer winter months for spring application onto
fields. The third example, the North Central Plains area north of
the 20° F average January temperature line and west of the 10-inch
moisture deficit line (Figure 11-11) is classified as a cold, dry,
II-6
-------
FIGURE II-6. MOIST-HUMID CLIMATES
FIGURE II-8. WARM-HUMID CLIMATES
FIGURE II—7« COOL-HUMID CLIMATES
FIGURE II-9. HOT-ARID CLIMATES
-------
and semi-arid zone. This area has some advantages in terms of disposing
of excess liquid waste by means of evaporation. However, during the
coldest periods of the year when temperatures are below 20° F (whiclj
was an indication of the lower limit for comfort of these animals) some
protection from wind and cold temperatures should be provided. During
other times of the year, beef animal production in outside lots would be
favorable. Thus, an open confinement facility with buildings which can
be totally enclosed during colder periods can be effectively used in this
area.
Beef animal feeding facilities in the southeastern portion of the United
States, with negative moisture deficits and average July temperatures
above 80° F (Figure 11-12) have more difficulties to overcome because
of hot, humid climatic conditions which affect the performance of beef
animals. The high rainfall causes problems regarding pollution control
from open feedlots. In this climate, total confinement buildings with
internal environmental control have great potential for reducing or
eliminating these problems.
The inter-mountain regions have beef feeding potentials in localized
areas. Although these areas have high evaporative potential due to high
moisture deficits, most of the region is between the 32°' F and the 20° F
average January temperature line (Figure 11-13) . Thus, for a portion
of the year, freezing conditions exist which affect the performance of
lagoons and surface conditions of the feedlot.
FEEDLQT DESIGN AND WASTE MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES
Previously in this section feedlot designs were classified as three basic
classes: open feedlots, open-confinement feedlots, and total confinement
buildings. These classes are based on the amount of control which may
be exerted on the animals' environment. The waste management and
design alternatives in many ways are common to two or more of the basic
facilities; however, each basic facility class will be individually discussed
since the combination of alternatives and components for each class is
unique.
II-8
-------
FIGURE 11-10. COLD-HUMID CLIMATES
FIGURE 11-11. COLD-DRY CLIMATE
FIGURE 11-12. HOT-HUMID CLIMATE
FIGURE 11-13. INTERMOUWTAIN REGION
-------
Open Feedlots
With the exception of shade use, windbreaks, or mounds for animal protec-
tion , open feedlots—the predominant year-round beef feeding operation
in the United States—have little or no environmental controls. Solid and
rainfall runoff wastes management system designs should be considered.
The accumulation of solid wastes has to be removed from the feedpens
periodically, usually at the end of each feeding period. The runoff-
carried wastes have to be controlled to prevent pollutant contamination
of streams and water supplies. The planning and design for open feedlots
should include consideration of feeding and waste handling facilities and
resulting operation practices which reduce or eliminate water pollution
potentials. These design features can be added to existing lots at a
greater expense than if they had been an integral part of the initial con-
struction phase. The design features of open feedlots that affect pollution
potentials include extraneous runoff diversion, lot size and surface, lot
topography and drainage, collection and retention of manure-contaminated
runoff, contaminated runoff storage and disposal, solid waste removal
access, solid waste storage and disposal and, in some instances, sun
shades and windbreaks, Waste management and handling practices which
affect water and air pollution potentials include pen cleaning schedules,
retention of partial manure pack in pen, and pen stocking rate.
Open Feedlot Layout. There are as many feedlot layouts as there are
sites for their construction. The various designs, however, have similar
pollution control designs. An example layout of an open feedlot for a flat
or level area is illustrated in Figure 11-14 (6) . This feedlot is designed
for pollution control with recycling of the waste materials through crop
production. Other systems may work equally as well. However, this
illustration points out some of the main features that would be desirable
for pollution control of the runoff-carried waste. The main features on
this layout are the drainage paths and treatment and ultimate disposal
of the runoff-carried wastes. This feedlot was assumed to be located on
11-10
-------
Croplond For Irrigotion
Deep Well For
Irrigotion q
Evaporation
Lagoon
Detention
Detention
'<*» Stttllno
Extraneous
Runoff
Diversion
Ditch
Pen
Extraneous
Runoff
Diversion
Ditch
Solid
wotte
Stockpile
Cottle
Handling
Area
Mill
Storoge,
Receiving,
Shipping,ft
Mointenance
Areo
Groin
Storage
Sick
Pens
Pen
Pen
Pen
Pen
Pen
Pen
Office
I I""*
FIGURE II-14. SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM OF AN OPEN FEEDLOT WITH RUNOFF CONTROL (6).
11-11
-------
a quarter »c<.uon of land with one-half section available for crop produc-
tion and irrigation and would be capable of handling between 20,000 and
30,000 head at one time.
An example of a radial layout, similar to a nine acre, 1,000 head layout
presently located on a low hill in Kansas, is shown in Figure 11-15.
Emphasis is placed on runoff control and manure handling features. Pen
topography can be shaped to conform to the pen drainage systems illus-
trated in Figure 11-18 (page 11-20) cross-section "D" or "E." The primary
advantage to this design is the centralization of feed, animal, and wastes
handling activities. Automated feed delivery systems may be utilized in
this facility; the basic design may be scaled to any desired capacity,
depending on the availability of topographically suitable land area, and
capacity may be doubled by expanding on the opposite side of the mill
and animal handling area.
Figure 11-16 is a layout which has been used successfully in many areas
when an entire hill or ridge can be utilized. In this case, there is no
need for an extraneous runoff diversion ditch. The runoff collection
channel encompasses the base of the hill and has settling basins distri-
buted at predetermined intervals. Additional settling basins which drain
into the collection channel are, in this layout, located in rills or washes
on the hill slope and are totally contained within the collection system.
The collection channel drains into a retention pond located along its lower
end. The wastes are disposed of on agricultural lands which adjoin the
feedlot. These layouts incorporate all of the necessary runoff controls
to eliminate the need for waste discharges. This design has been utilized
on a lot as large as 35,000 head capacity in a 30-inch rainfall area with
a maximum of 300 available acres for runoff waste disposal.
Extraneous Runoff Diversion. Diversion of all outside water is neces-
sary in controlling the runoff from an open feedlot. Construction of
runoff diversion ditches around areas where uncontaminated runoff and
pollutants converge will control the runoff.
11-12
-------
Extraneous
Feed Storage
Automated
\F®ed Delivery
\ Receiving
N*«i v Pen
Oeep\>xx
I Runoff s\
.Storage \!
t !
' Solid
Waste
i Storage
v, £?&F?
FIGURE 11-15. RADIAL FEEDLOT DESIGN FOR USE ON LOW HILLS.
11-13
-------
Solids
Settling
Bosins
Offices Scales
Feed Mill and
Storage
FIGURE 11-16. SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM OF AN OPEN FEEDLOT WITH TOTAL RUNOFF CONTROL
UTILIZING THE CONTOUR OF THE END OF A RIDGE.
11-14
-------
The volume of runoff draining from a lot is proportional to the area
exposed to rainfall. Thus, the volume of runoff can be computed on a
unit of area basis for any given location and set of pen conditions and
expanded to fit any size feedlot for that location. The methods of com-
puting runoff volumes will be discussed in Section IV, which deals with
the control of runoff wastes.
Pen Surface and Stocking Rates. Pen surfaces can be either unpaved,
partially paved, or totally paved. There are advantages and disadvan-
tages associated with each of these pen surfaces depending on local soil,
climatic, spatial, and economic conditions.
Unsurfaced dirt lots are less costly to construct and can be used on tight
soils in the warmer, drier climates where moisture deficits are greater
than rainfall amounts and freezing or winter conditions are not sufficiently
severe to create excessively wet or sloppy pen conditions. Dirt-surfaced
feed pens should not be constructed on loose or porous soils due to
increased groundwater pollution potentials. The removal of solid wastes
from dirt-surfaced lots should be performed with care to avoid removal
of the lower 3 to 4 inches of compacted manure and soil (Figure 11-17) .
The advantages are threefold. First, groundwater contamination potentials
are reduced since the compacted mat provides an impervious anaerobic
zone for denitrification. Secondly, once a compacted layer of manure
and soil is established, there is less potential for animal traffic to mix
soil and manure during periods of wet pen conditions. Thirdly, if this
mat is not removed during each cleaning, there is less actual material
to be removed from the pens because there is less dirt mixed with the
manure, and the added effort of hauling in soil to replace the deficit is
eliminated. Dirt-surfaced feedlots require the most land area per animal
unit. This is due to pen stocking rates which range between 200 and 400
square feet per animal (Table II-1) . The stocking rate should be
adjusted to a cattle density which, depending on soil textures and average
climatic conditions, will not be conducive to excessively dry (dusty) or
wet (sloppy) pen conditions.
11-15
-------
FIGURE 11-17. THE EROSIONAL FEATURE IN THE CENTER OF
THIS LOT EXPOSES THE EDGE OF THE LAYER
OF COMPACTED MANURE AND SOIL.
11-16
-------
TABLE II-1
SUMMARY OF STOCKING RATES FOR OPEN FEEDLOTS (3) (29) (32)
Lot Surface
Stocking Rate
Unsurfaced
Dirt, medium textured soil
Dirt, poor drainage on heavy soil
200-300 ft2/animal
300-400 ft2/animal
Partially Surfaced
Concrete slab in front of feed bunk
100-150 ft2/animal
Surfaced
Concrete
50-70 ft2/animal
Partially paved pens usually have a concrete apron, approximately 12 to 20
feet wide and sloped 1 inch per foot, between the feed bunks and the unpaved
portion of the lot. If a tractor scraper is to be used for manure removal,
this apron can be made wider and the slope reduced to one-half inch per
foot. The apron remains relatively dry and stable which encourages
animal utilization of the area along the feed bunks during wet periods.
Soil type and pen cleaning precautions discussed for dirt lots should be
practiced in the dirt-surfaced areas of partially paved lots. Animal
densities can be increased to a range from 100 to 150 square feet per
animal (Table II-1), thus requiring significantly less land area than all-
dirt lots. This results in significantly less area to collect and drain rain-
fall runoff which, in turn, reduces the amount of contaminated runoff
to be stored and disposed. In addition to this pollution control advantage,
there may be an economic advantage to this combination of pen surfaces.
In many instances, the decreased land area and resulting decrease in
required runoff controls more than offset the cost of constructing the
aprons in front of the feed bunks.
II-1?
-------
Totally paved lots have higher construction costs when compared per
unit area to dirt lots. The increased stocking capabilities of from 50 to
70 square feet per animal (Table II-l) on paved lots can offset addi-
tional costs on a per animal basis especially for smaller feedlots. Con-
sidering present trends for pollution control and environmental
enhancement, advantages of paved feedlots make them more desirable
in many areas of the country. One advantage is the reduction of runoff
which drains from paved feedlots on a per animal basis. This is due
primarily to the fact that there are greater stocking densities used on
paved lots than on unpaved lots, thus less pen area is required. These
reduced amounts of runoff require less runoff retention storage and
disposal area, simplifying runoff controls and reducing the costs of
pollution abatement facilities. Decreased potential for groundwater
pollution underneath paved feedlots also makes paved lots desirable.
Additionally, paved feedlots offer the possibility of using liquid flushing
systems in climatic areas where freezing conditions are encountered
only a few days at a time and the possibility of recycling the waste-
water for flushing. A continuous daily flow of wastes into a
storage/treatment system could be maintained by flushing different
pens each day. In some areas, excess water can be utilized for year-
round crop or pasture land irrigation. Apparent advantages of this
design include inherent runoff control features, manure storage in
oxidation ditches or ponds (reducing odor problems) , total waste dis-
posal to the land in slurry form (uniquely applicable to irrigation) , and
a totally automated pollution control system (greatly reducing labor and
handling costs) .
Pen Drainage. Rainfall runoff draining from feed pen surfaces represents
a v^ry noxious waste when allowed to flow uncontrolled into the environ-
ment and should be channeled into collection basins for future treatment
and/or ultimate disposal. Sufficient land area should be available for
waste collection systems, treatment systems, waste disposal areas, and
11-18
-------
diversion channels. The runoff should be retained on the feedlot
property and not permitted to drain to adjoining property, A topo-
graphic map is invaluable in planning the drainage system for the
feedlot.
There are several topographical designs which can be used for drainage
of runoff from unpaved dirt feedlots (Figure 11-18) (6) . Two of these
designs permit drainage to flow through the pens (cross-sections "A"
and "B"). The pens in diagram "A" slope from the front and back
toward a drain which runs through the middle of the pen. In diagram
"B" the pen slopes toward the back with the drainage channel running
along the back of the pen. Many feedlots in the past have been constructed
with the drainage channel in front of the feed bunks. In this arrangement,
the animals must stand in muddy or sloppy areas to feed. It has been
shown that the animals have greater feeding efficiency if muddy or
sloppy pen conditions can be avoided (5) (1?) (24) . Sloppy pen condi-
tions can be greatly reduced by sloping the lot surface so that the
drainage is channeled down an access alley behind the pen (cross-
-section "C"). When this method is employed, it is advisable to pave
the alley to prevent inaccessibility during and immediately following
runoff events (Figure II-19). Cross-sections "D" and "E" are schematic
diagrams showing methods of utilizing alleyway channels and "back of
the pen" drainage systems in a series. Schematic "D" features automated
grain distribution and schematic "E" requires distribution with feed trucks.
Feeding alleys should be oriented to provide the best drainage either at
the high side of the lot or up and down the slope. In northerly climates,
a north-south or northwest-southeast orientation is preferred because
the sun can melt the ice and dry the pavement along both sides of the
bank. Roads should be slightly crowned. The lots should be sloped
away from buildings and feeding bunks.
11-19
-------
B
and c P0*®"1 Acc®»#
Apron
E
FIGURE 11-18. SCHEMATIC OF PEN DRAINAGE SYSTEMS (6).
11-20
-------
FIGURE 11-19. IMPASSIBILITY COULD HAVE BEEN AVOIDED BY
PAVING AND CROWNING THIS ALLEYWAY.
Slope of the Feed Pens. The slope of unpaved feed pens should be 3 to
6 percent (6) . A slope of less than 3 percent will result in sloppy pen
conditions due to improper drainage and a slope of 6 percent can cause
problems controlling runoff and the transport of solids in the runoff.
When through pen drainage channels cross the direction of the pen
slope, the channel slope from one pen to the next should be great enough
to insure adequate drainage but not greater than the pen slope (Figure
11-20) . If the drainage is channeled down alleyways or ditches outside
the pen, the alley or ditch slope should be slightly greater than the pen
slope. This increases the rate of flow, in turn, reducing sedimentation
in the primary drainage channels.
11-21
-------
FIGURE 11-20. THE SLOPE ON THIS INTRA-PEN DRAINAGE
CHANNEL IS NOT GREAT ENOUGH TO ACHIEVE
PROPER DRAINAGE.
A pen slope of 2 to 4 percent in paved feedlots, in addition to insuring
adequate drainage conditions, is desirable to reduce the amount of
solids transported from the pen area in rainfall runoff. In paved lots
with flush removal, a pen slope of 7 percent is desirable to achieve
adequate solids removal. Runoff waters are generally channeled from
the pens in gutters which are constructed along the downslope edge of
paved feed pens.
Runoff Collection and Retention. Runoff collection and retention facilities
are comprised of a collection ditch designed to interrupt the flow from
the pen drainage system and a collection pond designed to temporarily
11-22
-------
hold the runoff until it can be treated or disposed of. The collection
pond is for short-term retention. Many states have set time limits,
such as 7 or 10 days, for runoff retention in these ponds. These limits
are imposed primarily to maintain collection capacity for additional rain-
fall runoff in the ponds. A storage pond may also be constructed if
long-term storage is needed to facilitate disposal. Runoff then can be
pumped from the collection system into the storage pond.
The concentration of oxygen demanding pollutants and total solids in
runoff is reduced as much as 90 percent by removal of settleable solids
and by dilution from rainfall which falls directly into the retention and/or
storage ponds (22) . Retarding runoff velocities in the collection ditch
and adding a shallow settling basin upstream from the collection pond
will facilitate the removal of settleable solids. Collection ditches having
a slope 1 to 3 percent less than that of the pen drainage channels will
retard runoff velocities sufficiently to settle out a large fraction of the
solids. Wide, shallow collection ditches have a large surface area for
evaporation; these will dry sufficiently between runoff events to permit
solids removal in conjunction with routine pen cleaning (Figure 11-21) .
To obviate sloppy pen conditions, collection ditches which transect pens
should not be used for settling solids. Settling basin, retention pond,
and storage pond designs are discussed in detail in Section IV,
Environmental Modifications. Little can be done to modify the animals'
environment in open feedlots as compared to open confinement shelters.
Three major modifications that cam be undertaken in open feedlots are;
(a) the construction of shades to reduce the amount of solar radiation on
the animals and the amount of rainfall that might otherwise fall into the
feed bunk, (b) the use of windbreaks to provide modification of the
animals' environment, particularly for wintertime conditions (Figure
11-22) (some recommendations for windbreaks are given in the Midwest
Plan Service Booklet on Beef Housing (3)) , and (c) the preparation of
11-23
-------
FIGURE II-21. THE PORTION OF THIS COLLECTION DITCH
LOCATED ABOVE THE CULVERT DOUBLES
AS A SETTLING BASIN.
mounds in the feedlots to provide higher ground for dryness during wet
weather, air movement in warm weather, and some shelter from the wind
during winter weather.
Open Confinement Feedlots.
Climatic conditions in different geographical areas of the country neces-
sitate diversity of feedlot designs. The advantages of open feedlots in
the drier portions of the mild and warm climates have been discussed.
Total confinement buildings with inside environmental control, necessary
for optimum animal performance and pollution control in areas of
extreme temperature and rainfall, will be discussed in the following
section. Open confinement feedlots are essentially a combination of
design principles and waste management alternatives utilized in open
feedlots and total confinement buildings.
n-24
-------
FIGURE 11-22. THESE LOMBARDY POPLARS WERE PLANTED TO
PROVIDE SOME ANIMAL PROTECTION FROM THE
WIND.
In an open confinement facility, the animals are free to move about in
an outside lot and seek protective shelter in a shed or building when
desired. These facilities can be designed for specific geographical
and/or climatic areas where open feedlots do not provide sufficient
environmental pollution controls or animal protection, but where total
confinement facilities exceed the design criteria for economic production.
Open confinement feedlot designs range from dirt lots with loafing sheds
to totally covered buildings which are enclosed on three sides and open
into an open lot area on the fourth side, Some of these covered buildings
may have slotted floors over manure collection pits or oxidation ditches.
11-25
-------
Open Confinement Feedlot Design. Figures 11-23 and 11-24 depict two
variations of open confinement facilities. Variations of the open confine-
ment facility with loafing sheds depicted in Figure 11-23 can be used to
provide cattle with some protection from solar radiation in warmer, less
humid areas. Feeding is generally done with an outside feed bunk
located either in the center of the lot, where mechanical feeders would
be used, or along the outside of the pens where feed trucks or wagons
would be used. The building floors and lots may be paved or unpaved.
Variations of the basic facility design illustrated in Figure n-24 are
usually used in the cooler, more humid areas where greater animal
protection is needed and the reduction of runoff from the feedlot surface
is desirable. This type of facility is used in areas where total confinement
of cattle is necessary during winter months. The animals are allowed
free passage between the open lots and the buildings during the milder
portion of the year. As noted above, open confinement feedlots are
essentially a combination of design principles and waste management
alternatives utilized in open feedlots and total confinement buildings.
Design requirements for this open air portion of the open confinement
feedlot (extraneous runoff diversion; pen surface, drainage, and slope;
and runoff collection and retention) may be ascertained by studying the
previous section on open feedlots and proceeding as though planning an
open feedlot. Animal densities can be increased from those used for
open feedlots to 30 square feet per animal. The overall design can then
be completed by selecting the desired design alternatives for the
covered portion of the facility. These are discussed in detail in the
following section on total confinement buildings. Alternatives which
should be considered for roofed areas include feed bunk location, floor-
ing types, and waste management systems .
Total Confinement Buildings
Beef feeding in total confinement buildings has become increasingly
profitable in some areas of the United States. The trend toward confine-
ment beef feeding buildings has been primarily in the upper Midwest
11-26
-------
a
i
M
3k
&
m
»
u
o
<
c
o
2
£
Runoff Collection Ditch
Covered Loofing Sheds
Open On Three Sides
Feed Bunks
>s
m
T3
Q>
4>
U.
PLAN VIEW
^^w^www-
SIDE VIEW
,y\N\\x\
FIGURE II-23. OPEN CONFINEMENT FEEDPENS WITH A LOAFING SHED AND A RUNOFF
DRAINAGE SYSTEM.
-------
Droinoge
! i
| Feed i
>>
—
< t
(A ¦
0)
E
J
I Bunks .
c '
>
Louver Ventilated
Cover Over 1/3
O
o :
< L
1
5
>
Of Feeding Area
m *
1 '
c
O D
2
>
? ~
1 1
I 1
1 1
' Feed 1
! Alley 1
! !
"A
PLAN VIEW
SIOE VIEW
FIGURE 11-24. OPEN CONFINEMENT FEEDPENS WITH COVER OVER 1/3 OF THE FEEDPEN
AREA AND A RUNOFF DRAINAGE SYSTEM.
-------
where the animals can be housed to protect them from the severe winter
and muddy spring weather conditions that exist in open feedlots. Beef
confinement buildings are located in the Northern Great Plains and Corn
Belt states in areas where family farms predominate. Thus, the capacities
of the facilities are often less than 1,000 head with most facilities housing
between 200 and 500 animals. There are a few facilities with a 10,000
to 20,000 head capacity.
Feeding in outside lots in regions of extreme temperatures and/or high
rainfall and humidity seriously affects the animals' performance and health.
Additionally, pollution controls for facilities with outside lots begin to
border on the limits of economic feasibility in those areas of extreme cold
and/or moisture. These conditions offset the economics of total confine-
ment of the animals. The control of animal environment can range from
removable side curtains or closures in warm, humid climates to insulated
buildings with artificial heat or cooling in extreme temperature areas.
Types of Confinement Buildings. There are several main frame and
building styles for confinement buildings. Pole type buildings with
interior poles have been used, particularly with solid floors. However,
clear span buildings are most prevalent because of easier access for
cleaning with mechanical equipment. Most of the slotted floor buildings
have clear spans over the slotted floor areas. These spans may range
from 24 to 60 feet. Roof shapes include gable, quonset, or half-mansard
styles. The feed bunk location may be down the center of the building,
along the outside walls, or outside the pens with a drive for feed trucks.
For the smaller, totally confined buildings, mechanical feeders are usually
used. Confinement buildings are the most effective during periods of
inclement weather but require adequate ventilation for animal comfort
during summer months. Figures 11-25 through 11-29 are illustrations of
typical building designs observed by Butchbaker et al.(6) in 1970.
11-29
-------
plan view
nog
a
FRONT VIEW
FIGURE 11-25. WARM CONFINEMENT BUILDING WITH DEEP PIT (6).
11-30
-------
PLAN VIEW
END VIEW
FIGURE 11-26. COLD CONFINEMENT BUILDING WITH DEEP PIT (6).
11-31
-------
PLAN VIEW
END VIEW
11-21. COLD CONFINEMENT BUILDING WITH DIRT FLOOR AND CANVAS SIDE CURTAINS (6).
11-32
-------
OXIDATION OITCH
END VIEW
FIGURE 11-28. COLD CONFINEMENT BUILDING WITH SHALLOW PIT FOR OXIDATION DITCH (6).
11-33
-------
PLAN VIEW
END VIEW
FIGURE 11-29. COLD CONFINEMENT BUILDING WITH SHALLOW PIT FOR CABLE SCRAPER.
U-34
-------
Basic Classifications of Confinement Buildings ¦ Figure 11-30 classifies
various confinement buildings. A total confinement building may be
basically either a cold or warm confinement facility.
Cold confinement buildings usually have open fronts facing south or east.
The barns are usually enclosed on the north and west sides during the
winter; however, during the summer, removable panels allow free airflow
and the roof provides protection from intense solar radiation. For winter
operation, the panels are put in place to provide a dry, relatively draft-
free environment. Unlike open confinement feedlots, there are no
unroofed pen areas. During winter months, temperatures within the
building average 10 to 20 degrees higher than outside air temperatures
as a result of solar radiation conducted through the roof, heat radiating
from the animals, and heat produced by decomposition of manure and
bedding.
Warm confinement buildings are well insulated and mechanically ventilated.
The amount of insulation varies with the climatic areas; however, 2 to
BTU
3 inches of standard insulation (k = .27 to .30) ^ — are used in the
side walls and 4 to 6 inches in the ceiling. Exhaust fans are specifically
located to remove the warm moist air during the winter months. Although
some buildings have fans installed on the sidewalls, many fans are placed
so that air is drawn down through the slots to remove any noxious gases
evolving from the manure storage pit underneath the slotted floor. Inlet
areas are also provided at strategic locations to insure uniform distribu-
tion of the air. In extremely cold climates where subzero temperatures
occur, cold air may cause fogging and condensation near the inlets.
Some barns have heat exchangers which utilize outgoing air to partially
warm incoming air or heaters to provide additional control of the air
temperature and manure moisture.
During the summer months, most of the warm confinement barns have
extremely high airflow rates that cause evaporation of moisture within
11-35
-------
LOOSE
TOTAL
DIRT
COLD
STORAGE
PIT
PARTIAL
SCRAPER
PIT
LAGOON
WARM
TOTAL
CONCRETE
PARTIAL
CONCRETE
COMPACTED
SOLID
FLOOR
SLOTTED
FLOOR
TOTAL CONFINEMENT
BUILDING
FIGURE 11-30. TOTAL CONFINEMENT BUILDING CLASSIFICATION AND FLOORING TYPES.
-------
the building, thus taking sensible heat from the air for the latent heat
of evaporation. Therefore, most totally insulated buildings have an
inside temperature lower than the outside temperature during the warm
part of the day. The effects of solar radiation are reduced by the shading
and time lag between the maximum solar radiation and the transmission
of the thermal energy to the interior of the building. Evaporative coolers
or mechanical refrigeration systems can be used for cooling the incoming
air during the summer months.
Pen Stocking Rates. Pen stocking rate as it affects spatial requirements
is the major difference between confinement building design and open
feedlot design. Square footage requirements of cattle can be expressed
as a function of body weight. Space requirements for confinement build-
ings are approximately 2 square feet of space per 100 pounds of body
weight for wintertime conditions and up to 3 square feet per 100 pounds
of body weight for hot weather conditions. Thus, floor space for confine-
ment feeding facilities, particularly on slotted floors, is approximately
18 to 25 square feet per head. Again, feed bunk space depends on the
frequency of feeding . With three or more feedings per day, feed bunk
space could be approximately 6 inches per head.
Flooring Types. In total confinement buildings, there is a choice between
a solid or slotted floor (Figure 11-30, page 11-36 ) . A solid floor may be
entirely dirt, entirely paved, or a combination of the two. Partially dirt
floors may permit some moisture to percolate through the soil. As with
open feedlots, some facilities have a concrete apron located beside the
feed bunk with the remainder of the floor being dirt. Other facilities
have the entire building floor paved. A slotted floor may be either
totally or partially slotted. A partially slotted floor has concrete, steel,
or wood slats 3 inches wide, spaced 1£ inches apart, spanning the dis-
tance between concrete aprons located along the outside wall and the
feed bunk. These aprons slope approximately 1 inch per foot toward
the slotted floor area. The waste material is worked down the sloped
11-37
-------
aprons and through the spaces between the slats by the cattle's hoofs
and drops into a pit underneath the slots. Some facilities lack one or
both aprons, thus the entire floor is slotted.
Waste Management Systems. There are essentially three different systems
for removing the waste material. The first is a solid handling system
similar to the solid wastes removal systems for the open confinement
feedlots. The second is a wet removal system where both the combined
feces and urine form the slurry without the addition of water. The third
is a water flush system used to remove and transport the waste material
from solid concrete floors and shallow pits below slotted floors to storage.
Solid wastes handling steps involve scraping the manure into a pile or
loading it directly into a spreader. The most common method is to use
a front-end loader with a tractor dumping the material into a spreader
pulled by a tractor. Small commercial loaders can also be used in place
of tractor mounted front-end loaders. Solids handling and disposal
alternatives are discussed in detail in Section V.
Slurry handling systems are used primarily where slotted floor systems
have been installed. The volume of the pit underneath the slotted floors
depends primarily upon the frequency of removal of the slurry, number
of animals, and the floor structure. The two major types of storage pits
are (a) a deep storage pit for storing the slurry several months at a
time and (b) a shallow pit for storage of the material for only a few days.
The latter system is used if a cable scraper removes the slurry wastes
on a daily basis. In most cases, attempts are made to prevent extra water
from entering the pit.
Deep pits for confinement buildings are usually 8 to 10 feet in depth
underneath a totally or a partially slotted floor. The pits fill at the rate
of about 1 foot per month for a totally slotted floor. For beef animals,
it can be assumed that approximately 1 cubic foot of manure per day is
produced at a density of about 60 pounds per cubic foot, wet weight,
11-38
-------
and a moisture content of 85 percent for a 1,000 pound animal (14) . Evap-
oration will reduce the volumes in the manure pit. The volume should
be sufficient for detention of wastes between removals, which are gener-
ally two times per year, March-April and October-November, coinciding
with the corn growing seasons in the Midwest.
Cable scraper or hydraulic flushing methods are used for manure removal
in shallow pits from 1 to 2 feet deep underneath slotted floors. The cable
scrapers, similar to those used in poultry installations, move the material
towards one end of the building into a cross conveyor or pit. From a pit
at the end of the building or a central collecting pit for several buildings,
the slurry can be pumped into tank wagons for field application or to
other temporary storage locations. Because the cable scrapers are
operated daily, there is limited buildup of manure and there appears to
be fewer odor and fly problems than with the solid handling or deep pit
storage systems for confinement buildings. Slurry removal, handling,
and disposal alternatives from deep and shallow pits are discussed in
detail in Section VI.
Hydraulic flushing systems can be used instead of mechanical scrapers.
Some systems utilize recycled water from a lagoon or a solids separation
system. Pratt et al. (28) reported on a water reuse system for flushing
down the floors of an experimental beef confinement building. Recycled
liquids were effectively used to flush the waste material; however, the
water was dark in color and odors were prevalent. The investigators
concluded that recycled water needed additional fresh water to control
odors and to replace losses due to evaporation. Due to a tendency to
freeze in open buildings, liquid flush systems for beef confinement
buildings with solid floors are not in prevalent use in the Upper Midwest
or the colder climates. During cool weather, livestock may remain damp,
particularly in solid floor systems. Waste handling and disposal alterna-
tives for hydraulic flushing systems are discussed in detail in Section VI .
11-39
-------
Ventilation. Environmental control to modify the outside extremes such
as air temperature, humidity, wind, and solar radiation, is a major
consideration for total confinement feeding facilities. Adequate ventila-
tion of the manure storage pit is particularly important. Noxious gases
are prevalent when the slurry is removed from pits and extreme care
should be exercised to control odors and prevent loss of life. The
primary noxious gases are ammonia, carbon dioxide, methane, and
hydrogen sulfide. Animals can be removed from the facility during
times when the manure is removed.
The National Safety Council recommends the following precautions for
work around manure pits .
1. Never work alone.
2. Use a lifeline and make sure there is power enough to lift a
victim clear of the tank.
3. If you must go inside a tank, ventilate the tank before entering
it and during the work .
4. Test for combustible gases and oxygen level with an appro-
priate testing device.
5. If in doubt, use self-contained air breathing apparatus.
Advantages of Confinement Buildings ¦ The main advantages of confine-
ment cattle feeding buildings are (6):
1. providing the initial collection step for a waste management
system,
2. less labor in feeding and manure disposal,
3. no bedding if slotted floor systems are used,
4. better feeding performance as indicated by generally higher
rates of gain and better feed efficiencies,
5. protection from severe weather and more comfortable animals
as evidenced by quieter and more docile cattle in confine-
ment buildings,
11-40
-------
6. cleaner and healthier cattle as evidenced by fewer parasites
and insect problems and freedom from hoof rot and other
diseases caused by muddy feedlots, if housed on a slotted
floor, and
7. elimination of the need for pasture and a large outside lot
requiring additional land.
Bates et al, (2) and Smith et al. (3) reported on the influence of housing
on the performance of beef cattle housed in five different structures
(Table II-2). They found that warm housing produced the highest daily
gains with the lowest amount of feed per pound of gain. The greatest
relative advantage of shelter occurred during the period from February 17
to May 11 in southwestern Minnesota. The performance and carcass
characteristics were not greatly affected by different animal densities
in any of the units. The housing units consisted of a slotted floor cold
confinement building, a manure scrape barn (solid dirt floor with the
manure pack with an outside lot for feeding), outside lot with mound,
and a slotted floor warm confinement building, In their warm building,
the fresh air was drawn through a plenum chamber in the attic and,
hence, into a ceiling duct. Exhaust fans were located in the walls and
in the manure pit. In addition, a heating unit was installed at the north
end of the duct to permit warming of the outside air and to combat any
fogging effect during extremely cold weather. The pit fans operated
continuously and the wall fans operated in reponse to thermostats.
The major disadvantage of confinement buildings is the high initial
investment. The facility costs can be balanced with reduced labor
requirements and increased animal performance. Automated capabilities
for handling and disposal of the waste materials and containment of total
animal wastes decrease pollution potentials.
EVALUATION OF WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
The selection of feeding facility design and waste management system
should be made with regard to the effect on the environment and the
11-41
-------
TABLE II—2
A COMPARISON OF FIVE HOUSING SYSTEMS FOR FEEDLOT CATTLE IN WEST CENTRAL MINNESOTA (2) (30)
Sq. ft./head
Av. lb. bedding
per day per
head
Av. daily gain,
lb.
Av. daily dry
feed intake, lb.
Av. dry matter
required per
100 lb. gain,
lb.
No. head
No. days feeding
to put on 560
lb. gaina
Conventional Manure Scrape Cold Slot Warm Slot Open Lot
30 20 30 20 25 17 25 17 250
2.16 1.98 2.70 2.49
2.15 2.05 2.16 2.26 2.21 2.14 2.33 2.33 2.04
13.22 13.54 13.76 13.78 14.16 13.90 14.78 14.16 13.35
616 660 638 610 641 650 634 608 654
200
260
300
273
200
259
300
248
204
253
300
262
204
240
300
240
300
275
Days of feeding to produce 560 lb. of gain from an initial weight of 436 lb. to a final weight of 996 lb.
-------
ultimate disposal of the waste material. The system should not pollute
the air, water, or land. Thus, in an ideal system the wastes are
collected and satisfactorily treated and disposed of soon after they are
received by the feeding floor. Disposal alternatives include recycling
to crop land and/or livestock by reprocessing and refeeding.
Butchbaker et al. (6) have ranked waste management systems in regard
to pollution control:
1. cable scraper, with shallow holding pit and treatment by means
of lagoon and/or manure irrigation on pasture or crop land;
2. oxidation ditch treatment of the waste underneath a slotted floor
building, with overflow going to a lagoon, and then manure
irrigation;
3. a deep pit underneath a slotted floor feeding facility for cold or
warm confinement building, slurry hauling with a soil injection
system;
4. solid floor confinement, solid waste handling, composting or
field application;
5. paved feedlot with a flushing system and manure irrigation;
6. unpaved feedlot with settling basins and detention reservoirs
and irrigation of the runoff wastewater onto crop land; and
7. unpaved feedlot with detention reservoirs or lagoons only and
dependent upon evaporation for removal of excess liquid waste.
The first four systems mentioned above are associated with confinement
beef feeding barns. Although more costly than the open feedlot systems,
they offer a higher potential for pollution control. The cable scraper
system, oxidation ditch system, and flushing system can be used
frequently to remove the waste material and reduce odors. Also, they
provide the opportunity for using a nearly continuous flow system. The
unpaved feedlots with detention reservoirs have the least degree of
pollutant control. Detention reservoirs are subject to overflows when
rainfalls are above the design rainfalls, some odors arise during certain
periods of the year, and settleable solids may fill the reservoir.
11-43
-------
REFERENCES
1. Anonymous, "Confinement Feeders: Check Your Scuba Gear,"
Feedlot, No. 12, p. 32, February 1970.
2. Bates, D. W. , and L. K. Lindor, "The Influence of Housing on
Gains of Beef Cattle in Five Different Structures," A.S.A.E.
Paper No. 70-902, American Society of Agricultural Engineers,
December 1970.
3. Beef Handbook, Housing and Equipment, Midwest Plan Service,
Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa (1968).
4. Blair, T. A., Climatology, Prentice-Hall, Inc., N.Y. (1942).
5. Bond, T. E,, R. L. Givens, and S. R. Morrison, "Comparative
. Effects of Mud, Wind and Rain on Beef Cattle Performance,"
A.S.A.E. Paper No. 70-406, American Society of Agricultural
Engineers, July 1970.
6. Butchbaker, A. F. , J. E. Garten, G. W. A. Mahoney, and M. D.
Paine, "Evaluation of Beef Cattle Feedlot Waste Management
Alternatives," Water Pollution Control Research Series, 13040FXG
11/71, EPA, OR&M, 321 pp., November 1971.
7. Esmay, M. L. , Principles of Animal Environment, The AVI Pub-
lishing Co., Inc., Westport, Connecticut (1969).
8. Gilbertson, C. B., T. M. McCalla, J. R. Ellis, O. E. Cross,
and W, R. Woods , "The Effect of Animal Density and Surface
Slope on Characteristics of Runoff, Solid Wastes and Nitrate
Movement on Unpaved Beef Feedlots ," Bulletin SB 508, Agri-
cultural Experiment Station, University of Nebraska, Lincoln
(1970).
9. Givens, R. L. , "Height of Artificial Shades for Cattle in the
Southeast," Transactions of the A.S.A.E.. No. 8, pp. 312-313
(1965).
11-44
-------
10. Givens, R. L., S. R. Morrison, W, N. Garrett, and W. B. Hight,
"Influence of Feedlot Pen Design and Winter Shelter of Beef Cattle
Performance," California Agriculture, No. 22, pp. 6-7, February
1968,
11. Grub, E. W., R. C. Albin, D. M. Wells and R. Z. Wheaton, "The
Effect of Feed, Design, and Management on the Control of Pollution
from Beef Cattle Feedlots," Animal Waste Management, Cornell
University Conference, pp. 217-224, Syracuse, New York,
January 13-15, 1969.
12. Grub, E. W. , R. C. Albin, D. M. Wells, and R. Z. Wheaton,
"Engineering Analysis of Cattle Feedlots to Reduce Water Pollution,"
Transactions of the A.S .A.E.. No. 12, pp. 490-492, 495 (1969).
13. Grussing, Don, "Shelter Pay ?" Feedlot, No. 12, pp. 30-32,
34, 35, February 1970.
14. Hart, S.A. , "The Management of Livestock Manure," Transactions
of the A.S.A¦ E. , No. 3, pp. 78-80 (1960).
15. Hellickson, M. A., W. B. Witmer, and R. Barringer, "Comparison
of Selected Environmental Conditions and Beef Cattle Performance
in Pole Type and Closed Environment," A.S.A.E. Paper No. 70-901,
American Society of Animal Science, Chicago, Illinois, November 29,
1968.
16. Henderson, H. E. , and M. R. Geasler, "Effect of Environment and
Housing on the Performance of Feedlot Cattle Under Midwest
Conditions," Paper presented at Midwestern Sectional Meeting,
American Society of Animal Science, Chicago, Illinois, November 29,
1968.
17. Hoffman, M. P., and H. L. Self, "Shelter and Feedlot Surface
Effects on Performance of Yearling Steers," Journal of Animal
Science, No. 31, pp. 967-972, November 1970.
11-45
-------
18. Ittner, N. R,, T. E. Bond, and C. F. Kelly, "Methods of
Increasing Beef Production in Hot Climates," California Agri-
cultural Experiment Station, Bulletin 761, April 1958.
19. Johnson, D. W., "Survey of Feeding Beef Cattle Inside Sheds,"
A.S.A.E. Paper No. 70-905, American Society of Agricultural
Engineers, December 1970.
20. Kelly, C. F., "Effects of Thermal Environment on Beef Cattle,
Agricultural Engineering, No. 41, pp. 613-614, September 1960.
21. Kohler, M. A., T. J. Nordenson, and D. R. Baker, "Evaporation
Maps for the United States," Technical Paper No. 37, Weather
Bureau, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, D .C . (1959).
22. Kreis, R. D. , M. R. Scalf, and J. F. McNabb, "Characteristics
of Rainfall Runoff from a Beef Cattle Feedlot," Environmental
Protection Technology Series, EPA-R2-72-061, September 1972.
23. Loehr, Raymond C., Pollution Implications of Animal Wastes—
A Forward Oriented Review, Robert S. Kerr Water Research
Center, FWPCA, USDI, Ada, Oklahoma (1968).
24. Morrison, S. R., V. E. Mendel, and T. E. Bond, "Sloping Floors
for Beef Cattle Feedlots,11 Management of Farm Animal, Proceedings
of National Symposium, May 5-7, (1966), pp. 41-43, published by
American Society of Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph, Michigan.
25. Nelson, G. L., "Effects of Climate and Environment on Beef Cattle,"
Agricultural Engineering, No. 40, pp. 540-544, September 1959.
26. Pratt, G. L., "Confinement Beef Housing for Air and Water Pollution
Control in Cold Climates," Paper presented at the Conference of
General Collaborators from North Central Agricultural Experiment
Stations at the Northern Utilization Research and Development
Division, Peoria, Illinois, March 23-24, 1970.
11-46
-------
27. Pratt, G. L. , and G. L, Nelson, "Structural Analysis of Floor
Grids for Confinement Cattle Feeding Systems," Transactions
of the A.S.A.E., No. 11, pp. 50-53 (1968).
28. Pratt, G. L., R. E. Harkness, R. G. Butler, J. L. Parson, and
M. L. Buchanon, "Treatment of Beef-Cattle Waste Water for
Possible Re-Use," Transaction of the A.S.A.E., No. 12, pp.
471-473 (1969).
29. Schulz, A, H. , "Basic Requirements for Beef Cattle Housing,
Feeding, and Handling," Agricultural Engineering, No. 41,
pp. 615-617, September 1960.
30. Smith, R. E. , H. E. Hanke, L. K. Lindor, R. D . Goodrich, J . L .
Meiske, and D. W. Bates, "A Comparison of Five Housing Systems
for Feedlot Cattle," Research Report B-136, West Central Experi-
ment Station, University of Minnesota, Morris, Minnesota (1970).
31. "Two to Ten Day Precipitation for Return Periods of 2 to 100 Years
in the Contiguous United States," Technical Paper No. 49, Weather
Bureau, Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C. (1965).
32. Van Fossen, Larry D., and Vernon M. Myer, "Feeding Systems
are Long-Term Investments—Choose Wisely," Beef, pp. 24-26,
June 1969.
11-47
-------
SECTION III
BEEF FEEDLOT SITE SELECTION
Contents
Page
No.
REGULATIONS III-l
SPATIAL REQUIREMENTS III-2
Production Area III-2
Extraneous Storm Water Runoff Diversion Ditches III-2
Storm Water Runoff Collection and Retention Structures III—3
Wastes Storage, Treatment, and Ultimate Disposal Sites III-3
Runoff Wastes III-4
Solid Manure III-7
Slurry Wastes 111-11
Buffer Zone (Green Belt) Around the Feeding Facility HI- 12
TOPOGRAPHIC FEATURES III-13
MICROCLIMATES III-16
SOILS AND GEOLOGIC STRUCTURES III-19
SOCIAL CONSIDERATIONS * HI-21
PRACTICAL APPLICATION 111-22
APPENDICES III-25
REFERENCES 111-30
Ill-i
-------
SECTION III
FIGURES
Figure Page
No. No.
III-l LAND AREA REQUIREMENTS FOR DISPOSAL III-10
OF SOLID MANURE WASTES
III-2 RELATIONSHIP OF FEEDING SITE TO POPULATION HI-14
CENTERS, WIND DIRECTION, AND ODOR BUFFER
ZONE
III-3 RELATIONSHIP OF UPDRAFTS AND DOWNDRAFTS III-17
TO PREVAILING WINDS IN MOUNTAINOUS OR HILLY
AREAS
III-4 TYPICAL BEEF FEEDLOT LAYOUT INCORPORATING 111-23
OUTMODED DESIGN CONCEPTS
III-5 TYPICAL BEEF FEEDLOT LAYOUT INCORPORATING III-23
ENVIRONMENT PROTECTING DESIGN CONCEPTS
IH-ii
-------
SECTION III
BEEF FEEDLOT SITE SELECTION
Many considerations influence the selection of a feedlot site which will be
suitable for adequate pollution control and protection of the surrounding
environment. These considerations may be grouped into six categories:
Regulations, Spatial Requirements, Topographic Features, Microclimates,
Soils and Geologic Structures, and Social Considerations. Although these
categories are interrelated, each will be discussed individually.
REGULATIONS
Laws written to protect each individual in our society have been passed
at nearly all levels of government. Regulations imposing responsibility
for the quality of the environment and the use of both renewable and
depletable resources have been imposed on all who use these resources.
This involvement has placed a responsibility for pollution control and
environmental enhancement on each individual and corporation presently
designing, developing, or managing a livestock feeding facility. State
and local regulations should be carefully studied since they will, in most
instances, affect feeding facility site selection. Several states have placed
restrictions on the minimum distance that a feedlot can be located from
surface water, residential dwellings, municipalities, recreation areas,
and arterial highways. Other states are considering similar courses of
action. Additional requirements now in effect may include storm water
runoff control facilities, ground water contamination prevention structures,
solid and runoff-carried wastes storage facilities, and specified ultimate
disposal procedures. In most cases, these regulations are controlled by
statutory permits issued through appropriate agencies within state and/or
local governments. A list of state agencies to be contacted is included at
the end of this section. Additional information concerning zoning and
other local restrictions may be obtained from the county officials serving
the immediate district.
III-l
-------
SPATIAL REQUIREMENTS
The spatial needs of various livestock feeding units will vary with the
facility types and climatic conditions. The total area required for an
integrated system may be determined as the sum of the areas required
for each of the following components:
1. the production area,
2. extraneous storm water runoff diversion ditches,
3. storm water runoff collection and retention structures,
4. wastes storage, treatment, and ultimate disposal sites, and
5. buffer zone around the feeding facility and/or ultimate
disposal site.
Estimates for the area needed by each of the above components are
discussed in more detail in the following subsections,
Production Area
The production area requirements can be based on the pen area. Pen
area designs vary from 20 to 200 square feet per animal. An additional
15 percent of the pen area is needed for alleyways, feed bunks, and
animal shipping and receiving docks. Mills, scales, office, housing,
driveways, and parking space require an additional tract 20 to 30 per-
cent of the pen area size.
Extraneous Storm Water Runoff Diversion Ditches
Extraneous storm water runoff diversion ditches are constructed to reduce
the volume of contaminated runoff which must be collected and disposed of
or treated. To prevent uncontaminated storm water runoff from contacting
manure and other pollutants, diversion ditches should be constructed around
all feeding, feed preparation and storage, solid manure storage, and runoff
wastes retention areas. The amount of extraneous storm water runoff to be
diverted may be reduced by selecting a site which has a minimum upslope
drainage area. Nevertheless, overdesigning the capacity of the diversion
III-2
-------
structures (where rain storms of high intensity occur) could be an eco-
nomical safety factor. In many areas these structures are built around
covered facilities primarily to maintain a dry waste handling area near
the facility. Runoff diversion structures generally require an area which
is less than or equal to 5 percent of the total pen and runoff collection
area.
Storm Water Runoff Collection and Retention Structures
Storm water runoff collection and retention structures are designed to
retain and provide temporary storage for all storm water runoff which
comes in contact with manure and other pollutants. The size of these
structures is dependent on the rainfall of the region and resulting runoff
from the facility. Since increased animal densities are possible on paved
surfaces, smaller runoff control structures may be used on a paved open
feedlot mote successfully than on an unpaved lot having the same animal
population. Several states regulate the size of sedimentation and retention
ponds and the runoff retention time in each structure. These structures
should, in the absence of regulation, be designed to retain at least all
runoff resulting from the rainfall from a 10-year 24-hour design storm or
its equivalent. The area needed for these structures will range from 2 to
15 percent of the total pen area depending on structure depth and volume
of rainfall resulting from the design storm.
Wastes Storage, Treatment, and Ultimate Disposal Sites
Wastes storage, treatment, and ultimate disposal sites are a major concern
when computing the area needs for beef animal production units. The
amount of acreage required for these uses will depend on the volume and
moisture characteristics of the wastes generated, which, in turn, are
dependent on the type of facility and wastes management system design.
Both runoff and solid manure wastes are generated from open feedlots.
On the other hand, wastes generated from total confinement facilities are
in the form of a slurry which contains both manure and urine. The
III-3
-------
volume of these slurries which must be treated or disposed of is con-
trolled by the number of animals on feed, type of feed, and, in some
instances, by the volume of dilution water added. The amount of solid
manure wastes produced in open feedlots is dependent on the number of
animals, type of feed, and pen surface moisture conditions; volume of
runoff wastes originating from open feedlots is dictated by drainage
area, amount and intensity of precipitation, and pen surface conditions.
Three wastes management facilities will be discussed according to mois-
ture characteristics: (a) runoff wastes, (b) solid manure, and (c)
slurry wastes.
Although the basic site selection concepts concerning waste management
are applicable to beef production facilities, these precepts should be
considered for the entire animal production industry.
Runoff Wastes. Runoff wastes control involves the integration of runoff
retention and storage structures with a treatment method and a means of
disposal. The land area requirements of runoff retention have been
previously discussed.
Because of the extreme pollution potential of animal wastes, conventional
municipal waste treatment designs are not considered to be economically
feasible for use by beef cattle feedlot operators without significant
modifications.
Spray runoff treatment, a promising treatment method recently demonstrated,
may be used to treat runoff in areas where freezing conditions exist for less
than two months during the year. The land area needed for this method
ranges from 20 to 50 percent of the pen area plus an additional 15 percent
for a pretreatment storage structure.
Irrigation of crops, pasture, or wooded land is the most practical means
of runoff disposal in most climates. Desirable application rates appear to
range from 4 to 8 inches per year. The land area needed for irrigation of
m-4
-------
runoff is equal to the volume of runoff generated divided by the appro-
priate annual application rate. The spatial requirements of a runoff
irrigation system must often include a preirrigation storage pond to
facilitate coordination of runoff applications with crop and soil moisture
conditions and to avoid application of runoff to frozen or snow-covered
surfaces. The acreage required for this storage pond will range from
0.1 to 0.3 times the pen area. Maximum runoff disposal rates may be
necessary during periods of extreme weather conditions resulting in
occasional crop damage.
Areas in the western United States, where the moisture deficit (evapo-
ration minus precipitation) is greater than 10 inches, have a high
potential for using evaporation for ultimate disposal of liquid wastes.
An evaporation pond area approximately one-third the size of the total
feedlot will be needed in a region of a 40-inch moisture deficit. When
considering this disposal method, the potential for groundwater con-
tamination and other problems must also be investigated.
The following equations may be used to estimate the total area needed to
utilize runoff wastes management systems incorporating irrigation or
evaporation disposal techniques and spray runoff treatment methods.
Annual runoff from feedlots may be 2 or 3 times that of adjacent crop-
land . Annual runoff values for a specific location may be obtained from
the local office of the Soil Conservation Service or from a consulting
engineer.
Irrigation Disposal
Ar = p+ -|r+S EQN (III-l)
where: A = total area for waste management, a.
r
P = area of runoff retention structure, a.
V = annual runoff volume, a-in.
R = application rate, in./yr.
S = additional area for disposal, a.
Ill-5
-------
A = 0.02 to 0.15(pen area) + a * runoff/yr. + q.05 to 0.15(pen area)
r r 4 to 8 in. /yr. r
Spray Runoff Treatment
A =P + T + S + E EQN (III-2)
r
where: A^ = total area for waste management, a.
P = area of runoff retention structures, a.
T = treatment area, a.
S = additional area for disposal, a.
E = emergency irrigation disposal area, a.
Ar = 0.02 to 0.15(pen area) + 0.2 to 0.5 (pen area)
+ 0.05 to 0.15(pen area) + 0.1 to 0.2 (irrigation disposal area)
Evaporation Disposal
Ar = P + ¦— EQN (III-3)
where: A^ = total area for waste management, a.
P = area of runoff retention structure, a.
V = annual runoff volume, a-in .
D = moisture deficit, in./yr.
* n ao x a icy >_!. a-in. runoff/yr.
A = 0.02 to 0.15(pen area) + t 7 7 . ¦,
r r in./yr. lake evap. - in./yr. rainfall
Example: Assume that one wishes to build a 10,000-head capacity
feedlot with 125 square feet per animal equaling 33 acres of pen area
including feed bunks, alleyways, etc. in a 30-inch rainfall area with
6 inches of annual runoff and a 10-inch moisture deficit (40-inches
evaporation per year) . Considering the maximum space-consuming
III-6
-------
conditions, the estimated land area requirement for irrigation disposal
using Equation (III—1) is 60 acres; for spray runoff treatment using
Equation (III-2) is 37 acres; and evaporation disposal using Equation
(III-3) is 25 acres.
Irrigation Disposal
(III-l) A = 0.15(33) + + 0.15(33) = 60 acres
r 't
Spray Runoff Treatment
(III—2) Ar = 0.15(33) + 0.5(33) + 0.1(33) + 0.2(60) = 37 acres
Evaporation Disposal
(III—3) Ar = 0.15(33) + = 25 acres
Solid Manure. Solid manure generated from animal feedlots is one of the
most critical wastes disposal problems confronting the animal feeding
industry. The lack of long-term site availability for solid manure dis-
posal can create an impassible obstacle to efficient feedlot operation.
Land application of solid manure, as with runoff, is the most practical
method of disposal presently known. The selection of a feedlot site should
include extensive investigation of the land area available for manure
disposal.
Fewer problems will be encountered by the feedlot owner who owns
sufficient land area for manure disposal. However, total ownership of
disposal areas, especially with larger lots (5,000 to 10,000 head plus) ,
may not be practical, and firm advance commitments for manure disposal
should be obtained before the first land purchase or construction dollar
is spent. For example, these commitments, which would be in the best
interest of all concerned parties, may be in the form of land leases with
III-7
-------
renewal options or cooperative contracts between feedlot owners and
grain growers. These may require grain growers to accept or buy an
allotment of manure in return for special grain prices or manure hauling
and spreading services.
The amount of land area needed for solid manure disposal is equal to the
amount of manure cleaned from the feed pens divided by the application
rate . The amount of beef cattle manure cleaned from feed pens ranges,
on a dry weight basis, from 6.5 to 12.0 pounds per day per animal,
depending on animal size, amount of roughage in the feed, and the
percentage of soil removed from the pen surface with the manure. The
amount of manure to be handled and the disposal land area may be
reduced by carefully cleaning the pens to leave from 2 to 3 inches of
manure packed on the pen surface, thus reducing the amount of soil to
be handled wi^h the manure.
The quantity of manure cleaned from a feedlot may be estimated by using
the following equation:
EQNCIII-4)
where: M = dry weight of manure produced, tn./yr.
An = animal days/yr.
W = weight of manure produced/animal/day, lbs.
.. _ 365 days/yr. (feedlot head capacity) (6.5 to 12.0 lbs, manure/animal day)
~ 2000 lbs./ton
Example: Assuming that each animal produces a dry weight equivalent
of 12 lbs. of manure daily, the solid manure cleaned from a 10,000 head
beef feedlot in one year according to Equation (III-4) equals approxi-
mately 21,900 tons.
(III-4) M = 365(1°;y(12) = 21.900 tons/yr.
Ill-8
-------
The application rate of solid manure ranges from 10 to 40 tons dry
weight per acre depending on the type of crops, soil types, and rainfall
amounts. The amount of land area required to dispose of solid manure
"Am" may be estimated using the following equation:
M
Am = p- EQN (III-5)
where: A = solid manure disposal area, a.
m
M = volume of manure, tn./yr.
R = application rate, tn./a./yr.
Example: Using the 21,900 tons of manure produced on a 10,000 head
capacity feedlot, which was estimated in the preceding example, and a
10 ton/acre/year manure application rate (Figure III-l) the estimated
acreage required for manure disposal by using Equation (III-5) is
2,190 acres.
(Ill-5) A = 21'9°° =2,190 acres
m iu
Frequent pen cleaning and disposal by direct application to crops can
eliminate the need for solid wastes storage. However, the seasonal
nutrient needs of crops and soil moisture conditions in wetter or colder
climates do not correspond to a systematic schedule of wastes disposal by
land application. The application of solid wastes to saturated or frozen
soils will, like feedlot runoff, create a contaminated storm runoff problem
from the disposal site. Thus, solid wastes storage is a necessity in most
climatic and agricultural regions. There is wide variability in the factors
which influence the land area needed for this type of storage. In general,
one should consider a storage area approximately 15 to 20 percent of the
feed pen area in size and suitable for the construction of a storage structure
which will eliminate surface and groundwater pollution.
Ill-9
-------
12000 -
cc 9000
6000
3000
^ttofvoc.
50,000
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
NUMBER OF BEEF CATTLE
FIGURE III-l. LAND AREA REQUIREMENTS FOR DISPOSAL OF SOLID MANURE WASTES
III-
10
-------
Slurry Wastes. Slurry wastes are most commonly produced in total
confinement buildings with slotted floors and in concrete open feedlots
with flush type manure removal. Slurries are generally scraped,
flushed, or pumped from the pen area at regular intervals ranging from
daily to monthly. Thus, specially designed storage structures are a
necessity to maintain environmental quality between disposal periods.
Storage tanks should be covered to reduce odors and prevent children
and animals from become trapped in them. For a given storage volume,
tanks which have straight sidewalls require less area than lagoons which
are usually designed with sloping sides. Mechanically aerated oxidation
ditches are also used for slurry manure storage and have been success-
fully used directly under the slotted floor in hog confinement buildings
where they do not require additional land area. The primary advantage
of using this process is odor reduction.
The basic equations used to estimate spatial requirements for solid manure
disposal on cropland may be used in estimating the area needed for slurry
disposal. Manure slurries are a total composite of manure, as excreted,
without the changes caused by rainfall leaching. Soil application rates,
for this reason, should be reduced from the 10 to 40 tons per acre
suggested for solid manure wastes to 10 to 20 tons per acre. Additionally,
the daily amount of manure produced is approximately 60 pounds per
animal. The end result of the decreased application rate and greater
amount of manure to be handled is a significant increase in the size of
the disposal area.
The required amount of land for both solid and slurry wastes disposal may
be greatly reduced by increasing the rate and/or frequency of applica-
tion; however, this should be done only if the feeder has control of the
crops or the land either by leasing or through ownership. This approach,
in some cases, is uneconomical, but firm wastes disposal agreements
should be obtained from neighboring landowners before the final decision
is made on a site.
Ill-11
-------
The distance that wastes must be hauled for disposal should be kept to
an economically feasible minimum. The economic break point for
hauling distance may be estimated as follows:
F-L-S+M-M1 /ttt /\
D = n EQN CIII-6)
where: D = maximum economic hauling distance, mi.
F = value of chemical fertilizer with equivalent nutrient value, $/tn.
L = loading costs, $/ tn.
S = spreading costs, $/tn.
M = price paid farmer by feedlot owner to accept manure, $/tn.
M1 = price paid feedlot owner by farmer for manure, $/tn.
H = hauling costs, $/tn./mi.
Example: Assume that the nutrient content of a ton of manure is equiva-
lent to $4.00 worth of commercial fertilizer, that it costs $0.35 per ton to
load and $0.90 per ton to spread manure, that the manure hauling can be
contracted for $0.10 per ton/mile and that the amount paid by the farmer
to the feedlot owner for the manure is $1.50 per ton. Then according to
Equation <111—6) the maximum economical hauling distance is 12.5 miles.
(m-6) D = $4'00 |o°'l05pefmile $1'5° = fof = 12,5 mileS
A manure irrigation system for pumping a slurry or waste water for field
application costs about one-half as much as mechanically hauling and
spreading a slurry within one-half mile of the feeding facility. Thus, a
site with an area suitable for irrigating slurries within this distance could
result in considerable savings for manure disposal.
Buffer Zone (Green Belt) Around the Feeding Facility
The basic purpose of developing a buffer zone is to reduce or eliminate
the probability of nuisance complaints from the general public. Feedlot
HI-12
-------
operations, in many states, have received nuisance complaints resulting
from odors produced by their facilities . Specifically, to mention only a
few, beef cattle feedlots in Arizona, Texas, and Kansas and a hog feedlot
in Missouri have received court decisions which were in favor of the
plaintiffs; some decisions have resulted in cease and desist orders.
Where odors may be of concern, the buffer zone can approximate the
configuration of an egg with the facility and all odor producing processes
centered near the small end (Figure III—2) . The actual orientation of the
axis of the area is dependent upon the direction of the prevailing wind.
The size of the buffer zone, usually from 4 to 20 miles along its long
axis, is dependent on the size of the feeding operation and type of manure
management employed. Obviously, good drainage and housekeeping
practices, coupled with a prompt disposal schedule, may significantly
reduce the intensity of odors and thus reduce the size of the buffer zone.
In some locations, zoning agreements may be finalized with local govern-
ing bodies. Zoning may stipulate a specific distance from the operation
or a group of feeding operations reserved for agricultural uses. Such
agreements would allow protection against legal action from residential
and recreational development after a feeding operation is established.
Enough space should be allowed around the facility to provide a "green
belt." The size of this area need not be expansive but should be large
enough for a shelter belt or visual improvement vegetative plantings.
Some of this area will be the same as that used for waste disposal or other
feedlot operations. The concept is especially important in areas where
the operation may be seen from major arterial highways.
TOPOGRAPHIC FEATURES
Topography (lay of the land) plays an important role in two respects for
selection of a feeding site. The slope and natural drainage to surface
waters of any given parcel of land governs its value as a feeding site.
Ill— 13
-------
NORTH
S H
OS
'SH
Feedlot
I To 4— MILES
FIGURE III-2. RELATIONSHIP OF FEEDING SITE TO POPULATION CENTERS,
<4, / WIND DIRECTION, AND ODOR BUFFER ZONE.
*size dependent on facility type, head capacity, and wastes management practice
-------
Land which is too flat may be poorly drained, and poor drainage results
in sloppy pen conditions and increased probability for groundwater
contamination. On the other hand, surface runoff is difficult to control
on land with extreme gradients. The second role that topography plays
in site selection is basically one of economics. Feeding facilities are
readily adaptable to sites which, for topographical reasons, are marginal
for most intensive farming. Because of the marginal classification, these
lands often are priced at a much lower dollar value than is land used for
intensive farming. The rugged topography of these sites may create a
need for a large amount of earth moving; however, there are earth
moving requirements associated with all feeding sites regardless of
topography, Additional earth moving costs should be balanced with
the lower land costs.
Topographical quadrangle maps in the 7.5 or 15.0 minute series are
available for most of the United States from the United States Geological
Survey. Accurate information concerning the contour of the land and
its location with respect to watercourses, access routes, residential
areas, and recreational areas may be obtained by careful inspection of
these maps. Preliminary planning layouts for several different sites may
be made on topographical maps before making final site selection deci-
sions. After selecting a site, the consultant should make a topographical
survey with a contour interval of 1 or 2 feet to expedite the detailed
designing of the facility and processes.
During the evaluation of the topographic suitability of sites, one should
eliminate all those which do not meet, or cannot be adapted to meet, the
following constraints:
1. a minimum of land uphill which will contribute extraneous
runoff;
2. a slope for the feed pens with a 2 to 6 percent gradient (sloppy
pen conditions may occur with less than 2 percent pen slope, and
uncontrollable runoff may occur with greater than 6 percent pen
slope);
IH-15
-------
3. space with suitable slope and deep soils for construction of
runoff collection and storage facilities;
4. a manure storage area located away from natural drain-
age channels and having soil, bedrock, and a deep ground-
water table;
5. a dry feedlot access route which may be easily maintained for
manure removal during all weather conditions (access roads
through low wet areas or with steep gradients will cause
manure removal problems during wet and freezing weather);
and
6. a low gradient site for runoff disposal which is located away
from natural drainage areas.
Not all of the above constraints will apply to total confinement and
certain other facility designs, but each should always be considered
when appropriate.
A final topographical consideration for site selection is the location of a
facility with respect to surface waters. Several states have promulgated
control requirements based on specific distances or have developed
mathematical formulae to be followed when locating near surface waters.
This distance will not remove the pollution potential to a surface water-
course since travel in a drainage channel will not significantly treat the
pollutants in the feedlot runoff.
In the absence of regulations, a realistic consideration is the selection
of a site over which enough control can be exerted to prevent accidental
contact of manure and waste water runoff with surface waters.
MICROCLIMATES
As discussed earlier, the site selection decisions associated with climate
are mainly those related to the type of facility and the wastes handling
method. However, the microclimate (ambient climatic or environmental
III-16
-------
conditions of a specific locale) of a prospective site may have some
bearing on its acceptability. Three aspects of the microclimate of a
locale are worthy of consideration. These are extremes in wind condi-
tions , solar radiation, and precipitation.
Depending on major climatic conditions, wind affects the operation of a
feeding facility in many ways. Too much wind causes dusty pen condi-
tions in dry climates and drifting snow in cold climates. Inaccessibility
and adverse comfort indexes can lead to reduced feed conversion effi-
ciencies in cold climates. In a few instances, too little wind can cause
animal discomfort in hot and humid areas and may contribute to sloppy
pen conditions in cooler areas because of decreased evaporation poten-
tials . Prevailing wind direction in any locale and upward and downward
drafts in mountainous areas should be considered in the prediction of
possible odor complaints (Figure III-3) . Wind may be partially controlled
by selecting a site protected by vegetative shelter belts or natural land
forms. In the absence of natural protection in the North , artificial
windbreaks have been successfully constructed along the windward
side of feed pens .
FIGURE III-3. RELATIONSHIP OF UPDRAFTS AND DOWNDRAFTS
TO PREVAILING WINDS IN MOUNTAINOUS OR HILLY
AREAS.
111-17
/J•'
UPDRAFTS v,:
10WN QRAFT
PREVAILING
-------
Solar radiation affects not only animal production efficiency but also
waste management and pollution control facilities. The evaporation
potential from a wet manure surface is determined by humidity, air
movement, and solar radiation. Solar radiation may be somewhat con-
trolled by selecting a site with respect to the sun's travel or providing
the desired amount of shade. Feedlots located on northern or eastern
slopes receive less intense sunlight, thus reaching maximum tempera-
tures for shorter periods during the day than those located on southern
or western slopes. Thus, feedlot sites on northern and eastern slopes
are more desirable in warmer climates but require more shelter for the
animals in colder climates. In warmer climates this location requires
less control of the animal's environment. In colder climates the situation
is reversed, and operations should be placed on southern or western
slopes to obtain maximum temperature benefits for animal comfort. In
these locations proper placement may extend the northerly range of
wastes handling, treatment, and disposal processes which have minimum
temperature (freezing) constraints.
Precipitation is more important in selection of the general region than it
is in selection of a specific locality for location of a feedlot; however, in
some regions rainfall may vary considerably (as much as 10 to 15 inches
annually) over a very short distance. Snowfall amounts may also vary
greatly in a short distance; thus care should be exercised to determine
local snowfall amounts to avoid localities which are snowbound a portion
of the year. This point may be insignificant for most of the country yet
unquestionably important for specific localities which characteristically
have large variance in annual precipitation.
The climate surrounding a feeding site does not affect the performance
of animals fed in total confinement facilities. Accessibility is an impor-
tant consideration of the effects of local climate on these facilities. Sites
typified by drifting snow or dust and/or prolonged periods of wet or
damp soil conditions tend to limit waste removal access; these should be
avoided.
Ill-18
-------
SOILS AND GEOLOGIC STRUCTURES
Soil types and the underlying geologic structure of each potential feeding
site should be examined to insure maximum protection from groundwater
pollution. Highly permeable loose soils, shallow soils over fractured
bedrock, and shallow water tables should be avoided in pen areas, run-
off and solid manure storage pits, and field disposal sites receiving
high runoff and manure application rates . Contamination of groundwater
is hazardous not only from the bacteriological standpoint but also from
the threat of nitrate poisoning or methemoglobinemia (an oxygen-
deprived condition in infants sometimes referred to as blue babies)
which is caused by excessive amounts of nitrates in drinking water
supplies. This malady afflicts livestock and humans (especially small
children and pregnant females) .
Present trends in some states are directed toward regulating the amount
of infiltration or percolation from pen surfaces and liquid wastes im-
pounding structures. An example is the maximum of 0 .1 acre foot per
acre per year which was recently proposed by one South Central state,
Sites selected on heavy soils (fine-particled, expanding, or tight soils)
with a low infiltration or seepage rate are, in most cases, ideal for con-
struction of wastes retention and storage structures . The seepage from
a structure may be determined, before use, by filling it with unpolluted
water, allowing several days for sufficient saturation of the underlying
soils, and measuring the water loss minus class A pan evaporation (lake
evaporation on large structures) . Seepage tests may be run, for pur-
poses of site selection, on smaller scale by the use of small test ponds
if a test pond bottom is at the same soil depth desired for the full scale
structure.
In the absence of suitable soil conditions, soil sealing or concrete or
asphalt liners can be included in the design of runoff control structures
for a minimum of 300 dollars per acre. The advantage realized in careful
site selection is, for this reason, economically important.
111-19
-------
The depth of the water table is also important. A shallow aquifer is
more vulnerable to contamination and should be avoided. In areas with
fluctuating shallow water tables, concrete manure storage pits and con-
finement buildings designed with solid bottom manure pits may shift
from their original position and suffer damage ultimately resulting in
contamination of the aquifer.
Shallow water tables are also vulnerable to contamination when the land
is irrigated with large amounts of pollutant-rich runoff waters; this
damage is especially serious in areas of glacial till and within the flood
plains of rivers, where water tables may be only inches below the sur-
face and the soils are generally sandy or gravelly alluvium.
SOCIAL CONSIDERATIONS
Concern for environmental protection has resulted in state regulations
and court actions which frequently lead to great expense for compliance.
These actions have forced many feedlots to change their methods of
operation, and a few have had to reestablish at a more suitable site or
go out of business. Environmental controls have not only been placed
on surface and groundwater pollution but also have included odor
nuisances. Feedlots have had restraints placed on them solely on the
basis of odor complaints from their neighbors.
Strong demands from the general public for increased meat production
and improved meat quality do not offset the attendant problems with any
lessened demand for environmental improvement. Animal production
units seldom yield any monetary benefits directly to the complainants
who will not accept disagreeable odors around their residences, places
of work, or recreational areas. In many cases, odors may become such
a nuisance to individuals that life patterns and established transporation
routes are changed to avoid them. This circumstance is not unique to
the animal feeding industry but is observed in a great many industrial
operations such as oil and gas production, slaughterhouses, and
111-20
-------
chemical and plastics manufacturing. All of these industries are feeling
the effects of public pressure to eliminate nuisances created by odors,
sound, and unsightliness.
The successes of odor control efforts utilizing chemical deodorizers and
odor masking agents have been questionable. In many cases» where
application of chemicals has masked odors, the measures were temporary
and the odors of some of the chemicals were as disagreeable as the manure
odors. Perfumed aerosols haye been used with some success for short
distances in Southwestern states; however, the odors of manure are
generally more persistent than the aerosols tested and are easily
detected long distances from the source.
The best odor controls are, at present, a policy of good housekeeping
coupled with proper pen design and careful feeding site selection. Regu-
lar manure removal and disposal and very short runoff retention times
can significantly reduce the amount of odor produced. A minimum pen
slope of 2 percent enhances adequate drainage and reduces sloppy pen
conditions and resulting odors. Manure slurry storage in oxidation
ditches produces less odor than anaerobic storage pits. In the North-
east, anaerobic storage pits have been covered to reduce the amount of
odor.
In recent years, there has been a successful advance of programs for
"national beautification." In short, these programs require the use of
privacy fences to conceal such unsightly places as junk yards, dumps,
freight yards, and salvage yards from public view. In the forseeable
future, unsightliness and noise emission from livestock feeding opera-
tions may bring about public-initiated court actions. The selection of a
site with vegetative shelter belts and/or land formations suitable for
visual concealment purposes or one located a sufficient distance from
highways may prevent problems which do not yet exist.
The selection of a site should include consideration of prevailing wind
direction, distance from residential areas and public gathering places,
III—21
-------
and the attitudes of immediate neighbors. Agreements for free manure
application and/or a steady market for neighbors' grain or hay in return
for freedom from nuisance complaints may have merit.
Zoning may be used effectively in some areas to prevent the encroach-
ment of residential, shopping, and recreational areas. A very expensive
but positive approach to zoning would be the purchase of enough land
to create a buffer zone between the animals and society.
The task of co-existing with society will be resolved by locating a site
which is remote from the greatest possible number of potential complain-
ants » by isolation through controlling as much surrounding area as
possible» and by developing public relations .
PRACTICAL APPLICATION
Changes in the attitudes and interests of the people of this and many
nations over the world have aroused a much needed awareness of our
surroundings and the heritage that we are leaving behind for future
generations. This awareness has created a need for changes in disposal
methods for industrial and agricultural wastes. Early in the past decade»
wastes disposal practices which were recommended as acceptable
included locating feeding sites on steep slopes and near streams or
lakes for natural drainage and disposal of runoff wastes in surface
waters. Recommended manure disposal practices included filling
ravines and ditches, from which the manure eroded and washed into
the streams. Little concern existed for contamination of groundwater
supplies except where obvious damage would occur to the water supply
for the feeding facility.
A typical beef feedlot layout is depicted in Figure III-4. The wastes
management design used here may have been a recommended practice
as late as ten years ago. The extent of environmental unbalance
created by the various practices utilized in this operational plan was,
in reality, unnecessary but economical. Relocation of the facility on
111-22
-------
FIGURE III-4. TYPICAL BEEF FEEDLOT LAYOUT INCORPORATING OUTMODED DESIGN CONCEPTS
v\ v
\\
• \ \\ ^ < >.
_\ ^
V\
FIGURE III-5. TYPICAL BEEF FEEDLOT LAYOUT INCORPORATING ENVIRONMENT PROTECTING
DESIGN CONCEPTS
111-23
-------
the same site and seven changes of minor economic significance
(which included addition of a few wastes handling and management
facilities) could have eliminated most environmental hazards.
The same beef feedlot relocated on the same site is depicted in Figure
III—5. This operation was planned with the use of the present environ-
ment-protecting concepts of site selection and wastes management. The
pen area has been moved onto the more level land, which has clay soil
underlaid with a solid dolomite rather than the sandy soil and cavernous
limestone which is present on the hill slope. The new site is located
away from the small creek and takes advantage of the vegetative shelter
belt both as a shield against cold north winds and as a visual screen
from the road. A ditch to divert extraneous drainage has been constructed
around the pen area, and runoff collection ponds have been added across
the lower end of the pens. The runoff from the collection ponds is
pumped into a holding pond, from which it is distributed onto a pastured
area with a large irrigation gun or metered onto a spray runoff treatment
slope. The pens are cleaned regularly and the manure is temporarily
stored or immediately hauled away and disposed of on agricultural land.
The actual application of good site selection principles is a matter of
common sense and the ability to apply existing state regulations. There
are no standard numerical guidelines and mathematical formulae appli-
cable to each site selection in every part of the country. This section
has been a compilation of the major site selection considerations which
are representative of a large percentage of facility designs and geographic
locations. Professional assistance from consulting engineers and/or the
governmental agencies listed in the appendices may be needed to solve
unique site selection problems .
Ill-24
-------
APPENDICES
Current research findings concerning animal wastes management,
treatment, and disposal may be obtained by contacting:
The Environmental Protection Agency, National Animal Feedlot
Wastes Research Program, Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research
Laboratory, Box 1198, Ada, Oklahoma, 74820, or Agricultural and
Marine Pollution Control Section, Applied Science and Technology
Branch, Office of Research and Monitoring, Washington, D.C., 20460.
The state and local offices of the U.S. Department of Agriculture's
Cooperative Extension Service, Soil Conservation Service, and Agri-
cultural Research Service.
Climate and rainfall data may be obtained by request to the U.S.
Department of Commerce, Weather Bureau Technical Papers from the
Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
Washington 25, D.C. Microclimatic conditions may be obtained from
local offices of the U.S. Weather Bureau.
Topographic maps may be obtained from the U.S. Geological Survey,
Denver Distribution Section, Federal Center, Denver, Colorado,
80225, for those areas which lie west of the Mississippi River, and
from the U.S. Geological Survey, Washington Distribution Section,
Washington, D.C., 20242, for those areas which lie east of the
Mississippi River.
Information concerning state regulations and permits may be obtained
from the following state agencies:
Alabama. The Water Resources Division, Alabama Geological
Survey; State Department of Public Health; Water Improvement
Commission; Alabama Department of Agriculture and Industries;
State Office Building, Montgomery, Alabama 36104.
Alaska. State Department of Health and Welfare, Division of Environ-
mental Health, Pouch H, Juneau, Alaska 99801.
Ill - 2 5
-------
Arizona ¦ The Arizona Livestock Sanitary Board, Capitol Annex-
Room 322, Phoenix, Arizona 85007, The Sanitation Division, State
Health Department, 4019 N. 33rd Avenue, Phoenix, Arizona 85029.
Arkansas • Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology,
8001 National Drive, Little Rock, Arkansas 72209.
California. The California Resources Agency, State Water Resources
Control Board, 1416 9th Street, Sacramento, California 95814.
Colorado. The Water Pollution Control Division, State Department
of Health, 4210 East 11th Avenue, Denver, Colorado 80220,
Connecticut. The Dairy Division, and The Water Resources Commis-
sion, State Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources, 165 Capitol
Avenue, Hartford, Connecticut 06115. State Department of Health,
79 Elm Street, Hartford, Connecticut 06115.
Delaware. Water Resources Section, Division of Environmental
Control, Department of Natural Resources, Natural Resources Building,
Dover, Delaware 19901.
Florida. The State Department of Air and Water Pollution Control,
315 S. Calhoun Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32301. The Division of
Health, State Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, Box 210,
Jacksonville, Florida 32201.
Georgia. The Industrial Waste Section, Georgia Water Quality Board
and the Georgia Department of Public Health, 47 Trinity Avenue, S.W.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30334.
Hawaii. Hawaii State Department of Health, P.O. Box 3378,
Honolulu, Hawaii 96813.
Idaho. Water Pollution Control Section, Environmental Improvement
Division, Idaho Department of Health, Statehouse, Boise, Idaho 83701.
Illinois. Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, 215 S. First
Street, Champaign, Illinois 61820.
Indiana. Industrial Waste Disposal Section, Indiana State Board of
Health, 1330 West Michigan Street, Indianapolis, Indiana 46206. State
Department of Natural Resources, State Office Building, 100 N. Senate
Avenue, Indianapolis, Indiana 46204. The Air Pollution Control
Division, State Board of Health, 1330 W. Michigan Street, Indianapolis,
Indiana 46206.
III-26
-------
Iowa. The Iowa Water Pollution Control Commission, Department
of Health, Lucas State Office Building, Des Moines, Iowa 50319. The
Iowa Natural Resources Council, Grimes State Office Building, Des
Moines, Iowa 50319. The Environmental Engineering Service, Iowa
State Health Department, Lucas State Office Building, Des Moines,
Iowa 50319.
Kansas. The Division of Environmental Health, Kansas State
Department of Health, and the Livestock Sanitary Commission, Animal
Health Department, State Office Building, Topeka, Kansas 66612.
Kentucky. The Kentucky Water Pollution Control Commission; the
Water Pollution Division and the Solid Waste Division, Kentucky Depart-
ment of Health, 275 E. Main Street, Frankfort, Kentucky 40601. The
Division of Livestock Sanitation, Kentucky Department of Agriculture
Capitol Annex Building, Frankfort, Kentucky 40601.
Louisiana ¦ The Louisiana Stream Control Commission, P.O.
Drawer FC, University Station, Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70803. The
Louisiana Livestock Sanitary Board, P. O. Box 44003, Capitol Station,
Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70800. The Louisiana State Department of
Health, State Office Building, P.O. Box 60630, New Orleans,
Louisiana 70160.
Maine. Site Selection Program, Maine Environmental Improvement
Commission, State House, Augusta, Maine 04330.
Maryland. The Maryland Department of Water Resources, State
Office Building, Annapolis, Maryland 21404.
Massachusetts. The Water Pollution Control Division, Department
of Natural Resources, 100 Cambridge Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02202.
Michigan. The Water Resources Commission, Department of Natural
Resources, Steven T. Mason Building, Lansing, Michigan. The Air
Pollution Control Section, Division of Engineering, State Department of
Public Health, 3500 N. Logan, Lansing , Michigan 48914.
Minnesota. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, 717 Delaware
Street, S.E., Minneapolis, Minnesota 55440.
Mississippi. Mississippi Air and Water Pollution Control Commission,
P.O. Box 827, Jackson, Mississippi 39205.
Missouri. The Missouri Water Pollution Board and the Division of
Health, State Department of Public Health and Welfare, 112 West High,
P.O. Box 154, Jefferson City, Missouri 65101.
III-27
-------
Montana. The State Department of Health, Helena, Montana 59601.
Nebraska. The Nebraska Water Pollution Control Council, State
Department of Health, State House Station, Lincoln, Nebraska 68509.
Nevada. Bureau of Environmental Health, Division of Health, State
Department of Health and Welfare, 201 S. Pall Street, Carson City,
Nevada 89701.
New Hampshire. The State Department of Water Supply and Pollution
Control, Frescott Park, 105 Loudon Road, Concord, New Hampshire 03301.
The Division of Public Health, Department of Health and Welfare, 61 S.
Spring Street, Concord, New Hampshire 03301.
New Jersey. The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection,
P. O. Box 1390, John Fitch Plaza, Trenton, New Jersey 08625.
New Mexico. The Environmental Services Division, State Department
of Health and Social Services, and the Environmental Improvement Agency,
P.O. Box 2348, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87501.
New York. Bureau of Industrial Waste, Division of Pure Waters,
Department of Environmental Conservation, Albany, New York 12201.
New York State Department of Health, 845 Central Avenue, Albany, New
York 12206.
North Carolina. Water Quality Division, State Department of Water
and Air Resources, P.O. Box 27048, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611.
North Dakota. The Division of Water Supply and Pollution Control,
Environmental Health and Engineering Services, State Department of
Health, Bismarck, North Dakota 58501.
Ohio. The Ohio Department of Health and the Ohio Water Pollution
Control Soard, P.O. Box 118, Columbus, Ohio 43216.
Oklahoma. Regulatory Services Division, Oklahoma State Department
of Agriculture, 122 Capitol Building, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73105.
Sanitation Division, Environmental Health Services, Oklahoma State
Department of Health, 3400 North Eastern , Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73105.
Oregon. The State Department of Environmental Quality, State
Office Building, 1400 S.W. 5th Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97201.
Pennsylvania. The State Department of Environmental Resources,
P. O. Box 2351, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120.
Ill-28
-------
Rhode Island, Environmental Health Services, State Department of
Health, State Office Building, Providence, Rhode Island 02903.
South Carolina. The South Carolina Pollution Control Authority,
Owen Building, 1321 Lady Street, P.O. Box 11628, Columbia, South
Carolina 29211.
South Dakota. The South Dakota Committee on Water Pollution,
State Office Building No. 2, Pierre, South Dakota 57501. State Depart-
ment of Health, State Capitol, Pierre, South Dakota 57501.
Tennessee¦ Division of Stream Pollution Control, Tennessee Depart-
ment of Public Health, Cordell Hull Building, Nashville, Tennessee 37219.
Texas. The Texas Water Quality Board, 1108 Lavaca Street, Austin,
Texas. The Texas State Department of Health, 1100 W. 49th Street,
Austin, Texas 78756. The Texas Air Control Board, 320 E. 53rd Street,
Austin, Texas. The Texas Animal Health Commission, Sam Houston
Building, Austin, Texas.
Utah. The Water Pollution Committee, Division of Health, State
Department of Social Services, 44 Medical Drive, Salt Lake City, Utah 84113,
Vermont. The State Department of Agriculture and the Agency of
Environmental Conservation, Montpelier, Vermont 05602.
Virginia, The Pollution Abatement Division, Virginia Water Control
Board, P. O. Box 11143, Richmond, Virginia 23230.
Washington. State Department of Agriculture, General Administration
Building, P. O, Box 218, Olympia, Washington 98501. The Water Resources
Division, State Department of Ecology, General Administration Building,
Olympia, Washington 98501.
West Virginia. The Sanitary Engineering Division, State Department
of Health, Charleston, West Virginia 25305. The Division of Water
Resources, Department of Natural Resources, Charleston, West
Virginia 25305.
Wisconsin. The Department of Natural Resources, Box 450,
Madison, Wisconsin 53701.
Wyoming. The Division of Health and Medical Services, State Depart-
ment of Health and Social Services, State Office Building, Cheyenne,
Wyoming 82001.
111-29
-------
REFERENCES
1. Alexander, R. M., "Social Aspects of Environmental Pollution,"
Agr. Sci, Rev., Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 9-18 (1971).
2. Anon. , Two to Ten Day Precipitation for Return Periods of
2 to 100 Years in the Contiguous United States, Technical
Paper No. 49, Weather Bureau, Department of Commerce,
Washington, D. C. (1965).
3. Anon., Agricultural Waste in an Urban Environment, Conference
Proceedings, New Jersey Department of Agriculture, Trenton,
New Jersey (Sept. 1970).
4. Blair, T. A., Climatology, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs,
New Jersey (1942).
5. Duffer, W. R., R. D. Kreis, andC. C. Harlin, Effects of
Feedlot Runoff on Water Quality of Impoundments, Environmental
Protection Agency, Water Pollution Control Research Series,
Report No. 16080GGP07/71 (1971).
6. Fairbank, W. C. , Waste Disposal Problems in Highly Populated
Areas, Extension Agricultural Engineering, University of
California, Riverside, California (1970) .
7. Fish, H. , "Water Pollution Prevention Requirements in Relation
to Farm-waste Disposal," Proceedings of Symposium on Farm
Wastes, Paper 6, University of Newcastle, pp. 38-43 (1970).
8. Happer, L., "Supreme Court Upholds Judgements in HBI Case,"
Mo. Ruralist, p. 12 (Jan. 23, 1971).
9. Kohler, M. A., T. J. Nordenson, and D. R. Baker, Evaporation
Maps for the United States, Technical Paper No. 37, Weather
Bureau, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, D. C.
(1959).
HI-30
-------
10. Levi, D. R. , and J. C. Holstein, "Stockmens-Liability Under
the Missouri Nuisance-Law," Science and Tech Guide, Univer-
sity of Missouri-Columbia Ext. Div. , Agr., Econ. File.
11. Levi, D. R., 11 Legal-Aspects Pertaining to Environmental Regula-
tions in Pork-Production," American Pork Congress, Des Moines,
Iowa (Mar. 3, 1971).
12. Miller, R. F., "Space Requirements and Dust Control for Feedlot
Cattle, " Calif. Agr., No. 16, pp. 14-15 (Dec. 1962).
13. Miner, J. R. , "Environment's Challenge: Acceptance as a Neighbor
or Rejection as a Nuisance," Feedlot, No. 13, pp. 14-15, 34
(May 1970).
14. Miner, J. R. , "Raising Livestock in the Urban Fringe," Agr.
Engr., No. 51, (12), pp. 702-703 (Dec. 1970).
15. Nelson, G. L., "Effects of Climate and Environment on Beef
Cattle," Agr. Engr., No. 40, pp. 540-544 (Sept. 1959).
16. Paulson, D. J. , "Commercial Feedlots - Nuisance, Zoning, and
Regulations," Washburn Law Jour., Vol. 6, pp. 493-507 (1967) .
17. Scalf, M. R., W. R. Duffer, and R. D. Kreis, Characteristics
and Effects of Cattle Feedlot Runoff, 25th Annual Purdue
Industrial Waste Conference, Lafayette, Indiana (May 1970).
18. Schwiesow, W. F. , "State Regulations to Livestock Feedlot Design
and Management December 1970," Bulletin 42-189, USDA, ARS
(April 1971).
19. Stewart, B. A. , et al., "Nitrate and Other Water Pollutants Under
Fields and Feedlots," Jour. Env. Sci. and Tech., No. 1, pp. 736-
739 (1967).
20. Walker, W. R. , "Legal-Restraints on Agricultural-Pollution, "
Relationship of Agriculture to Soil and Water Pollution, Cornell
University Conference on Agricultural Waste Management,
Syracuse, New York (1970) .
111-31
-------
SECTION IV
RUNOFF CARRIED WASTES
Contents
Page
No.
RUNOFF CHARACTERISTICS IV-2
Volume of Runoff Wastes IV-4
TRANSPORTATION OF RUNOFF TO COLLECTION AREA IV-11
Removal of Solids from Runoff IV-14
Solid Settling Basin Design IV-14
Broad Basin Terraces IV-18
Runoff Collection Ponds IV-20
Site Selection for Debris Basins and Collection IV-22
Ponds
DISPOSAL AND/OR TREATMENT SYSTEMS IV-22
Evaporation Disposal IV-23
Irrigation Disposal IV-27
Experimental Treatment System IV-34
Spray Runoff Treatment IV-34
REFERENCES IV-37
IV-i
-------
SECTION IV
TABLES
Table Page
No. No.
IV-1 AVERAGE CONCENTRATIONS OF SELECTED IV-1
CHEMICAL PARAMETERS
IV-2 CONCENTRATIONS OF POLLUTANTS IN RUNOFF IV-2
FROM CONCRETE LOT RESULTING FROM PRECIPITA-
TION STARTING AT 11: 00 P.M. ON AUGUST 24, 1969
IV-3 FOX CREEK NEAR STRONG CITY, KANSAS, IV-3
NOVEMBER, 1962 WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS
IV-4 WATERSHED RESERVOIRS AND FEEDLOT NEAR IV-4
McKINNEY, TEXAS, WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS
IV-5 CLIMATIC DATA FOR EXAMPLE IV-25
IV-6 VOLUME - STAGE OF EVAPORATION POND FOR IV-26
10 ACRE FEEDLOT - 5 ACRE POND
IV-7 ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY OF SOIL SATURATION IV-29
EXTRACT AND YIELD RESPONSE OF CORN AS
AFFECTED BY APPLICATION OF FEEDLOT RUNOFF
IV-8 DAILY AND TOTAL CONSUMPTIVE USE OF WATER IV-29
BY CROPS
IV-9 PEAK MOISTURE USE FOR COMMON IRRIGATED IV-30
CROPS AND OPTIMUM YIELDS
IV-10 ANIMAL WASTE DISPOSAL BY TANKWAGON OR IV-31
PIPING SYSTEM
IV-11 WASTE DISPOSAL SYSTEM SELECTION CHART IV-32
IV-12 DECREASES IN CONCENTRATIONS OF SOLIDS, IV-35
OXYGEN DEMAND, AND NUTRIENTS RESULTING
FROM SPRAY RUNOFF TREATMENT OF RUNOFF-
CARRIED WASTES FROM A 12,000-HEAD NORTH
CENTRAL TEXAS BEEF FEEDLOT
IV-ii
-------
SECTION IV
FIGURES
Figure Page
No. No.
IV-1 10-YEAR 24-HOUR RAINFALL IV-5
IV-2 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PRECIPITATION AND IV-7
RUNOFF FROM CATTLE FEEDLOTS (SOIL COVER
COMPLEX NUMBERS 91 & 94)
IV-3 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PRECIPITATION AND IV-8
RUNOFF FROM CATTLE FEEDLOTS (SOIL COVER
COMPLEX NUMBERS 91 & 94)
IV-4 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PRECIPITATION AND IV-9
RUNOFF FOR WET AND DRY CONDITION ADJUST-
MENTS OF SOIL COVER COMPLEX NUMBER 91
IV-5 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PRECIPITATION AND IV-10
RUNOFF FOR WET AND DRY CONDITION ADJUST-
MENTS OF SOIL COVER COMPLEX NUMBER 91
IV-6 MEAN ANNUAL PRECIPITATION IN THE UNITE IV-12
STATES
IV-7 SCHEMATIC ILLUSTRATING SLOPES IN A GRAVITY IV-13
COLLECTION, SOLID SEPARATION, AND STORAGE
SYSTEM
IV-8 SETTLING BASIN, DRYING PRIOR TO REMOVAL IV-15
IV-9 SCHEMATIC OF A BATCH COLLECTION BASIN FOR IV-16
REMOVING SETTLEABLE SOLIDS IN RUNOFF
IV-10 SCHEMATIC OF THE CONTINUOUS FLOW CONCEPT IV-17
FOR REMOVING SETTLEABLE SOLIDS IN RUNOFF
IV-11 SCHEMATIC OF BROAD BASIN TERRACES FOR IV-19
DETAINING RUNOFF FROM FEEDLOTS
IV-12 COLLECTION POND IV-21
IV-13 LINES OF MOISTURE DEFICIT FOR THE UNITED IV-24
STATES
IV-14 SELF-PROPELLED IRRIGATION SYSTEM FOR IV-33
WASTEWATER DISPOSAL
IV-15 BIG GUN NOZZLE USED ON SOME SELF-PROPELLED IV-33
IRRIGATION SYSTEMS
IV-16 SCHEMATIC OF A SPRAY RUNOFF TREATMENT IV-36
SYSTEM
IV-iii
-------
SECTION IV
RUNOFF CARRIED WASTES
This section is designed for those interested in control of runoff wastes
created by precipitation on an open feedlot. The quality and quantity
of the runoff are discussed. Methods for solid separation and runoff
detention are outlined. Disposal systems are discussed at length and
experimental treatment systems are reviewed for the reader's information.
Several researchers have reported data on the quality of runoff from
cattle feedlots, among these are: Miner et al. (1966) (11), Miner,
Lipper, and Erickson (1967) (12), Loehr (1969) (9), Grub et al.
(1969) (7), Norton and Hansen (1969) (13), Wells et al. (1969) (21),
Gilbertson et al. (1970) (5) , and Wells et al. (1971) (19) . Table IV-1
is representative of this type of data and presents average concentrations
of selected chemical parameters measured in direct runoff waste from
feed pens and discharge water from collection ponds on a 12,000-head
open feedlot in north central Texas (4) . The data reported by these
TABLE IV-1
AVERAGE CONCENTRATIONS OF SELECTED CHEMICAL
PARAMETERS (Mg/1) (4)
Direct Runoff
Discharge Water
Biochemical Oxygen Demand
Chemical Oxygen Demand
Total Solids
Total Dissolved Solids
Organic Nitrogen
Total Phosphate
Ammonia
2201
7210
11429
5526
228
558
2313
3172
1875
64
38
50
70
108
IV-1
-------
authors varied significantly with respect to actual numerical values
for most parameters but consistently agreed that runoff from cattle
feedlots was extremely concentrated and carried a high pollution
potential.
RUNOFF CHARACTERISTICS
Data collected by Wells et al. (19) have shown that the concentration
of pollutants in runoff is relatively independent of the type of ration fed.
The concentration of runoff is affected greatly by the amount and dura-
tion of a runoff event generated by a storm. The first runoff from a lot
surface during a storm will have extremely high concentrations of
pollutants as shown in Table IV-2.
TABLE IV-2
CONCENTRATIONS OF POLLUTANTS IN RUNOFF FROM CONCRETE LOT
RESULTING FROM PRECIPITATION STARTING AT 11:00 P.M. ON
AUGUST 24, 1969 (19)
Time of pH BOD COD NO NH--N ORG-N ALKY
Collection (mg/I) (mg/1) (mg/1) (mg/1) (mg/1) (mg/1)
11: 35
p.m. 6.60
16,800
48,000
625
525
532
2,595
11: 58
p.m. 6.80
6,120
20,451
975
526
315
1,955
12: 25
a.m. 6.65
7,400
22,032
1,000
485
36
2,000
2:25
a.m. 6.80
9,950
23,316
900
543
285
1,865
Feedlots have received much publicity regarding fish kills caused by
feedlot runoff entering a nearby stream. The reason for such kills can
easily be accounted for by the very high concentration of the biochemical
oxygen demand (BOD) of the runoff, which depletes the dissolved oxygen
(DO) in the stream. The situation in the stream is that all oxygen-using
life will die when this slug of runoff moves down the stream. At some
point in the stream, enough other water may be mixed with the runoff
IV-2
-------
slug to bring the DO to a sufficient life-supporting level. When feedlot
runoff enters a non-flowing body of water, the time required to regain
a sufficient level of DO may be very long and will depend greatly on
biological breakdown of the waste.
Table IV-3 shows the reaction of a stream to a slug of feedlot runoff passing
a sampling point in that stream.
TABLE IV-3
FOX CREEK NEAR STRONG CITY, KANSAS. NOVEMBER 1962
WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS (mg/1) (1?)
TIME
DO
BOD,
—-—5
COD
cf
—3
\vg. Dry Weather
8.4
2
29
11
0.06
13 hours
1.2
8
37
19
12.0
20 hours
0.8
90
283
50
5.3
26 hours
5.9
22
63
35
46 hours
6.8
5
40
31
0.44
69 hours
4.2
7
43
26
0.02
117 hours
6.2
3
22
25
0.08
Table IV-4 shows strength of feedlot runoff and its effect on a receiving
reservoir even though the runoff has been diluted with water 4 to 1. The
third line of data in this table shows test results from a sister reservoir
that did not receive feedlot runoff.
IV-3
-------
TABLE IV-4
WATERSHED RESERVOIRS AND FEEDLOT NEAR McKINNEY, TEXAS
WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS (mg/1) (4)
DO
BQDg COD
CI nh3
Feedlot Runoff
Reservoir Receiving *F.R. 0.0
2200.0 7210.0 450.0 108.0
86.5 81.0 40.5 6.0
Reservoir No. F.R.
7.8
5.0 29.0 7.2 0.548
~Dilution, 1 part feedlot runoff to 4 parts impounded storage water.
The amount of solids removed from a feed pen during a runoff event will
vary greatly with the intensity of the rain and with the slope of the lot
surface. McCalla et al. (10) in Nebraska have suggested that about 1.3
tons of solids will be removed with each acre-inch of runoff. For snow-
melt runoff, as much as 7.0 tons per acre-inch can be expected. The
volume of a ton of these solids has been determined to be approximately
32 cubic feet.
Volume of Runoff Wastes
The volume of feedlot runoff to be managed can be determined by using
the Soil Conservation Service method for estimating the amount of direct
runoff from rainfall (14). The procedure is as follows:
1. Determine the drainage area (DA). Ideally, this drainage
area should include only the feedlot area with diversion
structures installed around the feedlot to divert outside
waters.
2. Determine storm rainfall (P) . The design storm intensity
used may depend primarily upon the state laws and regula-
tions governing the design of the retention structures. The
most common design rainfall is the 10-year 24-hour storm
shown in Figure IV-1.
IV-4
-------
-year 24-HOUR RAINFALL (INCHES) (20)
I
LP
422 3 3.5
2-5
figure IV-1.
10
•YEAR 24-HOUR RAINFALL (INCHES) C20)
-------
Determine the runoff (Q) in inches. The runoff can be
estimated by the following equation:
Q = (Pp ° 135421) 2 EQN (IV-1)
where: Q = inches runoff
P = inches precipitation
This equation is based upon the SCS method of estimating
the amount of direct runoff from rainfall for classified
condition III, soil group D, land use farmstead. Equation
(IV-1) closely matches experimental results found in
Nebraska, Kansas, and Colorado. It takes into account
approximately 0.4 of an inch of storage on the feedlot
surface. For rainfalls over 1/2 inch, a quick rule of
thumb, based upon the Nebraska (2) data, is:
Q = P x 0.7 EQN (IV-2)
Runoff volumes may also be obtained by using the charts
presented in Figures IV-2, IV-3, IV-4, and IV-5. As an
example of how to use the runoff-rainfall charts for a given
location, use the following condition and check the charts
for the answer.
a. Use a 10-year 24-hour design storm.
b. Select a location near Wichita, Kansas.
c. Assume a dry, unsurfaced lot.
From Figure IV-1, the design rainfall will be approximately
5.0 inches. Using Figure IV-5, the runoff per acre will be
approximately 2.8 inches; however, assume 3.0 inches.
If the feedlot drainage area is known, it is then a simple
matter to multiply the acres in the drainage area by the
IV-6
-------
I
PRECIPITATION
1
2
(Inches)
IV-2, RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PRECIPITATION AND
RUNOFF FROM CATTLE FEEDLOTS (SOIL COVER
COMPLEX NUMBERS 91 8. 94) . INTERPOLATED
FROM BERGSRUD (1).
IV-7
-------
5 6 7
PRECIPITATION (Inches)
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PRECIPITATION AND
RUNOFF FROM CATTLE FEEDLOTS (SOIL COVER
COMPLEX NUMBERS 91 & 94) . INTERPOLATED
FROM BERGSRUD (1) .
rv-8
-------
PRECIPITATION (Inches)
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PRECIPITATION AND
RUNOFF FOR WET AND DRY CONDITION ADJUST-
MENTS OF SOIL COVER COMPLEX NUMBER 91.
INTERPOLATED FROM BERGSRUD (1).
IV-9
-------
PRECIPITATION (Inches)
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PRECIPITATION AND
RUNOFF FOR WET AND DRY CONDITION ADJUST-
MENTS OF SOIL COVER COMPLEX NUMBER 91.
INTERPOLATED FROM BERGSRUD (1) .
IV-10
-------
inches of runoff per acre and arrive at the design runoff
volume that must be retained. For example:
Assume 100 acres of feedlot drainage
100 acres x 3,0 inches per acre = 300 acre-inches
of runoff.
Most runoff control facilities will not be concerned with
annual runoff, Figure IV-6, unless storage is needed or
required for some portion of the annual runoff.
Annual runoff becomes extremely important if evaporation is to be used
as a disposal method and can be calculated by obtaining from the U.S.
Weather Bureau rainfall records and applying the runoff-rainfall charts
to these storms and totaling the runoff for a given year (see section on
evaporation in this section, page IV-22).
TRANSPORTATION OF RUNOFF TO COLLECTION AREA
Feed pen slope is important to insure that runoff will be removed from
the pens as quickly as possible to prevent sloppy conditions. The pen
surface should have at least 2 to 3 percent slope, and this slope must be
maintained during operation of the lot. Feedlot designs should provide
drainage channels to insure that the runoff will be transmitted from the
pens to the nearest collection ponds.
These drainage channels or transport systems can usually be divided
into two types. The first type is used to transport the total runoff, liquid
and solid, to the collection areas. This system usually consists of deep,
narrow, and steep, fast flowing ditches. The second type is used not
only for transport but also for solids removal. This can be accomplished
by reducing the velocity of the flow enough to allow a portion of the solids
to settle out. An example of this system with removable dams is shown
in Figure IV-7. Gilbertson et al. (6) in Nebraska have experimented
with this design and found it to be promising. The dams can be porous
IV-11
-------
NOTE
Western US Extremely
Variable. See Local
Maps For Detailed
Information.
24
FIGURE IV-6.
MEAN ANNUAL PRECIPITATION IN THE UNITED STATES (3)
-------
PEN SURFACE
COLLECTION DITCH
SETTLING BASIN
STORAGE
POND
I - 3 %
FIGURE rV-7. SCHEMATIC ILLUSTRATING SLOPES IN A GRAVITY COLLECTION,
SOLID SEPARATION, AND STORAGE SYSTEM.
-------
rock, boards or hardware cloth on frames. It is desirable to build the
dams so that they can be easily removed for cleaning of the channel.
In areas where rainfall is seasonably light, these drainage channels
with dams will usually dry enough to allow solids removal with normal
tractors and loaders. If there is a possibility that the drainage channels
will remain wet all year, consideration should be given to dragline or
track laying equipment for solids removal.
Removal of Solids from Runoff
Research suggests and some states require that solids be removed prior
to storage of the runoff and that the removal system be designed as an
integral part of the control system. Some states require the minimum
volume for solids storage to be 10 percent of the design runoff volume.
If solids are not removed in the drainage channel, then a debris basin
must be designed for this purpose. If the solids removal system is
planned, removal can be accomplished in an orderly and efficient
manner; however, if solids are allowed to deposit on the bottom of a
large lagoon or holding area, their removal at some future time may be
very difficult without special equipment.
Solid Settling Basin Design
A variety of settling basin designs has been developed. An easily con-
structed, commonly used design (illustrated in Figure IV-7) consists of
a shallow basin bounded on the down slope side by the retention pond
dyke. Runoff drains from the pens and/or collection ditch through the
settling basin, through a small culvert or standpipe with inlets at multiple
levels, and into the storage pond. Thus, the flow of the runoff is inter-
rupted. The interruption creates a short period of retention which causes
sedimentation. Figure IV-8 depicts a settling basin which is allowed to
dry prior to solids removal.
Gilbertson et al. (6) developed two experimental systems for removing
settleable solids from outdoor beef cattle feedlot runoff. One system is
IV-14
-------
FIGURE IV-8. SETTLING BASIN, DRYING PRIOR TO REMOVAL.
called a batch system and the other a continuous flow system. These
systems are illustrated in Figures IV-9 and IV-10.
For the batch system, the components are a primary settling basin and
a secondary basin. All runoff from a given storm event is trapped within
the primary settling basin and detained to allow the heavier solids to
settle to the bottom of the basin. The supernatant is pumped from the
primary basin into the secondary basin for longer detention times. The
continuous flow system consists of a series of porous dams which reduce
the velocity of flow sufficiently to allow the heavier particles to remain
in the settling channel while the liquids flow by gravity to a liquid
storage pond. The porous dams are constructed of crushed rock and
planking, with cracks between the planking.
IV-15
-------
FEEDLOT
90 feet
A
CLEANOUT APRON
/Z- SPILLWAY
SOIL CEMENT
SEAL
SUMP
4
7
6 MIL POLYETHYLENE
SEAL
PRIMARY BASIN
SECONDARY BASIN
FIGURE IV-9. SCHEMATIC OF A BATCH COLLECTION BASIN FOR REMOVING
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS IN RUNOFF (6) .
-------
CRUSHED
: ROCK
2 PLANKING
\ ^rWOOD POST
Sfe^-i£%
LIQUID
HOLDING
POND
FIGURE IV-10. SCHEMATIC OF THE CONTINUOUS FLOW CONCEPT FOR REMOVING
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS IN RUNOFF.
-------
The batch system removes the settleable solids efficiently; however, the
system maintenance has serious disadvantages. The primary settling
basin must have sufficient capacity to prevent direct overflow to the
secondary basin. Also, removing the accumulated solids from the
primary settling basin requires specialized equipment; for example, a
dragline bucket.
The continuous flow concept is a low maintenance method for removing
the settleable solids. A series of three porous dams in the settling
channel of the continuous flow system removes about 50 percent of the
total solids transported. The first dam removes 80 percent of this total.
Front end loaders on tractors are utilized to clean the settling channel.
Odors are not detected as readily from the continuous flow system as
from the batch system. The settling of solids during the winter months
presents problems for both methods.
Broad Basin Terraces. Swanson (18) developed a broad basin terrace
concept of runoff control for eastern Nebraska, Figure IV-11. On one
lot with a 15 percent slope, a single basin was constructed where the
feedlot has been in existence for more than 20 years. The basin was
designed to have a storage capacity for 12 inches of runoff from the lot
plus one foot of freeboard. This storage would be adequate for the total
runoff in a normal year. However, storage was not planned for a long
period since the effluent was to be pumped out and distributed on
adjacent crop land. The channel width of the broad basin terrace was
approximately 70 feet across with a 4 to 1 slope on the feedlot side. The
terrace was constructed to a 6-foot height to form the basin. These basins
were constructed inside the lots and provided an area to push snow if
necessary. Also, there was no problem with weed growth around the
basin. Experience has shown that the basins dry out rapidly after
drainage. The removal of the solids allows the runoff to be easily
disposed on land with conventional irrigation equipment, without having
undue problems with nozzle plugging and excessive bearing wear on
sprinkler systems.
IV-18
-------
SINGLE BROAD BASIN TERRACE
70'
MULTIPLE BROAD BASIN TERRACE
ESSS3S3*
40'
190
FIGURE IV-11. SCHEMATIC OF BROAD BASIN TERRACES FOR
DETAINING RUNOFF FROM FEEDLOTS (18) .
IV-19
-------
The operational design of the debris basin must include a drawdown
structure which allows all the water to be removed from the basin,
leaving only the solids in the bottom. This can be accomplished many-
ways, but the simplest is to provide a vertical drawdown pipe for high
flows and slot the side walls of this pipe to allow for the effective
removal of water from the basin.
Runoff Collection Ponds
The location of a collection pond relative to the feedlot will be dictated
by the topography of the land since it is desirable that the runoff be
transported to the collection pond by gravity (Figure IV-12). In some
cases involving existing feedlots, high volume pumps at low points
within the feedlot may be the only means of moving the runoff to
collection areas.
Collection ponds usually fall into two categories. One may simply be a
pond designed to handle the design storm runoff and to retain this
runoff a very short time, until it can be transferred to other areas for
disposal. The second category is comprised of ponds designed to retain
the runoff until disposal can be accomplished. This type of pond usually
requires additional storage volume for management.
The design of the collection pond should be based on the volume of runoff
generated by the design rainfall, plus any excess storage which might
be needed for management of the disposal system for these wastes. The
usual management volume would be at least 50 percent of the design
storm runoff; however, some disposal systems may require even more
management volume. It is mandatory that at least 1.5 feet of freeboard
be provided above the maximum stored water elevation in these structures.
This extra depth will insure that wave action will not damage the earthen
embankment and cause a failure of the structure. If such a failure did
occur, it might be ruled by the court as a case of failure to maintain
IV-20
-------
FIGURE IV-12. COLLECTION POND. THIS POND HAS A GRAVITY
INLET IN FOREGROUND. REMOVAL OF LIQUID IS
ACCOMPLISHED BY A PORTABLE PUMP AND
IRRIGATION SYSTEM.
the structure, and the operator could be judged negligent and be held
responsible for all damage caused by such a failure.
If the feedlot is located on land which has topography suited for small
dams and ponds, the runoff might be collected and stored in a structure
of this type, which would be less expensive storage than excavating the
entire storage volume. However, if dammed gullies are to be used as
runoff storage area, it is desirable to divert the normal gully flow around
the runoff storage site. If this diversion is not installed, the volume of
polluted water to be managed can be greatly increased and, in most cases,
the increase is undesirable.
IV-21
-------
The physical slope of these ponds is not especially important with the
exception of the side slopes which must be flat enough to allow an animal
or person to climb out of the water. This usually requires a slope of 3
to 1 (3 feet horizontal to 1 foot vertical) . In many areas it may be desir-
able , if not mandatory, to fence all ponds to keep both animals and
humans from getting close to the water.
Site Selection for Debris Basins and Collection Ponds. The site for
these structures should be very carefully investigated to insure that
the structure will not intercept fractured rock or a water table. A
detailed discussion of site selection is presented in Section III. It is
important, and in some states mandatory, that seepage from any lagoon
or pond be eliminated. Several states require percolation tests to be
submitted along with plans for the holding structures. Some soils need
to be treated before the lagoon or pond is used. Treatment may consist
of over excavation and replacement with compacted earth as a liner.
Bentonite may be mixed with the soil and compacted for such a seal, or
a plastic membrane may be installed.
DISPOSAL AND/OR TREATMENT SYSTEMS
Land disposal of runoff wastes is the most practical means of handling
the wastes since treatment of the high strength runoff wastes is, in most
cases, impractical from not only a technical standpoint but also from an
economical standpoint.
There are two experimental treatment systems which may prove the
exception to this rule; however, both need further refinement before
they are ready for widespread use. Both of these systems will be
described briefly, one at the end of this section and the other in
Section VI.
The most common treatment systems employed for animal wastes are
anaerobic lagoons, anaerobic digestion, oxidation ditches, aerated
IV-22
-------
lagoons and combinations of these systems. These treatment systems
have been discussed at length in Section VI and, if they are to be con-
sidered for use with feedlot runoff, it is suggested that further study
be directed to Section VI,
The major drawback to these systems for runoff wastes is that runoff
wastes occur as slugs, not as a continuous flow, and most of these systems
do not respond to slug loading. Also, the anaerobic systems are noted
for their malodorous gases, which are very objectionable. Mechanically
aerated systems will have a high power requirement to provide the nec-
essary oxygen to keep the system aerobic, If the odors and power
requirements can be overcome, the effluent from these systems have
enough strength to be unsuitable for discharge into any watercourse and
must still be disposed by land application.
Evaporation Disposal
In areas of the United States where the moisture deficit, evaporation minus
rainfall, (Figure IV-13) exceeds 30 inches annually, evaporation of runoff
wastes may prove to be the most economical method of disposal. Evapora-
tion lagoons must be sized to provide the necessary surface area to
evaporate the total annual runoff volume plus the precipitation that would
fall on the lagoon. The system should be designed to provide additional
capacity for wet years. This could be accomplished by the use of addi-
tional surface area or by using an irrigation system as a back-up
disposal system.
The design of an evaporation system will require extensive knowledge
of storm patterns in order to provide the necessary surface area and
storage volume for wet seasons of the year. Monthly evaporation rates
in conjunction with monthly runoff volumes will also be necessary for
the final sizing of the system. The following example was based on
conditions which exist in central Kansas. The rainfall period was
selected to be the fourth wettest year in the last 50 years.
IV-23
-------
10"(Excess
Moisture)
-------
The rainfall and evaporation data, Table IV-5, were obtained from U.S.
Weather Bureau files, and the runoff was calculated by the use of the
runoff curves shown in Figures IV-2, IV-3, IV-4, and IV-5. Each
individual storm was considered, and the totals constituted the monthly
values shown in Table IV-5. The data in Table IV-5 can now be used to
calculate the area of land needed to evaporate the runoff from 10 acres
of feedlot.
TABLE IV-5
CLIMATIC DATA FOR EXAMPLE
Month
Rainfall
Runoff
Total Evapoi
inch
inch
inch
Oct.
4.28
3.00
6.2
Nov.
1.86
0.58
0.2
Dec.
1.30
0.56
0.0
Jan.
0.19
0.0
0.0
Feb.
0.35
0.10
0.0
Mar.
1.00
0.55
0.0
April
2.26
0.80
7.2
May
4.19
1.62
8.6
June
2.76
1.00
9.3
July
3.59
1.62
9.0
Aug.
5.25
3.13
10.3
Sept.
3.11
1.37
7.6
Total
30.14
14.33
58.2
The process is somewhat trial and error; therefore, after several
tries, Table IV-6 for 5 acres of evaporation area was selected for
presentation here.
IV-25
-------
TABLE IV-6
VOLUME - STAGE OF EVAPORATION POND
FOR 10 ACRE FEEDLOT - 5 ACRE POND
Month Inflow Evaporation Storage Volume Stage of Pond
Rainfall +
Lot Runoff |
(Acre-inch)
2
(Acre-inch)
3
(Acre-inch)
(inches)
Oct.
51.4
31.0
20.4
4.1
Nov.
15.1
0.0
35.5
7.1
Dec.
12.1
0.0
47.6
9.5
Jan.
1.0
0.0
48.6
9.7
Feb.
1.8
0.0
50.4
10.1
Mar.
10.5
0.0
60.9
12.0
April
19.3
36,0
44.2
8.0
May
37.2
43.0
38.4
7.7
June
25.8
46.5
17.7
3.5
July
34.2
45.0
6.9
1.4
Aug.
57.6
51.5
13.0
2.6
Sept.
29.3
38.0
4.3
0.1
Rainfall x 5 + Runoff x 10 = Inflow (Acre-inch)
2
Evaporation x 5 = Evaporation (Acre-inch)
3
Inflow (Acre-inch) - Evaporation (Acre-inch) = Storage
Volume (Acre-inch) at end of month.
4
Storage Volume (Acre-inch)/5 = Stage of Pond (Inches)
This example, Table 1V-6, indicates that the pond would not be dry
during the year; however, some evaporation will occur in the winter
months even though the data indicates zero evaporation.
Evaporation systems usually require large land areas, and these areas
are not productive once they have been committed to this type of
system. Land for this system must be naturally flat or be shaped
to provide ponds that are shallow, uniform in depth, and have large
IV-26
-------
surface areas. If the land is sloping, it will be necessary to install
grade separation structures to insure a uniform shallow depth and
provide a maximum surface area for evaporation.
Irrigation Disposal
The disposal of feedlot runoff by irrigation is the most common disposal
method used by feedlot operators. This method is usually divided into
two specific systems . The first and most common system is the disposal
of the liquid without regard for crop utilization of the nutrients in the
waste. The second system is applying the waste to cropland at such a
rate as to reclaim the majority of the nutrients in the production of a
crop.
The first system is simply disposal of runoff waste to grassland without
regard for nutrient loading. The only criteria is an application rate that
does not produce runoff. This system is very workable and reasonable
in situations where the feedlot is not involved in farming and has access
to large acreages of pasture. Problems develop when not enough land
area is available and the application amounts become excessive, resulting
in reversion from a grass regime to a weed regime and loss of pasture
value.
The nutrient use system requires correlation of waste application rates
to the nutrient needs of the crop and content of the waste. In most cases,
the factor controlling the amount of runoff wastes that may be applied as
irrigation water will be the total salt content of the liquid rather than the
nutrient needs of the crop. Studies conducted by Manges et al. (8) ,
Kansas State University, have shown an increase in the electrical con-
ductivity of the soil extract, along with a reduction in yield at total
applications of 8 inches per year or more. Data in Table IV-7 give
an indication of the yield reductions from two annual applications of
runoff and the change in electrical conductivity of the soil for the same
period.
IV-27
-------
The most important factor in water use is the daily or monthly use of
the crop. Table IV-8 indicates the daily water use and the total con-
sumptive use of crops grown in Kansas. From this table, one can
determine the total water used each month and subtract rainfall from
this to predict how much water can be disposed of in any month. The
peak use of most crops is approximately 0.3 inches per day. An irri-
gation system should be able to deliver this amount of water; however,
it should be remembered that peak use is a function of evapotranspira-
tion rate and must be determined for each area of climate. The data
given here are from Kansas and would not apply in many areas of the
United States. However, similar data can be obtained for other areas
and the calculations made for the specific area in question. Other
examples of peak use rates are given in Table IV-9.
The selection of equipment for irrigation disposal (Figures IV-14 and
IV-15) will depend upon the total use of the equipment, type of topogra-
phy to be irrigated, the type of crop, and the available labor for the
operation. If the system is to be used for irrigation of a crop with both
fresh water and runoff water, the system will be designed for total irri-
gation of the crop and will only be modified to utilize the runoff water.
If, however, the system is merely for disposal of runoff waste, it may
be sized and operated differently from the previous set of conditions.
Tables IV-10 and IV-11 give some insight to the ability of several
systems to remove a given volume of runoff during a certain time period
and also compare the various systems .
Usually self-propelled sprinkler systems are preferred because of a low
labor requirement; however, their application rates are normally high
and produce runoff on tight soils. If a system is selected to utilize the
runoff wastes as a portion of the water required for an irrigated crop,
considerable storage must be provided to manage application of the
runoff water. This is necessary to allow for both the scheduling of
IV-28
-------
TABLE IV-7
ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY OF SOIL SATURATION EXTRACT AND
YIELD RESPONSE OF CORN AS AFFECTED BY APPLICATION
OF FEEDLOT RUNOFF (8)
1 2
Treatment Electrical Conductivity Forage Yield
Inches of Millimhos/cm Tons/Acre
Applied Runoff (soil extract) 1970 1971
0 0.51 18.7 14.8
2 0.59 20.3 19.8
4 0.82 21.9 22.4
8 0.87 23.7 19-0
16 1.28 26.7 17.2
^Average of four replications
2
Yield corrected to 70% moisture
Average of four replications
TABLE IV-8
DAILY AND TOTAL CONSUMPTIVE USE OF WATER BY CROPS (16)
Daily Water Use Consumptive Use
(Inches Per Day) Inches
Crops
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Alfalfa
.30
.32
.30
.24
29-37
Corn
.07
.31
.33
.15
24-27
Sorghums
.07
.24
.29
.10
20-23
Pasture
.26
.29
.27
.21
25-32
Wheat (winter use)
.26
.00
.00
.00
13-17
IV-2 9
-------
TABLE IV-9
PEAK MOISTURE USE FOR COMMON IRRIGATED CROPS AND OPTIMUM YIELDS (8)
Cool Climate
Moderate Climate
Hot Climate
CROP
Inches j GPM ^
per day per acre
Inches
per day
GPM
per acre
Inches
per day
GPM
per acre
Alfalfa
.20 3.8
.25
4.7
.30
5.7
Cotton
.20 3.8
.25
4.7
.30
5.7
Pasture
.20 3.8
.25
4.7
.30
5.7
Grain
.15 2.8
.20
3.8
.22
4.2
Potatoes
.14 2.8
.20
3.8
.25
4.7
Beets
.20 3.8
.25
4.7
.30
5.7
Orchards
and Groves
.20 3.8
.25
4.7
.30
5.7
Orchards
and Groves
w/Cover
.25 4.7
.28
5.2
.35
6.6
^Acre inches per
acre pt?r day .
^Continuous flow
required per acre at 100% irrigation effi
ciency. Divide
this value by
estimated
Desert Climate
Inches
per day
.35
.35
.35
.30
.30
.35
.35
.38
GPM
per acre
6.6
6.6
6.6
5.7
5.7
6.6
6.6
7.2
-------
TABLE IV-10
ANIMAL WASTE DISPOSAL BY TANKWAGON OR PIPING SYSTEM (15)
Number of Days (10 hours/day) Required to Dispose
of a Given Quantity of Liquid Wastes
Gallons
Per
Minute
Acre-Inch
Per Hour
6
12
Acre-Inches of Waste
24 36 48
60
120
240
25
0.05
12.0
24.0
48.0
50
0.11
5.5
10.9
21.8
32.8
43.6
54.6
100
0.22
2.7
5.5
10.9
16.4
21.8
27.3
54.5
200
0.44
1.4
2.7
5.5
8.2
10.9
13.6
27.3
54.5
300
0.66
1.8
3.6
5.5
7.3
9.1
18.2
36,4
400
0.88
2.7
4.0
5.5
6.8
13.6
27.4
500
1.10
2.2
3.2
4.4
5.5
10.9
21.8
600
1.32
1.8
2.6
3.6
4.6
9.1
18.1
800
1.7?
2.0
2.7
3.4
6.8
13.6
1000
2.21
2.2
2.7
5.4
10.8
UNITS—
1 acre-inch = 27,154 gallons = 3,621 cu, ft.
1 acre-foot = 12 acre-inches = 325,848 gallons = 43,560 cu, ft.
1 acre-inch/hour = 450 gallons/minute = 1 cubic foot/second
-------
TABLE IV-11
WASTE DISPOSAL SYSTEM SELECTION CHART (15)
Type of System
Tank
Wagon Sprinkler
Gravity
Factor
Considered
Honey
Wagon
Hand-Carry
Spr.nl. ler
Traveling
Oun
Towline
Manure
Gun
Solid
Set
Side Roll
Boom
Center
Pivot
Gated
Pipe
Open
Ditch
Soil
Type
Suitable for use on soils with a wide range of intake rates
Moderate to
high intake
soils
Soils with moderate to
low intake rales
Surface
Topography
Adaptable to a wide range of surface topography
Limited to moderately un-
dulating topography
Wide
range
Limited to moderate to
flat slopes
Labor
Required
Very
High on
Urge
operations
nigh
Low
Moder-
ately
low
High on
large
operations
Very
low
Moderate
Very
low
High
Very
high
Manage-
ment re-
quired I}
Low Moderately Low Moderately Low
High
Very
high
Flexi-
bility
for Ex-
pansion
Ti-.~aT
Investment
TSjieriting
f.Ysts2)
In tie* -
ible
3)
Moderate
Inflex-
ible
3)
Moderate
Inflex-
ible
3)
Moderate
Tn-
I'.eX-
thle
3)
Inflex-
ible
3)
Very flexible
Low to M
Moderate
¦derate
Moderate
Lev. to Moderate
High-
est
Low to Moderate
High
Low to
Moderate
Lowest
to High
High
Moderate to High
I.ow
f>U|J
Suit-
ability
All ex
¦ ¦ p- -..:i
growing
t i-i.ps
All
All with Adaptations
All ex-
cept tali
growing
crops
Al!
All
Si IV of
Operation
SrraJI t<. Meiliun. Size
All Sues
Small to
medium site
All Sizes
Large
All sizes; depends
on topography
Type of
F.fHuent
liquids
to ielttl-
lii|Uii:
slurries
Liquids
nr 1 y
Liquids
to semi-
Uquid
slurries
Liquids
only
Liquids
to semi-
liquid
slurries
Liquids
only
Well
filter-
ed
1 iquids
Liquids only
1) Management refers to the skill required, or the ability to set the system and go off and leave it.
2) Operating costs are a small factor in selecting a waste disposal systim.
3) Of course, another system may be purchased.
-------
SELF-PROPELLED IRRIGATION SYSTEM FOR
WASTEWATER DISPOSAL.
BIG GUN NOZZLE USED ON SOME SELF-PROPELLED
IRRIGATION SYSTEMS.
IV-3 3
-------
disposal of the runoff and production of the crop. Spring and fall
runoff events may have to be stored to allow planting and harvesting
of the irrigated crop. This extra storage volume may equal or exceed
the design storage volume .
In order to increase the expected life of irrigation equipment used for
runoff disposal, it is desirable to have enough fresh water to thoroughly
flush the system after each time it is operated, This practice will reduce
the amount of corrosion which might occur from the runoff waste remaining
in the system.
Experimental Treatment System
Spray Runoff Treatment. Spray runoff is a technique which has been
used successfully to treat cannery wastes, producing effluents of suffi-
cient quality for discharge to the environment. The results obtained
by using this treatment method on cannery wastes have shown a potential
for treatment of feedlot wastes, especially rainfall runoff from feed pens
and manure slurries. Preliminary results obtained from pilot- and
full-scale feedlot studies have been most encouraging. Some chemical
reductions measured from samples collected from an experimental full-
scale spray runoff system operating on a 12,000-head capacity feedlot
near McKinney, Texas, are presented in Table IV-12. The system
required a 37 acre-foot storage pond and 8 acres of grass treatment
area for the 50-acre feedlot.
The system basically is a spray irrigation system with a grass-
covered receiving area leveled and sloped so that the runoff flows
evenly over the surface at a predetermined rate; a cross-section view
of the system is shown in Figure IV-16. The treatment is biological
reduction accomplished by a high population of microbes which colonize
on the wet surface of the grass and soil particles. Thus, to maintain
optimum efficiency from the system, a supply of runoff water was main-
tained, and the runoff water was applied to the treatment area daily or
IV-34
-------
every other day to prevent the area from drying out and killing the
population of microbes in the system.
TABLE IV-12
DECREASES OF CONCENTRATIONS OF SOLIDS, OXYGEN DEMAND,
AND NUTRIENTS RESULTING FROM SPRAY RUNOFF TREATMENT
OF RUNOFF-CARRIED WASTES FROM A 12,000-HEAD
NORTH CENTRAL TEXAS BEEF FEEDLOT (4)
Parameter
Total Suspended
Solids
Runoff
Collection
Pond (mg/1)
195.0
Holding
Lagoon
mg/1
125.0
Treated Percent
Discharge Total
mg/1 Reduction
12.0
94
Chemical Oxygen
Demand
430.0
370.0
125.0
71
Biochemical Oxygen
Demand
63.0
28.0
5.0
80
Total Phosphate
Total Nitrogen
13.5
27.7
4.1
16.3
0.5
5.4
96
81
IV- 3 5
-------
Sprinkler Head
Jo
Terroce
°s
'G
*'o.
Interval
250 to350 feet
FIGURE IV-16. SCHEMATIC OF A SPRAY RUNOFF TREATMENT
SYSTEM.
IV - 3 6
-------
REFERENCES
1. Bergsrud, F. G. , Master Report, Kansas State University (1968) .
2. Butchbaker, A. F., J. E. Garton, G, W. A. Mahoney, and
M. D. Paine, "Evaluation of Beef Cattle Feedlot Waste Management
Alternatives," Environmental Protection Agency, Water Pollution
Control Research Report 13040FXG (1971).
3. Chow, V. T. , Handbook of Applied Hydrology, McGraw-Hill,
New York (1964) .
4. Duffer, W. R. and R. D. Kreis, "Effects of Feedlot Runoff on the
Water Quality of a Small Impoundment," Environmental Protection
Agency, Water Pollution Control Research Series, Report
No. 16080GGP07/71 (1971).
5. Gilbertson, C. B. , T. M. McCalla, J. R. Ellis, O. E. Cross, and
W. R. Woods, "The Effect of Animal Density and Surface Slope
on Characteristics of Runoff, Solid Wastes and Nitrate Movement
on Unpaved Beef Feedlots Bulletin SB 508, Agricultural
Experiment Station, University of Nebraska, Lincoln (1970).
6. Gilbertson, C, B. , T. M. McCalla, J. R, Ellis, and W. R. Woods,
"Methods of Removing Settleable Solids from Outdoor Beef Cattle
Feedlot Runoff," A.S.A.E. Paper No. 70-420, American Society
of Agricultural Engineers (July 1970) .
7. Grub, W. , R. C, Albin, D, M. Wells, and R. Z. Wheaton, "The
Effect of Feed, Design, and Management on the Control of Pollu-
tion from Beef Cattle Feedlots," Animal Waste Management,
Cornell University Conference, pp. 217-224, Syracuse, New
York (January 13-15, 1969).
8. Kansas State University, "Demonstration and Development of
Ultimate Disposal of Cattle Feedlot Wastes," Interim Report,
Project Number 13040DAT, Environmental Protection Agency
(1971).
IV-37
-------
9. Loehr, E. C. , "Treatment of Waste from Beef Cattle Feedlots—
Field Results," Animal Waste Management Conference, Cornell
University, New York State College of Agriculture, Ithaca,
New York, p. 225 (1969).
10. McCalla, T. M. , L. R. Frederick, and G. L. Palmer, Manure
Decomposition and Fate of Breakdown in Soil, published as
Paper No. 2742, Journal Series, Nebraska Agricultural Experi-
ment Station, University of Nebraska, Lincoln (1970).
11. Miner, J. R. , R. I. Lipper, L. R. Fina, and J. W. Funk, "Cattle
Feedlot Runoff and Its Nature and Variation," Journal of Water
Pollution Control Federation, Vol. 38, p. 1582, Washington, D.C.
(1966).
12. Miner, J. R., R. I. Lipper, and L. E. Erickson, "Modeling Feed-
lot Runoff Pollution," Transactions of the American Society of
Agricultural Engineers, Vol. 10, p. 597 (1967) .
13. Norton, T. E., and R. W. Hanson, "Cattle Feedlot Water Quality
Hydrology," Animal Waste Management, Cornell University
Conference, pp. 202-216, Syracuse, New York (January 13-15,
1969).
14. Oklahoma Design Manual for Small Structures, SCS, USDA,
Stillwater, Oklahoma (1969).
15. Peterson, Mark, "The Missouri Irrigation and Land Forming
Newsletter," Cooperative Extension Service, University of
Missouri, Vol. 1, No. 4 (August, 1971).
16. Shuyler, L . R . , "Design for Feedlot Waste Management—Using
Feedlot Waste," Presented at Continuing Education Seminar,
Kansas Engineering Society, Topeka, Kansas (January 23, 1969).
17. Smith, S. M. , and J. R. Miner, "Stream Pollution from Feedlot
Runoff," Trans. 14th Annual Conference on Sanitary
Engineering, pp. 18-25, University of Kansas (1964).
IV-38
-------
18. Swanson, N . P., "Broad Basin Terrace Concept of Runoff Control,"
Paper presented at Midwestern Animal Waste Management Conference
National Livestock Feeders Association (November 10-11, 1970).
19. Texas Tech University, "Characteristics of Wastes from South-
western Cattle Feedlots," Report 13040DEM07/70, Environmental
Protection Agency (1970) .
20. U.S. Department of Commerce Weather Bureau, "Rainfall Frequency
Atlas of the United States," Technical Paper 40, Washington, D. C.
(1963).
21. Wells, D. M., E. A. Coleman, W. Grub, R. C. Albin, and G. F.
Meenaghan, "Cattle Feedlot Pollution Study," Interim Report No. 1
to the Texas Water Quality Board, Water Resources Center
Publication No. 69-7, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas
(1969).
IV-39
-------
SECTION V
SOLID WASTES CONTROL
Contents
Page
No,
NATIONAL PROBLEM V-l
CHARACTERISTICS OF MANURE V-l
Waste Amount vs. Ration V-3
Amount of Waste Removed from Pen V-4
COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL V-8
Storage of Solid Wastes V-10
TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL V-iO
Land Application of Solid Wastes V-10
Composting and Drying V-14
Pyrolysis V-15
Refeeding of Animal Wastes V-16
By-Product Recovery V-17
CONCLUSIONS V-l7
REFERENCES V-18
V-i
-------
SECTION V
TABLES
Table Page
No. No.
V-l SOME CONSTITUENTS OF WASTE FROM A 1,000 V-2
POUND BOVINE ON A DAILY AND FEEDING PERIOD
BASIS
V-2 SOLID WASTE ACCUMULATION DURING THE FEEDING V-4
PERIOD
V-3 SOLID WASTE REMOVED FROM FEEDLOTS V-6
V-4 CHARACTERISTICS OF SIX RECENTLY SAMPLED V-ll
MANURES
V-5 MANURE APPLICATION RATES AND 1971 CORN V-12
FORAGE YIELDS
V-6 ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY OF SOIL SATURATION V-l3
AS AFFECTED BY APPLICATION OF MANURE
V-ii
-------
SECTION V
FIGURES
Figure Page
No. No.
V-l THE EFFECT OF SLOPE ON THE REMOVAL OF SOLID V-7
WASTES FROM AN UNPAVED FEEDLOT IN EASTERN
NEBRASKA
V-2 LOADING MANURE IN SPREADER TRUCK USING A V-9
FRONT-END LOADER
V-3 SPREADING MANURE ON CROPLAND WITH SPREADER V-9
TRUCK
V-iii
-------
SECTION V
SOLID WASTES CONTROL
NATIONAL PROBLEM
Agriculture is the largest single source of solid wastes in the United
States and animal wastes are classified as solid wastes. The Council
on Environmental Quality (CEQ), using data from USDA, estimates that
in 1969, 4.34 billion tons of solid wastes were produced in the United
States (15) . Agricultural wastes amounted to 2.28 billion tons of the
total. Animal wastes (manure) are estimated at about 1.85 billion tons
per year or about 43 percent of the nation's total production of solid
wastes.
The beef cattle segment of the industry produces, it is estimated, about
600 million tons annually; thus, 30 percent of all animal wastes are from
beef cattle. It should be pointed out that this figure includes all beef
animals and not just those in feedlots.
Not only is the total tonnage of manure produced important to the cattle
feedlot operator, but also the physical and chemical properties and
characteristics of the manure that must be collected, handled, and
disposed of from the feedlot.
CHARACTERISTICS OF MANURE
The manure as it is defecated by the animals in the feedlot is characterized
by the constituents as approximated in Table V-l. These constituents
are significant since 20 to 30 percent of the organic matter is readily
decomposed by microorganisms that use oxygen. When the components
of manure are permitted to enter a stream, the combination of oxygen
depletion and toxic concentrations of ammonia will result in fish kills.
The dry mineral matter is largely soluble salts so runoff can be high
in salt content and very heavy applications of manure on land can
accentuate a salt (salinity) problem. In some areas, feeders add up to
V-l
-------
TABLE V-I
SOME CONSTITUENTS OF WASTE FROM A 1,000 POUND BOVINE ON A
DAILY AND FEEDING PERIOD BASIS (16) .
Per day
140 days
Lbs.
Lbs •
Wet manure & urine
64.0
8,960.0
Dry mineral matter
2.1
294.0
Dry organic matter
8.2
1,148.0
Water
53.7
7,518.0
Total nitrogen
0.38
55.0
Total phosphorus
0.048
6.7
Total potassium
0.2
36.4
BOD
1.28
179,2
COD
10.5
1,470.0
1 percent salt to the ration to control urinary calculi—a practice that
increases the amount of salt in the waste. The additive is predominately
sodium chloride and the related soil problem is caused by the sodium
ion, which decreases the water intake rates of fine-textured soils
receiving heavy applications of such (saline) manure.
Assuming that 75 percent of the mineral matter on one acre of feed-
lot pens is soluble in water and that it runs off in an acre foot of
water, the salt concentration in the runoff water approximates 8,000 ppm .
This water must be diluted prior to soil application from an electrical
conductivity of 12 mmhos/cm. (a measure of salinity) with 47 acre-feet
of pure water to achieve a conductivity of 0.25 mmhos/cm., the upper
limit of total salt content for a class 1 irrigation water (12). These calcu-
lations do not consider the sodium hazard of the water, which would be
low for animals fed a normal ration but high for those fed a high salt
ration (16) .
V-2
-------
Waste Amount vs. Ration
The total amount of manure produced and, to some degree, the chemical
characteristics of the manure can be altered by the ration that is fed the
animals. If a low total salt ration is provided for the cattle, the manure
will not contain as much sodium as that from animals fed a high salt
ration or from animals allowed salt on a free choice basis. The amount
of roughage used in the ration will markedly affect the amount of manure
produced, as shown in Table V-2. The amounts of manure accumulation
in this table were measured by cleaning the lot after a cycle of cattle and
reflect any biological reduction which occurred on the pen surface.
Feeding an all-concentrate finishing ration to feedlot cattle resulted in
2.3 pounds of dry waste daily accumulation per head. A 12 percent
roughage finishing ration resulted in 5,0 pounds, and a 10 percent
roughage ration resulted in a 4.4 pounds of dry waste per animal per
day (14).
Many solid wastes properties are not known or are highly variable for
wastes coming from open feedlots which affects the physical and chemical
characteristics of the waste. Rainfall runoff carries some of the solid
wastes from the feedlot surfaces and the cattle may cause a mixing action
by trampling the manure into the soil. In the latter case, some soil may
be removed with the manure when the feedlots are cleaned. Also, bio-
degradation of the solid waste material will occur under favorable tempera-
ture and moisture conditions. Increasing the density of the cattle in the
feedlots usually increases moisture content of the feedlot surface. When
feedlot surfaces become dry, some waste constituents, including odor
components, are associated with the dust carried by the wind from the
feedlots. Odors are most prevalent when feedlot surfaces are moist and
temperatures are high enough for bacterial action to occur.
V-3
-------
TABLE V-2
SOLID WASTE ACCUMULATION DURING THE FEEDING PERIOD (14)
Experiment 1
All-
12%
concentrate
Roughage
Item
Ration
Ration
Number of animals
23.0
24.0
Feed dry matter, lb.
60,768
77,110
Waste accumulation
Total pounds
19,110
44,930
Dry matter %
47.0
46.9
Dry matter, lb.
8,982
21,072
Feed: waste ration,
Dry matter basis
6.8:1
3.7:1
Animal days
3,950
4,237
Square feet/animal
95
88
Live weight, lb.
745
775
Daily dry matter waste accumulation
Lb. per head
2.3
5.0
Lb. per 100 lb. live weight
0.31
0.65
Lb. per head per square ft.
0.024
0.057
Amount of Waste Removed from Pen
Typical amounts of solid wastes removed from feedlots with approximately
6 percent and 3 percent slopes, respectively, and located near Lincoln,
Nebraska (5) and Pratt, Kansas (8) are presented in Table V-3. The dry
matter removed in pounds per day per animal and the moisture content
V-4
-------
are shown so that the total weight of the material removed, including the
moisture, can be calculated by Equation (V-I) (3):
TW = lie EQN (V_1)
where: TW = total weight, pounds/day/animal
MC = decimal percent moisture content, wet basis
D = dry matter removed, pounds/day/animal
Some of the values reflect cleaning after each pen of cattle has been fed
whereas others represent two cycles of feeding before cleaning, the
latter permitting nearly a year's accumulation of waste material in the
feedlot. A comparison of the solids removed from an unpaved feedlot
in eastern Nebraska to the slope of the lot is shown in Figure V-l.
A rule of thumb of approximately 1 ton of solid waste material per animal
in the feedlot has been commonly used as the amount of solid waste materi-
al that has to be removed from an open feedlot. Based upon the central
Kansas feedlot data (Table V-3) for a 150 day feeding period, the amount
of dry material removed per animal ranges from approximately 0.75
tons/animal to about 1.2 tons/animal. If one considers that the moisture
content of the material is approximately 40 percent wet basis, then the
range in total weight of the solids removed per animal is from 1.2 tons
to 2.0 tons per animal. From these data, it is apparent that considerable
variation can exist in the amount of material removed from a feedlot.
Some variation was probably attributable to cattle remaining in the pens
for more than one feeding period before the material was removed, thus
permitting more mixing of the soil and feces. When lots are operated
under very sloppy conditions, mixing of soil and manure by cattle activity
is increased. Soil mixing is probably greater on steeper slopes of 6 to
10 percent than on lesser slopes, such as the 3 to 6 percent slopes
(FigureV-1). It has been shown by McCalla, et al., (10) that 55
V-5
-------
TABLE V-3
SOLID WASTE REMOVED FROM FEEDLOTS (3)
Feedlot
Location
Days
Accumulated
Date of
Removal
Animal
Density
(ft /animal)
Dry Matter
Removed
(Pounds/day/animal)
Moistui
Con ten
(% w. b
Eastern
Nebraska
112
Nov.
7
100
8.6
52
112
Nov,
7
200
5.7
54
203
June
27
100
14.3*
33
203
June
27
200
20.1*
40
South Central
Kansas
163
Feb.
25
250
15.8
39
290
Aug.
21
261
13.7*
34
287
Oct.
7
238
15.9*
24
153
Nov.
14
208
10.4
39
~Values based upon pen capacity rather than total number fed during two feeding periods.
-------
40.0
0
UJ
> —
1 1
UJ ¦-
K §
UJ
^ CO
2 ^
£ o
-------
percent of the fecal organic matter is biologically degraded on the lot
itself. The Nebraska studies indicated that up to 95 percent of the
dry material removed from the lot was soil.
Grub (6) found that if the accumulated waste is kept moist, either as a
result of maintaining a high density of animals in the feedlot or as a
result of weather conditions, biological degradation of the waste proceeds
at a rate proportional to its temperature. As long as the moisture con-
tent of the waste exceeds about 40 percent w.b., a 10° C rise in tempera-
ture roughly doubles the rate at which degradation occurs. During dry
weather, when the organic mass may contain as little as 2 percent w.b.
moisture, very little biological or chemical activity occurs.
COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL
The methods of removing solid waste from a feedlot are many and varied.
This section of the manual will deal only with solid floor design and
wastes in the solid form. Slurries and water flushing to form slurries
are discussed in Section VI.
The first step in removal of the manure from the lot surface is scraping
the manure in piles or windrows. Care should be taken not to disturb
the manure pack on the lot surface. This pack prevents the movement
of moisture and pollutants downward into the water table; it also pro-
vides for an anaerobic zone at the interface between the pack and the
soil which promotes denitrification and helps prevent nitrate movement
beyond this zone (11) . Once the manure has been scraped it may be
removed from the feedlot with several machines or combinations thereof
(Figure V-2) . If the manure is to be stockpiled for sale or later applica-
tion to cropland, large carryalls or trucks loaded with front-end loaders
may be employed to transport the material to a suitable storage area. If
the manure is to be transported immediately to a disposal site, spreader
trucks will probably be used (Figure V-3) .
V-8
-------
FIGURE V-2. LOADING MANURE IN SPREADER TRUCK USING
A FRONT-END LOADER.
FIGURE V-3 . SPREADING MANURE ON CROPLAND WITH
SPREADER TRUCK.
V-9
-------
In some feedlot operations the manure is simply mounded within the pen
and left for the cattle to lie on in wet weather. This practice seems to
be more useful in feedlots located on fine textured soils and the practice
is used extensively in eastern Nebraska.
The factors affecting the removal of solid wastes from the feedlot and
affecting the method of removal are:
1. moisture content of the wastes,
2. animal density (amount of wastes per acre) ,
3. length of time from previous cleaning,
4. amount and intensity of rainfall,
5. slope of lot surface,
6. size of pens,
7. total capacity of feedlot,
8. hauling requirements and ultimate disposal, and
9. soil type.
Storage of Solid Wastes
The storage of solid wastes from a feedlot presents several opportunities
for possible water pollution problems.
Solid waste storage areas must be designed. They should not be located
by simply deciding that a particular area is a handy place to pile manure.
The storage area should be planned to eliminate all runoff water from
other land areas thereby avoiding its contact with the stored manure.
The drainage and runoff water originating in the storage area must be
handled in the same manner as runoff from the feed pens. If possible,
runoff from solid waste storage areas should drain by gravity into the
runoff control system used by the feedlot.
TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL
Land Application of Solid "Wastes
The disposal of animal wastes on agricultural land is one of the oldest
fertilizer programs used by man. However, with the concentration of
V-10
-------
TABLE V-4.
CHARACTERISTICS OF SIX RECENTLY SAMPLED MANURES (1)
Dry weight, percentage and pounds (per ton) an tsoiet basis. Analysis percentages on oven-dry basis.
Soluble Cations'
Moisture
Content
Dry Weight
Organic1
Matter
Sane
I3
:iitro
Ken'
Phosphorus1"
(PjOO
Soluble*
Salts
Calcium 6
Magnesium
Soiiium
Potassium
Sample
A
Lbs.
X
Lbs.
*
Lbs •
7.
Lba.
X
Lbs,
%
Lbs.
*
Lbs,
%
Lbs.
2
!.bn.
Lbs.
Dairy
20
400
80
1,600
49
790
26
420
1.6
26
1.2
18
B.9
142
0.15
2.4
l.l
18.2
2.3
36.8
Feedlot
A
52
1,040
46
960
62
590
22
210
1.8
17
1.3
13
10.6
102
.08
0.8
0.6
6.0
3.8
36.8
Feedlot
it
J1
620
69
1.3S0
53
725
29
400
1.9
26
0.8
12
8.0
110
.27
3.8
0.8
10.8
2.2
30.8
Feedlot
c
25
500
75
1,500
40
600
38
570
1.6
24
1.4
20
9.5
143
.13
2.0
1.2
18.6
2.4
36.3
Feedlot
0
20
4U0
au
1,600
44
700
41
660
1.6
26
1.2
19
4.2
67
.06
1.0
0.5
8.0
1.2
lfl.9
Feedlot
t
24
460
76
1,520
38
575
47
710
1.4
22
1.0
IS
7.2
109
.10
1.5
0.8
12.2
2.0
30.4
Ave rage
29
588
71
1,430
4(1
668
34
496
1.65
23.5
1.14
16. J
8.1
112
0.13
1.9
0.85
12.3
2.3
il.7
1Oven-dry weight less weight of ash,
JAsh not soluble In hydrochloric utlJ.
'total, not including anmunia, etc. lost upon drying at 75°C.
'"Total, by ashing 16 hours at 450°C,
'Determined in 1;20 titanuremoter extract.
-------
large numbers of animals in feedlots and the availability and price of
commercial fertilizers, many farmers are not interested in using animal
wastes on their fields. For a quick review of the characteristics of a
ton of feedlot manure see Table V-4. All the weights exclude water and
are based on the dry weights of the components in a ton of manure.
Application rates of manure will depend upon the characteristic of the
wastes, the type of agriculture practiced on the land (pasture, dryland
farming or irrigation), and on the soil type and existing salinity condi-
tions of the soil, It can be seen from Table V-4 that soluble salts make
up a considerable portion of the manure (about 8 percent on the average) .
Most research has indicated 10 to 30 tons of manure per acre annually
will not affect crop production adversely; however, in some soils, salt
accumulation may occur even at these rates.
Research being conducted by Kansas State University (EPA Grant 13040
DAT) at Pratt Feedlot, Inc., Pratt, Kansas, on irrigated land indicates
that the maximum yield of corn forage was obtained with about 48 tons of
dry manure per year (8) . The results of this study are presented in
Table V-5, wherein all amounts of manure are reported in dry tons.
TABLE V-5
MANURE APPLICATION RATES AND 1971 CORN FORAGE YIELDS (8)
Manure Application,
Tons/Acre^
2
Corn Forage Yield
Treatment
1970
1971
Total
Tons/Acre
M 1
0
0
0
15,0
M 2
12
10
22
15.7
M 3
20
17
37
19.3
M 4
50
46
96
21.9
M 5
82
76
158
17.9
M 6
81
0
81
21.9
M 7
122
170
292
13.6
M 8
128
0
128
17.1
M 9
223
238
461
8.6
M10
236
0
236
18.3
Average of four replications.
2
Average of four replications; yield corrected to 70% moisture content.
V-12
-------
Yield data from this study may present an over optimistic view, since
the accumulation of salts in the soil profile may take more than two
years to become critical at the lower application rates.
Table V-6 presents the electrical conductivity data from this same study
and gives a better insight into the salinity problems associated with
manure disposal,
TABLE V-6
ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY OF SOIL SATURATION
AS AFFECTED BY APPLICATION OF MANURE (8)
Treatments Electrical Conductivity*
Tons/acre Millimhos/cm
0
0.52
10
0.59
20
0.72
40
0.93
80
1.17
160
1.83
320
2.58
"'"Average of four replications
This data indicates slight salt increases up to 20 tons per acre. Only
when the rate reaches 320 tons does the electrical conductivity approach
a critical level for sensitive crops. Not all crops react to salt in the same
manner; Red Clover, for example, is a sensitive crop, while Bermuda
grass is very tolerant of high salt levels. If long term, heavy loadings
of manure are to be applied to a tract of land, a salinity control program
must be established to insure continued crop production. This program
will require a detailed soil testing survey before any manure is applied
V-13
-------
and at regular intervals (usually annually) while the land is being used
as a disposal site. A management system should be developed after the
initial survey and should be followed carefully throughout the time the
land is used as a disposal site. Assistance in developing such a program
can usually be obtained from the Soil Conservation Service and the State
Agricultural University.
Composting and Drying
Composting and drying have been investigated in some depth for animal
wastes; however, only a few systems are in operation today. The
success of composting and drying requires a market for the finished
product. Since these markets are not yet available on a general basis,
they must be developed (3) . The high nitrogen and organic content of
animal manures makes these wastes a desirable supplement to the com-
posting of municipal wastes t and it is advantageous to combine the two
whenever possible. Composting of manure does have two very important
advantages: (a) the volume of manure is reduced by as much as 40 per-
cent; (b) the temperature attained during the composting process will,
in most cases, destroy the germination potential of any weed seeds in
the manure (17) .
Composting studies at Texas Tech University (7) have shown that the
composting of feedlot manure is a feasible process. The success of the
system is dependent upon several factors. The ratio of carbon to
nitrogen in the manure should be at least 30: 1. The moisture content
of the manure on a wet weight basis must be at least 30 percent and
should not exceed 50 percent. Since the compost pile may, and probably
will, need more oxygen than it can obtain naturally, air will need to be
forced through the pile. When all these conditions are met and the compost
is stirred frequently, the process should have fly problems only in the
very early stages of composting, and the odors should not be offensive.
Composting time varies, dependent upon the condition of the waste, but
should range from two to four weeks .
V-14
-------
Because of its extremely high initial moisture content (approximately 85
percent wet basis) , heated air drying of beef cattle waste requires only
slightly more energy input than does evaporation from a free water
surface, down to a moisture content of 25 to 30 percent wet basis. How-
ever, this requirement is high, between 1,000 and 1,100 BTU/pound of
water at 100 percent efficiency. If the dried product itself is to be used
as the fuel, it is necessary to reduce the moisture content to approximately
30 percent (wet basis) for combustion; its heating value has been found
to range between 5,400 to 5,800 BTU/pound of dry matter. Using a con-
servative estimate of the energy requirement, a simple calculation
demonstrates the economic infeasibility of drying schemes under most
circumstances (9) . Several animal waste drying systems have ceased
operations because of odors and the lack of a profitable market for dried
products (17).
Pyrolysis
Pyrolysis usually refers to the chemical decomposition of organic materials
heated to a high temperature in an environment with insufficient oxygen
to support combustion. This process might be termed "anaerobic incinera-
tion" to contrast it with normal incineration, which occurs in an excess
of oxygen.
Pyrolysis is being used in wood distillation, coal coking, and petroleum
refining and has also been investigated as a means of handling solid
wastes such as wood, rubber, newspaper, corrugated box paper, lawn-
grass, citrus fruit wastes, and vegetable food wastes. The gaseous
mixture from these materials yielded, among other things, C02, CO, H^,
CH^, C2H4, C^H^, and N2 (4). Some of these gases could be separated
and converted to beneficial uses.
One of the advantages of pyrolysis is a reduction in the volume of total
solids that require disposal. Another is that since the solid residue is
dry and innocuous it can be stored and later used as a filler for fertilizer
or disposed of by land filling.
V-15
-------
From some of the research already completed and assuming that a market
can be found lor some of the products» it appears that pyrolysis of animal
wastes is, at very best, a break-even economic system (4) . If, however,
the economic situation changes favorably for by-product recovery and
use, pyrolysis might merit further consideration for application to
animal wastes.
Refeeding of Animal Wastes
The idea of recycling or refeeding the manure produced by an animal
back to that animal or to some other species of animal is not new. Many
researchers and animal producers are presently experimenting with
various methods of refeeding animal wastes, Anthony (2) has stated,
"Organic waste collected from livestock reared in confinement can be
effectively used as an animal feed."
Refeeding ideas vary greatly from adding raw manure directly to the
feed to complete processing with harvest and subsequent feeding of
produced protein. Refeeding of manure is not a common practice today;
however, the concept is being researched and developed and may some-
day become feasible. A tremendous amount of research and testing
must be done if such a process is to be accepted and legally added to
the ration of any animal.
Taylor (13) points out in recent speeches that the FDA has not sanctioned
and does not sanction the use of poultry litter as a feedstuff for animals
and that Section 3. 59 of the Code of Federal Regulations is a formal
statement of policy regarding the use of poultry litter as a feedstuff for
animals. Research in this area is not discouraged; however, the need
for information on animal and human safety is stressed when animal
wastes are proposed for use in the rations of livestock. At this time,
the FDA does not have sufficient information to modify its present
policy.
V-16
-------
Though FDA policy relates to poultry wastes, it is safe to assume that
all refeeding of animal wastes will fall under these constraints.
By-Product Recovery
The concept of by-product recovery has been the goal of almost all
animal waste disposal and treatment systems discussed in this section.
Researchers are working on conversion of animal wastes to fuel and
oil products. One system for production of oil has been studied in the
laboratory. Other researchers are working on conversion of manure
to pipeline gas, and still others are considering conversion into synthesis
gas for ammonia production. The conversion of municipal solid wastes
into construction materials has been mildly successful both here in the
United States and in foreign countries and this conversion idea is also
being researched for animal wastes.
The above concepts are but a few of the many interesting and promising
ideas that need more study and refinement before any of them are ready
for widespread use by the animal production industry. These concepts
stress the fact that the means of solid waste control will change with time
and that no one idea or system is going to solve the solid wastes problems
for all animal producers. Several systems are needed to allow the
producer to select a system or combination of systems that will solve his
special problem and be economically sound in relation to the total produc-
tion unit for which it is designed.
CONCLUSIONS
The solid waste disposal problem for cattle feedlots is, for the most part,
being solved today by spreading the manure on agricultural land. Some
drying and composting systems are being successfully operated in loca-
tions where a market has been developed that will provide enough return
to pay for the process.
Many reuse, recycle, and recovery systems are being studied today;
however, none of these have been fully developed.
V-17
-------
REFERENCES
1. Abbott, J. L., "Use Animal Manure Effectively," Bulletin A-55,
Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Arizona, Tucson,
Arizona (1968) .
2. Anthony, W. B., "Cattle Manure: Reuse Through Wastage
Feeding," Animal Waste Management, Cornell University
Conference, Syracuse, New York (January 13-15, 1969).
3. Butchbaker, A. F., J.E. Garton, G. W. A. Mahoney, and
M. D. Paine, "Evaluation of Beef Cattle Feedlot Waste
Management Alternatives," Final Report, Grant 13040FXG,
EPA (1971).
4. Garner, W., C. E. Bricker, T. L. Ferguson, C. J. W. Wiegand,
and A. D. McElroy, "Pyrolysis as a Method of Disposal of
Cattle Feedlot Wastes," Waste Management Research, Cornell
University (1972).
5. Gilbertson, C. B., T. M. McCalla, J. R. Ellis, 0. E. Cross
and W. R. Woods, "The Effect of Animal Density and Surface
Slope on Characteristics of Runoff, Solid Wastes and Nitrate
Movement on Unpaved Beef Feedlots," Bulletin SB 508,
Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Nebraska,
Lincoln (1970).
6. Grub, E. W. , R. C. Albin, D. M. Wells and R. Z. Wheaton,
"Engineering Analysis of Cattle Feedlots to Reduce Water
Pollution," Transaction of the A.S.A.E. No. 12, pp. 490-492,
495 (1969).
7. Grub, E. W., J. D. Martin, and L. L. Keeton, "Aerobic
Stabilization of Beef Feedlot Wastes," Paper No. 70-909,
presented winter meeting A.S.A.E. Chicago, December 8-11,
1970.
V-18
-------
8. Kansas State University, "Demonstration and Development of
Facilities for Treatment and Ultimate Disposal of Cattle Feedlot
Wastes," Unpublished Interim Report, Project Number 13040
DAT, EPA.
9. Loehr, R, C. , "Pollution Implications of Animal Wastes--A
Forward Oriented Review," Robert S. Kerr Water Research
Center, FWPCA, USDI, Ada, Oklahoma (1968).
10. McCalla, T, M. , L. R. Frederick, and G. L. Palmer, "Manure
Decomposition and Fate of Breakdown in Soil," published as
Paper No. 2742, Journal Series, Nebraska Agricultural
Experiment Station, University of Nebraska, Lincoln (1970).
11. Mielke, L. N. , J. R. Ellis, N. P. Swanson, J. C, Lorimore,
and T. M. McCalla, "Groundwater Quality and Fluctuation in
a Shallow Unconfined Aquifer Under a Level Feedlot," Paper
presented at the Cornell Agricultural Waste Management
Conference, Rochester, New York, January 19, 1970.
12. Richards, L. A., Diagnosis and Improvement of Saline and
Alkali Soil, Agricultural Handbook No. 60, USDA (February
1954).
13. Taylor, J. C. , "Regulatory Aspects of Recycled Livestock and
Poultry Wastes," Proceedings of International Symposium on
Livestock Wastes, Ohio State University (1971).
14. Texas Tech University, "Characteristics of Waste from
Southwestern Cattle Feedlots," Water Pollution Control Research
Series, Grant 13040DEM, EPA (1971).
15. Train, R. E. , R. Cahn, and G, J. McDonald, "Environmental
Quality," The First Annual Report of the Council on
Environmental Quality, Washington, D. C. (1970).
V-19
-------
16. Viets, F. G., Jr., "The Mounting Problem of Cattle Feedlot
Pollution," Agricultural Science Review, Vol. 9, No. 1, First
Quarter (1971).
17. Wiley, J. S., "A Report on Three Manure Composting Plants,"
Compost Science 5: 15 (1964) .
V-20
-------
SECTION VI
LIQUID SLURRY WASTES TECHNOLOGY
Contents
Page
No.
WASTE COLLECTION AND TRANSPORT TO STORAGE VI-2
Tractor-mounted Scrapers VI-2
Shallow Underfloor Pit Scrapers VI-2
Hydraulic Transport VI-4
LIQUID AND SLURRY WASTE STORAGE/TREATMENT VI-6
Anaerobic Storage/Treatment Components VI-7
Anaerobic Tank Storage VI-8
Site Selection VI-9
Sizing the Storage VI-9
Tank Construction VI-11
Agitators VI-12
Tank Storage Management VI-12
Anaerobic Lagoon Storage VI-15
Site Selection VI-16
Sizing the Lagoon VI-17
Lagoon Construction VI-20
Management of Anaerobic Lagoons VI-20
Anaerobic Digester VI-22
Digester Design Parameters Vl-23
Aerobic Storage/Treatment Components VI-23
Naturally Aerated (Oxidation) Ponds VI-24
Design and Management VI-25
Vl-i
-------
Page
No.
Mechanically Aerated Lagoons VI-25
Site Selection VI-26
Aerated Lagoon and Aeration Design VI-26
Aerated Lagoon Management VI-27
Oxidation Ditch VI-29
Oxidation Ditch Design VI-32
Oxidation Ditch Management VI-33
Combined Aerobic-Anaerobic and Miscellaneous VI-34
Treatment
Anaerobic and Aerated Lagoons VI-35
Anaerobic Lagoon with Aerated Surface VI-36
Barriered Landscape Water Renovation System VI-36
(BLWRS)
Spray Runoff System VI-39
Solids Separation VI-39
Free Drainage VI-39
Stationary Screen VI-40
Vibrating Screen VI-41
Other Mechanical Devices VI-41
Chemical Treatment VI-42
Liquid-Slurry Transport VI-42
Spreader System VI-44
Irrigation Systems VI-45
Design Considerations VI-47
Choice of Pump VI-47
Estimation of Deposition Velocity VI-49
Calculation of Friction Head Loss VI-51
Management Considerations VI-53
Disposal, Destruction, and Reuse of Liquid/Slurry Wastes VI-53
Land Application VI-54
Application Rates for Slurry Wastes VI-54
REFERENCES VI-58
Vl-ii
-------
SECTION VI
TABLES
Table Page
No. No.
VI-1 SLURRY AGITATION EQUIPMENT VI-13
VI-2 PROPERTIES OF ANAEROBIC DECOMPOSITION GASES VI-14
VI-3 CHARACTERISTICS OF AVAILABLE AERATION VI-28
EQUIPMENT
VI-4 PERFORMANCE OF ANAEROBIC-AEROBIC LAGOON VI-35
VI-5 AVERAGE DAIRY CATTLE WASTEWATER PARAMETER VI-39
VALUES FOR THE BLWRS
VI-6 SOLIDS/LIQUID SEPARATION EFFICIENCIES OF VI-42
SELECTED MACHINES
VI-7 IRRIGATION FACTORS FOR LIQUID/SLURRY WASTES VI-43
VI-8 LIQUID/SLURRY WASTE DISPOSAL SYSTEM SELECTION VI-46
VI-9 TYPICAL VALUES OF BEEF WASTES PARAMETERS VI-55
VI-10 EFFECT OF TREATMENT/STORAGE ON NUTRIENT VI-56
RECOVERY BY CORN CROP
Vl-iii
-------
SECTION VI
FIGURES
Figure Page
No, No.
VI-1 SELECTED OPTIONS FOR COLLECTION AND VI-3
TRANSPORT OF LIQUID/SLURRY WASTES TO
STORAGE
VI-2 SCHEMATIC VIEW OF LAGOON WITH DIMENSIONS VI-19
VI-3 DEPONDING HOSE VI-21
VI-4 EXPLODED VIEW OF CONFINEMENT BUILDING AND VI-31
OXIDATION DITCH
VI-5 SCHEMATIC CROSS-SECTION OF BLWRS VI-38
VI-6 STATIONARY SCREEN VI-40
VI-7 VIBRATING SCREEN, CROSS-SECTIONAL VIEW VI-41
VI-8 CENTRIFUGAL SLURRY PUMP CHARACTERISTICS VI-48
VI-9 ADVANCING CAVITY SLURRY PUMP CHARACTERISTICS VI-48
VI-10 POSITIVE DISPLACEMENT SLURRY PUMP CHARACTER- VI-48
ISTICS
VI-II SOLIDS DEPOSITION FACTOR VI-50
VI-12 PRESSURE DROP OF MANURE SLURRY THROUGH A VI-52
2-INCH PIPE
VI-13 PRESSURE DROP OF MANURE SLURRY THROUGH A VI-52
3-INCH PIPE
Vl-iv
-------
SECTION VI
LIQUID AND SLURRY WASTES TECHNOLOGY
Liquid/slurry beef wastes management systems can be defined as those
which handle material having a moisture content equal to or greater than
85 percent, wet basis, the average moisture content of fresh excreta.
Such systems typically perform four functions: (a) waste collection and
transport to storage, (b) storage/treatment, (c) transport from storage,
and (d) reuse, further processing, or disposal. In addition, solids
separation processes may be employed.
Slurry systems have the following characteristics:
1. A high degree of mechanization is possible, with consequent
reduction of labor as well as unpleasantness in waste handling
tasks.
2. Nutrient retention and availability to crops can be maximized.
3. A high degree of insect, odor, and water pollution control is
possible.
4. Only one set of waste handling and storage components is
needed, rather than both liquid and solids equipment.
5. Frequency of disposal is controlled by the size of the temporary
storage/treatment holding structure(s) .
A variety of unit processes is available to accomplish these functions.
The remainder of the section is organized according to the five above-
mentioned functions: collection, storage/treatment, transport from
storage, solids separation, and reuse/disposal. A unit operations
approach is used, describing each component separately but noting the
pertinent characteristics necessary to incorporate it in a system design;
common combinations of systems components are mentioned. Occasional
cross-reference to related topics in Section IV, Runoff Carried Wastes,
and Section V, Solid Waste Control , is made.
VI-1
-------
WASTE COLLECTION AND TRANSPORT TO STORAGE
Beef feedlot facilities utilizing liquid/slurry wastes handling systems fall
into two groups: (a) slotted floor confinement buildings, and (b) solid
floor buildings or paved open lots. Selected combinations for collection
and transport of wastes from these housing systems are shown schemat-
ically in Figure VI-1. Hybrid systems utilizing slats in combination with
solid floors, are also common; these require periodic scraping of the
solid portion or flushing with fresh or recycled water. Further discus-
sion of slotted floors is found in Section II in the section entitled "Total
Confinement Buildings; " the possibility of intermediate solids removal
is discussed later in Section IV under section title: "Solids Separation
Processes."
Tractor-mounted Scrapers
The use of tractor-mounted scrapers is applicable to paved open lots and
to confinement buildings having a solid or partially slotted floor. Several
scraper designs are reported in use by Payne (40):
1. pull type scrapers having fixed wings on the end of the blade
to retain the slurry,
2. pull type scapers with hinged wings on the blade ends (for
improved efficiency on sloped surfaces),
3. push type blades with either wing option, and
4. multi-purpose scoops or buckets .
For small enterprises or tight corners, 2-wheeled, powered, walking
scrapers are also available.
Shallow Underfloor Pit Scrapers
Three types of scrapers are used in shallow pits beneath slotted
floors (40):
1. winch-powered scrapers having blades up to approximately 10
feet in width and with a maximum travel of 525 feet;
VI-2
-------
Mechonicol Scraping
Flushing With Added Water or
Recycled Liquid
GRAVITY
SOLIDS SETTLING
I
Mechanical Scraping or
Flushing
ANAEROBIC
LAGOON
AERATED
LAGOON
STORAGE
TANK
OXIDATION
DITCH
UNDERFLOOR
OXIDATION
DITCH
FRESH WASTE (SLURRY)
UNDERFLOOR
DEEPSTORAGE
TANK
UNDERFLOOR
SHALLOW
PIT
SLOTTED FLOOR
SOLID FLOOR BUILDING OR PAVED LOT
FIGURE VI-1. SELECTED OPTIONS FOR COLLECTION AND TRANSPORT OF LIQUID/SLURRY
WASTES TO STORAGE.
-------
2. reciprocating scrapers having blades which open on the forward
stroke and fold on the return stroke, intermittently moving the
waste into a collection structure (these are reported to have a
maximum width of approximately 6 feet and a maximum length
of 200 feet); and
3. continuous chain and flight (gutter cleaner) scrapers up to
1.5 feet in width and making a maximum 450 foot circuit (due
to their narrow width, these may be used primarily as a trans-
fer conveyor to the storage structure) .
Pits are normally only 1 to 2 feet deep, and are scraped at least daily
to minimize fly and odor problems in the building. Slurry storage can
be in a pit located at one end of the building» in an outdoor lagoon» or
in an underground tank.
Hydraulic Transport
An alternative to scraping solid floor confinement buildings and paved
open lots is flushing the waste from the surface to a storage structure.
With proper design, such a system can be made essentially automatic.
However, even with recycle of wastewater for flushing, an appreciable
volume of fresh water must be added to facilitate pumping and to trans-
port the solids load. This increases the amount of liquid which must be
stored, treated, and disposed of. Additional disadvantages for paved
lots in cool climates are continuous dampness and possible frozen
surfaces.
Prediction of solids transport in a flushed system is difficult. The
following expression has been suggested to describe the parameters of
the process (41):
VI-4
-------
T = N (SQ) 5/3
EQN (VI-1)
where: T = sediment carrying capacity, lb./ft. 3
N = a constant dependent on particle size and density
S = surface slope, decimal
Q = discharge flow rate, ft. 3/min.
By a simple test measuring slope, discharge rate, and weight of solids
transported, the constant can be determined for the waste being flushed;
knowing the waste production rate and surface slope, Equation (VI-1)
might then be used to predict the flow rate needed in the system. In
systems flushed with a hose, a flow rate of 4,500 gallons per hour at
15 psig through a 1-inch nozzle was found to be sufficient (40).
A 12,000 head Texas feedlot is reported to use a hydraulic flushing
system on pens having a 2 percent slope (4) . In this operation, flushed
wastes are collected in a 12-inch underground sewer line located at the
lower end of each 100 ft. x 260 ft. pen. The 12-inch lines then join a
36-inch main leading to a 500,000 ft. 3 concrete reservoir, from whence
the slurry is pumped for irrigation. No flow rates for the system were
given.
In a Canadian confinement housing facility, dairy cattle wastes under-
neath a slotted floor are flushed periodically by the rush of water from
a suddenly-opened sluice gate into a pumping pit (52) . This cycle is
repeated using a 2 to 3 foot head of dilute slurry until all solids have
been washed into the pit. At 9 to 10 percent solids, the slurry may be
removed by tank wagon or pumped to a holding tank for long-term
storage.
In another installation, a small experimental confinement building with
a shallow pit beneath a slotted floor employed only treated and recycled
wastewater as the flushing medium (43) . Solids settling followed by
various anaerobic, aerobic, and chemical treatments all failed to produce
an effluent with odor levels acceptably low for flushing; the recycled
VI-5
-------
wastewater also developed an aesthetically displeasing dark color. From
these results, it would appear that dilution water is necessary for recycle
of flushing water. In tests with swine wastewater (18), however, the
Barriered Landscape Water Renovation System (Liquid and Slurry Waste
Storage/Treatment, Section VI) produced an effluent suitable for flushing;
such a treatment, coupled with solids settling, shows promise as a beef
wastes handling system.
LIQUID AND SLURRY WASTE STORAGE/TREATMENT
Because animal excreta are in a state of virogous decomposition from the
time they are produced, no feasible detention structure will serve strictly
as a storage without also permitting additional breakdown of the wastes.
Choice of one or more storage/treatment options is a function of: (a) the
method of waste collection and the resulting waste volume, (b) the maxi-
mum period of storage required, (c) the type and degree of processing
to be given the waste, (d) pollution control requirements while in
storage, and (e) the means of ultimate use or disposal of the waste.
Liquid and slurry waste treatments fall into two major classes, aerobic
and anaerobic, based on the degree to which oxygen is available to
decomposition microorganisms. No chemical or physical liquid/slurry
treatment processes (other than solids separation) are presently in
common use in beef feeding enterprises; hence the two classes, aerobic
and anaerobic, plus combined aerobic-anaerobic treatment, will be used
as the basis for discussion of the intermediate stages of a liquid/slurry
waste management system. At the present time, no proven storage/treat-
ment exists which will produce an effluent suitable for discharge to a
watercourse; therefore, treatments presented in this section cannot be
viewed as a means to ultimate disposal.
In the subsections which follow, major factors of choice for each component
are first enumerated to enable the user to determine his potential interest.
Next, special considerations of site selection and climate are discussed.
VI-6
-------
Finally, component design, construction, and management are detailed
for use in intensive planning.
Anaerobic Storage/Treatment Components
Anaerobic waste decomposition processes take place in an environment
lacking free oxygen gas. The chemical kinetics of these processes are
extremely complex and are not completely understood. A central fact
to remember in design and management of an anaerobic process is that
contact with atmospheric oxygen must be minimized.
Important characteristics of the anaerobic decomposition process are
given by Miner (35);
1. A large percentage of the gas given off is methane (natural
gas), which can potentially be used as an energy source
for heating, generation of electricity, etc. In some cases,
the explosive nature of this gas can create a hazard.
2. A major reduction in slurry solids content is achieved through
anaerobic decomposition processes, reduction of sludge
buildup in the storage and promotion of good liquid material
handling characteristics.
3. Well-decomposed sludge from the process has only a slight
musty odor and is readily dewatered by free drainage. These
characteristics favor land disposal, with minimum nuisance
problems.
4. Minor gases given off from partially anaerobically decomposed
matter are both noxious and toxic, producing potential nuisance
and safety hazards in storage and during slurry land disposal
operations,
5. Like all biological processes, anaerobic decomposition is quite
temperature dependent, with maximum efficiency reach well
above common ambient temperatures. A pH of 6.5 is considered
optimal.
VI-7
-------
6. Pesticides, antibiotics, salts, and other residues are toxic to
bacteria and will, in significant amounts, impair treatment
efficiency.
7. Since effluents of anaerobic treatment processes are too
pollutionally potent for discharge to a watercourse, land
disposal is commonly practiced. Three anaerobic components
have been used to store/treat animal wastes: (a) storage
tanks, (b) anaerobic lagoons, and (c) anaerobic digesters.
Anaerobic Tank Storage
A common type of slurry storage associated with slotted floor confinement
buildings and small paved lots is the underground tank. This structure,
which may be located under the floor of the housing facility or beneath
an outdoor slab, is used primarily to provide flexibility in the scheduling
of land disposal operations, rather than for treatment. A typical tank is
constructed of reinforced concrete with a depth of 8 to 10 feet and is
sized according to the number of animals it serves and the number of
days between spreading operations .
Considerations in the choice of this component are:
1. Due to the high capital cost per unit volume, it is necessary
to restrict the amount of water entering with the excreta.
This may preclude the use of a flushing system and will
require precautions to prevent the entrance of rainwater
and runoff.
2. The storage capacity needed will depend on the animal popu-
lation and the disposal schedule. One cubic foot per 950
pound animal per day is a common design figure; in the
northern Midwest, 6 months of storage may be necessary.
3. Land disposal is the only common use of anaerobically stored
wastes; specialized slurry agitation and materials handling
equipment are needed. Maximum percentages of fertilizer
nutrients are retained by this storage method.
VI-8
-------
4. A well-constructed tank will permit no groundwater pollution
via seepage. During storage, the quiescent slurry and
covered tank tend to minimize odor problems. Tank agita-
tion and spreading operations, however, release strong
noxious odors.
Site Selection. To minimize possible contamination of groundwater, the
tank should be located downgrade and at least 100 feet away from the
water supply well (33, 46). Unstable soil or fractured bedrock under
the tank can cause uneven settling and consequent cracking of the
structure; such locations should be stabilized or avoided. Flotation and
failure due to external hydrostatic pressure may occur if the tank is
located below a high water table or on a flood plain. A location down-
wind from nearby neighbors will minimize the chance of odor complaints.
In new confinement housing facilities, building the tank beneath the
slotted floor achieves some inherent cost saving, since the floor and
footings of the building are incorporated into the structure of the tank;
however, constant forced-draft ventilation of these tanks to the outside
is necessary. Tanks not open to the building do not require constant
ventilation.
Sizing the Storage. The volume required for slurry storage depends
not only on the number of animals in the production unit and their ration
and environment but also on the management of the system and the
handling techniques employed. The information necessary to estimate
the required volume is detailed here; construction plans can be obtained
from consultants, equipment manufacturers, contractors, and the
Cooperative Extension Service at land grant universities.
In choosing a tank design, cost of construction should be balanced
against usable storage volume and materials handling characteristics.
Tanks having circular or square cross-sections tend to enclose a given
volume with the least surface area; the lids, however, may require
VI-9
-------
extra strength or internal supports and thus increase cost and/or
decrease effective volume. Circular shapes also promote good agitation,
which is required before the tank is emptied. Some square and rectan-
gular tank designs employ internal concrete baffles to achieve better
mixing of the contents; alternatively, the tank can be divided by walls
into several interconnected cells, each of which is agitated separately
with a low powered agitator.
Besides the potential storage space taken up by internal structures, an
appreciable volume may be lost due to dilution water, spilled feed and
drinking water, tank head space, and the inability of the pump to com-
pletely empty the tank. The following expression summarizes the
factors which determine the adequacy of a proposed tank storage design:
c V-I-H-P-E pnM f\n
s = mx+D) EQN (VI_2)
where: S = estimated storage time, days
V = gross internal volume of storage tank, ft. 3
I = sum of volumes of internal baffles, column supports, mounted
agitator, etc. ft. 3
H = head space volume, ft. 3
P = volume below pump intake, ft. 3
E = volume lost to extraneous feed, drinking water, etc. , ft. 3
N = number of animals
X = excreta production, ft. 3/animal/day
D = dilution volume added, ft. 3/animal/day
Parameter values necessary for this calculation can be estimated from
a construction plan and from the following discussion.
To fit the disposal schedule to other feedlot operations and climatic
constraints, the storage period should be determined. In the north, a
storage capacity of 6 months may be required to avoid disposal on frozen
or snow covered soil and wet field conditions. Storage of 3 months or
VI-10
-------
less may be adequate in other areas; the tendency is, however, to
underestimate the volume required. In totally slotted confinement
buildings in Illinois, stocked with 700-1,000 lb. cattle at a density of
18-20 ft. 2/head, storage pits were observed to fill at an average rate of
1 foot depth per month (25) .
Daily production of excreta varies with breed, ration, and environment.
In the absence of better information, a 950 pound beef animal produces
approximately 1.0 ft. 3 per day of feces and urine at 85 percent moisture
content wet basis (31); this value may be used as an average over the
growing period. Dilution of the slurry to 94 to 96 percent, wet basis,
has been suggested (27) as a compromise between excessive storage
volume and excessive power requirements for pump and agitator, This
would require the addition of at least 2.3 ft. 3 (17 gal.) of water per
animal per day. Extraneous materials, such as spilled feed, should be
excluded from the tank as much as possible; drinking and storm water
should be diverted from the storage.
Two other sources of lost storage volume may be significant. To avoid
clogging the manure pump with unmixed or fibrous solids, the intake is
normally located 8 to 12 inches off the bottom of the tank; hence, after
the tank is initially filled, this volume cannot be reused. It is also
recommended that the tank be emptied when 8 to 12 inches of head space
remain. In tanks located beneath confinement buildings, this permits
ventilation of gases from the pit to the outside atmosphere; the space
is also needed for agitation.
Tank Construction. A preferred material for storage tank construction
is poured reinforced concrete; farm building contractors and silo manu-
facturers often have prefabricated forms for this purpose (33) .
Commercial steel storage tanks especially designed to resist corrosion
by manure are also being installed. Precast concrete wall sections are
not designed for top loading; if these are used, the tank must be given
VI-11
-------
additional support, Concrete block, tile, and wooden tank construction
should be avoided, since these structures will eventually leak. Insulation
of an outdoor tank is necessary in northern climates.
Slurry storage tanks located outside the housing facility should have
openings slightly elevated above the surrounding surface to prevent
entrance of runoff. An opening approximately 8 inches wide and the
length of the blade, and having a tight-fitting lift-off cover of steel or
treated lumber, works well for tractor-scraped lots. Additional tight-
fitting lids should be provided for the pump and agitator access openings.
Within the tank, a permanent emergency ladder or steps should be placed
beneath each opening having a width of 15 inches or greater.
Agitators. Within a storage tank, unagitated beef cattle wastes form a
thick crust of solids above the liquid fraction; this must be broken up
by agitation before pumping. If agitation is done regularly, three layers
form: the crust of light solids, the intermediate liquid, and a bottom
layer of sand, grain, etc. This bottom layer can be extremely hard to
pump. Particular care must be taken in the placement of agitator and
pump access openings. Equipment manufacturers' recommendations
should be followed; effective agitator radius is normally 20 to 30 feet.
A comparison of agitators is given in Table VI-1.
Tank Storage Management. Before use, tanks located beneath slotted
floors should be loaded with 3 to 4 inches of water; those to be filled
with scraped wastes should initially have a depth of 6 to 12 inches of
water (33) . This practice will prevent drying of solids on the tank
bottom and retard the development of odors.
Although constant addition of dilution water to the tank is not necessary,
considerable agitation may be required to reentrain the solids if moisture
is not added periodically; dried scrapings added to the tank are likewise
difficult to break up. Frozen manure should not be added to the tank
since this may initiate freezing of the storage, possibly causing structural
damage.
VI-12
-------
TABLE VI-1
SLURRY AGITATION EQUIPMENT (40)
Item
Vaccum-type
tank wagon
Centrifugal
chopper-type
manure pump
Propeller mixer,
portable (up to
13 ft. shaft)
Auger
Description
Agitation by means of
air blow-back from tank
prior to field spreading
Recirculation of slurry in
tank prior to pumping,
typically 2000 gpm, tractor
driven.
10 HP electric powered
tractor-driven
Large diameter unshielded
screw.
Effective Agitation Volume, Gal.
Up to 12,500
Up to 37,500
Up to 40,000
50,000-75,000
Approx. 25,000
Remarks
Combines agitator, pump, and tank
wagon in a single unit. High labor
demand. Low equipment cost.
Combines agitator and pump in one
unit. Low equipment cost, high
labor demand.
Relatively low equipment cost; high
tractor and labor demand. Can break
up surface crust.
Relatively low equipment cost, high
operating cost.
High equipment cost but low labor
demand after operated by time clock,
agitators with Vertical type 12,500
3-5 Hp electric
motor drive,
daily operation.
Fixed reel or Horizontal type 50,000
paddle type
-------
All tank access openings should normally be kept closed; this practice
not only prevents accidental entry of animals, humans, and objects but
also aids in controlling insect and odor nuisances, A regular program
of insect control plus careful periodic cleanup around storage openings
can eliminate fly problems.
One of the primary hazards of slurry storage is the generation of noxious
gases during the anaerobic decomposition process; these may cause
asphyxiation of animals or humans. Table VI-2 identifies some properties
of the major decomposition gases. Ventilation fans should be used to
draw warm air from the building through the pit and exhaust noxious
gases to the outside. This arrangement also inhibits freezing of outdoor
underground tanks in cold weather. Minimum airflow through the pit
space should be 15 cfm per 1,000 lb. of animal weight (3) .
TABLE VI-2
PROPERTIES OF ANAEROBIC DECOMPOSITION GASES (50)
Gas
Weight Physiologic Other
Air = 1 Effect Properties
CH „ Methane
4
1/2 anesthetic odorless,
explosive
NHj Ammonia
2/3
irritant
strong odor,
corrosive
I^S Hydrogen Sulfide 1+
poison
rotton-egg odor,
corrosive
CO ^ Carbon Dioxide
1 1/3
asphyxiant odorless,
mildly corrosive
VI-14
-------
Due to the thickness of the slurry in well-managed storage tanks, the
waste is normally hauled in tank wagons to the field for spreading,
rather than irrigated. The proper consistency of a well-agitated slurry
is that of a thick cake batter. Insufficient dilution will cause difficulty
in pumping; excess water will permit separation of solids before the tank
can be emptied.
During agitation prior to emptying, trapped pockets of gases will be
released. To prevent a buildup of these to toxic or explosive levels» the
tank should be ventilated prior to and during agitation; animals housed
in slotted floor buildings should be evacuated. If it becomes necessary
to enter the tank at any time, the National Safety Council makes the
following recommendations;
1. Never work alone.
2. Use a lifeline and make sure sufficient power is available
to lift the person from the tank.
3. Ventilate the tank before entering and during the time the
tank is occupied,
4. Check for combustible gases and oxygen level with an
appropriate testing device.
5. If in doubt, use a self-contained breathing apparatus.
Anaerobic Lagoon Storage
A second anaerobic storage/treatment is the lagoon, a deep earth-diked
pond, typically having several months' storage capacity. Although the
surface is in contact with atmospheric oxygen, the depth, high solids
loading, and lack of agitation keep the decomposition process anaerobic.
Lagoons can be loaded by flushing or scraping, Because of decomposi-
tion, settling of solids, and added precipitation, the fluid is less viscous
than the slurries found in storage tanks and can be irrigated with a
properly designed system.
VI-15
-------
Additional factors regarding lagoons are (35):
1. Lagoons are easily constructed with conventional earthmoving
equipment at a low cost per unit volume.
2. A lagoon provides flexibility in scheduling of land disposal
operations; in warm climates, there is also a considerable
reduction in sludge solids.
3. Because of the noxious odors associated with anaerobic
decomposition, during warm weather the lagoon can be a
serious nuisance. Proper design and management can often
minimize this hazard, however.
4. Effluent from anaerobic lagoons is not suitable for discharge to
a watercourse.
Site Selection. In addition to locating the lagoon at a site convenient for
loading and discharge, several additional factors must be considered.
Because anaerobic lagoons can be the source of odor problems, a loca-
tion downwind from nearby neighbors, if possible, is a prudent choice.
To fill the lagoon initially and for later regulation of its level, an avail-
able, easily controlled source of water is required; similarly, during
wet seasons, overflow may have to be diverted to accessible fields for
irrigation. In choosing a site, it is tempting to make use of natural
depressions in order to reduce the volume of earth to be moved. How-
ever, it is first necessary to insure that the lagoon will be above the
groundwater table, above flood levels, subject to minimum erosion, and
located such that surface runoff from the surrounding area can be readily
diverted (35) .
An evaluation of soil permeability and geologic structure by the Soil
Conservation Service will indicate if sealing of the lagoon bottom is
necessary to prevent exfiltration. A plastic liner, polyphosphates, or
Bentonite clay may be used for this purpose; the clay must be kept
continously wet to prevent cracking and subsequent leakage.
VI-16
-------
Sizing the Lagoon. Three main factors—animal population, climate,
and length of storage period—influence the minimum allowable storage
volume for an anaerobic lagoon. Storage is required for dilution water,
sludge accumulation, and precipitation. To estimate total volume, the
following procedure is suggested:
1. Estimate permissible loading rate based on local climate, as
follows (35):
Climate Loading, lb. Volatile Solids/Ft. 3/Pay
Moderate mid-western 0.005
Severe winters 0,0033
Warm winters 0.0067
Areas of similar climate are shown in Figures II— 1 and II-3.
Excreta of a 900 lb. steer contains 7 lb. volatile solids/day (29);
this may be taken as average over the growing period.
2. Calculate liquid volume needed:
7 * N
VL = "Lx iN . EQN (VI-3)
where: VL = required liquid volume, ft. 3
N = number of cattle
L = loading, lb. volatile solids/ft. 3/day
3. Calculate storage volume of accumulated sludge. As a rough
rule of thumb (20), 20 lb. volatile solids equal 1 ft. 3 of sludge.
Hence,
VS = *20 X D EQN (VI~4)
where: Vg = sludge storage volume needed, ft. 3
N = number of cattle
D = length of storage period needed
¥1-17
-------
4. Calculate minimum waste storage volume required:
v = VL + vs EQN (VI-5)
Additional storage for precipitation is allowed by incorporating at least
a 2-foot freeboard in the design (13) .
Successful functioning of the lagoon is also largely dependent on its
shape. By making the excavation as deep as feasible with maximum
permissible side slopes and minimum surface area (square or circular),
several benefits are derived:
1. Heat lost by convection to the atmosphere is minimized;
surrounding soil acts as insulation.
2. Internal mixing of the lagoon is enhanced,
3. Diffusion of odors into the air is minimized,
4. Excavation cost is usually minimized.
A further consideration in choosing the lagoon shape is the mode of
cleanout of the solids accumulation. For example, if a dragline is to be
used, it is necessary to limit the lagoon width to about 50 feet. In this
case, it may be desirable to use a rectangular cross-section; nevertheless,
for good mixing the length to width ratio should not exceed 3:1 (13) .
Lagoons utilizing natural topography may include shallow bays somewhat
isolated from the main body of water in which the solids cannot be well-
mixed; therefore, they often are the source of odor problems. In constructing
the lagoon, these shallow bays should be eliminated.
Side slopes should be chosen such that severe erosion will not occur
before grass cover is established and should not be too steep to allow
safe mowing (3:1 is typical) . Lagoon depths of 14 feet or greater are
common.
In areas of large moisture deficit (see Figures II-1 to 11-13) , sufficient
evaporation may occur to eliminate the necessity for disposal of the
liquid waste fraction. In this case, the required surface area is
calculated from:
VI-18
-------
_ 0.0134Q
D
EQN (VI-6)
where: A = surface area of lagoon, acres
Q = daily waste flow, gallons
D = moisture deficit, inches
However, to satisfactorily evaporate the entire moisture load, a shallow
pond design is more efficient; see Section IV, "Evaporation Disposal."
Finally, based on the previous considerations, the excavation volume
of square or rectangular basins can be calculated from:
V = blh + Sh2(b + 1) + 4/3 S2h3 EQN (VI-?)
with symbols defined as shown in Figure VI-2.
*-
FIGURE VI-2. SCHEMATIC VIEW OF LAGOON WITH DIMENSIONS (13) .
VI-19
-------
Lagoon Construction. Lagoon excavation is done with conventional
earthmoving equipment according to the design chosen; sealing the sur-
face of the soil, as discussed in the Site Selection subsection (page 111-19)
should be done at this time.
Discharge may be transported to the lagoon by gravity flow or pumping,
For gravity flow systems, transport using a trough, rather than a pipe,
will require less dilution and facilitate cleanout. The preferred location
for the lagoon inlet is near the center of the impoundment. Where suffi-
cient flow is available to prevent clogging of the line, a submerged inlet
will aid mixing and inhibit freezing.
Because a scum often covers the lagoon surface and solids build up on
the bottom, the outlet should be designed to empty the lagoon from an
intermediate depth or, by means of baffles, to exclude scum from the
discharge. Alternatively, a deponding hose may be used, as shown in
Figure VI-3.
The area around a lagoon should be diked to prevent surface runoff from
entering the impoundment; this extraneous water reduces storage capacity.
In like manner, all water not falling directly on the animal confinement
area should be diverted from the lagoon. For example, roof drains from
confinement buildings can be directed away from waste-bearing channels.
Lagoons should be fenced for the protection of children and livestock and
the fence located so that it will not interfere with maintenance of the dikes
or mowing area. Gates should be provided for machinery access (13).
Management of Anaerobic Lagoons. The primary management aspect
of anaerobic lagoons is the control of odor; this problem can be attacked
from several directions. Proper scheduling of liquid and sludge removal
operations can be effective. Like all biological systems, the performance
of the anaerobic lagoon is highly temperature dependent. Thus, under
severe winter conditions little degradation takes place and odor is neg-
ligible. At the onset of warm weather, manure previously deposited in
VI-20
-------
Overflow for dike
protection, !8"or
Detention
Coble or
choin z
Plastic
pipe "
3'
Drill 50'/4"hole* in 3' length; cover
with '/*' wire me«h; clomp tightly
PERFORATED PIPE
FIGURE VI-3 , DEPONDING HOSE (3) .
the impoundment becomes available to the decomposition bacteria; it is at
this time that adverse odor conditions are most common, If the lagoon is
to be used primarily as a winter storage, early spring land disposal (as
soon as field conditions are suitable) may precede the warm weather
problems; on the other hand, after the lagoon has worked all summer,
the waste will be maximally stable, and fall land application may pose
less overall odor problems (35) .
Several different methods have been attempted to control odors arising
from the lagoon, with varying degrees of success. A floating mat of
biodegradable material, such as straw, permits some oxidation of the
odorous gases before they reach the atmosphere; this approach may also
reduce convection of gases to the atmosphere. A recent experimental
VI-21
-------
approach to oxidation of the gases has been to aerate only the surface
of the lagoon (9); this is discussed in more detail in the subsection
entitled "Combined Aerobic-Anaerobic and Miscellaneous Treatment"
(page VI-34) . In the food industry, a plastic film covering the entire
lagoon surface has been used to collect the evolved gases (principally
methane), which are then flared off, eliminating most of the objectionable
odors. Potentionally, the heat from the flare could be used to warm the
influent to improve lagoon treatment efficiency. Chemical and enzymatic
control of odors in lagoons have been unsuccessful, principally because
of the variety of malodorous by-products and the imperfect natural mixing
of the lagoons.
Unmixed effluent from anaerobic lagoons is low in suspended solids and
hence can be irrigated. If solids are to be removed simultaneously by
use of agitator and pump, the irrigation system must be designed for
slurry handling (see the section on Liquid/Slurry Transport) . Alter-
natively, the sludge, which is not offensively odorous, can be removed
by dragline or solids handling machinery, depending on its moisture
content; the ideal time for sludge removal is late fall, when the sludge
is well-decomposed. If sufficient storage volume is available to maintain
the design loading, sludge can accumulate for several years before this
operation becomes necessary.
Anaerobic Digester. A third anaerobic storage/treatment which has
been suggested for animal wastes is the anaerobic digester. In this
component, the anaerobic waste degradation process takes place at a
high rate due to controlled pH, temperature, dilution, and mixing.
An anaerobic digester is a closed vessel having either a fixed or floating
cover. Waste addition, digested sludge removal, settled effluent removal,
plus gas collection and recirculation are accomplished by means of an
extensive piping system. Mixing can be done either by mechanical means
or by release of compressed gas (35) .
VI-22
-------
Major advantages of the anaerobic digester are:
1. The waste is stabilized rapidly with no odor release,
2. Methane (natural gas) is a useful by-product of the process.
3. There is no water pollution via seepage or overflow of the unit,
4. Its performance is less weather-dependent than that of other
biological treatment components.
Important disadvantages are:
1. Little or no storage is provided by the digester unit. The
products, effluent and sludge, must be stored or disposed
of on land; the effluent is unsuitable for discharge to a
watercourse without further treatment.
2. Capital costs are high; close process supervision by an ex-
perienced operator is required.
3. Mixing and pumping power requirements are significant.
Digester Design Parameters. Because of the above mentioned disadvan-
tages, only laboratory scale anaerobic digester studies have been done.
Loehr and Agnew (28) report successful operation with loading rates of
from 0.1-0.4 lb. of total solids/ft. fyday at an operating temperature of
35° C. (Beef wastes typically contain 9 lb. total solids/animal/day.) A
dilution to 5 to 10 percent solids is necessary for complete mixing. Gas
production (with heat value approximately 570 BTU/ft, 3) was measured
at 8-9 ft. 3/lb. of volatile solids added; typical beef wastes contain 7 lb.
volatile solids/animal/day (29).
Less efficiency may be expected in full-scale units due to incomplete
mixing and lower operating temperatures.
Aerobic Storage/Treatment Components
Aerobic waste decomposition processes require the presence of gaseous
free oxygen. The free oxygen content of water is minimal; therefore,
in these processes it must be supplied through natural processes
(photosynthesis, wind and wave action) or added by mechanical means.
VI-23
-------
Important characteristics of the aerobic decomposition process are;
1. In a properly designed and operated storage/treatment, the
gases of decomposition are virtually odorless.
2. Some reduction in volatile solids is achieved, although less than
that of anaerobic processes.
3. Aerobic decomposition processes are temperature dependent,
with minimal biological activity below 40° F.
4. Pesticides, antibiotics, salts, and other residues are toxic to
bacteria and will, in significant amounts, impair treatment
efficiency.
5. Fertilizer value of aerobically decomposed waste is somewhat
lower than that of similar fresh or anaerobically decomposed
waste.
6. Land disposal is commonly practiced since effluents of aerobic
treatment processes are too pollutionally potent for discharge
to a watercourse.
Three aerobic components, naturally aerobic (oxidation) ponds, mechani-
cally aerated lagoons, and oxidation ditches have been used to store/treat
animal wastes.
Naturally Aerated (Oxidation) Ponds. If sufficient dissolved oxygen is
present in the water of a waste storage impoundment, the decomposition
process is aerobic. Since the supply of oxygen for quiescent ponds
comes primarily from the atmosphere (photosynthesis of algae also plays
a part), performance of this component is dependent on the surface area
available for oxygen transfer; under appreciable waste loadings, aerobic
conditions exist only near the surface.
The naturally aerobic pond has several important disadvantages:
1. The large surface area will often require extensive dike con-
struction, with consequent high capital cost.
VI-24
-------
2. Extensive evaporation will occur from the pond surface, requiring
a large water supply; the pond must also be sealed to prevent
seepage loss and groundwater contamination.
3. Control of weeds and mosquitoes is usually necessary.
Because of these disadvantages, this system is not common in beef cattle
waste management systems. In areas of high moisture deficit, a related
option, the evaporation pond, is often used; see Section IV, "Evaporation
Disposal" (page IV-23 ) •
Design and Management. For beef cattle wastes, a design surface area
of 1.5 ft. 2/pound of animal weight has been suggested for wastewater
without prior solids separation; with removal of solids, this value may be
halved (35). Depth must be limited to 3 to 4 feet to avoid oxygen depletion
at the pond bottom. Good mixing and steady loading of the pond are
necessary to prevent anaerobic conditions .
Mechanically Aerated Lagoons
A large volume storage for beef cattle wastewater is the mechanically
aerated lagoon, a deep, well-mixed and oxygenated impoundment loaded
by flushing or scraping.
Advantages of the aerated lagoon storage are:
1. With proper design and management, odor problems are minimal.
2. With long-term detention, an appreciable volatile solids reduction
can be achieved.
3. With some maintenance, operation is largely automatic.
Disadvantages are:
1. power requirements (typically $133/HP/year (38)) plus capital
costs of aeration equipment,
2. large volume and aeration requirements for long-term detention,
3. possibility of biological upset and sensitivity to temperature
variations, and
4. no discharge.
VI-25
-------
Effluent is normally disposed of on land by irrigation. Sludge may be
suspended by mixing, then irrigated or spread on the land; alternatively,
it may be dried and applied to the land with solids handling equipment.
Site Selection. In choosing a site for the aerated lagoon, essentially the
same criteria apply as for the anaerobic lagoon (see subsection entitled
"Anaerobic Lagoon Storage Site Selection," page VI-16 ). Due to
reduced odor potential, however, more flexibility in site choice is
possible.
Aerated Lagoon and Aeration Design. Design of a mechanically aerated
lagoon is somewhat similar to that of an anaerobic lagoon (see subsection
entitled "Anaerobic Lagoon Storage—Sizing the Lagoon," page VI-17),
with identical considerations of depth, side slopes, and solids removal.
In this case, however, shape is dependent on the type, number, and
configuration of the aerators, which perform the functions of mixing and
oxygen transfer; a circular or square shape with rounded corners is
usually chosen to prevent deposition of odor-producing sludge at points
of minimum flow-rate. Because the oxygen transfer rate does not depend
on surface area but on contact time with air bubbles, depths of 15 to 20
feet are commonly chosen (35).
A well-defined design procedure, based on known waste characteristics,
has been developed for aerated lagoons (38) . These characteristics,
however, vary with the ration fed and hence must be evaluated by lab-
oratory test. Empirical data suggest a simpler design procedure:
1, Estimate necessary liquid/slurry volume as 0.75 ft. 3 per
pound of livestock (35):
VL = N x W x 0.75 EQN (VI-8)
where: = liquid/slurry volume, ft. 3
N = number of animals
W = average weight per head over the growing period, lb.
VI-26
-------
2. Estimate volume to be required for sludge storage over detention
period. As a rough rule-of-thumb, 13 lb. volatile solids produce
1 ft. 3 of aerobic sludge (a 900 lb. steer excretes 7 lb. volatile
solids per day).
V = D x N x 7/13 EQN (VI-9)
s
where; V = storage volume of slurry, ft. 3
s
D = detention time, days
N = number of animals
3. Calculate total waste storage volume required:
V = VL + Vg EQN (VI-10)
Additional storage for precipitation is allowed by incorporating at least
a 2-foot freeboard in the design. Excavation volume can be calculated
by using the procedure shown in the "Anaerobic Lagoon Storage—Sizing
the Lagoon" subsection (pageVI-17). The oxygen input rate should be
based on laboratory measurement of biochemical oxygen demand (BOD)
of the particular waste (38) . From experience, however, an input rate
of 2.0 pounds of oxygen per animal per day has been found to be satis-
factory if the aerator is used year-round, 2.7 pounds if shut down from
December through February. For partial odor control, an oxygen
supply of 1.4 to 0.9 pounds may be sufficient (35); however, it is
essential that the lagoon be well mixed.
Comparisons of aeration devices, typical efficiencies, advantages and
disadvantages are given in Table VI-3.
Aerated Lagoon Management. The primary consideration in managing
an aerated lagoon is the maintenance of aerobic conditions for odor
control and the growth of aerobic microorganisms. For a properly de-
signed system having sufficient aerator capacity, a major problem is
that of loading the system continuously, i.e., furnishing a constant food
VI-2?
-------
TABLE VI-3
Equipment
. Type
Porous
diffusers
Nonporous
diffusers
<
i—i
^ Mechanical,
oo surface-
turbine
Mechanical
surface-
propeller
aerators
Submerged-
turbine
or combina
tion units
CHARACTERISTICS OF AVAILABLE AERATION EQUIPMENT (38)
Equipment
Characteristics
Produce fine or small
bubbles. Made of ceramic
plates or tubes, plastic-
wrapped or plastic-cloth
tube or bag.
Made in nozzle, valve,
orifice or shear types,
they produce coarse or
large bubbles. Some
made of plastic with
check-valve design.
Low output speed. Large-
dia. turbine, usually
fixed-bridge or platform
mounted. Used with
gear reducer.
High output speed. Small-
dia. propeller. They are
direct, motor-driven units
mounted on floating
structure.
Units contain a low-speed
turbine and provide
compressed air on sprage
ring. Fixed-bridge
application.
Oxygen Transfer Efficiency
(0? Transferred/O? Delivered)
10-12%
4-8%
10-12%
10%
Advantages
High oxygen-transfer
efficiency; good mixing;
maintain high liquid
temperature.
Nonclogging; maintain high
liquid temperature: low
maintenance cost.
Low initial and mainten-
ance costs; high oxygen-
transfer efficiency;
tank-design flexibility.
Low initial cost; simple to
install and operate;
moderate transfer effi-
ciency; adjust to varying
water level.
Complete mixing; high-
capacity input per unit
volume; deep-tank appli-
cation; moderate effi-
ciency; wide oxygen-
input range.
Disadvantages
High initial and main-
tenance costs; tend-
ency to clog; not suit-
able for complete
mixing.
High initial cost: low
oxygen-transfer effi-
ciency: high power
cost.
Some icing in cold
climates; more difficult
to apply for total mixing .
Some icing in cold
climates: poor main-
tenance accessibility.
Require both gear
reducer and compres-
sor; tendency to foam;
high total-power
requirements.
-------
supply to the microorganisms . The addition of large amounts of waste
in a short period can inhibit the aerobic decomposition process and
result in the growth of anaerobic bacteria, with attendant odor problems.
Once the system is upset, a considerable period of time at reduced loading
is needed to regain steady-state conditions (35) .
To avoid these problems, daily flushing or scraping of the housing
facility is necessary. For economical use of fresh water, flushing water
may be drawn from the lagoon. To minimize maintenance, drainage to
the impoundment should be by gravity through unobstructed channels.
Alternatively, a less desirable solution is to have all drainage to a
centrally-located sump, where a chopper-type sludge pump is used to
transfer the waste to the lagoon.
A second consideration is the effect of cold weather on the system. Below
40° F, microbial action is retarded to such an extent that aeration serves
little purpose. As warm weather approaches, however, the aerator
should be restarted. Because of the backlog of unstablized waste
accumulated during the winter, it may take some time for steady-state
aerobic conditions to be achieved; hence, some odor problems during
this period may be anticipated.
After some time, sludge accumulation will have reduced the lagoon volume
below the design level, necessitating cleanout. The ideal time for this
operation is late fall, when the lagoon is well aerated and the solids are
maximally stabilized. The same type of equipment can be used as that
used to empty anaerobic holding tanks: an auger or high-volume pump
for stirring the sludge from the bottom and entraining it in the liquid,
followed by irrigation or tank wagon field disposal. A buildup of excess
water in the lagoon can be disposed of in the same manner.
Oxidation Ditch
Aerobic stabilization of waste has the critical advantage of reducing or
eliminating objectionable odors; primarily for this reason, extensive
VI-29
-------
research has been done on the performance of the oxidation ditch in
confinement housing operations.
An exploded-view perspective sketch of an oxidation ditch is shown in
Figure VI-4, The two principal components are the oval shaped open-
channel ditch and the stationary aeration rotor which supplies oxygen
and circulates the ditch contents to keep the solids in suspension, In
operation, raw wastes are continuously added to the ditch and diluted
by the ditch contents; due to the large volume of oxygen supplied by
the rotor, aerobic bacteria break down the degradable waste into stable
material, with carbon dioxide and water as the principal by-products.
The ditch can be operated either on a batch or continuous basis, with
overflow to a quiescent settling basin where the solid sludge settles
out and the clarified liquid typically passes on to a storage lagoon. In
addition to odor control, the principal advantages of the oxidation ditch
are:
1. It is ideally adapted to confinement housing systems, in that it
can be installed directly beneath a slotted floor.
2. A properly designed and operated system is remarkably stable,
requiring nominal attention and maintenance.
3. Under certain conditions (17), a considerable reduction in
nitrogen occurs, making heavier land application rates possi-
ble without crop damage.
Principal disadvantages are:
1. Capital and operating costs, although reasonable, are significant.
2. The ditch does not, in itself, provide much storage capacity nor
is its effluent suitable for discharge to a watercourse.
In mild climates, the oxidation ditch can also be operated outside the
confinement building, with loading by means of scraping. Periodic
cleanout and disposal of sludge, either as mixed liquor (slurry) or as
solids, is necessary. Currently, the value of the sludge as an animal
feed ingredient is being investigated by researchers (24) .
VI-30
-------
FIGURE VI-4. EXPLODED VIEW OF CONFINEMENT BUILDING AND OXIDATION DITCH.
VI-31
-------
Oxidation Ditch Design. Volume of the oxidation ditch is based on the
¦ -¦«- -
waste loading and 30 ft. 3 per pound of daily BOD,, has been recommended
(35); on this basis, a 900 pound beef animal, for which daily BOD,, has
been found to be 1.35 pounds, would require approximately 40 ft. 3 of
liquid volume. A more exact BODg can be measured by laboratory
tests on the individual waste.
Dimensions of the ditch are somewhat adaptable to the design of the con-
finement building. For example, the ditch may make multiple passes
down the length of a wide building, rather than taking the conventional
oval racetrack shape. However, the following constraints also apply:
1. Rotors are presently available in nominal 3,6, and 8 foot
lengths; channel width can be approximately one-fifth greater
than rotor length.
2. Distance between rotors should be limited to a maximum of
300 feet.
3. To maintain adequate velocity and prevent solids settling,
channel depth is limited to approximately 18 inches.
Construction of oxidation ditches is not limited to new housing facilities.
Subject to these constraints, the structure can, for instance, replace
a shallow pit located beneath a slotted floor simply by rounding the
corners of the pit and incorporating a center island. In any installa-
tion , however, it is important to round the corners smoothly and to
eliminate any dead spots which might lead to sludge deposition.
A variety of rotor designs have been examined for mixing ability and
oxygen transfer efficiency. To prevent solids deposition in the ditch,
the rotor must provide a minimum 1 ft./second slurry velocity; approx-
imately 2,7 lb. of oxygen transfer per animal per day is needed to
maintain aerobic conditions. The corresponding power requirement is
on the order of 1.42 KWH/animal/day (35).
VI-32
-------
There are two methods of unloading the ditch. First, if sufficient
volume is available, the rotor cam be adjusted as the level of the ditch
fluctuates due to addition of raw wastes; batches of the mixed liquor
are removed periodically for storage or disposal. Secondly, a con-
tinuous overflow to a lagoon or holding tank can be achieved with a
diversion channel leading away from the oval. This alternative, which
requires less supervision, is the more popular.
Oxidation Ditch Management. For a slotted floor confinement building,
the startup procedure for the continuous overflow system is as follows:
1. The ditch is filled with fresh water to the volume calculated
from the BOD loading.
2. The rotor is adjusted to the desired immersion depth (usually
4 to 6 inches); because the level of the ditch remains constant,
no further adjustment is required.
3. The rotor is started and animals are brought into the building.
To allow the bacterial population to adjust, a gradual increase
in animal density is suggested.
4. A close surveillance of the ditch is maintained. A buildup of
foam, an indicator of anaerobic conditions, can be countered
by adding a quart or two of crankcase oil; further increases in
animal density should be suspended until the foam subsides.
5. When the ditch approaches steady-state operation, the animal
population should be kept constant and the rotor kept in opera-
tion until system shutdown. •
In general, steady-state oxidation ditch operation is trouble-free.
However, there are several potential trouble spots which should period-
cally be checked. The oxidation ditch is an aerobic system which should
exhibit very little odor; if a "septic tank" or strong ammonia odor begins
to develop, the ditch is becoming anaerobic. This condition can arise in
three ways: (a) a sludge accumulation in the bottom of the ditch,
VI-33
-------
(b) insufficient oxygen supplied by the rotor, or (c) biological upset
of the bacteria. The first condition can occur even in a well-designed
ditch over a long period of time, but is more often due to insufficient
velocity or rough spots in the channel. By dilution with fresh water,
the accumulation can be washed away while the ditch remains in
operation. However, if the cause of the deposition is apparent, it
should be corrected.
Combined Aerobic-Anaerobic and Miscellaneous Treatment
In addition to the single-component storage/treatment processes elaborated
in the two prior subsections, several combined anaerobic-aerobic treat-
ments have been investigated for possible application. These alternatives
are aimed at modifying the waste for reuse or facilitating disposal. Some
objectives of combined treatment processes are listed:
1. upgrading of the liquid to a quality suitable for discharge to a
watercourse (this objective involves primarily reduction of
organic material (BOD) and suspended solids, although
ammonia, phosphates, salts, etc. may also be important);
2. upgrading the liquid for purposes of flushing (important
parameters are total solids, odor, and possibly color);
3. upgrading the liquid for reuse as drinking water (this
requires removal of essentially all of the above-mentioned
impurities, plus nitrates, and pathogenic microorganisms);
4. modification of the waste for land disposal (often nitrogen
and salts are the nutrients which limit application rate to
the soil; its reduction permits disposal on smaller land areas);
5. modification of the solids fraction for refeeding to animals
(in this case, nitrates, odor, and pathogens, as well as
feed value, are important); and
6. improved waste storage characteristics.
VI-34
-------
In the following paragraphs, selected and combined handling and mis-
cellaneous processes having possible application to these objectives are
discussed.
Anaerobic and Aerated Lagoons. By sequencing an anaerobic with an
aerobic treatment process, it has been suggested that the final effluent
of an animal waste treatment system may be made suitable for discharge
to a watercourse. An embodiment of this idea, a single anaerobic
lagoon followed by one or more aerobic lagoons, has been accepted as
a standard treatment process by the meat processing industry. By the
use of this system, extremely low levels of BOD, a major waste strength
parameter, have been achieved. One such system, an anaerobic lagoon
followed by two aerated lagoons, is presently being used in Florida (39)
to treat dairy cattle wastes. Preliminary performance figures (Table VI-4)
indicate a final effluent having a quality nearly suitable for discharge
(20 mg/1 of BOD5 and 20 mg/1 of suspended solids is presently a common
standard) . Detention times are calculated from the storage volume of
the lagoons and a mass balance for the system.
TABLE VI-4
PERFORMANCE OF ANAEROBIC-AEROBIC LAGOON SYSTEM (39)
Sample Source
BODs (ppm) TSS1 (ppm) DT2 (days)
Anaerobic Lagoon Influent
Anaerobic Lagoon Effluent
First Aerobic Lagoon Effluent
Second Aerobic Lagoon Effluent
661
7?
611
102
66
81
22.1
8.6
15.5
31
24
lTSS = Total Suspended Solids
^DT = Detention Time
VI-35
-------
For comparison, fresh beef wastes have been found to have a BOD,-
of 16,000 mg/1. Thus, to obtain a comparable influent waste strength
would require a dilution of greater than 24:1. This figure, plus the
long detention times required even in a mild climate, indicates that the
system is not feasible for large beef waste treatment facilities,
Anaerobic Lagoon with Aerated Surface. As noted in the subsection on
anaerobic systems (page VI -7 ) . their primary problem is that of odor
production; on the other hand, maximum nutrient value is preserved.
Aerobic systems are generally free of noxious odors but may incur
significant aeration costs.
To exploit the best features of both systems, an experimental dairy-waste
storage/treatment was designed by Barth and Polkowski (9) incorporating
a 20 to 24 inch aerated layer of wastewater over an otherwise anaerobic
lagoon, Effluent from the surface layer was used for flushing , A
dilution of 2: 1 was found to be satisfactory» Odor levels were much
lower than those of totally anaerobic lagoons.
Based on limited laboratory sized test units, the following advantages
were noted:
1. Low volume surface aeration effectively reduced odor intensity
and surface scum.
2. Nutrient recovery was high.
3. Lagoon construction was much cheaper per unit of storage
volume than was tank storage construction.
4. Effluent quality from the aerated layer was suitable for flushing.
Although this component shows promise for odor control and production
of a suitable effluent for flushing systems, the effluent has been shown
not suitable for discharge. Full-scale systems are needed to demonstrate
its feasibility.
Barriered Landscape Water Renovation System (BLWRS) . A new concept
in liquid waste treatment is being developed by Erickson et al. (18) . This
concept is called the Barriered Landscape Water Renovation System (BLWRS);
VI-36
-------
a cross-sectional schematic view of a prototype unit, with typical
dimensions, is shown in Figure VI-5.
In this system, a water-impermeable barrier, such as plastic film, is
buried horizontally in a light-to-medium textured soil. Similar soil is
mounded on top of the original surface, with the subsurface barrier
extending some distance beyond the edges of the mound. On top of the
mound is a thin layer of limestone or slag.
In operation, an irrigation system distributes wastewater having a
limited amount of solids uniformly over the surface of the mound. Solids
are filtered out on the surface and decompose there, with nutrients
either infiltrating into the mound or fertilizing surface vegetation.
Wastewater percolates through the limestone layer, which efficiently
adsorbs phosphates, and passes into the aerobic soil mound. Below the
mound, the liquid is forced by the barrier to move laterally to its edge
into drainage tile due to its saturated condition, the soil immediately
above the barrier is anaerobic. If sufficient detention time is given the
liquid and enough food energy is available in the anaerobic zone, soil
microorganisms in the aerobic-anaerobic sequence transform other forms
of nitrogen to atmospheric nitrogen gas; these parameters depend upon
system design. The effluent can be reused for flushing or may, in the
future, prove suitable for discharge or other use.
Performance of the system on liquid flushed from a dairy cattle holding
pen is shown in Table VI-5; to avoid clogging the soil surface, solids
were screened from the wastewater prior to irrigation and field spread
by tank wagon. Average effluent wastewater parameter values, with
the exception of nitrate nitrogen, show excellent treatment; improved
design may reduce the nitrate value as well.
Problems noted with the prototype system were:
1. some reduction in soil infiltration rate due to solids buildup,
and
2. freezing during extreme winter weather.
VI-37
-------
4-6ft. Aerobic zone
4-
12-30 ;.V
~~n
Effluent
FIGURE VI-5
Waste added here
Phosphote absorber
Supplemental Energy Source
Orioinol Soil Surface
Anaerobic zone
Moisture barrier
Effluent
40-60 ft.
SCHEMATIC CROSS-SECTION OF BLWRS .
-------
Research designed to overcome these problems and improve system
performance is continuing.
TABLE VI-5
AVERAGE DAIRY CATTLE WASTEWATER
PARAMETER VALUES FOR THE BLWRS (18)
Parameter
Waste, rog/1 Effluent, mg/I
Org N + NH3-N
no3-n
PO.-P
4
BOD
300
10
40
1200
10
0.02
5
3
Spray Runoff System. A relatively new treatment, possibly applicable
to upgrading of liquid wastewater quality for flushing, is the Spray
Runoff System. Process details and performance on feedlot rainfall run-
off are given in Section IV, "Spray Runoff System."
Solids Separation
In waste management systems, handling or unit treatment process
efficiency can often be substantially increased by separation of a
portion of the waste solids. Liquid-solid separation unit operations
for liquids and slurries are considered in this section; drying, which
is ordinarily economically feasible only at low initial moisture con-
tents, is discussed in Section V, "Solid Wastes Control" (page V-l ).
Settling basins and porous dams for preliminary solids separation of
feedlot runoff are presented in Section IV, "Runoff Carried Wastes"
(page IV-1) •
Free Drainage. Because of the cellular structure of cattle feces, only
approximately 4 percent moisture can be removed by free drainage from
fresh waste having an initial moisture content of 85 percent, wet basis
(5). The liquid fraction retains a significant pollution potential and is
VI-39
-------
not suitable for discharge to a watercourse without treatment. Addition
of aluminum chlorohydrate has been used to improve process efficiency
(29); the filtrate, however, contained a higher percentage of suspended
solids. Free drainage requires a large surface area (as on a sand filter)
or long detention times; equipment for distribution and collection is also
necessary.
Stationary Screen. A useful separation device currently finding wide
application in processing industries is the stationary screen (Figure VI-6) .
In this unit, the slurry passes into a headbox and over a weir, then flows
evenly down an inclined screen. Because of a particular screen shape
and configuration, liquid is stripped from the solids and passes through
the screen; solids are collected at the base of the screen.
This component is constructed of stainless steel and/or fiberglass for
corrosion resistance. It has no moving parts, can handle wide varia-
tions in slurry total solids and flow rate, and is virtually maintenance-
free . In tests on beef cattle wastes, a maximum total solids content of
18 percent was achieved (5) .
FIGURE VI-6. STATIONARY SCREEN .
VI-40
-------
Vibrating Screen. Extensive testing of the performance of a vibrating
screen separator on beef cattle wastes was done by Ngoddy et al. (37) .
This device, shown in Figure VI-7, utilized a rotating, shaking action
of the screen to separate solids and liquids into two streams. The
machine is simple to operate, requires little maintenance, and can handle
variations in flow and solids content. The solids fraction obtained using
60 to 120 mesh screens varied from 70 to 80 percent, wet basis, while
the effluent averaged approximately 6 percent total solids. The solids
had a friable, non-clumping structure, were odor-free, and did not
attract flies.
FIGURE VI-7. VIBRATING SCREEN, CROSS-SECTIONAL VIEW.
Other Mechanical Devices. Several other mechanical solids-liquid
separation devices are commonly used in various industries. Glerum
et al. (21) report excellent performance on swine wastes from an in-
expensive centrifugal separator used in the potato starch industry.
VI-41
-------
Other devices, such as the decanter centrifuge, which may achieve
higher solids separation, have been found to be unsuitable due to high
capital cost, need for constant supervision, or high maintenance require-
ments . Performance of selected units on beef cattle wastes are given in
Table VI-6.
TABLE VI-6
SOLIDS/LIQUID SEPARATION EFFICIENCIES OF SELECTED MACHINES (5)
Machine Maximum Total Solids, %
Vacuum Filter 23
Three-roll Mill 37
Screw Press 38
Chemical Treatment. In some cases, efficient liquid/solids separation
can be achieved by chemical treatment. Suspended solids, due to
chemical attraction, form floes which settle or float, leaving a relatively
clear liquid.
Ngoddy et al. (37) examined the use of several chemical flocculants on
beef cattle wastewater, including ferric chloride and anionic, cationic,
and nonionic polyelectrolytes, with and without pH adjustment, Although
several of these were effective in concentrating solids, each formed an
ill-smelling sludge, deemed a serious nuisance; moreover, chemical
costs were considered excessive for livestock enterprises.
Liquid-Slurry Transport
Two options for transport and land disposal of liquid-slurry wastes are
presently in use: (a) pumping from storage to a spreader vehicle which
is then pulled or driven to the field, and (b) irrigation of the liquid-
slurry through conventional or modified water irrigation systems.
Tables VI-7 and VI-8 are useful in choosing and sizing a land disposal
VI-42
-------
TABLE VI-7
IRRIGATION FACTORS FOR LIQUID/SLURRY WASTES (42)
Number of Days (10 hours/day) Required to Dispose
of a Given Quantity of Liquid Wastes
Gallons
Per
Minute
Acre-Inch
Per Hour
6
12
Acre-
24
-Inches
36
of Waste
48
60
120
240
25
0.05
12.0
24.0
48.0
50
0.11
5.5
10.9
21.8
32.8
43.6
54.6
100
0.22
2.7
5.5
10.9
16.4
21.8
27.3
54.5
200
0.44
1.4
2.7
5.5
8.2
10.9
13.6
27.3
54.5
300
0.66
1.8
3,6
5.5
7.3
9.1
18.2
36.4
400
0.88
2.7
4.0
5.5
6.8
13.6
27.4
500
1.10
2.2
3.2
4.4
5.5
10.9
21.8
600
1.32
1.8
2.6
3.6
4.6
9.1
18.1
800
1.77
2.0
2.7
3.4
6.8
13.6
1000
2.21
2.2
2.7
5.4
10.8
UNITS—
1 acre-inch = 27,154 gallons = 3,621 cu. ft.
1 acre-foot = 12 acre-inches = 325,848 gallons = 43,560 cu. ft.
1 acre-inch/hour = 450 gallons/minute = 1 cubic foot/second
-------
system. Other methods of disposal, destruction, or reuse primarily
rely on pumping for liquid-slurry transport within their respective
processing operations.
Spreader System. Three methods are used for movement of the slurry
from storage to the tank of the spreader vehicle: pressure pumps,
vacuum pumps, and augers. Pressure pumps are either of the chopper
impeller (modified centrifugal) type, which comminutes the fibrous
material, or the diaphragm type, in which no moving parts are exposed
to the corrosive slurry. Of the two, the centrifugal pump is higher in
capacity, yet, lower in cost and efficiency. Pressure pumps fall into two
major classifications:
1. electric-powered pumps of 5 hp or less which have a capacity
of 200 to 400 gallons per minute, depending on the condition
of the slurry and the slurry head, and require separate
agitator for the storage; and
2. tractor-powered pumps of 25 to 50 hp with a capacity of 1400
to 2500 gallons per minute which also serve as agitators.
A second method is the tractor-powered vacuum pump mounted on the
spreader vehicle. Delivery rate depends largely on the dilution of the
slurry; a separate agitator is required for most storage tanks. Finally,
special slurry auger conveyors having heavy-duty tubing coupled with
standard flighting have been used. Delivery rate per horsepower is
lower than that for the centrifugal pump and high maintenance require-
ments are anticipated. At least a 6-inch diameter auger is necessary;
horsepower required is proportional to auger length.
Spreaders range from 750 to 2500 gallons in capacity. These are equipped
with wide floatation tires to minimize soil compaction. On some machines,
an internal agitator is employed to reduce plugging and improve uniformity
of delivery. Most tanks empty by gravity (vacuum tanks pressurize
the slurry) onto a spinning spreader disc driven by a small hydraulic
motor; spreader swath varies from 10 to 30 feet.
VI-44
-------
Several machines have been developed for immediate incorporation
of the slurry into the soil, either by injection or by dispensing the
fluid into a furrow which is then immediately covered (10, 52).
Chief advantages of these are: (a) minimization of fly and odor problems,
(b) elimination of water pollution by runoff, and (c) retention of maximum
nutrient value. Disadvantages are: (a) higher horsepower requirements
and (b) lower rates of machine travel.
Irrigation Systems. Several types of liquid/slurry irrigation systems
have been used for transport and disposal of beef feedlot wastes; a
comparison of systems based on various factors is given in Table VI-8.
Liquid/slurry total solids concentrations up to 5 percent can be handled
by any of these irrigation methods, depending on the other factors listed;
above 5 percent, however, only the manure gun has been shown to be
satisfactory. The upper limit for the manure gun is approximately 15
percent total solids (14) .
There is a great difference between design of a conventional sprinkler
irrigation system (as for feedlot runoff; see Section IV, "Runoff Carried
Wastes" (page IV-1) and design of a system for pumping thick slurries.
When the solids content of the waste is 5 percent or less, pumped cattle
wastes have flow properties somewhat similar to those of water (27); how-
ever, when the solids content is above 5 percent, the consistency is that
of ketchup, which requires agitation before it will flow. Pressure drops
in slurry irrigation systems vary, based on solids content, between
values less than and greater than that of water. Corrosion and abrasion
are important factors. Finally, solids will plug the pipeline if some
minimum fluid velocity is not maintained.
For good design, it is essential that the properties of the slurry be
known (these depend largely on the feed ration and storage/treatment
history of the waste). A complete discussion of slurry property
measurement and application of theory to design is beyond the scope
VI-45
-------
TABLE VI-8
LIQUID/SLURRY WASTE DISPOSAL SYSTEM SELECTION (42)
Type of System
Tank
Wagon Sprinkler
Gravity
Factor
Considered
Honey
W agon
Hand-Carry
Spi-ink lrr
Traveling
Gun
Tow line
Manure
Gun
Solid
Set
Side Roll
Boom
Center
Pivot
Gated
Pipe
Open
Ditch
Soil
Type
Suitable for use on soils with a wide range of intake rates
Moderate to
high intake
soils
Soils with moderate to
low intake rates
Surface
Topography
Adaptable to a wide range of surface topography
Limited to moderately un-
dulating topography
Wide
range
Limited to moderate to
flat slopes
Labor
Required
Very
High on
large
operations
High
Low
Moder-
ately
low
High on
large
operations
Very
low
Moderate
Very
low
High
Very
high
Manage-
ment re-
quired 1)
Low Modi-rately Low Moderately Low
High
Very
high
flexi-
bility
for Ex-
pansion
Hniiial
Invi-stmt nt
TTjjTraTIng
Costs2)
Inflex-
ible
3)
Moderate
Inflex-
ible
3)
Moderate
Inflex-
ible
3)
Moderate
In-
ll<-X -
ible
3)
Inflex-
ible
3)
Very flexible
Low to M
Moderate
¦derate
Moderate
Low lo Moderate
High-
est
Low to Moderate
High
Low to
Moderate
Lowest
to High
High
Moderate to High
Lov,
Crop
Suit-
ability
ah i;k-
.« [it un
growing
i ri.ps
All
Ail with Adaptations
All ex-
cept tall
growing
crops
All
AH
Size of
Operation
Small t« Meiliun. Size
All Sizes
Small to
medium sue
All Sines
Large
All sizes, depends
on topography
Type of
Effluent
Liquids
to si-nn-
ll<|UUl
slurries
Liquids
only
Liquids
to semi-
liquid
slurries
Liquids
only
Liquids
to semi-
liquid
slurries
Liquids
only
Well
filter-
ed
liquids
Liquids only
Note: 1) Management refers to the skill required, or the ability to set the system and go off anil leave it.
2) Operating costs are a small factor in selecting a waste disposal system.
3) Of course, another system may be purchased.
-------
of the manual; however, a preliminary check on the adequacy of a
system design can be made with the information given below and in
Section IV, "Runoff Carried Wastes" (page IV-1 ).
Design Considerations. There are three major differences in the design
of slurry pumping systems and conventional irrigation systems: (a)
choice of pump to handle the slurry, (b) calculation of friction head loss
through pipe and fittings, and (c) estimation of minimum velocity needed
to prevent deposition of solids in the pipe. Only limited research on
pumping of animal waste slurries has been reported. The following dis-
cussion is based upon research of pumping characteristics of dairy
cattle wastes; because these are generally higher in fiber content than
those of beef cattle, use of these data should result in a conservative
system design.
Choice of Pump. Both centrifugal and positive displacement pumps are
in common use for pumping slurries. Centrifugal pumps are charac-
terizied by high capacity but low efficiency; these are unsuitable for
high-pressure delivery requirements (for cost-capacity data, see
Section VII, Table VII-2, Liquid/Slurry Wastes Handling Equipment).
Positive displacement pumps are comparatively low volume, high
pressure, high efficiency units higher in cost and maintenance.
A third category, the advancing cavity (i.e., helical type) pump, has
been found to have favorable characteristics of both of the other types.
A comparison of typical pumping characteristics for all three types is
given in Figures VI-8, VI-9, and VI-10. Additional tests are reported
by Hart et al. (22), who suggested that centrifugal pumps be used
only for slurries having less than 4 percent toted solids; Staley et al.
(49) recommend a maximum of 8 percent total solids for the helical
pump.
VI-47
-------
60
40
30
o
•
* 20
o
o 10
h-
0
3.7 %
—aafeL
7.7%
— f i
25 50 75 100 125 150 200 w
Plain, gol./mfii.
FIGURE VI-8.
CENTRIFUGAL (CHOPPER
TYPE) SLURRY PUMP
CHARACTERISTICS (22).
60
2 40
ZO
WATER O C
4.0%
. 6.6% Q"
11.7%
IS.9 1 \
_l_
2
40
Flo», gol./mln.
so a
to
FIGURE VI-9.
ADVANCING CAVITY
(HELICAL) SLURRY
PUMP CHARACTERISTICS,
*.s%
Input Brat*
50 r
S 30-
40 80
Flo*, gol./mln.
FIGURE VI-10.
POSITIVE DISPLACEMENT
SLURRY PUMP CHARACTERISTICS
-------
Estimation of Deposition Velocity, The minimum permissible velocity
in the pipeline depends on the pipe diameter, solids concentration,
and particle density. This critical velocity can be estimated as follows;
1. Measure or select the volume solids concentration to be used
in the slurry.
2. Select a trial pipe size, based on the design flow rate for
the system and calculate the corresponding velocity. Three or
4-inch mains with 3-inch laterals have been suggested as a
compromise between cost and friction resistance (49) .
3. From Figure VI-11, read the value for F based on the volume
concentration of solids.
4. Calculate the critical deposition velocity:
Vd = F/3X2D EQN (VI-11)
where: V^ = critical velocity, ft./sec.
F = factor read from Figure VI-11
D = inside pipe diameter, ft.
5. The chosen design velocity should be at least 1 ft. /sec. greater
than the critical deposition velocity. If it is not, the pipe
diameter can be rechosen.
Example: A manure slurry having a solids concentration of 4 percent by
volume is to be pumped at a rate of 100 gal./min. (0.2228 ft. 3/sec.). A
4-inch main has been chosen. Check the velocity to see if deposition will
occur.
The trial velocity in the main is calculated by:
V = Q/A EQN (VI-12)
where: V = average cross-sectional pipe velocity, ft./sec.
A = cross-sectional area of pipe, ft. 2
Q = flow rate, ft. fysec.
VI-49
-------
4.0
3.0
2.0
0.6
F
0.4
0.2
3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.10
30 4 0 5 0 60
1.0
2
20
% SOLIDS CONCENTRATION 8Y VOLUME
FIGURE VI-11. SOLIDS DEPOSITION FACTOR.
VI-50
-------
Then; V= °^/12)2 = 2 •56 ft-/sec •
From Figure VI-11, using a 4 percent solids concentration, F is read
as 1.07. Substituting in Equation (VI-11) ,
Vd = 1.07 JS2.2 (4/12) = 3.50 ft./sec.
The 4-inch main is too large. A smaller pipe is needed for the 100 gpm
flow rate. Calculating again, using 3-inch pipe:
0.2228 . _ .
V = -^07l2)2 =4.54 ft./sec.
This pipe has a flow rate over 1 ft. /sec. greater than the critical deposi-
tion velocity; hence, no solids buildup is anticipated.
Calculation of Friction Head Loss. A major difficulty in designing slurry
pipeline systems is the lack of information available on friction head loss
through pipes and fittings. Figure VI-13, based on pumping tests of
dairy cattle manure slurries through aluminum pipe, illustrates the
variation in pressure drop which occurs with dilution (49); this behavior
is typical of manure slurries (22) . At low total solids content, friction
loss is less than that of water; at higher concentrations» it becomes much
greater.
A rule-of-thumb which has been used for slurry irrigation design is to
use the published pressure drop data for water flow through pipes and
add 10 percent to these figures (19) . Figure VI-13 illustrates that this
is an oversimplification, leading to overdesign at low solids concentrations
and underdesign at high values of total solids.
In the absence of better data, Figures VI-12 and VI-13 may be used for
preliminary design. Typical elbow losses for aluminum pipe were given
by Staley et al. (49) as 50 to 80 feet equivalent length of 2-inch diameter
pipe at 2 percent total solids and 200 to 210 feet equivalent length of 3-inch
pipe at 9 percent total solids, A complete design procedure, based on
measured slurry properties, is given by Aude et al. (8) .
VI-51
-------
zoo
TS 20O00
u. 160
«• 120
TSi
O 40
i
loS"
400
"io5"
200
FLO* (CFS nio'l
100
200
150
FLOW CP* IUS>
50
FIGURE VI-12. PRESSURE DROP OF MANURE SLURRY THROUGH A
2-INCH PIPE (49) .
10
TS 80000
TS 90000
water
w
5
TS 35000
0
400
300
200
FLOW (CFS » I03)
100
o
50 100 <50
FLOW GPM (US)
FIGURE VI-13. PRESSURE DROP OF MANURE SLURRY THROUGH A
3-INCH PIPE (49) .
VI-52
-------
Management Considerations ¦ System components for transport of animal
waste slurries are similar to those used in conventional piping systems;
however, some additional precautions are warranted. Manure slurries
are extremely corrosive and somewhat abrasive, due to the presence of
grain and grit particles. Thus, protective oxides which build up by
corrosion may be scoured from the surface, greatly decreasing pipe life.
Limiting pipeline velocities to less than 7 ft./sec. can largely reduce
abrasion. Flushing pipelines with water following irrigation retards
corrosion, reduces odor, and helps to eliminate plugging problems due
to solids deposits . Choice of long-radius elbows and full-flow valves,
along with elimination of dead ends, can eliminate plugging; however,
it is advisable to provide easy access to all parts of the system in case
plugging develops.
Little information has been published on sprinkler types and spacings.
A riser-mounted 7/8" diameter rubber sprinkler nozzle delivering
167 to 208 gpm had a maximum wetted radius of 110 feet at 3 to 5 percent
total solids (47); a 9 percent total solids slurry discharged through a
1-7/8" diameter manure gun had a uniform distribution radius of 100
feet (53). For additional information, consult manufacturers' literature.
Disposal, Destruction, and Reuse of Liquid/Slurry Wastes
Manure liquid/slurry wastes can be viewed in two ways by the feedlot
management: first, as a resource to be used as efficiently as possible to
defray costs of storage, treatment, and handling; second, as a material
to be destroyed or otherwise disposed of in the most expedient manner,
consistent with pollution and other constraints. Either approach will
require careful management.
Several alternatives have been or are being considered: wet oxidation
(destruction), refeeding, fuel production, use as a fertilizer, and land
spreading for disposal only. Of these, the wet oxidation process (32)
is considered too expensive and sophisticated for feedlot use; fuel
VI-53
-------
production processes use only the solids fraction and are unproven (7)
and refeeding of wastes has yet to be approved (51) . The two remaining
alternatives involve land application.
Land Application. Waste application to the land affects the soil environ-
ment and its vegetation physically, chemically, and biologically. A
summary of potentially deleterious effects of slurry application upon
soil characteristics (the extent depending on rate and timing of appli-
cation) is listed (12):
1. Heavy accumulations of organic material can fill the soil pores,
decreasing the infiltration rate into the soil profile.
2. Plugging of soil pores can reduce the supply of atmospheric
oxygen to the soil and create anaerobic conditions.
3. Soil structure (tilth) can be destroyed by heavy liquid application.
4. The beneficial earthworm population of the soil can be destroyed.
Adverse effects on vegetation may include:
1. retardation of growth due to waste matter buildup on leaves,
2. nitrogen burn,
3. buildup of toxic materials in the root zone,
4. crowding out of desirable plants by weed growth, and
5. buildup of animal-toxic nitrates in forage.
In addition, land application of slurries can potentially lead to nitrate
pollution of groundwater, pollution of surface water through runoff, and
air pollution. For these reasons, it is apparent that careful management
is needed to minimize damage from slurry application. On the other hand,
land disposal of liquid/slurry wastes is the most economical alternative
available; furthermore, these wastes can provide a significant fraction
of plant nutrients.
Application Rates for Slurry Wastes. An attempt to estimate the rate at
which liquid/slurry wastes may be applied to the land without damage
suggests that a number of factors be considered:
VI-54
-------
1. the soil, its fertility, and hydraulic properties;
2. the vegetation, its nutrient requirements, susceptibility to
toxicity or nutrient imbalance, moisture requirements,
production per unit land area, and commercial value;
3. the nutrient value of the fresh waste, type and amount of plant-
toxic components, prior storage/treatment, and dilution; and
4. climatic factors of precipitation, evaporation, and temperature.
At the present time, many of these data are unavailable or uncorrelated;
however, some guidelines are available. Table VI-9 gives the results
of several analyses of fresh beef wastes. From these data, the potential
nutrient value and sodium concentration may be estimated.
Nutrient availability can be dramatically affected by treatment/storage.
Under most circumstances, either nitrogen or sodium concentration
limits the waste application rate (the nitrogen content can be appreciably
reduced by some storage/treatment, notably the BLWRS and oxidation
ditch) . Table VI-10 gives the percentage of beef cattle waste nutrients
utilized by corn as a function of treatment/storage.
TABLE VI-9
TYPICAL VALUES OF BEEF WASTES PARAMETERS (37)
Parameter
Value
Total Solids
N
P
K
4.9 - 9.5 LB/Day
Na*
3.1 - 9.8% Total Solids
1.35 - 1.7% Total Solids
2.27 - 3.0% Total Solids
0.09% Total Solids
~May be as high as 1%, Depending on Ration.
VI-55
-------
TABLE VI-10
EFFECT OF TREATMENT/STORAGE ON
NUTRIENT RECOVERY* BY CORN CROP (23)
Type of
manure
handling
Yield
g per pot
Recovery by crop
N P K
percent
percent percent
No manure 11
Steer manure
Fresh 32
Stacked 32
Anaerobic liquid 33
Aerobic liquid 20
53
54
66
13
24
24
28
14
74
74
83
34
~Application Rate: 15 Tons/Acre on Corn Grown on Miami Silt Loam
in Pots.
In the absence of more specific data, these figures may serve as an
indicator in estimating the percentages of nutrients which remain after
treatment/storage and their value to the crop. For estimation of waste
application rates, the dilution factor must be known. This should be
available from prior system design or can be measured.
Information on soil fertility and hydraulic properties, plus plant nutrient,
moisture, and salinity limitations can be obtained from the Cooperative
Extension Service of the Land Grant universities and from the Soil
Conservation Service. With a knowledge of crop nutrient requirements,
soil analysis, and the above information, a rough estimate of the soil
nutrient balance can be made and an appropriate application rate chosen.
VI-56
-------
For a slurry having a 2:1 water to fresh waste dilution factor (approx-
imately 95 percent, wet basis), Berryman (12) recommends a maximum
application rate of 925 to 1250 gallons/acre at 3 to 4 week intervals, with
the heavier rates on light, coarse-textured soils; at higher dilutions, the
rate may approach that for irrigation water. A commonly recommended
figure for beef wastes in any form is 10 tons/acre/year, dry weight
basis (35) . However, uniformity of distribution is as important as
average application rate.
Additional general observations on land disposal are:
1. Water pollution by runoff is a major hazard of liquid/slurry
waste disposal; injection into the soil or immediate plowdown
is recommended (10) for runoff control and minimization of
anaerobic odor nuisance as well as better utilization of nutrients.
2. Disposal of slurry on pasture has minimized runoff pollution.
However, there is danger of nitrate buildup in forage; at heavy
application rates, pasture palatability to cattle is lessened (34) .
3, Some form of manure storage during winter conditions is a
necessity, since temperature-delayed biological activity
coupled with frozen ground can lead to serious springtime
water pollution.
4, Corn, in particular, has been shown to respond well to slurry
application; legumes, on the other hand, have been rendered
susceptible to weed intrusion and have been reduced in
nitrogen-fixing ability by heavy application of slurries
(12, 35).
VI-57
-------
REFERENCES
1. Anon., "How We Handle Liquid Manure," Hoard's Dairyman,
pp. 1254-1255 (November 25, 1965).
2. Anon. , "This Liquid Manure System Works," Hoard's Dairyman,
pp. 16-18 (January 10, 1967).
3. Anon., Beef Housing and Equipment Handbook, Midwest Plan
Service, Ames, Iowa (1965).
4. Anon, , "Morales Feedlots Build Huge Slab to Eliminate Pollution
Problems," West Texas Livestock Weekly, p. 11 (May 14, 1970).
5. Anon. , A Method of Manure Disposal for a Beef Packing
Operation, Water Pollution Control Research Series, U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency (in press) .
6. Anthony, W. B., "Cattle Manure: Re-use Through Wastage,
Feeding," Animal Waste Management, Cornell University, Ithaca,
New York, pp. 105-113 (1969).
7. Appell, H. R. , Y. C. Fu, S. Friedman, P. M. Yavorsky, and
I. Wender, "Converting Organic Wastes to Oil," Agricultural
Engineering, Vol. 53, (3), pp. 17-19 (1972).
8. Aude, T. C. , N. T. Cowder, T , L. Thompson, and E.J. Wasp,
"Slurry Piping Systems: Trends, Design Methods, Guidelines,"
Chemical Engineering, pp. 74-90 (June 18, 1971).
9. Barth, C. L. , and L. B. Polkowski, "Low-Volume Surface -
Layer Aeration Conditioned Manure Storage," Livestock Waste
Management and Pollution Control, ASAE, St. Joseph, Michigan,
pp. 279-282 (1971).
10. Bartlctt, H. D. , and L. F. Marriott, "Subsurface Disposal of
Liquid Manure," Livestock Waste Management and Pollution
Abatement, ASAE, St. Joseph, Michigan, pp. 258-260 (1971).
VI-58
-------
11. Bates, D. W. "Handling Methods for Liquid Manure are Tested,"
Hoard's Dairyman, p. 273 (March 10, 1971).
12. Berryman, C. "The Problem of Disposal of Farm Wastes with
Particular Reference to Maintaining Soil Fertility," Farm Wastes,
University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Newcastle-upon-Tyne,
England, pp. 19-28 (1970).
13. Butchbaker, A. F., J. E. Garton, G. W. A. Mahoney, and
M. D. Paine, Evaluation of Beef Cattle Feedlot Waste Manage-
ment Alternatives, Water Pollution Control Research Series
13040 FXG, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (1971).
14. Butchbaker, A. F., Feedlot Runoff Disposal on Grass and Crops,
Oklahoma State University Extension Publication No. 7521,
Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, Oklahoma (1972) .
15. Culpin, C., "Equipment for Disposal of Agricultural Effluents,"
Chemistry and Industry, pp. 350-353 (February 29, 1964).
16. Dale, A. C., J. R. Ogilvie, A. C. Chang, M. P. Douglas, and
J. A. Lindley, "Disposal of Dairy Cattle Waste by Aerated Lagoons
and Irrigation," Animal Waste Management, Cornell University,
Ithaca, New York, pp. 150-159 (1969).
17. Edwards, J. B . , and J . B. Robinson, "Changes in Composition
of Continuously Aerated Poultry Manure with Special Reference
to Nitrogen," Animal Waste Management, Cornell University,
Ithaca, New York, pp. 178-184 (1969).
18. Erickson, A. E. , J. M. Tiedje, B, G. Ellis, C. M. Hansen,
"Initial Observations of Several Medium Sized Barriered Landscape
Water Renovation Systems for Animal Wastes," Waste Management
Research, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, pp. 405-410
(1972),
19. Estep, A. J., "Handling Liquid Manure by Sprinkler," Washington
State University Agricultural Extension Newsletter.
VI-59
-------
20. Fogg, C . E., "Lagoon Systems," Sanitary Engineering Training
Course, Soil Conservation Service, Fort Worth, Texas (1972) .
21. Glerum, J. C., G. Klomp, and H. R. Poelma, "The Separation
of Solid and Liquid Parts of Pig Slurry," Livestock Waste
Management and Pollution Control, ASAE, St. Joseph, Michigan,
pp. 345-347 (1971) .
22. Hart, S. A. , J. A. Moore, and W. F. Hale, "Pumping Manure
Slurries," Management of Farm Animal Wastes, ASAE, St. Joseph
Michigan, pp. 34-37 (1966).
23. Hensler, R. F., W. H. Erhardt, and L. M. Walsh, "Effect of
Manure Handling Systems on Plant Nutrients Cycling," Livestock
Waste Management and Pollution Abatement, ASAE, St. Joseph,
Michigan, pp. 254-257 (1971).
24. Holmes, L. W.» D. L. Day, and J. T. Pfeffer, "Concentrations
of Proteinaceous Solids from Oxidation Ditch Mixed Liquor, "
Livestock Waste Management and Pollution Control, ASAE,
St. Joseph, Michigan, pp. 351-354 (1971).
25. Jedele, D. G. , and F. W. Andrew, "Slotted-floor, Cold-confinement
Beef-cattle Housing," ASAE Paper 72-448, ASAE, St. Joseph,
Michigan (1972).
26. Jones, D. D., D. L. Day, and A. C. Dale, Aerobic Treatment
of Livestock Wastes, Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin
737, University of Illinois, in Cooperation with Purdue University,
Urban-Champaign, Illinois, (1970).
27. Kumar, M., H. D, Bartlett, and N. N. Mohsemin, Flow Properties
of Animal Wastes Slurries, ASAE Paper No. 70-911, ASAE,
St. Joseph , Michigan (1970) .
28. Loehr, R. C., and R. W. Agnew, "Cattle Wastes Pollution and
Potential Treatment," Journal of the Sanitary Engineering
Division ASCE, Vol. 93 (5A-4) pp. 55-72 (1967).
VI-60
-------
29. Loehr, R. C., Pollution Implications of Animal Wastes—A
Forward Oriented Review, FWPCA, USDI, RSKWRC, P.O.
Box 1198, Ada, Oklahoma (1968).
30. Loehr, R. C . , "Liquid Waste Treatment Il-Oxidation Ponds and
Aerated Lagoons," Agricultural Wastes: Principles and Guide-
lines for Practical Solutions, Cornell University, Ithaca, New
York, pp. 63-71 (1971).
31. Loehr, R. C. , "Liquid Waste Treatment III-The Oxidation Ditch,"
Agricultural Wastes Principles and Guidelines for Practical
Solutions, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, pp. 72-78
(1971).
32. Ludington, B.C., "Solids Destruction or Severe Treatment,"
Agricultural Wastes: Principles and Guidelines for Practical,
Solutions, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, pp. 102-106
(1971).
33. Maddex, R. L. , Materials Handling Systems and Farmstead
Layouts, Department of Agricultural Engineering, Michigan
State University, E. Lansing, Michigan (1966).
34. McCaskey, T. A. , G. H. Rollins , and J. A. Little, "Water
Quality of Runoff from Grassland Applied with Liquid, Semi-
liquid and 'Dry' Dairy Waste," Livestock Waste Managment
and Pollution Abatement, ASAE, St. Joseph, Michigan, pp.
239-242 (1971).
35. Miner, J. R. , editor, Farm Animal-Waste Management, Special
Report No. 67, North Central Regional Publication 206, Agri-
cultural and Home Economics Experiment Station, Iowa State
University, Ames, Iowa (1971).
36. Moore, J. A., R. E. Larson, and E, R. Allred, "Study of the
Use of the Oxidation Ditch to Stabilize Beef Animal Manures in
Cold Climate," Animal Waste Management, Cornell University,
Ithaca, New York, pp. 172-177 (1969).
VI-61
-------
37. Ngoddy, P. 0. , J. P. Harper, R. K. Collins, G. D. Wells, and
F. A. Heidar, Closed System Waste Management for Livestock.
Water Pollution Control Research Series, No. 13040 DKP, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (1971) .
38. Nogaj, R. J., "Selecting Wastewater Aeration Equipment,"
Chemical Engineering, pp. 95-102 (April 17, 1972).
39. Nordstedt, R. A., L. B. Baldwin, and C. C. Hortenstine,
"Multistage Lagoon Systems for Treatment of Dairy Farm Waste,"
Livestock Waste Management and Pollution Abatement, ASAE,
St. Joseph, Michigan, pp. 78-80 (1971).
40. Payne, J. I., "Land Disposal and Storage of Farm Wastes," Farm
Wastes, University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Newcastle-upon-
Tyne, England, pp. 116-121 (1970).
41. Person, H. L. , J. R. Miner, T. E. Hazen, and A. R. Mann, A
Comparison of Three Systems for Transport and Treatment of
Swine Manure, ASAE Paper No. 72-439, ASAE, St. Joseph,
Michigan (1972).
42. Peterson, M., The Missouri Irrigation and Land Forming
Newsletter, Cooperative Extension Service, University of
Missouri, Columbia, Missouri, Vol. 1, No. 4 (August, 1971) .
43. Pratt, G. L., R. E. Harkness, R. G. Butler, J. L. Parson, and
M. L. Buchanon, "Treatment of Beef-cattle Waste Water for
Possible Reuse," Transactions of the ASAE, Vol. 12, pp. 471-
473 (1969).
44. Reed, C. H. , "Specifications for Equipment for Liquid Manure
Disposal by the Plow-Furrow-Cover Method," Animal Waste
Management, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, pp. 114-
119 (1969).
45. Roberts, R. N., "Pipelines for Process Slurries," Chemical
Engineering, pp. 125-130 (July 31, 1967).
VI-62
-------
46. Roper, W. L., "How to Build a Liquid Manure Tank," Hoard's
Dairyman, p. 827 (July 10, 1967).
47. Sewell, J. I. , Manure Slurry Irrigation System Receiving Lot
Runoff, ASAE Paper No. 72-443, ASAE, St. Joseph, Michigan
(1972).
48. Sobel, A. T., "Physical Properties of Animal Manures Associated
with Handling," Management of Farm Animal Wastes, ASAE,
St. Joseph, Michigan, pp. 27-31, (1966).
49. Staley, L. M., N. R. Bulley, and T . A. Windt, "Pumping Char-
acteristics , Biological and Chemical Properties of Dairy Manure
Slurries," Livestock Waste Management and Pollution Abatement,
ASAE, St. Joseph, Michigan, pp. 142-145 (1971).
50. Taiganides, E. P., and R. K. White, "The Menace of Noxious Gases
in Animal Units," Transactions of the ASAE, Vol. 12, No. 3,
pp. 359-362 (1969).
51. Taylor, J. C. , "Regulatory Aspects of Recycled Livestock and
Poultry Wastes,11 Livestock Waste Management and Pollution
Abatement, ASAE, St. Joseph, Michigan, pp. 291-292 (1971).
52. Turnbull, J. E., F. R. Hore, and M. Feldman, "A Land Recycling
Liquid Manure System for a Large-scale Confinement Operation in
a Cold Climate," Livestock Waste Management and Pollution
Abatement, ASAE, St. Joseph, Michigan, pp. 39-43 (1971).
53. Turner, D. O., and D. E. Proctor, "A Farm Scale Dairy Waste
Disposal System," Livestock Waste Management and Pollution
Abatement, ASAE, St. Joseph, Michigan, pp. 85-88 (1971).
VI-63
-------
SECTION VII
ECONOMICS OF INTEGRATED WASTES CONTROL SYSTEMS
Contents
Page
No.
USE OF ECONOMIC DATA FOR COST ESTIMATION VII-4
Cost Index VII-6
Cost-Capacity Factor VII-12
Economics of Machinery VII-13
Economics of Structures VII-19
Economics of Disposal, Destruction and Reuse of Wastes VII-29
Example Problem VII-38
Capital Cost Estimation VII-38
Cost Estimate of Housing and Feeding Facilities VII-38
Design of Wastes Management System Alternatives VII-38
Anaerobic Storage Tank System VII-41
Anaerobic Lagoon System VII-41
Aerated Lagoon System VII-42
Capital and Operating Costs of Alternative Wastes VII-43
Management Systems
Anaerobic Storage Tank System VII-43
Anaerobic Lagoon System VII-45
Aerated Lagoon System VII-45
Comparison of Example Wastes Handling Alternatives VII-45
REFERENCES VII-52
APPENDICES VII-56
VH-i
-------
SECTION VII
TABLES
Table
No.
VII-1
VII-2
VII-3
VII-4
VII-5
VII-6
VII-7
VII-8
VII-9
VII-10
VII-11
VII-12
VII-13
VII-14
VII-15
VII-16
VII-17
VII-18
VII-19
VII-20
VII-21
RANKING OF SELECTED WASTE MANAGEMENT
SYSTEMS ACCORDING TO POTENTIAL FOR
POLLUTION CONTROL AND LEAST COST
LIQUID/SLURRY WASTE HANDLING EQUIPMENT
LIQUID/SLURRY STORAGE/TREATMENT STRUCTURES
SOLIDS HANDLING EQUIPMENT (WASTE AND/OR
CONSTRUCTION)
MULTIPURPOSE (SOLIDS OR LIQUID/SLURRY
HANDLING) MACHINERY
FUEL CONSUMPTION FACTORS
SOLIDS SEPARATION STRUCTURES
SOLIDS SYSTEMS
CONFINEMENT BUILDING COMPONENTS
OPEN LOT COMPONENTS
FEEDING EQUIPMENT
RAW MATERIALS FOR CONSTRUCTION
ANNUAL PAYMENT TO AMORTIZE A LOAN OF
$1,000 - EVEN PAYMENT PLAN
CUSTOM RATES
COMPOSTING
REFEEDING TO CATTLE
FERTILIZER
DRYING AND INCINERATION
EXAMPLE CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE OF FEEDLOT PLAN
CAPITAL COST FOR ANAEROBIC STORAGE TANK
SYSTEM
OPERATING COSTS FOR ANAEROBIC STORAGE TANK
SYSTEM
VII-22 CAPITAL COSTS FOR ANAEROBIC LAGOON SYSTEM
Page
No.
VII-3
VII-8
VII-10
VII-14
VII-16
VII-19
VII-20
VII-20
VII-21
VII-25
VII-26
VII-27
VII-30
VII-31
VII-33
VII-34
VII-35
VII-36
VII-39
VII-44
VII-46
VII-47
VH-ii
-------
Table
No.
Page
No.
VII-23 OPERATING COSTS FOR ANAEROBIC LAGOON SYSTEM VII-48
VII-24 CAPITAL COSTS FOR AERATED LAGOON SYSTEM VII-49
VII-25 OPERATING COSTS FOR AERATED LAGOON SYSTEM VII-50
VII-26 COMPARISON OF EXAMPLE SYSTEMS VII-51
Vll-iii
-------
SECTION VII
FIGURES
Figure Page
No. No.
VII-1 100-HEAD PAVED LOT WITH COVERED REST AREA VII-5
VII-2 ENGINEERING NEWS-RECORD, Cost Indices VII-7
VII-3 PLAN VIEW OF EXAMPLE FEEDLOT VII-37
VH-iv
-------
SECTION VII
ECONOMICS OF INTEGRATED WASTES CONTROL SYSTEMS
The usefulness of published economic data depends primarily upon two
factors: (a) the form in which it is given, and (b) the needs of the
reader. Thus a rule of thumb such as "$15 per head total facility cost
for open lots" is far too general to aid in choosing between alternate
waste management systems. At the same time, even a quite detailed
capital cost breakdown for a particular enterprise may be difficult to
relate to potential costs of another operation because of differences in
size, topography, climate , etc. In choosing a format for this section ,
three major uses for economic information by the feedlot designer-
operator were anticipated:
1. preparing detailed cost estimates for modifications or replace-
ment of components in an existing waste management system,
2. detailing a cost estimate of a total wastes management system
prior to construction, and
3. comparing two or more potential wastes management systems
in the early stages of design.
The "nuts and bolts" economic information needed for the first use is
obviously not convenient for the third. In seeking a compromise, the
following objectives were used as guidelines:
1. to provide unit prices of those construction materials which
would commonly be used for fabrication of wastes manage-
ment system components by the feedlot or its contractors:
2. to furnish capital costs for purchased wastes handling and
storage system components, or to provide a means of extrap-
olating limited cost data on these items;
3. to supply operating cost information for owned machinery, as
well as custom rates for contracted work: and
VII-1
-------
4. to enable a fairly rapid estimate of system costs by use of
the economic information in this section in concert with the
design procedures of the preceding sections.
Items not considered pertinent to choice of waste management system»
such as feed mills and storages, have been omitted. To compensate for
the lack of emphasis on economic comparison of total waste management
systems (which depends greatly on the circumstances of the individual
enterprise), the information given in the initial sections of the manual
can provide optional choices of feasible wastes management systems
based on climate, topography, and personal preference. Table VII-1,
drawn from an extensive economic modeling study of alternatives,
offers further qualitative guidance with respect to economics and pollu-
tion control. By using this procedure to eliminate undesirable options,
manual economic evaluation of one or two remaining alternative systems
based on the design sections then becomes a feasible, though somewhat
tedious, operation.
For examination of additional results of wastes management systems
studies, the interested reader is referred to the work of Butchbaker
et al. (13), Owens and Griffin (24) and Nordstedt (23); the associated
programs can indeed be useful for those users having access to an
adequate computer •
In interpreting the published results of these studies, however, three
cautions are in order. First, because of the rapid change in costs of
material and labor and the differences in location of the studies, extrapo-
lation of the results is risky. Second, it is unlikely that the situation
modeled in these studies closely corresponds to that of a given feedlot;
thus, a judgment of the applicability of the results must be made. Third,
unless the economic assumptions of the study are clearly stated, it may
be impossible to decompose the published data into meaningful information
(e.g. , do operating costs include labor? does investment cost include
equipment installation charges?).
VII-2
-------
TABLE VII-1
RANKING OF SELECTED WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS ACCORDING TO POTENTIAL
FOR POLLUTION CONTROL AND LEAST COST (13)
Pollution Control Rank
Cable scrapev, with shallow pit 1
and lagoon or irrigation
Oxidation ditch, lagoon and 2
irrigation or evaporation
Deep storage pit under slotted 3
floor, slurry hauling with soil
injection system
Solid floor building, solid waste 4
handling only, composting or
field application
Paved open feedlot with flushing 5
system and irrigation
Unpaved open feedlot with settling 6
basins, detention reservoir,
irrigation
Unpaved open feedlot with detention 7
reservoirs or lagoons only,
evaporation
Economic
Unpaved open feedlot with detention
reservoirs or lagoons only, evaporation
Unpaved open feedlot with settling basins,
detention reservoirs, irrigation
Solid floor building, solid waste handling
only, composting or field application
Deep storage pit under slotted floor, slurry
hauling with soil injection system
Paved open feedlot with flushing system and
irrigation
Cable scraper with shallow pit and lagoon
or irrigation
Oxidation ditch, lagoon and irrigation or
evaporation
-------
In the subsequent sections of this section, the following order of presen-
tation is used. First, cost engineering techniques and rules of thumb
for extending limited economic data are given. Second, the economics
of machinery are discussed, followed by tables of cost-capacity data for
construction and wastes handling equipment. Next, a discussion of the
economics of structures is followed by tables of economic information on
wastes holding/treatment structures, housing facilities and accessories,
and materials of construction. Finally, information regarding the econom-
ics of processes commonly considered for reuse or destruction of wastes
is summarized.
To illustrate the potential use of these economic data and methods, an
example is in order. Figure VII-1, taken from a recent issue of Feedlot
Management (4), illustrates a paved lot design with several attractive
features. Although this unit is designed for only 100 head, it can easily
be used (with conversion to fenceline feeding) as a module to build a
much larger operation. The paved lot allows increased animal density,
can be easily scraped or flushed, and improves animal comfort.
In the example (which is the final portion of the section), a detailed
estimate of current facility costs will be made by use of the techniques
and data to be presented. Then, after the addition of design information
from Section VI, three alternative liquid/slurry waste management sys-
tems will be compared on the basis of both investment and operating
cost. To aid in following the example, the reader is urged to carefully
follow the cost estimation techniques and to familiarize himself with the
location of information given in the tables.
USE OF ECONOMIC DATA FOR COST ESTIMATION
Cost estimation, at its best, is an inexact art.
Because of the accelerating rise in costs of materials and labor, the
difficulty in obtaining price information, and the constant changes in
technology, it is axiomatic that published economic data are out of date.
VII-4
-------
100-HEAD PAVED LOT WITH COVERED REST AREA (4) .
-------
To extend the usefulness of the limited cost information given in this
section, two aids, the cost index and cost-capacity factor, are available.
Cost Index
The cost index has been developed as a means of adjusting past published
cost data to present levels • In construction of a cost index, a certain
year is typically chosen as the base period. Next, a pertinent economic
commodity or group of commodities is chosen as an indicator of the
status of the industry as a whole and the price (s) of these during the
base year is used to create the base index, using a convenient formula
or weighting procedure. During later time periods, the same scheme is
used to compute current cost indices, giving a comparative history of
the performance of the industry as a whole. The ratio of the cost indices
of any two time periods gives a multiplier for translating past costs to
present levels.
For estimation of feedlot construction costs, the "Construction Index,"
based on a nationwide weighted average of prices of common construction
materials and wage rates, was chosen as the most representative and
readily available. The Engineering News-Record construction trade
journal contains weekly updates of the index. Figure VII-2, which
summarizes the recent history of the Construction Index, can be used
to update all construction costs given in the tables of this section; it may
also, with somewhat less accuracy, be used to extrapolate past published
machinery prices to current levels. In a similar fashion, the "Materials
Index" given in Figure VII-2 can be used to adjust the construction raw
materials prices given in Table VII-2.
An example of the use of the cost index is taken from Table VII-3. A slurry
storage tank of poured concrete construction was estimated to cost $25 per
cubic yard of capacity in 1964, including labor. Using the cost index,
the problem is to estimate the current (1972) cost. From Figure VII-2,
the Construction Index averaged 925 in 1964, and is estimated to average
1725 during 1972. Hence:
VII-6
-------
2000
ENR cost indexes
1913 = 100
Forecast
1789
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
Construction cost
800
692
600
Materials
400
56
58
60
62
64
66
68
70
72
FIGURE VII-2. ENGINEERING NEWS-RECORD, COST INDICES (7).
VII-7
-------
TABLE VII-2
LIQUID/SLURRY WASTES HANDLING EQUIPMENT
ttem
Reported
Range of
Capacltita
Machine Size
Or Capacity
investment Cat!
Cost Date Location
Operating Go»t
Machine Lift
Comment
Vacuum Type
Tank Wagon
750-1500 gal.
750 gal.
1100 gal.
1500 gal.
t 1200
1500
1800-
1900
'71
•71
'71
Ind.
Ind.
Ind-
Okta.
14.00/hr.
4.00/hr.
4.00/hr.
6 years
(2000 hr.)
Annual Depre-
ciation, Interest.
Repatra, Inaurance,
Taxes = 15% of
Investment Coat.
Liquid
Manure Spreader
Pull Type
415.6-
3000 gal.
14-35 (t.
Swath
1400 gal.
1740
•71
Okla.
5 yeara
(2000 hr.)
Annual Depre-
ciation, Interest
Repairs, Insurance
Taxes = 15% of
Inveatment Coat.
Liquid
Combination
Spreader-
Injector.
Puli Type
800-1000 gal.
29-40 ft.
Swath
2 Injector
Shanks,
Penetration
6-14"
1400 gal.
2894
'71
Okla.
2000 hr.
Liquid
Sprsadar
Truck
280-160 ft.1
55.7 yd. 3/hr.
(baaed on 0.25
mile hauling
diatance)
9300
'71
Okla.
2,08/hr.
2000 hr.
Operating Cost
In el. Fuel ft Lub .
Liquid
Manure Pump
1400 gpm
1433
'71
Okla.
S yeu-a
(2000 hr.)
Annual Depre-
ciation, Inlereat
Repairs, Insurance.
Taxes * 20% of
Inveatment Cost
Centrifugal
Pump
See
Appendix
Figs. VII-
and VII-2
'64
1
0.22/Acre-inch
Per 100 ft. of head
B yeara
Electric
Motor Drive
See
Appendix
Figa. VII-
3
8 yeara
Souree(a)
(6,11.13.22)
(6.11,13)
(6,11)
(11.»)
(21,25)
(21)
and VII-4
-------
TABLE VII-2 (CONTINUED)
*0
Item
Aluminum
Irrigation
Pipe
Manure Gun
Type Sprinkler
+ 1/8 mi. hose
Same with pump
Center Pivot
Irrigation
System
(no pump;
Range of
Capacities
Machine Siie
Or Capacity
6-10" diajn.
30' lengths
400 gpm
(125 psi at
Pivot)
Investment Cost
Cost
$0.85-
1.25/ft.
5000
7200
160 A. Nominal 19000
(1J2A) Coverage
£75 psi at Pivot)
Date
'72
•72
'72
'72
Location
Kan.
Kan.
Ore.
Kan.
Operating Cost Machine Life
10 years
10 years
Comment
Source(»)
For Gated Pipe. (25)
Add 10«/ft.
(25)
(8)
(25)
-------
TABLE VII-3
Structure
Shallow
Underfloor
Pit
Component
Cable Powered
Scraper
Electric Motor
Deep
Underfloor
Pit
Pump
Agitator (¦ Pump
Combination
Storage Tank
LIQUID/SLUR&Y STORAGE/TREATMENT STRUCTURES
Deacription
Investment Cost Operating Cost
(Date) (Date)
Comment
2 ft. Depth
4 ft. Depth
6 ft. Depth
1400 gpm
7 ft. Long
200 gpm §
100 psi
30 HP electric
Motor
16 ft. Long
Same Specs.
Concrete
Silo Stave
Construction
Glasslined
Metal
Construction
Poured
Concrete
Construction
SOt/ft.1 {'71)
45-65«/ft.' ('71)
$2280 Inc. Motor
('71)
180-130./Hp ('71)
(Also See Fig. 7)
(Table )
50-75«/ft.' ('71)
$1.00/ft. 2
$1433 ('71)
$1895
Ore. ('72)
$2070
Ore. ('72)
NY (*69)
22t/ft, 5
NY 069)
>$1.00/ft. J
2500 Hr. Life
Valid for 1/4-5 HP
Use Higher Price For
Highest Quality Motor
Source(b)
(13,22)
(13)
(28)
(22)
Also See Appendix Fig. VII-1 (13)
For Use in 8 ft. Deep Tank (8)
(8)
(14)
('69)
$28/yd.1
Based on: 1 yd.1 Concrete
17.5 ft..1 Forms i $1.00/ft.*,
115 lb. Reinforcing Steel §
(14)
(21)
-------
TABLE VII-3 (CONTINUED)
Investment Cost Operating Cost
Structure Component Description (Date) (Date)
Comment
Soarce(s)
Oxidation Ditch
Aerobic
Lagoon
Anaerobic
Lagoon
Rotor
Rotor
Aerator
Centrifugal Pump
4 ft. Depth Incl. 50-75*/ft. 1 ('71)
Rotor
8 ft. Length.
5 HP Unit
$2228 ('71)
Okla.
Total Investment l-2i/Cal. ('71)
Cost of Capacity
Excavation Only $0.30/yd. ' ('71)
75 HP: Oxygen $13900 ('70)
Transfer Rate =
2. 0#/HP-Hr.
5 HP $2500 ('69)
Total Investment l-2t/Gal. ('71)
Cost Of Capacity
Excavation Only $0. 30/yd. * ('71)
$l-$2/day ('71)
Ind.
Serves 100 head
Weight
<1000#
Serves 500 head
8000 Hr. Life
Clean out by
Dragline (1/2 yd.5)
$9-$25/Hr. ('70)
Centrifugal Pump
See APPer>dix Fig . VII-1
For Individual
Machine Work
Rates and Cost
See Tables VII-5 &
Clean out by VII-14
Drag line (1/2 yd. 5)
$9-$25/hr. ('70)
Sec Appendix Fig. VII-1
(22)
(22)
(13)
(13)
(13,27)
(20)
(31)
(13)
(13.27)
-------
19?2 Cost =
1972 Index
(1964 Cost)
EQN (VII-1)
1972 Cost = -^25 x - $52/yd. 3 capacity
Cost-Capacity Factor
A second difficulty encountered in using published cost data is that of
extending a single given cost value to machines (or enterprises) of the
same generic type, but of a different capacity or size. For example, are
capital costs for a 10,000-head feedlot approximately twice those for a
5,000-head lot of the same general design? Is a 60-HP tractor twice as
expensive as a 30-HP tractor?
To assist the cost estimator with questions of this nature, the concept of
a "cost-capacity factor" was developed. From analysis of many cost-
capacity data for industries, products, and machines, it has been noted
that the equation:
where: C£ = desired cost of capacity
Cj = known cost of capacity Qj
can be used to describe the cost-capacity relationship of most sets of
similar items. It is only necessary that capacities and be
expressed in the same units. The exponent (cost-capacity factor) has
been found to range from <0.2 to >1.0 for various products. However,
in a surprising number of cases, its value is approximately 0.6; hence,
in the absence of better information this fraction is often used (this is
known as the "six-tenths factor rule"). Naturally, the closer the
capacity of the item with the unkown cost to that of the item whose cost
is known, the greater the expectation of accuracy.
C2 = C1 (Q2/D1)X
EQN (VII-2)
VII-12
-------
In the tables which follow, often only a single cost data point is available
for a given component. If the user requires cost information for a similar
item of different capacity, this technique can be employed.
An example, taken from Table VII-2, illustrates the use of this method
and provides a check on its applicability. In the table, a 750-gallon
vacuum-type tank wagon is listed at $1200 (date: 1971), It is desired
to find the cost of a 1500-gallon wagon of the same type. Substituting
into EQN (VII-2) and using the "six-tenths factor rule";
In Table VII-2, the actual 1971 cost of such a wagon is given as $1800 to
$1900. To complete the transformation of the data into a current cost,
it would next be necessary to employ the cost index, as explained in
the previous subsection.
Economics of Machinery
The economics of farm machinery has commonly been divided into
categories of fixed cost (first cost, depreciation, taxes, shelter, insur-
ance, and interest) and variable cost (fuel, lubrication, maintenance,
and repairs) , From these definitions, it is apparent that fixed costs
are incurred regardless of the hours of machine operation, while vari-
able costs depend upon the rate of use.
Investment cost (first cost) for common feedlot machinery and, in some
cases, an estimation of machinery life are given in Tables VII-2, 4, and
5. For tax purposes, the standard machine lifetime is assumed to be ten
years. The depreciation schedule is somewhat arbitrary and is not
considered pertinent for cost evaluations. Estimates for the remaining
components of fixed cost, on an annual basis, are:
1. Taxes: less than or equal to 2 percent of the remaining
value of the machine;
2. Shelter: approximately $0.07 per square foot, or 1 to 2
percent of the remaining value of the machine;
$1200
$1820
VII-13
-------
TABLE VII-4
SOLIDS HANDLING EQUIPMENT (WASTES AND/OR CONSTRUCTION)
Jtem
Reported
Range Of
Capacities
Machine Size
Or Capacity
Cost
Investment Cost
Date Location Operating Cost Machine Life
Comment
Source(s)
h "i c k h U l •
Irac(ci
5ho>vt
trader
1.3-13.5 ft. 1
Due kit Cap.
(Jleaped)
2--1 yd. '
Due kit
2 yd.1
3 yd . 1
4 yd. '
26300
28700
35600
12:0 vd ' hr. 22325
'68
68
68
'71
OHa.
Labor
$4.70-8.06
/Hr. I 70)
S2." 9/hr.
Labor:
$3.89-7.TP.
T70)
(6)
<3.21)
Operating Cost (3.13)
Inc). Fuel t Lub .
I
h-»
industrial
1 ype Loader
Skid-steer
Loader
Dump Truck
8-108 ft. '
5- 30 3/8 ft. 1
Duckets
(Heaped)
Gasoline
2 yd. '
4 yd.1
Diesel
2 yd. 1
4 yd.'
168 yd. Vr.
39.6 yd. Vhr.
(0.25 mile
hauling
distance)
21000
33700
22900
36500
31100
9700
'68
'68
'68
68
'71
'71
Ok la.
Okla.
>1 .87/hr.
S1.91/hr
Labor
S3.00-6.81 / hr.
f'70)
12000 hr.
2000 hr.
Operating Cu^t
Incl. Fuel L LuL
Operating Cost
Incl. Fuel fc Lub .
(6,16)
(6.13)
(3.131
Elevating
Scraper
105 yd.*/hr. 37226 71 Okla.
$2.I4/hr.
12000 hr.
Operating Cost
Incl. Fuel fc Lub.
(13)
Runry Scraper
56 yd. '/hr. 5895 71 Okla.
5000 hr.
(13)
-------
TABLE VU-4 (CONTINUED)
Item
Reported
Range Of
Machine Siie
Or Capacity
Investment Cost
Cost
Date
Location
Machine Lite
Comment
Source(»)
Manure Fork
Ui
Max
Dimensions
28" * 40" x 72"
Min,
Dimensions
n 7/6 x 25"
x 34 3/4
1100
•71
Mich,
$0,32/hr,
Manure Stacker
Pull-Type
Manure Spreader
70-524 bu.
1 ruck -Mounted 177-524 bu.
Manure Spreader
155 bu.
175 bu.
180 bu.
67.1 yd, »/hr.
(based on
0.25 mile
hauling
distance)
1100
1150
1250
1434
12800
*69
'71
J I
Kis.
Mich.
Mich.
Okla,
Okla.
$0,46/hr.
J0.5O/hr.
S2,08/hr.
10 years
(2000 hr-)
10 years
C2500 hr.;
2000 hr
Hydraulic Unit
Operating Cost
Incl. Repairs,
Lub . and Oil.
Annual Deprc
ciation. Interest.
Repairs, Insurance.
Taxes = 15% of
Investment Cost
Operating Cost
Incl, Repairs 1
Lub ,
Operating Com
Incl. Fuel & Lub .
(6.28)
<1J)
(6,13.28)
(6.26)
-------
TABLE Vlt-5
MULTIPURPOSE (SOLIDS OR LIQl ID/SLL'RRY HANDLING) MACHINERY
Item
Wheel
Tractor
Reported
Range Of
Capacities
38-HO HP
(2-7 Plow)
Machine Size
Investment Cost
Or Capacity
Cost
Date
Location
Operating Cost
Machine Life
Comment
Gasoline
38 HP (2 Plow)
4200
•It
Mich.
$0.7 3/hr.
10 years
Operating Cost
53 HP (1 Plow)
5600
'71
Mich.
11.04/hr.
(6500 hr.)
Inel. Repairs,
70 HP (4 Plow)
7400
•71
Mich.
11.38/hr.
Fuel. Oil i Lub
Diesel
70 HP (4 Plow)
7900
'71
Mich,
11.11/hr.
90 HP (5 Plow)
10000
'71
Mich.
$1.47/hr.
115 HP (6 Plow)
11100
'71
Mich.
S1.76/hr.
140 HP (7 Plow)
14100
'71
Mich.
$2.34/hr,
Source(s)
<28)
CT*
MOfNTED ACCESSORIES:
-Scraper Blade
-Loader
30 . . J HP
Heaped
Ducket:
¦9-72 ft. '
6 ft. width S245
Capacity: J SO *
yd.'/hr. on Tractor
65 HP Tractor
37.2 yd.Vhr.
on 65 HP
Tractor
1230
2 Bottom Plow
Tractor with
Loader can Back-
fill Narrow
Trench at 300-
500 hn. ft./hr.
'71
'71
T ractor
Okla.
Okla.
2500 hr.
$0.66/hr.
Operating Cost
IncI. Fuel 4 Lub,
(13)
<6.13)
-------
TABLE VII-5 (CONTINUED)
item
Reported
Range Of
Capacities
TRAILED ACCESSORIES:
—Plow, Pull Type
— Disk,
Tandem
12' - ZD'
Dragline
Machine Site
Or Capacity Cost
Investment Cost
Bate"
3-16". Auto 1600 '71
Reset; O il
Machine Hrs/A.
4-16". Auto 2000 '71
Reset; 0.46
Machine Hrs /A.
5-16". Auto 2350 '71
Reset: 0.37
Machine Mrs. /A.
6-16", Auto 2850 '71
Reset; 0,31
Machine Hrs./A.
7-16", Auto 3150 *71
Reset
12' (0.81 1300 71
Machine Hrs , / A.)
16' (0.14 1600 *71
Machine Hrs./A.)
20' 2100 '71
156 yd.Jhr, for 67500 '71
1/2 yd.' bucket
Location
Mich.
Mich.
Mich.
Mich.
Mich.
Mich.
Mich.
Mich.
Okla,
Operating Cost Machine Life
tl .20/hr.
Ii.49/hr.
$1.76/hr.
$2.1)/h4.
$2.36/hr.
S0.5J/K4.
$0.66/hr.
$0.86/hr.
8 years
(1200 hr.)
10 years
(1500 hr.)
Comment
Source(»)
Operating Cost Incl, (28)
Repairs, Lube
Capacities are
Rated at 85% Field
EH., 4 MP1I
Operating Cost Inc. (28)
Repairs * Lube
Capacities are Rated
at 85% Field Eff.. 4 MPH
(13)
-------
3. Insurance: approximately 0.25 to 0.50 percent of the
remaining value of the machine; and
4. Interest: approximately 7 to 9 percent of the remaining
value of the machine.
Development of guidelines for estimation of operating cost is a much
more difficult subject, since machine efficiency and operator skill and
care vary widely. In the subsequent tables, operating cost rates are
listed if known . Alternatively, Bowers (12) has developed a simplified
method of estimating average fuel consumption rates, based on the first
cost (list price) of the machine, machine type, and fuel used. To use
this procedure, a "fuel consumption factor," read from Table VII-6, is
substituted into the expression:
Cost. $/hr. =
(Fuel Use Factor) (Mach. List Price)(Fuel Price/Gal.)
flooo " •••• LVU"
Current per gallon prices for these fuels are typically $0.28 (less 6 cents
farm refund) for gasoline, $0.19 for diesel, and $0.14-0.17 for LP gas.
Total costs of oil, grease, and oil filter are estimated to be 15 percent of
fuel cost.
For machines not found in the table, the following guidelines are offered:
1. Self-propelled machines average one gallon of fuel per acre
in the field.
2. Machines with trailed implements average 3/4 gallon of fuel
per acre.
3. Gasoline consumption can be estimated at 8.5 HP-hr./gallon
(average power requirement for farm tractors is 55 percent
of the maximum rated HP) .
Again, costs of oil, grease, and oil filter total approximately 15 percent
of fuel cost. Repair cost rates for several common farm machines are
extensively discussed by Bowers (12) .
VII-18
-------
TABLE VII-6
FUEL CONSUMPTION FACTORS (12)
Machine
Gasoline
Diesel
LP Gas
2-Wheel-Drive Tractor
4-Wheel-Drive Tractor
Crawler Tractor
Truck
Feed Truck with Power Box
0.69
0.46
0.36
1.00
0.36
0.31
0.44
0.25
0.64
0.25
0.78
0.55
0.44
1.10
0.44
Custom rates for common construction and feedlot maintenance operations
are given in Table VII-14.
For electric motors, the operating cost depends upon the price of
electricity, commonly 1 to 2 cents per KWH (1 KWH = 1.341 HP-hr.),
and on the efficiency of the motor (normally 65 to 85 percent, with addi-
tional losses in the drive train) .
Economics of Structures
Cost components of structures may be divided into the initial (capital)
costs of materials, labor, and engineering, and annual costs of depre-
ciation, interest, upkeep, taxes, and insurance. The annual costs are
relatively constant and can be calculated as percentages of the capital
costs.
To aid the user in determining capital costs, the overall "structures"
classification has been divided into categories of waste storage and
housing in Tables VII-3, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11, respectively. For rapid
estimates of investment cost, the information in these tables should
normally be adequate; for more detailed estimates, based on construc-
tion plans, use of Table VII-12, "Raw Materials for Construction," is
suggested. Cost updating can be done by using the Cost Index and
VII-19
-------
Structure Component
Settling
Basin
Porous Par.
Tractor with
Loader
Dragline
Planking
Crushed Stont-
Traclor with
Loader
TABLE VII-7
SOLIDS SEPARATION STRUCTURES
Investment Cost Operating Cost
Description (Date) (Date)
Total Investment }-2*/Gal. of Capacity
Cost ('71)
Excavation Only $0. 30/yd . ' C7I)
1/2 yd .' Bucket
$0.32/hr.
$9-$25/hr.
Clean out
$0.1175/Board ft.
(Okla. '71)
$3,50/yd.1 ('64)
S0.32/hr.
Comment
Not Incl. Labor
Incl, Labor
Not incl. Labor
Source(s)
(13)
(28)
(27)
(13)
(21)
(28)
o
Struclur> Component
Description
TABLE VII-8
SOLIDS SYSTEMS
Investment Cost Operating Cost
(Date) (Date)
Comment
Souree(s)
Klanui-i- P!utiorr' Paving
Manure Stacker
Tracicr u ith
Loader
$0.45/11. z
$1,000 (Wis. '69)
Annual Depreciation
Interest, Repairs,
Insurance, Taxes =
15% of Investment
Cost
$0.32/hr. Not
Incl. Labor ('71)
(13)
(11)
(28)
-------
TABLE VII- 9
Item
Beef Barn
Component
Foundation
Pole Footings
Floor
Side Walls
CONFINEMENT BUILDING COMPONENTS
Description
Investment Cost
(Location, Date)
Open Front with
Outdoor Lot, 4"
Concrete Floor
Galvanized Steel
Siding
$1.20-1 ,40 per ft.2
(Mich. '?!)
Same with Aluminum $1.30-1.50 per ft.2
Siding (Mich. *71)
Incl. Excavation $25/yd.s ('68)
Backfill, and Labor, Forms @
Forming; Flat SI. 00/ft.
Slab, 1 yd.1 Concrete,
5,3 ft. 2 Forms 100#
Reinforcing Steel
Digging Hole
Concrete Footing
4" Reinforced
Concrete
Poured
Concrete
Slatted
Floor-
s' Slats
Structure with
Aluminum Siding
Structure with
Galvanized Steel
Siding
6" Block wall
$1. 00/hole
$1,50/footing
(Okla. '71)
$2.00/ft. J
C64)
$0.45/ft. 2
(Okla, '71)
$1.00/ft. 2
(Okla. '71)
$0.65/ft.2
("64)
$0.55/ft.3
('64)
$1.10/ft.*
Comment
Based on 6 Man/hr.
Labor, Forms @
$1.00/ft. 2 . Reinforcing
Steel @ 15< per lb.
(Also see Pit Costs in
Table VII-8)
Incl. Labor
Less Labor
Less Labor
Incl. Labor
Incl. Labor
Incl. Labor
Sourcc(s)
(28)
(28)
(16)
(13.27)
(13)
(21)
(13)
(23)
(21)
(21)
(21)
-------
TABLE VII-9 (CONTINUED)
Item
Component
Description
Investment Cost
(Location, Date)
Comment
Source(s)
Side Walls
Structural
Members
Siding
Insulation
6" Diam
Treated Pole
8" Diam
Treated Pole
Steel Column
Galvanized Steel
Wood
Screen
Windows
Fiberglass
Plastic Foam
Steel
Cost, in $/Fole
Given by 30. -
5.853* L +
0.43863~L2 -
0.01268 *L'+
0.0001346 *L*
Where L = Length,
ft, (Okla., '71)
SO.69/Lin. Ft.
(Okla. '71)
$1.72/ Lin. Ft.
(Okla, '71)
S0.ll/ft.2
(Okla. '71)
$0.15/ft. 2
(Okla. . '71)
SO . 09/ft. 2
(Okla, '71)
SO.OHS/ft.Vinch
Thicknuss (Okla. , '71)
$0 .08/ft. 2/inch
Thickness (Okla,'71)
$4. 50/ft.1 ('64)
(13)
Incl. Labor
(13)
(13)
(13)
(13)
(13)
(13)
(13)
(21)
Doors
Aluminum
Wood
Steel Frame,
8' x 8' Metal
Automatic
12' x 12' Steel.
Manual. Rolling
S6.00/ft. 2 ('64)
$1.80/ft. 2 ('64)
C64)
$850 Ea.
("64)
S600 Ea.
Incl. Labor
Incl. Labor
30 Mari-Hrs,
T o Install
24 Man-l!rs.
To Install
(21)
(21)
(21)
(21)
-------
TABLE VII- 9 (CONTINUED)
Item
Component
Description
Investment Cost
Comment
Source(s)
4' x 8' Metal
Single Slide
12' x 10' Wood
Sectional
Overhead
3' x 7' Wood
Swing Exterior
064)
$100 Ea.
C'64)
$200 Ea.
C'64)
$60 Ea,
5 Man-Hrs.
To Install
6 Man-Hrs -
To Install
4 Man-Hrs.
To Install
(21)
(21)
(21)
Truss
(Truss Costs are all calculated from the Equation:
Investment Cost ($) = (A + B * Span + C* Span *• 2 + D * Span **3) * E
Where Values of A, ,. ., E vary with construction style and materials;
are enumerated below. Span is to be given in feet.
these
i
tsj
u>
Roofing
Roof
Lighting
Inverted Shed
Style Building
Gable Type
Building
Open Web
Steel Type
Bui lding
Aluminum
Coated Steel
(Okla. '71)
A = -5.5
B = 0.27083
C = 0.01041?
D = 0.0
E = 1.0
(Okla. '71)
A =-293.
B = 23.331?
C = -0.5885
D = 0.00503
E = 1,0
(Okla. '71)
A = -18.
B = 1.175
C = -0,0115
D = 0.0
E = 0.15* Span
S0.11/ft.
(Okla. '71)
SO. 62/ft.2 C64)
$0.52/ft. 2 064)
$0.15 Per 20 ft.2
of Floor Area
C71)
(13)
(13)
Including Labor
Including Labor
(13)
(13)
(21)
(21)
(13)
-------
Ilero Component Description
Service Entrance
Fan
Fence
For lighting and
general purpose
circuits, no large
motors.
17000 cfm
Wire
Cable
i
isj Pipe
Wood
TABLE VII-9 (CONTINUED)
Investment Cost
(Date) Comment Source(s)
$30.34 ea. ('71) Serves 500 Head Unit (13)
$339 ea. ('71)
$1,04/Lin. Ft.
(Okla., '71)
$1.95/Lin. Ft.
(Okla, '71)
$1.65/Lin, Ft.
(Okla.,'71)
$1.25/Lin. Ft.
(Okla. '71)
Including Labor
Including Labor
Including Labor
Including Labor
(13)
(13)
(13)
(13)
(13)
-------
Item Component
Drainage System
Paving
Road
CO
<_n
Description
TABLE VII- 10
OPEN LOT COMPONENTS
Investment Cost
(Date)
Open Unpaved Lot
Open Paved Lot
4" Concrete, Mesh
Reinforced, 6" Base
6" Thickness,
6" Base
8" Thickness,
6" Base
3" Asphalt,
12" Base
Paving
$0.50/Head of Lot
Capacity (Okla., '71)
$1.00/Head of Lot
Capacity (Okla. ,'71)
$6.50/yd.2
064)
$7.50/yd.1
064)
$8.50/yd.2
064)
$6.00/yd.1
064)
$0.45/ft. 2
Comment
Source(s)
(13)
(13)
(21)
(21)
(21)
(21)
(13)
Lot
Windbreak
Fence
Fence
Gravel
Paving
Wire
Cable
Pipe
Wood
$0.10/ft.
$0.45/ft. 2
(Okla., '71)
$3.13/Lin. Ft.
(Okla.,'71)
$1.04/Lin. Ft.
(Okla. '71)
$1.95/Lin, Ft.
(Okla., '71)
$1.65/ Lin Ft.
SI. 25/Lin . Ft.
Including Labor
Including Labor
Including Labor
Including Labor
(13)
(13)
(13)
(13)
(13)
(13)
(13)
-------
TABLE VII- 11
FEEDING EQUIPMENT
Item
Component
Description
(Date)
Investment Cost
(Date)
Operating Cost
Comment
Source(s)
Waterer
Feedbunk
tsJ
0V
Feedbunk
Bunk
Splashboards
Apron
Conveyor
Conveyor
Motor and Drive
Trucking Cost
Indoor
Outdoor
Wood
Precast
Concrete
Slipform
Concrete
Mechanical
Auger
$115 Per 200 Head
+ SO.fcO Per Foot of
Barn Length
$300
(Okla., '71)
$175-250
(Mich., '71)
$2.00/Lin Ft.
(Okla.,'71)
$4. 50/Lin. Ft,
(Okla., '71)
$6.25/Lin Ft.
(Okla., '71)
$7.50/Lin Ft.
(Okla., '71)
$0.1175/Bd. Ft.
$0,45/ft. 2
(Okla.,'71)
SI. 20/ft. of Length/
inch of diameter ('71)
9" Dians. Auger $9,00-$ll,00/ft..
Drive Unit and
5 HP Motor
I400-S700 Ea,
(Mich.. '71)
Vibrating Conveyor 6ee Figure VII-10)
(1964)
(See Figures VII-8 and VII-9)
$1.91/Hr.
Includes Plumbing
Includes Heater,
Plumbing and Slab
Serves 75 Head
Includes Heater
Including Labor
Includes Flighting,
Tube, Powerhead, but
not Motor
No Motor
Max 100-125 Ft.
Length
Includes Fuel and
Lubrication
(13)
(13)
(28)
(13)
(13)
(13)
(13)
(13)
(13)
(28)
(28)
(28)
(13)
-------
Item
Lumber
i
tsj
-J
Structu. a]
Steel
Aluminum Sheet
Metal
Description
Structural, Plain
2 x 4 Fir
2x4 Pine
Structural,
Creosoted
3/8" Plywood
1/2" Plywood
5/8" Plywood
3/4" Ply form
Plywood
Treated
6'' and 8" Poles
1 1/4" Grating
Expanded Metal
5/16" Checker
Plate
Ladder
Stairway
Buidlirig Steel
Shop Fabrication
Steel Platform
and Support, Shop
Fabricated
Steel Columns
0.063", Flat
0.032", corrugated
Roofing
TABLE VII- 12
RAW MATERIALS FOR CONSTRUCTION
Unit Price (Date)
$170./Thousand Board Ft. ('64)
$170,175/1000 Board Ft. ('72)
$161,112/ 1000 Board Ft. ('72)
$235,/1000 Board Ft. ('64)
$0.12/ft.* 064)
$0.16/ft.2 064)
$0.17/ft. 2 064)
$164.35/1000 ft.3 072)
$254.839/1000ft, 2 072)
Installation Labor
Requirement
(See Tabic Vll-11)
$2.00/ft. 2 064)
31. 50/ft. 2 064)
$1.80/ft. 2 064)
$2. 50/Lin. Ft. 064)
$50./Vert. Ft. 064)
$0.20/Lb. 064)
$0.25/Lb. 064)
$1,72/Lin. Ft. 071)
$0,39-0.54/Lb. 070)
$17.02-45.01/Square 070)
0.33 Man-Hr./Ft. *
0.17 Man-Hr./Ft. *
0.13 Man-Hr./Ft. 2
0.35 Man-Hr./Ft.2
0.01 Man-Hr./Ft.
0.02 Man-Hr./Lb,
Source(s)
(21)
(7)
(7)
(21)
(21)
(21)
(21)
(7)
(7)
(21)
(21)
(21)
(21)
(21)
(21)
(13)
(2)
(2)
-------
Item Description
Insulation
Fiberglass
Plastic Foam
Reinforced
Concrete
Pipe
18" Diam,
36" Diam,
Vitrified Clay
Sewer Pipe
8" Diam,
12"
18"
<
B
*
24"
1
tsi
00
36"
Clay Drain
Tile
6"
8"
Sand
Gravel
Fill Dirt
Crush Stone
1 1/2" Diam.
Cement
Bulk
Ready Mix
concrete
Concrete Blocks 8" x 8" x 16"
TABLE VII- 12 (CONTINUED)
Installation Labor
Unit Price ©ate)
Requirement
Source(s)
$0.0175/Ft.2/inch thickness C?l)
(13)
$0.08/Ft. '/inch thickness C?l)
(13)
$5 .65-5.95/Lin . Ft. ('68)
(16)
$14.75-17.23/Lin. Ft. (68)
(16)
$0,62-1,83/Ft. ('70)
<1)
$1.17-3.03/ft
(1)
$7. 55-8.45/Lin. Ft. ('68)
(16)
$6.00-11.43/Ft. ('70)
(1)
$10.60-32.08/Ft. ('70)
(1)
$0,18-0,40/Ft, ('70)
(1)
$0,25-0.82/Ft. ('70)
(I)
$3.Q5-5,55/yd.s ('68)
$3.186/Ton ('72)
(16)
(7)
$1.30-3.00/yd. J('68)
(16)
$1.30-3.00/yd. 3('68)
(16)
$2.55-5.19/yd, ('68)
$3.271/Ton ('72)
(16)
(?)
$4.618/bbl. ('72)
(7)
$18.573/yd.1 ('72)
(7)
$0.31 Ea. ('72)
(7)
-------
capacity adjustment by means of the Cost-Capacity Factor. For some
structural costs given in the tables, labor is not included; these values
may be adjusted by adding 30 percent of the materials1 cost. Engineering
costs (with no pre-existing plans) are normally estimated at 10 percent
of the overall project cost.
Table VII-13 allows the user to compute the combined annual costs of
interest and depreciation, based on equal annual payments and using
common interest rates and amortization periods for farm structures.
For the remaining annual costs, upkeep of farm structures ranges from
1 to 4 percent of the original cost; insurance averages 0.15 percent of
the original cost.
Operating costs for powered structure accessories (e.g. , oxidation
rotor) can be calculated from the information given in the preface to the sub-
section entitled "Economics of Machinery." Costs of construction opera-
tions and contracted waste removal from structures are given in Table
VII-14, "Custom Rates."
Economics of Disposal, Destruction, and Reuse of Wastes
In this section, pertinent information for several potential processing or
disposal operations is compiled (Tables VII-15-18) . Because of the many
variables associated with the individual feedlot, it is difficult to predict
the economic feasibility of these operations for a given enterprise. How-
ever, from these tables, the user may be able to compare the information
with his own operation.
Because of the extensive interest in the operations of drying and incinera-
tion, the following values for energy and cost are included:
Energy Source Heating Value Price Thermal Efficiency
Drying Heating
Natural Gas 1,021,000 BTU/lOOOft. 3 40t/1000ft. 336-60% 50-85%
(Methane)
#2 Fuel Oil 138,500 BTU/Gal.
Electricity 3413 BTU/KWH
19*/Gal. 36-60% 50-85%
l-2*/KWH 36-60% 100%
VII-29
-------
TABLE VII- 13
ANNUAL PAYK'FNT TO AMORTIZE A LOAN OF $1,000 - EVEN PAYMENT PLAN
Period in
Years
5%
5 1/2%
6%
6 1/2%
7%
8%
9%
(Annual payment in dollars)
2
$537.80
$541.62
$545.44
549.26
$553.09
$560.77
$568
48
3
367,21
370.75
374.11
377.58
381.05
388.03
395
07
4
282,01
285.29
288.59
291.90
295.23
301.92
308
70
5
230.97
234.18
237.40
240.63
243.89
250.46
257
13
6
197.02
200.18
203.36
206.57
209.80
216.32
222
97
7
172.82
175.96
179.14
182.33
185.55
192.07
198
74
10
129.50
132.67
135.87
139.10
142.38
149.03
155
89
12
112,83
116.03
119.28
122.57
125.90
132.70
139
73
15
96.34
99.63
102,96
106.35
109.79
116,83
124
15
20
80.24
93.68
87,18
90.76
94.39
101.85
109
66
25
70.95
74.55
78.23
81.98
85.81
93.68
101
93
30
65.05
68.81
72,65
76.58
80,59
88.83
97
46
35
611)7
64.97
68.97
73.06
77.23
85.80
94
75
40
58.28
62.32
66.46
70.69
75.01
83.86
93
06
Never
50.00
55.00
60.00
65.00
70.00
80.00
90
00
(interest only)
Example: The annua) payments on a 10-year loan for $5,400 at 6% woulc be
5.4 x $135.87 = $733,70. (Note: Use 5.4 because this is the
number of SI ,000 units being borrowed . )
-------
TABLE VII- 14
CUSTOM RATES
<
e
i
u>
Operation
SITE PREPARATION
--Machine Cuts
--Clearing and
Grubbing
—General Grading
--Final Leveling
EXCAVATION
--General
-Boring Pestholes
-Foundation
Specifications
-Machine Trenching
-Hand Trenching
Backfill
(Trench «.
Foundation)
Tiling
Back hoe
Dragline (1/2 yd. ')
Machine
Machine Plus
Hand Trim
Hand Labor
3 1/2 ft. Deep x 2 ft. Wide
4 ft. x J ft.
4 3/2 ft. x 4 ft.
5 ft. x 5 ft.
—Machine Plus
Handtrim
--Hand Labor
Machine
Charge
$0.50-Q.63/yd. 1
$0.13-0.18/yd ¦ 2
$Q.33-0.48/yd.*
$0.25-0.38/yd. *
$0.30/yd•1
$6-25/hr,
$9-25/hr.
$0.10-1.00/hole
$1.50-1.75/yd . '
$2 .50-3.75/yd . '
$7.?5-12,5Q/yd,'
$0.38-0.50/lin. ft.
10.56-0.68/lin. ft.
II. 12-1.25/lin. ft.
$1.38-1 -63/lin. ft.
$8.75-113.75/yd. '
$1,44-$1.68/yd.1
$5.79-$6.75/yd. 1
$ 1.00-$3.00/rod
Location
i Date
Comment Source
68
'68 Including (16)
'68 Labor
'68
'71 (Okla.) Including
'70 (Mich.) (13,27)
'70 (Mich.) Labor
'70 (Mich.)
'68 Including (16)
'68 Labor
'68
'68
'68 Including (16)
'68 Labor
'68
'68 C16)
'68 Including (16)
Labor
'68 (16)
'70 (Mich.) Including (27)
Labor but no!
Tile
-------
Operation
Specifications
Manure Leading
--L'sirsg Tractor with Fork
Manure Field Spreading
Plowing
--3 Bottom
--4 Bottom
- - 5 Bottom
--6 Bottom
--7 Bottom
--8 Bottoir.
8' Sections
10' Sections
8 ft. Blade
10 ft. Blade
12 ft. Blade
Trurking
General
Manure Hauling
Lot Ck'iim<-£
--Vtci.amral
--Mechanical V.'ith
Hand L.ibur
Disking
l
U!
ru
Bulldomr.g
TABLE VII-M (CDNHNilD)
Charpe
Location
l> Date
Comment
Source
$5.0C-S10.00/hr.
S3.00-S7.00/hr.
'70 (Mich.) Including (27)
Labor
'70 (Mich.) Including (27)
Labor
Per Acre Per Hour '70 (Mich.)
S3.50-J7.00 $4.00-$6.00
S3.50-17.00 $4.00-S10.00'70 (Mich.)
S3.50-88.00 $6.00-115.00
S3.50-J8.00 $6.00-515.00
$3.50-$7.0C
S5.00-S7.00
including
Labor
(27)
$1.50-S4.00 S4.50-S7.50 '70 (Mich.) Including
Sl.50-S4.00 S6.00-S12.00 Labor
(27)
57.00-522.00/hr.
$10.00-S25.00/hr.
$15.00-530.00/hr.
'70 (Mich.)
'70 (Mich.)
'70 (Mich.)
Including
Labor
(27;
S3.00-S15.00/hr.
S0.2O-S0.60/mile
Free f.Manure Worth
S2.50/lon Delivered
Within 5 Mile Radius
at Feedlat)
70 (Mich.)
70 (Mich.)
'71 (Southern
High Plains)
Including
Labor
<27)
'ZD
M3)
50.2vvc. 5
66 (Calif.)
S< mctitr.i s
Custom Operator
Pays L<'t L| To
S0.25/'Icn r«r
Vwtirt-
(H.29)
S0.3*>2/yd. '
68 (Calif.;
-------
TABLE VII-15
Plant Si ze
(Location)
Process
COMPOSTING
Investment
Cost (Date)
Operating
Cost
100 Ton/Day
Serves
14,000 Head
Feedlot
(Calif.)
Moisture Content
Reduced from 30%
to 5% Wet Basis
After Composting
6 Months Composting
No Screening
6 Months Composting
Pulverized and
Screened
$650,000
~ Land Cost
7t/•^d., ('68)
15. St/yd.1
$167,410
Annual Cost
3.5*/yd,
49.5«/yd.
fa Months Composting 17,54/yd.' 1.70/yd
Pulverized and
Screened
Marketing
Procedure
Product
Selling Price
Source
$15.00/Ton (13)
(Estimated)
Sold in Pile. Buyer
Furnishes Loading and
Trucking Equipment
$1.00/yd, ' ( (30)
Sold in Bulk. Free
Free Delivery of
> 10 yd.1 within
15 mile radius
Packaged in 2 ft.'/bags
$2.40/yd, * (30)
SS.BO/yd.1 (30)
-------
Form
"Floor
Manure"
"Floor
Manure"
" Wastelage"
(57% Manure
•13° Chopped
Hay)
Oven Dry
Basis
TABLE VII-16
RF. FEE DING TO CATTLE
Process
None
Process Cost
Product Value
$12-$24/Ton
Comment
Source(s)
(22)
Cooking
"Possibly
^12-$24/Ton"
(22)
Mixing and
Ensiling
S10/T on
$25/Ton
"Value Comparablf
To That of Hay"
(22)
Drying (82.4 to $63.65/Ton of Dry 16.5%Protein (26)
12 .0% Moisture , Material (40 Hr.
Wet Basis.) Dryer Use Per Week)
or $48.07/Ton (80
Hr. Dryer Use Per
Week)
-------
TABLE VII- 17
FERTILIZER
Moisture
Content
Nitrogen
Content
Nitrogen
Price
Phosphorous
Content
Phosphorous
Price
"Liquid"
SO.O-15/LB
N
$0.08/LB_
"Slurry" 6,4LBN/Ton $0,11/LBn
(10-30% Recov-
ery by Crop)
4.6LB /Ton
2 5
(10-20% Recov-
ery hy Crop)
$0.09/LI^
2 5
80*. Wet
14LBN/Ton
$0.10/LB
N
9 LBp . /Ton
2 5
$0,10/LB
P,0C
C 3
"Oven Dry"
I
Ul
2.6% as N
1,2% as P
Putasnium Potabaium
Content Price
Total
Value
Sour
Source
S0.036/LB-, $0.29- (22)
* $0.69/
Ton
7.2LBK0/Ton $0 . 045/LBk $1.43/ (13)
2 2 Ion
(30-100% Recov-
ery by Crop)
11 LBK20/Ton $0.05/LBk^q S2.85/ (28)
Ton
0.8% as K (26)
-------
i'AI'l.E VII- IS
DfcYINf". AND INCINERA'I ION
I'l-.y.
I)i yn-C
I'rymi'
(Ro[jr^ Iirtin1)
I
U1
o
Volume Prot-e.-.-,. <1
Ami linlial-rin.il
N'.'isture Contents
JM Lb. Di-u-rl Mate-
rtal/lluur; 82.4- 12 U%
Wet Basis
M-idiim*
Spr cifications
Four Cattle
Markets Averaging
100 1 tins/Dry
Mixed Manure-Bedding
Initial MC Range
38.7-64.5%. Wet
Basis
Ranges:
30-40 ft. Drum.
4-11 Pi. Diam .
10-50 HP Drive
Dryer Fans
20-50 HP.
Process
¦Spccilications
Itivestim nt
Cost (Date)
Material Shredded
Before Drying Dryer
Exhaust Temp = 300 * F
Operatum
Cost
2 .<> Gal. Fuel Tt r
Hour, 4,2 KWH.lIi
Ifc 1 fi5/Ton of Dried
Manure for 40 Hr . /
Week Operation
$48.07/Ton tor 80
Hr./Week Operation
(Labor Inclutlrd).
All Units: Cents
Per Lb . of Dry
Product
Fuel: 0.085-0.2
Electricity:
0.075-0.2
Repairs: Q.J-0.4
Labor: 1.1-1.3
Mite: 0.05-0.09
Total: 1.6-2.2
Cuwn ¦ :. t Sou ret"
I his Size Mat 1 i •
Will Serve 22
1000 Lb. Animji. '11;
on a 10 Hr. W« i k
Operating Sclti -Idle
Serves A\~rage of
3700 Head IV r llay
Problems With \,or.. ( ii0-so.ooo
( 72)
$3000-54000
Per Ton of
24-Hour
Capacity
Co8)
6000 Ft, '/Hr. of
Nautral Gas @ 40s/
1000 ft. ' = $2.40/
Dry Ton Plus
Electricity, Labor,
Etc.
$5 .00 Per Wet Ton
fFstimated) Heal
Value of P-ecf Ma-
nure = <'300 Riu/
Lb. of Dry matter
Latent Ileal
F.vaporation 212 * F
''"0 Htu, I ...i Wat.-r
Information From
Manufacturer's
Literature
Max. Moisf.irt Contnet
t-or Cumbu .tiui is Ap-
proNimiiltly 10 . Wet
IloSIS
(5)
(18;
-------
SILO
SILO
Concrete masonry walls
COVERED REST AREA
COVERED REST AREA
Fence
Roof eove line
^Drainage
Drainage
PAVED LOT
PAVED LOT
4 Concrete Slob
4 Concrete Slab
Water
Water
HOLDING PEN
Loading Chute
FIGURE VIM. PLAN VIEW OF EXAMPLE FEEDLOT .
VII-37
-------
Electric motor efficiencies range from 65 to 85 percent, with additional
losses in the drive train. There are 1.341 KWH per HP-hr.
Example Problem
Capital Cost Estimation. In this final section, capital costs for an exist-
ing feedlot plan are estimated, using the tabulated information and cost
estimation techniques outlined in previous sections. Next, using the
information given in Section VI, three alternative wastes management
systems are designed. Finally, capital and operating costs for the three
systems are computed and compared, The calculations of this example
will assist the reader in applying the information to his own situation.
The 100-head feedlot plan used in this example is taken from Feedlot
Management, August 1971. A perspective drawing of the paved lot is
shown in Figure VII-1; Figure VII-3 shows a dimensioned plan view.
Because not all construction details are given, some assumptions are
made in the sample calculations.
Cost Estimate of Housing and Feeding Facilities. Calculation of
capital costs for the housing facility and feeding equipment is shown in
Table VII-19. For each item, cost data, its date and source, and quantity
required are listed. A comment column details cost adjustments made
(using techniques discussed in the section on "Use of Economic Data for
Cost Estimation") and notes any assumptions made. The cost estimate is
made for January 1972.
Design of Wastes Management System Alternatives. The paved lot
surface suggests the use of a liquid or slurry waste handling system.
With the information given in Section VI, Liquid and Slurry Wastes
Technology, three alternative systems will be designed: (a) anaerobic
storage tank, tractor-scraped lot, and field disposal by injection;
(b) anaerobic lagoon, tractor-scraped lot, and disposal by irrigation;
and (c) aerated lagoon, tractor-scraped lot, and disposal by irrigation.
VII-38
-------
TABLE VII-19
EXAMPLE CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE OF FEEDLOT PLAN
Size and/or
Quantity Updated Estimated Total Item Cost
Item Required Cost (Date) Tabic Comment Capital Cost Labor Cost Estimated (Jan. 1972)
General
Grading
Final
Leveling
Approx. 2400
sq. yd.
including drain1-
arca and drives
Approx. 2400
sq. yd.
$0.33-$0.48/yd .1
Incl. labor
(1968) Table VII- 14
S0.25-S0.38/yd.1
Incl. labor
(1968) Table VII- 14
The construction cost index
includes labor, so using
1968 index and choosing $0. 33/yd.1
$1130
$0.33
$0.25
1640
ITfO
1640
1150
$0.47/yd.
$0.356/yd.'
$855
l
u>
Footings
Pole
Footings
Walls
145 Lin. Ft.
1450 ft.2
(10 Ft. Walls)
S25/yd. ' concrete
including excavation,
forming, and backfill
(1964) Table VII-9
$1, 00/hoIe +
$1. 50/footing
(1971) Tabic VII-9
si .ltyit.2
Incl. labor
<1964) Table VII-9
Estimate 0.1 yd ' of
concrete per linear foot
of footings
$25/yd. * (0.1 ^'
(14S ft.)
1640
925
6 ($2.50)
1640
1575
1450 {$1.10
1640
925
$642
$16
$2820
Poles
6-8" Diam.
Treated
(11 ft.)
$0 .69/lin. ft.
(1971) Table VII-9
6 (11) (10.69)
Estimate 30%
labor cost
1640
wn
$47
$14
$61
Roof
(Coated
Steel)
Pavement
2310 Ft. 1
8000 Ft.'
$0.52/ft.1 incl.
labor
(1964) Table VII- 9
$0.45/ft.3
(1971) Table VII- 9
$0.52 i||| 2310
includes trusses, purlins,
roofing
$0.45 8000
add 30% estimated
labor cost
$3740
$1120
12120
$4860
-------
Item
Size and/or
Quantity
Required
Cost (Date) Table
Fence
(Wood)
Gates
284 Ft.
3-12 Ft.
$1.25/Lin. Ft, incl.
labor
(1971) Table VII- 9
Not Given in Tables
Silos
Plus Un-
loaders
Feedbunk
(Slipform
concrete)
2 - 20 * 50
Concrete
tower type
54 Ft.
Auger 90 Ft.
(9 inch diatn,
less drive
$7,100 Ea.
from Manufacturers
Literature (1971)
$6.25/Lin. Ft.
incl. labor
(1971) Table VII- U
$9-ll/ft.
(1971) Table VII- 11
Motor Drive
o
5 HP
$400-1700 Ea.
(1971) Table VII- II
Waterer 2
$300 Ea. including
Heater, plumbing, slab,
(1971) Table VII- 11
Loading 1
Chute
Estimate $300
Total Cost
TABLE VII-19 (CONTINUED)
Comment
Updated Estimated Total Item Cost
Capital Cost Labor Cost Estimated (Jan. 1972)
$1.25 (284)
1640
1575
1370
Estimate $25, Ea.
plus 30% labor
$7100 (2) mi
installed cost
$75
$23
$98
$14800
$6.25 (54)
$350
$10 (90) j5t5
plus estimate a 15%
labor
$550 HH
plus estimated 20%
labor, wiring, etc.
$300 (2)
$935
$570
$140
$115
$1075
$685
$625
$300
Housing-Feeding
Total for facilities
$37,220
-------
Anaerobic Storage Tank System. In design of the system, it is assumed
that a maximum of three months' storage of wastes will be required; for
this period a design precipitation load of 15 inches is assumed. A further
assumption (having no particular tank construction plan) is that 10 per-
cent of the required storage volume is unavailable because of head space,
baffles, etc.
From Section IV, Equation IV-2, and Section VI, Equation VI-2, total tank
volume is computed as follows:
Storage for animal wastes:
ft 3
10 head-day <9° days) <10° head) = 9000 ft"3
Storage for rainfall runoff from the lot area is calculated as follows:
(15 inches) (1/12 ft./in.) (5670 ft. 2 in pen) = 7080 ft. 3
Assuming 10% ineffective volume = 1608 ft.3
Then the total storage volume required = 17688 ft. 3
This tank (approximately 132,000 gal.) is too large for effective mixing
but can be built in two or more smaller compartments. Location of the
tank at or under the lower end of the pens will require no additional
surface concrete work. A 3000 gallon pull-type, combination spread-
injector (the largest size) will be used, requiring approximately 40 trips
to the field to empty the tank. A 1400 gpm chopper-type pump will be
used for both agitation and filling the tank wagon.
Anaerobic Lagoon System. For design of this system, the same hypoth-
eses of three months' storage and 15 inches of precipitation are made,
with the additional assumption of a mild winter climate.
Volume of the lagoon is calculated using Equations VI-7, 8, 9 and 10,
presented in Section VI, "Anaerobic Lagoon Storage," as follows:
VII-41
-------
Liquid storage;
(100 head) )/(0.006?^%^| ) = 104,500 ft. 3
Solids storage:
(? he ad-day >(1°° head) (90 days)/20^4^ = 3,150 ft.3
Total storage volume = 107,650 ft.3
A two-foot freeboard will be incorporated into the design to handle
stormwater and lot runoff. Assuming that a 17-foot total depth will be
needed (15-foot effective storage plus 2-foot freeboard), a square
lagoon shape, and 3: 1 side slopes, Equation VI-7 can be used to estimate
the total lagoon volume of 123,430 ft. 3
Use of the tractor-scraper for lot cleaning requires that some means be
provided for loading with wastes and channeling of rainfall runoff.
Assuming that the lagoon is located at the lower end of the lot, an 8-
foot wide, 60-foot long concrete ramp will be used, with lot slope adjusted
for this purpose. A recirculating pump will be used to mix the lagoon
contents for unloading and will be used in combination with a manure
gun (plus 1/8 mile of hose) for irrigation.
Aerated Lagoon System. The same assumptions are made in design for
this system as for design of the anaerobic lagoon. Again, the tractor-
scraper is used to clean the lot daily, with access to the lagoon via a
ramp.
From Equations VI-8 through VI-10, the effective storage volume is
calculated assuming an average animal weight of 900 lb. over the
growing period:
VII-42
-------
Liquid storage:
(100 head) (900 -j^-) (0.75 — ) = 67,500 ft. 3
Solids storage:
(90 days) (100 head) (7 )/(13 ^g. ) = 4,840 ft. 3
Total storage volume = 72,340 ft. 3
If one chooses a square shape, 3: 1 side slopes, and a 17-foot total depth
with two-foot freeboard, Equation VI-7 yields a total excavated volume
of 84,260 ft.3
Using an aeration rate of 2.0 lb. oxygen/head-day (i.e., constant
aeration of the lagoon) and assuming an aerator efficiency of 2.0 lb.
oxygen transferred per HP-hr., necessary aerator horsepower is
calculated by:
2 0 1JfeSKr aooh"d) 20 'V-Xhyr -«•"«»
At 66 percent efficiency, a 7. 5 HP aerator will be used. An agitation-
irrigation disposal system similar to that of the anaerobic lagoon will be
used for this alternative also.
Capital and Operating Costs of Alternative Wastes Management Systems
Using data from the tables of this section and cost adjustment techniques,
comparative capital cost estimates for the three systems are made. In
addition, estimates of operating costs for the 90-day storage and subse-
quent disposal are included for each system.
Anaerobic Storage Tank System. Capital costs for the system are sum-
marized in Table VII-20 . The tractors, which are multi-purpose machines,
could logically have only a portion of their purchase price allocated to
the capital cost of the system; however, the total prices are included
here to simplify the examples ,
VII-43
-------
TABLE VII-20
CAPITAL COSTS FOR ANAEROBIC STORAGE TANK SYSTEM
Item
Storage
Tank
Poured
Concrete
Size and/or
Quantity
Required
654 yd.5
Chopper-type 1400 gpm
Pump-
Agitator
<
B
i
>c>
>c>
Pull type
Spreader
Injector
Excavation
Tractor
Scraper
Blade
T ractor
3000 gal.
644 yd.5
38 HP
6 Ft.
70 HP
Cost (Date) Table
For a 1400 gal. mode!.
$2,894
(1971) Table VlI-4
$1.50-Sl.?5/yd. *
Comment
$28/yd 3 654 ($28)
(1964) Table VII-8
1640
925
$1433 $2433
(1971) Table VIJ-4
1640
1575
Employing the 0.6 factor
Rule and updating:
52894 /3000\°.* 1640
5 9 \1400/ T575
1640
$1.50 (654)
$4200 $4200
(1971) Table VIJ-6
$245 $245
(1971) Table VII-5
$7900 $7900
(1971) Table VII-5
1640
TIT?
1640
1575
1640
im
nsu
10% use
Updated Estimated Total Item Cost
Capital Cost Labor Cost Estimate (Jan. 1972)
$32,400
$1,490
$4,740
$1,400
* $ 4 V,
$ 254
*$ 820
10% use —
Total for Anaerobic Tank Storage System
$41,540
These items would be used in other farming operations the remaining 90% of the time.
-------
In computing an operating cost estimate, a hauling distance of one-eighth
mile was assumed, with one-half hour total round-trip time. Also, a
half-hour daily lot scraping was hypothesized (this is not a factor in
comparison of the three systems, since the lot is scraped daily in each).
A summary of operating cost calculations and assumptions is given in
Table ¥11-21.
Anaerobic Lagoon System. Capital costs for the anaerobic lagoon sys-
tem and operating costs for the 90-day storage period and disposal
operations are summarized in Tables VII-22 and VII-23, respectively.
Aerated Lagoon System. Capital costs for the aerated lagoon system
and operating costs for the 90-day storage period and disposal opera-
tions are summarized in Tables VII-24 and VII-25, respectively.
Comparison of Example Wastes Handling Alternatives
Of the three alternatives examined in this example, the storage tank can
be immediately eliminated on the basis of capital cost, over 60 percent of
which is invested in the tank itself. Capital costs for the anaerobic and
aerated lagoons are essentially identical, with the aerator cost of the
aerated lagoon balanced against the cost of the larger anaerobic lagoon
storage volume.
For all three systems, operating costs for the 90-day storage and disposal
period are a small fraction of the capital cost (see Table VII-26 for compari-
son). Focusing on the two feasible alternatives, the odor control afforded
by the aerated lagoon doubles the operating cost of the anaerobic lagoon;
however, a lower aeration rate might be used (see Section VI). In addi-
tion, the aerated wastes will have a lower fertilizer value than the
anaerobic effluent. In choosing between these two systems, non-economic
considerations (nuisance control, timeliness of operations, etc.) will
likely be the deciding factors .
VII-45
-------
TABLE VII-21
OPERATING COSTS FOR ANAEROBIC STORAGE TANK SYSTEM
Item
Scraping
Labor
Scraping:
Fuel and
Lubrication
Hours of Operation
0.5 Hr./Day
(90 Days)
0.5 Hr./Day
(90 Days)
Comment
Rate: $2.50/Hr.
Fuel Cost from
Eqn. VII-3 plus
15% Lube Cost
38 HP Gas Tractor
Operating Cost (90-Day
Storage plus Disposal)
$112.50
$ 33.30
Pumping
and Agitation
(PTO Drive of
38 HP Tractor)
Hauling and
Disposal Labor
Hauling and
Disposal: Fuel
and Lubrication
25 Hr.
20 Hr.
0.5 Hr./Trip
(40 Trips)
Constant Agitation
Before and During
Disposal
0.5 Hr ./Trip,
40 Trips, $2 .50/Hr.
Fuel Cost from
Eqn. VII-3 plus
15% Lube Cost 70 HP
Diesel Tractor
Total Operating Cost
$ 18.50
$ 50.00
$ 15.80
$229.30
-------
TABLE VU-22
CAPITAL COSTS FOR ANAEROBIC LAGOON SYSTEM
Size and/or
Quantity Updated
llem Required Cost (Date) Table Comment CapiUt Cost
l
•si
Lagoon
Ramp
Tractor
Scraper
Blade
Manure
Gun ~
1/8 MUc
Hose
Centrifugal
Pump
Gasoline
Engine and
F rame
Irrigation
Pipe
107,650 Ft.'
(805.000 Gal.)
8 x 60 Ft
J8 HP
6 Ft.
500 gpm
75 HP
1/8 mile
l-2«/Gal, ot Capacity
(1171) Table VII-8
$0.45/Ft.!
(1971) Table VII-12
$4200
<1971) Table VII-5
S245
(1971) Table Vll-5
15000
(1972) Table VII-4
$890
(1964) Tabic V J J - 6
$800 (1972)
$0.85-51.25/Ft.
6 '-10" Diam.
(1972) Table VSI-6
Assume 1.5«/Gal. ,
(805,000) ($0,015) Jill
$0.45
Plus 30'
$4200
$245
1640
(480)
5640 ,n»
j ^ij1 10% use
1640
WR
5 Hp winch drive,
no pump
$890
1640
925
Estimate based on automotive
engine costs
Assume $1.00/Ft.
Total for Anaerobic Lagoon System
"This item would be used in other farming operations the remaining 90% of the time.
Estimate'! Total Item Cost
Labor Cost Estimate (Jan.. 1972)
$12,560
$ 292
•$ 436
I 254
$ 5.000
$ 1,575
$ 800
$ 600
$21,515
-------
TABLE VII-2 3
OPERATING COSTS FOR ANAEROBIC LAGOON SYSTEM
Item
Scraping
Labor
Scraping
Fuel and
Lubrication
Pumping
and Agitation
Winch
Motor
Labor Costs
Moving Gun
Hours of Operation Comment
0.5 Hr./Day
(90 days)
0,5 Hr./Day
(90 days)
36 Hr.
30 Hr.
Estimate
Once each 8 Hr.
(4 Moves)
Rate: $2.50/Hr.
Fuel Cost from
Eqn. VII-3 plus
15% Lube Cost
38 HP Gas Tractor
Fuel Cost from 8.5 HP-
Hr./Gal. at Operating
HP 55% of Maximum.15%
Lube Cost .
Fuel Cost from 8.5 HP-
Hr./Cal. at Operating
HP 55% of Maximum
15% Lube Cost .
Estimate 1/2 Hr. Labor
Per Move at $2. 50/Hr.
Operating Cost (90-day
Storage plus Disposal)
$112.50
$ 33.30
$ 44.20
$ 2.25
$ 5.00
$197.25
-------
TABLE VII-24
CAPITAL COSTS FOR AERATED LAGOON SYSTEM
Size and, or
Quanmy Updated Estimated Total Item Cost
Item Requ:ivcl Ci>b'. (Date) Tabic Comment Capital Cost Labor Cost Estimate (Jan. 1972)
I
vC
Aerated
Lagoon
Aerator
Ramp
T mi: tor
Scrapei
3 lade
Manure
Gun and
1/8 Milt IIosl
Centrifugal
Pump
Gasoline
Engine and
Frame
Irrigation
Pipe
72 . MO Ft. '
(511 .CCD Gal.)
:.5 i:i'
H >. -.0 Ft.
58 HP
6 Ft
500 gpm
75 IIP
l.'S Mil.
l-25-S1 ,25/Ft.
I' - 10" diam .
(1972) Table VII-4
S2500
7.5\°-6
5.0/
1640
1640
1575
1640
H50
SO.45 (480)
Plus 30% Labor
$4200
$245
1640
1575
1640
1575
10% use
5 Hp u inch drive,
no pump
$890
1640
925
Estimate based on
automotive engine
costs
Assume SI . 00/Ft.
$225
$67
Total for Aerated Lagoon System
$ 8.440
$ 4,175
S 292
*$ 436
$ 254
$ 5.000
$ 1,575
$ 800
$ 660
$21,632
t m would be used in
-------
TABLE VII-25
OPERATING COSTS FOR AERATED LAGOON SYSTEM
Item
Scraping
Labor
Scraping
Fuel and
Lubrication
Period of Operation
0.5 Hr./Day
(90 days)
0.5 Hr./Day
(90 days)
Comment
Rate: $2.50/Hr.
Fuel Cost from
Eqn. VII-3 plus
15% Lube Cost.
30 HP Gas Tractor
Operating Cost (90-Day
Storage plus Disposal)
$112.50
$ 33.30
Pumping
and Agitation
21 Hr.
Fuel Cost from 8.5 HP-
Hr./Gal. at Operating
HP 55% of Maximum
15% Lube Cost
$ 25.80
Winch
Motor
19 Hr.
Fuel Cost from 8.5 HP-
Hr./Gal. at Operating
HP 55% of Maximum 15%
Lube Cost.
$ 1.72
Labor Costs
Moving Gun
Estimate
Once each 8 Hr.
(3 Moves)
Estimate 1/2 Hr. Labor
Per Move at $2.50/Hr.
S 3.75
Aerator
90 Days
2C/KWH
245.00
$422.07
-------
TABLE VII-26
COMPARISON OF EXAMPLE SYSTEMS
90-Day Operating
System Investment Costs Costs
Anaerobic Storage Tank $41,540 $229.30
Anaerobic Lagoon $21,515 $197.25
Aerated Lagoon $21,632 $422.07
VII-51
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9,
10
11
12
REFERENCES
Anon., "Materials Prices ," Engineering News Record. Vol. 185,
No. 7, pp. 40-41 (1970) .
Anon., "Materials Prices," Engineering News Record, Vol. 185,
No. 9, pp. 36-37(1970).
Anon. , "Wage Rates for Key Construction Trades," Engineering
News Record, Vol. 185, No. 10, pp. 28-29 (1970).
Anon. , "Check These Points Before You Pave With Concrete,"
Feedlot Management, Vol. 13. No. 8, pp. 20-22, 62 (1971).
Anon. , "Heil Dehydration Systems," The Heil Company, Milwaukee,
Wisconsin, 4pp. (1971).
Anon. , 56th Annual Redbook, Implement and Tractor, Vol. 87,
No. 3, pp. A-81 - B-106 (1972).
Anon., "ENR Cost Indexes," Engineering News Record, Vol. 188,
No. 1, pp. 45-47 (1972) .
Anon. , Unpublished EPA Preproposal (1972) .
Bainer, R., R. A. Kepner, and E. L. Barger, Principles of Farm
Machinery, John Wiley and Sons, Inc. , New York, 571 pp. (1955) .
Barrc, H. J., and L. L. Sammet, Farm Structures, John Wiley
and Sons , Inc . . New York , 650 pp . (1950) .
Berge, O. I., E. G. Bruns, T. J. Brevik, and L. A. Brooks,
"Considerations in Selecting Dairy Manure-Disposal Systems,"
in Proceedings ol Farm Animal Waste and By-Pro luct Manage-
ment Conference, University of Wisconsin Cooperative Extension
Service, p. 58, (1969).
Bowi-rs , Wendell, Modern Concepts of Farm Machinery Management,
Stipo.s Publishing Company, Champaign, Illinois, 60 pp. (1970).
VII—52
-------
13. Butchbaker, A. F., J. E. Garton, G. W. A. Mahoney, and
M. D. Paine, "Evaluation of Beef Cattle Feedlot Waste Management
Alternatives," Final Report, Grant 13040 FXG, EPA (1971).
14. Easier, G. A. , "Economic Evaluation of Liquid Manure Systems
for Free Stall Dairy Barns," in Animal Waste Management,
Cornell University Conference on Agricultural Waste Management,
Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, pp. 401-406 (1969).
15. Frevert, R. K., G. O. Schwab, T. W. Edminster, and K. K. Barnes,
Soil and Water Conservation Engineering, John Wiley and Sons,
Inc., New York, 479 pp. (1955).
16. Guthrie, K. M., "Capital Cost Estimating," Chemical Engineering,
Vol. 76, No. 6, pp. 114-142 (1969).
17. Jelen, F. C., Editor, Cost and Optimization Engineering, McGraw-
Hill Book Company, New York, 490 pp. (1970).
18. Loehr, R. C. , "Pollution Implications of Animal Wastes—A Forward
Oriented Review," U. S. Department of Interior, FWPCA, Robert
S. Kerr Water Research Center, Ada, Oklahoma, 175 pp. (1968).
19. Mayes, H. F. , "Dehydration of Animal Wastes," American Society
of Agricultural Engineers Paper No. MC-71-805, Mid-Central
Regional Meeting, St. Joseph, Missouri, 14 pp. (1971).
20. McKenna, M. F. and J. H. Clark, "The Economics of Storing,
Handling, and Spreading of Liquid Hog Manure for Confined
Feeder Hog Enterprises," in Relationship of Agriculture to Soil
and Water Pollution, Proceedings of Cornell University Conference
on Agricultural Waste Management, Cornell University, Ithaca,
New York, pp . 98-110 (1970) .
21. Mills, H. E. , "Costs of Process Equipment," Chemical Engineering,
Vol. 71, No. 6, pp. 133-156 (1964).
VH-53
-------
22. Morris, W. H. M., "Economics of Waste Disposal from Confined
Livestock," in Livestock Waste Management and Pollution
Abatement, Proceedings of the International Symposium on Live-
stock Wastes, American Society of Agricultural Engineers,
pp. 195-196 (1971) .
23. Nordstedt, R. A. , H. J. Barre, and E. P. Taiganides, " A Computer
Model for Storage and Land Disposal of Animal Wastes," in Live-
stock Waste Management and Pollution Abatement, Proceedings
of the International Symposium on Livestock Wastes, American
Society of Agricultural Engineers, pp. 30-33 (1971).
24. Owens, T. R. , andW. L. Griffin, "Economics of Water Pollution
Control for Cattle Feedlot Operations," in Proceedings of the
8th Industrial Water and Wastewater Conference, Lubbock, Texas,
pp. 82-106 (1968).
25. Shuyler, L. R. , "Design for Beneficial Use of Feedlot Runoff,"
Unpublished M.S. Thesis, Kansas State University, Manhattan,
Kansas (1969).
26. Surbrook, T. C. , J. S. Boyd, H. C. Zindel, "Drying Animal
Waste," in Poultry Pollution: Problems and Solutions, Research
Report 117, Michigan State University Agricultural Experiment
Station, East Lansing, Michigan, pp. 16-20 (1970).
27. Tinsley, W. A. , "Rates for Custom Work in Michigan," Cooperative
Extension Service Bulletin E-458, Michigan State University, East
Lansing, Michigan, 6 pp. (1970).
28. Trimble, R. L., L. J. Conner, and J. R. Brake, Editors, "Michigan
Farm Management Handbook-1971, " Report No. 91, Department of
Agricultural Economics, Michigan State University, East Lansing,
Michigan, 92 pp. (1971).
vn-54
-------
29. Van Dam, J,, and C. A. Perry, "Manure can be Processed and
Sold at a Profit," The Practicing Nutritionist, Vol. 3, No. 4,
pp. 40-42 (Undated).
30. Van Dam, J. , and C. A. Perry, "Manure Management - Costs and
Product Farms ," California Agriculture, pp. 12-13 (December
1968).
31. Wilmore, R. , "Labor-free Manure Disposal?" Farm Journal,
pp. 26C-26D (August 1969).
VII-55
-------
APPENDIX TABLE VII-1
DRAGLINE CAPACITIES (15)
DRAGLINE CAPACITY AND OPTIMUM DEPTH OF CUT*
Class of
Material
3/8
1/2
3/4
1
1 1/4
1 1/2
1 3/4
2
2 1/2
Light moist clay
5.W-
5.5
6.0
6.6
7.0
7.4
7.7
8.0
8.5
or loam
701
95
130
160
195
220
245
265
305
Sand or gravel
5.W
5.5
6.0
6.6
7.0
7.4
7.7
8.0
8.5
651
90
125
155
185
210
235
255
295
Good common earth
6.W
6.7
7.4
8.0
8.5
9.0
9.5
9.9
10.5
55J
75
105
135
165
190
210
230
265
Clay, hard, tough
1.3ft
8.0
8.7
9.3
10.0
10.7
11.3
11.8
12.3
35^
55
90
110
135
160
180
195
230
Clay, wet, sticky
?.3t
8.0
8.7
9.3
10.0
10.7
11.3
11.8
12.3
201
30
55
75
95
110
130
145
175
~From Power Crane and Shovel Association, Proper sizing of excavators and Hauling Equipment,
Tech. Bull. 3 (1949).
tUpper line is optimum depth of cut in feet.
|Lower line is the capacity in cubic yards per hour for grade level loading and 90 degree swing.
-------
T Mtod.fl. of liquid
ZOO
SO 60
§
fl 200
*1020
20 30 40 50 60 80 100 150 200 300 400 500 600 900 1000 1500 2000
CepocMy. got. /mfn.
APPENDIX FIGURE VII-1. PUMPS: GENERAL PURPOSE
CENTRIFUGAL (single and
two-stage, single suction) (21)
Houri to imtoll
10"
10'
10
10
Pump Hertipsnr
too
APPENDIX
FIGURE VII-2. PUMPS: INSTALLATION
TIME (raan-hr . to install
pump and motor) (21) .
-------
output geor •
r«due«r
<, 1 i t I
100 rptn *u%rt
tiot (Muur
r* Eloclfit —
HOOrH), lololly
_«nt(oj»d,Ion «
APPENDIX FIGURE VII-5. INVESTMENT COSTS OF VIBRATING
CONVEYORS.
VH-58
-------
SECTION VIII
FEEDLOTS AND SOCIETY IN A COEXTENSIVE ENVIRONMENT
Contents
Page
No.
PROBLEMS OF COEXISTENCE VIII-1
Public Relations VIII-1
Essentials of Public Relations Program VIII-2
Reaching the Public VIII-2
Conditions Which Compound Public Relations VIII-3
Problems
NUISANCE PROBLEMS VIII-3
Legal Implications of Nuisances VIII-3
Types of Legal Nuisances VIII-4
Zoning VIII-5
Odor Nuisance VIII-5
Causes of Odors VIII-6
Chemical Odor Control VIII—6
Waste Management to Control Odor VIII-8
Noise Nuisance VIII-10
Biological Nuisance VIII-11
Dust and Allergen Nuisance VIII-11
Aesthetic Quality VIII—12
AIRBORNE NUTRIENTS AND GASES VIII-12
CONTROL OF DISEASE ORGANISMS VIII-13
Animal Diseases Transmissible to Man VIII-13
Prevention of Public Health Hazard VIII-16
REFERENCES VIII-1?
VHI-i
-------
SECTION VIII
FEEDLOTS AND SOCIETY IN A COEXTENSIVE ENVIRONMENT
PROBLEMS OF COEXISTENCE
An increasing number of complaints , claiming encroachment upon
individual rights and property damages resulting from pollution and
defilement of environmental quality, are being filed against feedlots by
neighbors and the populace of nearby communities. Some of these
complaints have resulted in judgments against the involved feedlots.
Prevention of such complaints is a major concern in the selection of
new feedlot sites and the management of new and existing feedlots.
The aspects of site selection related to reduction of environmental
pollution are discussed in Section III. Additionally, a good-neighbor
policy should be initiated for both new and existing feedlots. This
policy should include a total operational or management plan designed
to eliminate to the greatest extent possible those bases for complaints
regarding pollution and other aspects of environmental quality. These
plans should incorporate the necessary actions to reduce:
1. transport of pollutants from pen area and field application
sites to surface waters in runoff (covered in previous
sections);
2. nuisances such as odors, noise, insects, dust, and allergens;
3. air transport of pollutants to surface waters; and
4. transmission of diseases .
Public Relations
According to Moorman (17) , problems which arise from beef feeding
operations can become a source of community trouble due to the follow-
ing conditions:
1. an unawareness of existing problems on the part of feedlot
management and laborers who, over a period of years, become
accustomed to the environmental conditions which exist on and
near feedlots;
VIII-1
-------
2. a communication gap between feedlot management and people
in the surrounding area resulting in a lack of management
insight concerning the importance of a problem to neighbors
and the community; and
3. a negative attitude on the part of the community regarding the
manager's efforts to alleviate the conditions which contribute
to a problem.
To prevent these situations from occurring, a positive, cooperative
approach is needed. This approach may include a well organized pro-
gram of public relations. Public awareness of feedlot problems and of
management's concern for minimizing unpleasant situations can lead to
a less critical public attitude regarding those aspects of lot operation
which cannot, at present, be subjected to total control.
Essentials of Public Relations Program. Four basic essentials of a well
organized public relations program have been reported by Steen (20):
(a) Inform the public of the basic problems encountered in feedlot
operation. Make clear the severity of these problems, (b) Inform the
public of the present efforts being made toward solving these problems.
Such presentations should emphasize the sincerity of feeders toward
correcting pollution problems. (c) A give and take relationship must be
developed between feeders and the public. This maintains a vital contact
through which the feeder can identify potential problems. Awareness of
potential problems, their causes, and corrections should be maintained
at all times. Thus, direct firsthand knowledge can be given when oral
complaints are received, (d) Develop a public relations group in feeders
organizations which can coordinate and methodically present the message
to the public. One individual cannot present the total picture and can be
overwhelmed by statements of less informed observers.
Reaching the Public. Feeders can relay their message through the mass
media and popular press (farm reports on radio and television or maga-
zines which are oriented toward the rural community will not reach the
VIII-2
-------
urbanites) . Guest speaking engagements at social, service, and civic -
oriented clubs and meetings will stimulate dialogue between the public
and the feeders. Pre-planned, open-invitation, annual or semi-annual
open houses on the feedlot will create better understanding of feedlot
operation, problems, and their solutions. In some areas, feedlot owners
have collectively co-sponsored an open invitation barbecue with local
sportsmen's groups on an annual basis (usually these are in conjunction
with the opening of a hunting season) . A short keynote address given
at these events will effectively relay public relations messages.
Conditions Which Compound Public Relations Problems ¦ Adverse
public reactions toward the feedlot can make public relations especially
important during the time period required to institute pollution controls,
regardless of the precautions observed by feedlot management. Rela-
tionships generally improve, however, once a pollution control system
has been established and its effectiveness is well publicized.
Public relations problems can also arise in areas where feedlots concen-
trate . In these areas, feedlots which have instituted effective pollution
controls are in some cases the recipients of complaints and lawsuits
along with nearby feedlots which have shown less concern for environ-
mental quality. This problem may be compounded by industries which
have effluents and odors similar to those described for feedlots. Thus ,
cooperative pollution abatement agreements should be entered into
between feedlots and industries located in the same area.
NUISANCE PROBLEMS
Legal Implications of Nuisances
Next to pollution of surface waters, nuisances account for the largest
number of complaints and legal actions lodged against feedlots. Pollu-
tion of water and air by beef feedlots is a very real problem; however,
the circumstances of each case must be considered to determine whether
any set condition legally constitutes a nuisance. Judgment of severity
VIII-3
-------
of the nuisance is based on the relative interests of the involved parties.
In many cases, feedlots have been forced to close because continued
operation was found to be economically impractical even if legally allow-
able after assessment of actual or punitive damages (13).
Types of Legal Nuisances
Nuisances may be divided into two general legal types—public and
private. A public nuisance is created when property is used in a manner
which interferes with a substantial number of people. A private nuisance
is present when property use interferes with the rights of a few. Because
the interests of the majority may be greater than the interests of private
individuals, an injunction will more likely be granted when a public
nuisance is involved,
A second allegation requesting actual and/or punitive damages may
accompany many petitions for injunctive relief. Actual damages include
out-of-pocket expenses, property losses, and decreases in property
values which occur as a result of nuisance. Punitive damages include
damage resulting from intentional or malicious conduct. Thus, a feedlot
operator or owner could be held liable for punitive damages if he operated
a feedlot in such a manner as to cause damage to a neighbor, providing
the method of operation could have been altered to prevent such damage
at little or no cost.
A set procedure or operational plan to maintain absolute protection under
nuisance laws does not exist for the livestock feeder. Thus, it is most
imperative to make every attempt to prevent such complaints from arising.
Those who follow a good-neighbor policy by trying to avoid causing dis-
comfort or damage to neighbors are less likely to be sued.
Prior operation of the feedlot before urban or residential encroachment
is generally taken into consideration by the courts. However, expan-
sion of feedlots after residential development has taken place is likely
to cause less favorable considerations of the feeder's problems.
VIII-4
-------
Zoning
Zoning can help alleviate potential problems with nuisance complaints.
If an area is zoned for agricultural purposes, presumably, cattle feeding
would be well within the limits of approved land uses for that area.
However, in many areas, communities and cities have control of agri-
culturally zoned lands which fall within a specified distance of their
perimeters. This distance is generally based on the population of the
city. Additionally, a feedlot operator does not have the right to cause
damage to or degrade values of neighboring agricultural properties.
In some areas, feeders are applying for zoning restrictions which will
specify a strict agricultural type of use to discourage residential
development or at least reduce the probability of legal actions from
those who do establish residences in these zones. Thus, the primary
use of zoning in this sense is to keep the number of neighbors at a
minimum and to reduce the probability of having the feedlot declared a
public nuisance.
Odor Nuisance
Odor is the most controversial, most complained about, and the most
uncontrollable nuisance generated from feedlots. There are two basic
odors associated with feedlot manure wastes (8):
1. the natural aroma inherent of fresh excreta which is not
persistent and dissipates rapidly as the excreta cools, and
2. the offensive putrid odors of gases produced by the bio-
logical decomposition of excreta under anaerobic conditions
(putrefaction).
The natural odor of fresh excreta is not of great concern as it is not a
strong odor and is not offensive to most people. However, the odors
produced by the anaerobic decomposition of manure wastes are of major
concern. Every attempt should be made to control or eliminate the
VIII-5
-------
conditions which cause these odors. The need to control odors is com-
plicated by the current inability to measure odors without predilection.
This is due to the extreme sensitivity of the human olfactory senses
which detect odors at levels far lower than the levels which can be
detected with electronic odor measuring instrumentation. Additionally»
humans have varying impressions as to what constitutes an objectionable
odor. This can be further complicated by odor fatigue—a condition
that arises when a person is exposed to strong odors for a long period
of time.
Causes of Odors. The putrid odors from animal wastes are complex
mixtures of malodorous gases and organic compounds. Hydrogen sul-
fide, ammonia, and methane make up the majority of malodorous gases
(2) (9) (18) . Organic compounds which have been identified as odor
producing include alphatic amines, methyl and ethyl mercaptans,
organic acids, indole, and skatoles (2) (9) .
Chemical Odor Control. Chemicals used to reduce or control the odors
of putrefaction include masking agents, counteractants, deodorants,
enzymes or bacterial starters, oxidants, and biological inhibitors.
Each of these chemical types provides an individual approach to the
solution of the problem as follows. Masking agents superimpose a
pleasant odor on an unpleasant odor. Counteractants cancel out the
olfactory sensation of the odor; in this case, both odors still exist but
neither can be smelled. Deodorants destroy odor and leave no smell.
Enzymes or bacterial starters alter normal bacterial and/or enzymatic
activity, thus inhibiting the production of odor. Oxidants oxidize the
fraction of the manure that bacteria thrive on, thus retarding bacterial
action through alteration of their food supply and environment. Bio-
logical inhibitors kill the bacteria in the wastes, preventing putrefaction
and the formation of related malodorous compounds.
Masking agents and counteractants are more effective for control of
feedlot odors than deodorants and enzymes or bacterial starters (2) (14) .
VIII-6
-------
For animal wastes, odor masking is not completely satisfactory because
there is no substitute odor that is completely inoffensive to everyone.
In some cases, more complaints are received due to the masking odor
than due to manure odors (17) . One unidentified masking agent tested
was found to be effective but too costly (4) . Most chemical odor control
test procedures have not, in the past, provided information regarding
the aesthetic desirability of chemicals used to eliminate odors.
A dilute water solution of potassium permanganate (KMnO^) was found
to be more effective than a variety of odor counteractants, masking
agents, and disinfectants, including proprietary compounds applied
during all seasons in southern California (8) . The application pro-
cedure is as follows:
1. Remove manure from the pens at least three times a year
and scarify the ground to promote aerobic conditions.
2. Follow scarification with spraying of the ground with a one
percent (approximate) solution of potassium permanganate
so that each treatment amounts to 20 lb KMnO^ per acre.
3. If "hot" spots develop between regular sprayings, these
spots should be resprayed.
The economics of this treatment and the residual effects of added
potassium and manganese on the characteristics of the wastes were not
reported.
Biological inhibitors have been used to control odors of hog and poultry
manure with a limited degree of success. Hydrated lime applied at the
rate of 0.16 pounds per 100 pound hog per day and chlorine applied at
0.1 pound of active chlorine per 100 pound hog per day have been shown
to retard bioactivity in hog wastes sufficiently to reduce the production
of malodorous gases (10). The hydrated lime applications reduced hydrogen
sulfide and carbon dioxide production. Chlorine reduced production of
ammonia, methane, hydrogen sulfide, and carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide
is not considered a malodorous gas; however, its reduction is an indica-
tion of the extent of biological retardation. Paraformaldehyde flake
VIII-?
-------
applied at the rate of 1 gram per 100 grams of poultry feces prevented
ammonia odor for nine days (19). The presence of chemical odors at
the recommended application concentrations was not discussed.
The odor-retarding effect of biological inhibitors is temporary and can
be best used to reduce odors in slurries and solid wastes during the
periods when they are being removed from storage tanks and lagoons
and disposed of by land application.
There has not been a chemical control developed which is both economi-
cal and entirely satisfactory to control the putrid odors of feedlot wastes.
Management practices which regulate the physical condition of the wastes
and utilize mechanical means to minimize odors are, at present, the most
practical means of control.
Waste Management to Control Odor. Management practices used to control
odors are basically those of good housekeeping. Odors can be signifi-
cantly reduced by minimizing the conditions which cause their production;
these conditions fall into the following categories (17):
1. extended periods of standing water and excessively moist
pen conditions due to inadequate drainage;
2. feed spillage around feed bunks and feed mills;
3. improper carcass disposal;
4. excessive accumulation of manure in feed pens; and
5. improperly managed manure storage and disposal operations.
Inadequate drainage can be a result of poor site selection, poor manage-
ment, or both. Relocation of the feedlot may, in some instances, be the
only practical solution to a poor drainage problem. Every attempt should
be made to maintain dry pen and solid manure storage areas since the odor
producing processes of putrefaction are dependent on a wet anaerobic
environment. Spillage and overflow from watering systems should be
carefully eliminated, manure should not be allowed to block drainageways,
and additional drainage channels should be constructed where necessary.
VIII-8
-------
Feed is an organic material which is subject to the same bacterial pro-
cesses of putrefaction as manure wastes. Spillage of feed around feed
bunks and feed mills should be kept to a minimum because spillage is
both wasteful and the cause of odor problems under moist conditions.
Decomposition of animal carcasses begins rapidly and can be a major
source of odor. An agreement should be made with a local rendering
company to pick up animals on a daily or standby basis. These animals
should be removed from the feedlot premises as soon after death as
possible.
Feedpens should be cleaned on a regular schedule to eliminate excessive
moisture conditions which occur with a heavy manure pack. Pen cleaning
is usually scheduled during interim feeding periods when the pens are
empty. In feedlots with excessive pen moisture conditions manure
removal should be more frequent. This may be accomplished by moving
the animals to adjacent pens on a regular rotational schedule with the
least amount of disturbance of the animals.
Careful planning and implementation of management programs for waste
storage and disposal can reduce odors or the effects of odors on neigh-
bors. Some considerations for a storage/disposal management plan
include:
1. covering all anaerobic liquified waste storage tanks or
lagoons;
2. considering the use of oxidation ditches for the storage of
liquified wastes if volumes are too great to store in covered
anaerobic structures;
3. maintaining all manure removal equipment (automated and
manual) and making sure that manure pits and storage tanks
are cleaned thoroughly and that stockpiles are kept reasonably
dry;
4. using only manure transport vehicles that do not spill or leak
on roadways;
VIII-9
-------
5. avoiding field spreading manure near residences, close to
arterial highways, late in the afternoon, on still days, or on
weekends; and
6. incorporating manure spread on the land with the soil.
Odors associated with dust have been controlled successfully in poultry
houses by filtering the exhaust from the house through a water spray
air scrubber (22), This method has not been used extensively in total
confinement beef barns or dairy barns; however, liquid scrubbers may
have application in instances where exhaust odors from these operations
are associated with dust.
Malodorous compounds such as hydrogen sulfide, and ethyl and methyl
mercaptan can be removed from the exhaust air of confinement buildings
by passing it through a sterile loam soil filter (3) (5) (9) . The volume
of soil needed in the filter may be prohibitive for use on a large capacity
facility.
Noise Nuisance
Noise is a nuisance which, at the present time, is very controversial in
urban areas, especially in the vicinity of airports, railroad lines, and
street repairs. The normal sounds of cattle lowing and farm equipment
operation have not constituted a serious nuisance. However, continuous
high pitch sounds such as fans, dryer units, oxidation rotors, aerators,
etc. , are more irritating than noises of variable pitch or intermittent
duration. Stationary equipment should be mounted on resilient brackets
to reduce vibration noises and echoes from resonant building materials.
Other sounds which can be annoying to neighbors are the operation of
farm equipment and the loading or unloading of cattle at night. Annoying
sounds do not travel as far as odors and other nuisances but can create
ill-will toward a feedlot which, in turn, lessens tolerance for odors or
other nuisances.
VIII-10
-------
Biological Nuisance
Insects, birds, and rodents which breed on or are attracted to feedlots
can constitute a serious nuisance. House flies and stable flies lay their
eggs in fresh excreta or wet manure applied to the land, As the excreta
dries, the larvae or maggots which hatch from the eggs pupate then
emerge as adult flies, thus completing their life cycle. After a hatch
and with the aid of the wind, adult flies spread over the countryside in
search of new breeding grounds. These flies can be both a nuisance
and a health hazard to neighbors and residents of nearby communities.
Fly infestations can be avoided by timing manure removal so that it does
not occur with peak fly breeding periods of the year and by keeping the
manure dry to reduce optimum fly breeding conditions the rest of the
year (1) . Ammonia appears to be an attraction for flies. A one percent
paraformaldehyde flake application will reduce ammonia production and
effectively control fly infestations (19). Maggots and rodents can be
controlled by applying 0.1 pound of active chlorine per 100 pound hog
per day to the swine wastes (10) .
Since birds and rodents are attracted to feedlots in search of food, elimi-
nation of feed spillage, weeds, and carcasses will help reduce infestations.
Mosquitos and horseflies propagate in stagnant water and mud flats.
Collection ponds and settling basins designed so that they can be drained
and the bottom sludges dried out will help eliminate mosquito and horse-
fly problems.
Dust and Allergen Nuisance
Dust can be a nuisance to those living near feedlots, and civil court actions
can be initiated showing negligence or lack of ordinary care to stop wind
transported pollutants originating from agricultural practices. These
actions usually involve pesticide drift but could include dust (21) . Other
than basic annoyance from particulate material in the air, dust can be an
allergen. Many people react allergenically to pollen, fungal spores, and
other components of dust which can originate on feedlots.
VIII-11
-------
Dust problems arise most commonly when feedlot surfaces become too
dry. Moisture content of the manure can be increased by increasing
the stocking rate . Water sprayed on the alleyways , feed pens, and
access roads will reduce dust. Mowing weeds will keep pollen to a
minimum.
Aesthetic Quality
Since a psychological victory can be won by mowing weeds and keeping
the facility and buildings in repair, a neat, well-maintained facility
appearance is a necessity. Vegetative windbreaks can be utilized or
placed to double as "visual shelters." A clean, well-kept cultivated
grass strip along roads will greatly improve overall appearances.
Leaving neighbors and passersby with a desirable impression is impor-
tant as they will expect a poorly kept place to violate environmental
controls.
AIRBORNE NUTRIENTS AND GASES
Odor nuisances caused by the production of malodorous gases and sub-
stances are not the only problems created by the processes of putrefaction
of feedlot wastes. Evolution of ammonia and hydrogen sulfide gases into
the air from these wastes can cause actual property damage. Approxi-
mately two-thirds of the ammonia produced in an anaerobic lagoon escapes
to the air (12) . Thus, enough ammonia can escape from a 0.67 acre
anaerobic lagoon in one year to fertilize 60 acres of corn (12) . Ninety
percent of the nitrogen in urine excreted in a feed yard may escape to
the air as ammonia (11) . Both of the above conditions can have serious
pollutional implications if there is a lake located near a feedlot. In
northeastern Colorado, a lake located about 1.25 miles from a 60,000
head feedlot absorbed enough ammonia from the air in one year to raise
its nitrogen concentration by 0.6 mg/liter (11). This concentration is
approximately twice the critical inorganic nitrogen concentration neces-
sary to support high density populations of algae called "blooms." In
Vin-12
-------
northcentral Ohio, hydrogen sulfide gas evolving from a river (about
one mile downstream from a refinery waste outfall) caused lead in the
white paint on nearby houses to turn black. Legal suits were filed and
damages were collected by the owners of these residences; additionally,
the refinery was required by court order to correct this situation. The
hydrogen sulfide quantities produced by small feeding operations are
not significant enough to cause this type of problem; however, care
should be exercised in larger lots to prevent management errors which
would permit production of sulfide gases in sufficient quantities to cause
similar problems .
CONTROL OF DISEASE ORGANISMS
In the cities, controlled sewage disposal and chlorinated water supplies
have reduced the incidence of waterborne disease. As a result of con-
trol of these diseases, the average citizen has become placid in attitude
concerning water and airborne diseases. However, utilization of rural
areas for outdoor recreation by city dwellers has been steadily in-
creasing as most people seeking outdoor recreation wish to be near
water. Swimming has been predicted to be the most common form of
outdoor recreation by the year 2000 (7). Exposure to the environment
of domestic and wild animals and surface waters will increase man's
exposure to water and airborne diseases. Disease in animals is more
prevalent in areas where animals are concentrated, thus feedlots are
a possible source of disease in man's environment.
Animal Diseases Transmissible to Man
There are over 100 animal diseases (zoonoses) which can be transmitted
between lower vertebrates and man (6) . The following is a brief listing
of the more common cattle-transmitted zoonoses by major classification
of the causative organism (6) (7) (15) (16) .
Bacterial Diseases
1. Salmonellosis may be caused by any one of 1,300 isolated
serotypes of Salmonella. These organisms are commonly
VIII-B
-------
isolated from cattle feces. In acute cases in calves,
10,000,000 organisms per gram of feces have been reported.
The numbers and regularity of occurrence of Salmonella
downstream from cattle feedlots more than implicates the
possibility of occasional or chance human ingestion in recre-
ational waters. Since all Salmonella strains or serotypes
are considered pathogenic, feedlot runoff must be recognized
as potentially implicated with disease (15). Salmonella can
survive from several weeks to three months in surface and
drinking water. In 1966 a large waterborne outbreak of
Salmonellosis in humans occurred in Riverside, California
from a contaminated water supply (6) . The source of con-
tamination was not identified; however, it was speculated
that contamination occurred by seepage from distant cattle
feedlots.
2. Leptospirosis is caused by a waterborne spirochaete. In
domestic animals these bacteria are found primarily in cattle
and swine. During infestation they may be shed in the urine
for several months. Counts as high as 100 million leptospires
per ml of urine have been reported. The disease can be
transmitted nasally, orally, or through abraded or lacerated
skin. Leptospires may live in water for several weeks.
Both sluggish and fast-moving waters are infectious and
increased infectiousness occurs with flooding. In the United
States, swimming has accounted for 10 outbreaks that involved
233 human cases (?}. In 1964 Leptospira poroona was isolated
from the swimming site in a creek where human cases occurred
(16) . This creek was frequented by cattle. In Washington
61 human cases occurred following swimming in water contami-
nated by infected cattle (7) ,
VIII-14
-------
3. Anthrax incidence in humans has declined steadily in the past
50 years. However, the spores remain viable for as long as
60 years since anthrax is one of the most resistant pathogenic
bacteria. Anthrax is most common in warm climates with
alkaline undrained soils and the potential of infection will
exist for many years in anthrax contaminated areas.
4, Tetanus is a widespread disease caused by a spore-forming
bacteria which is abundant in the feces of humans, horses,
and other herbivores which include cattle. Entry of the bac-
teria into the body is usually through a wound. The spores
are persistent in the soil for a number of years and surface
water can play a role in the dissemination of Tetanus spores.
Brucellosis is a contagious disease of cattle, swine, and goats
and occurs in humans. The bacteria Brucella is shed in feces
and uterine secretions by infected animals. Infection is usually
by direct contact with contaminated wastes; thus, people who
work around livestock are generally the most susceptible to
brucellosis .
Rickettsial Diseases
Q Fever usually comes into existence as infection in domestic
livestock. The disease is related to Rocky Mountain spotted
fever and other fevers associated with ticks. The exact mode of
transmission of Q Fever has not been determined; however,
dust laden air, direct contact with animal wastes, and ticks
are considered important. One mode of transmission that has
been suggested involved an aerosol created by operating a
rain gun or spray irrigation system in a drying wind (16) .
Viral, fungal, and parasitical diseases
Viral, fungal, and parasite caused diseases are also zoonotic.
Little is known about the relationships between cattle and
man involving the transmission of most of these forms of
VIII-15
-------
zoonosis . A summary of available information concerning
these diseases is compiled in the references listed at the
beginning of this discussion.
Prevention of Public Health Hazard
The public health hazard associated with these disease organisms, if
they are allowed to contaminate potable water supplies (both private
and public) and recreational waters, is sufficient reason to prohibit
the entrance of feedlot seepage or runoff into streams or other surface
waters. Care should also be exercised to control wind drift from
liquid wastes application areas and feedlot dust.
VIII-16
-------
REFERENCES
1. Adolph, R. H. , "Schedule Manure Removal to Avoid Fly Breeding,"
San Diego Poultry Notes, November 19, 1970.
2. Burnett, W. E. , and N. C. Dondero, "Control of Odors from Animal
Wastes," Transactions of the A.S.A.E., Paper No. 68-909,
pp. 221-224 (1970).
3. Burnett, W. E. , and N. C, Dondero, "Soil Filtration to Remove
Odors," Odors, Gases and Particulate Matter from High Density
Poultry Management Systems as they Relate to Air Pollution,
New York State Dept. of Health , Division of Air Resources, Contract
No. C-1101, April 1969.
4. Burnett, W. E. , and B. Gormel, "Odor Control by Chemical Treatment,"
Odors, Gases, and Particulate Matter from High Density Poultry
Management Systems as they Relate to Air Pollution, New York
State Dept. of Health, Division of Air Resources, Control No. C-1101,
April 1969.
5. Carlson, D. A. , and R. C. Gumerman, "Hydrogen Sulfide and Methyl
Mercaptan Removals with Soil Columns," Proceedings of Twenty-first
Industrial Wastes Conference, Purdue University, Lafayette, Indiana
Part, 171-191 (1966).
6. Decker, W. M. , and J. W. Steele, "Health Aspects and Vector Control
Associated with Animal Wastes," Management of Farm Animal Wastes,
Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, A.S.A.E.
Publication No. SP-0366, pp. 18-20, May 1966.
7. Diesch, S. L. , "Disease Transmission of Water-Borne Organisms
of Animal Origin," Agricultural Practices and Water Quality, Iowa
State University Press, Ames, Iowa, First Edition, pp. 265-285 (1971).
8. Faith, W. L. , "Odor Control in Cattle Feed Yards," Journal of the
Air Pollution Control Association, Vol. 14, No. 11, November 1964.
VIII-17
-------
9. Gumerman, R. C., and D. A. Carlson, "Chemical Aspects of Odor
Removal in Soil Systems" Animal Waste Management, Proceeding
of Cornell University Conference on Agricultural Waste Management,
Syracuse, New York, pp. 292-302, January 1969.
10. Hammond, W. C. , D. L. Day, and E. L. Hansen, "Can Lime and
Chlorine Suppress Odors in Liquid Hog Manure?" Agricultural
Engineering, pp. 340-343, June 1968.
11. Hutchinson, G. L. and F. G. Viets, Jr., "Nitrogen Enrichment of
Surface Water by Absorption of Ammonia Volatilized from Cattle
Feedlots ," Science, Vol. 166, pp. 514-515 (1969) .
12. Koelliker, J. K. and J. R. Miner, Desorption of Ammonia from
Anaerobic Lagoons, A.S.A.E. Paper No. MC-71-804, April 1970.
13. Levi, D. R,, and J. C. Holstein, "Stockmen's Liability Under the
Missouri Nuisance Law," Science and Technology Guide, University
of Missouri, Columbia Ext. Div.. File: Ag. Econ. 3 3/70 719 (1970).
14. Ludington, D . C. , "Odors and Their Control," Agricultural Waste
Principles and Guidelines for Practical Solutions, Cornell
University Conference on Agricultural Waste Management, Syracuse,
New York, pp. 130-136, February 1971.
15. Miner, J. R., L. R. Fina, and C. Piatt, "Salmonella infantis in
Cattle Feedlot Runoff," Applied Microbiology, pp. 627-628, May 1967.
16. Rankin, J. D., R. J, Taylor, "A Study of Some Disease Hazards
Which Could be Associated with the System of Applying Cattle
Slurry to Pasture," The Veterinary Record, pp 578-581,
November 22, 1969.
17. Moorman, R. , Jr., "Controlling Odors from Cattle Feedlots and
Manure Dehydration Operations," Journal of the Air Pollution
Control Association, Vol. 15, No. 1, January 1965.
VIII-18
-------
j.
18. Schuck, E. A . , et al. , Identification of Feedlot Odors, DHEW,
PHS, Final Report, Grant No. UI 00531-02. 24 pp., April 1969.
19. Seltzer, W. , S. G. Mourn, and T. M. Goldhaft, "A Method for the
Treatment of Animal Wastes to Control Ammonia and Other Odors,"
Poultry Science, Vol. 48, No. 6, pp. 1912-1918, November 1969.
20. Steen, C. A. , "The Public Relations of Agricultural Waste Manage-
ment," Agricultural Waste in an Urban Environment, Conference
Proceedings, Atlantic City, New Jersey, New Jersey Dept. of Ag.,
Trenton, New Jersey, pp. 174-182, September 1970.
21. Walker, W. R. , "Legal Restraints on Agricultural Pollution,"
Agricultural Engineering, pp. 636-637, November 1970.
22. Willson, G . B . , "Control of Poultry House Exhaust Odors,"
Poultry Digest, pp. 332-334, July 1971.
*¦
VIII-19
------- |