Agricultural Waste Characteristic
Agricultural Waste Characteristic
Agricultural Waste Characteristic
Natural
Agricultural Waste Management Field
Resources
Conservation Handbook
Service
Chapter 4 was originally prepared and printed in 1992 under the direc-
tion of James N. Krider (retired), national environmental engineer, Soil
Conservation Service (SCS), now Natural Resources Conservation Service
(NRCS), Washington, DC. James D. Rickman (retired), environmental en-
gineer, NRCS, Fort Worth, Texas, provided day-to-day coordination in the
development of the handbook. Authors for chapter 4 included Clyde Barth
(retired), Clemson University, Clemson, South Carolina; Timothy Powers
(retired), environmental engineer, NRCS, Nashville, Tennessee; and James
Rickman.
This version was prepared under the direction of Noller Herbert, director,
Conservation Engineering Division, NRCS, Washington, DC. Revisions to
the chapter were provided by Donald Stettler (retired), environmental en-
gineer, NRCS, Portland, Oregon; Charles Zuller, environmental engineer,
West National Technology Support Center, Portland, Oregon; and Darren
Hickman, environmental engineer, Central National Technology Support
Center, Fort Worth, Texas. It was finalized under the guidance of Darren
Hickman, national environmental engineer, Conservation Engineering
Division, Washington, DC.
Dry matter excretion = Feed dry matter intake (1 dry matter digestibility ) + Dry matter in urine
Physical characteristics
Units of Method of
Term Abbreviation Definition Remarks
measure measurement
Volume Vol ft3; gal Space occupied in cubic Place in or compare to container
units of known volume calculate from
dimensions of containment facility
Moisture MC % That part of a waste Evaporate free water on steam Moisture content (%)
content material removed by table and dry in oven at 217 F plus total solids (%)
evaporation and oven for 24 hours or until constant equals 100%
drying at 217 F weight
(103 C)
Total solids TS %, Residue remaining Evaporate free water on steam Total of volatile and
% w.b. 1/; after water is removed table and dry in oven at 217 F fixed solids; total
% d.w. 2/; from waste material by for 24 hours or until constant of suspended and
evaporation; dry matter weight dissolved solids
Volatile solids VS, TVS %, That part of total solids Place total solids residue in furnace Volatile solids
% w,b. 1/; driven off as volatile at 1,112 F for at least determined from
% d.w. 2/; (combustible) gases 1 hour difference of total
when heated to 1,112 F and fixed solids
(600 C); organic matter
Fixed solids FS, TFS %, That part of total solids Weight (mass) of residue after Fixed solids equal
% w.b.; % remaining after volatile volatile solids have been removed total solids minus
d.w. gases driven off at 1,112 as combustible gases when heated volatile solids
F (600 C); ash at 1,112 F for at least 1 hr is
determined
Dissolved DS, TDS %, That part of total solids Pass a measured quantity of Total dissolved
solids % w.b.; passing through the filter waste material through 0.45 solids (TDS) may be
% d.w. in a filtration procedure micron filter using appropriate further analyzed for
DS; TDS procedure; evaporate filtrate and volatile solids and
dry residue to constant weight at fixed dissolved solids
217 F parts %
Suspended SS, TSS %, That part of total solids May be determined by difference Total suspended
solids % w.b.; removed by a filtration between total solids and dissolved solids may be further
% d.w. procedure solids analyzed for volatile
and fixed suspended
solids parts
1/ % w.b. = percent wet basis
2/ % d.w. = percent dry weight basis
Chemical properties
Units of Method of
Term Abbreviation Definition Remarks
measure measurement
Ammoniacal mg/L Both NH3 and NH4 Common laboratory pro- Volatile and mobile nutri-
nitrogen (total nitrogen compounds cedure uses digestion, ox- ents; may be a limiting nu-
ammonia) g/L idation, and reduction to trient in land spreading of
convert all or selected ni- wastes and in eutrophica-
Ammonia NH3N mg/L A gaseous form of trogen forms to ammo- tion. Recommended meth-
nitrogen g/L ammoniacal nitrogen nium that is released and ods of manure analysis
measured as ammonia measures ammonium nitro-
gen (NH4-N)
Ammonium NH4-N mg/L The positively ionized Can become attached to
nitrogen g/L (cation) form of the soil or used by plants or
ammoniacal nitrogen microbes
Total Kjeldahl TKN mg/L The sum of organic Digestion process which
nitrogen g/L nitrogen and ammoniacal converts all organic nitro-
nitrogen gen to ammonia
Nitrate nitro- NO3-N mg/L The negatively ionized Nitrogen in this form can
gen g/L (anion) form of be lost by denitrification,
nitrogen that is highly mo- percolation, runoff, and
bile plant microbial utilization
sideration. Now, the concern of many is that the word can have a specific weight of as much as 105 percent that
waste implies that the material is only suitable for dis- of water. Some dry wastes, such as litter, that have sig-
posal and as such, detracts from proper utilization. Even nificant void space can have specific weight of much less
though another word or term might better convey the than that of water. Assuming that wet and moist wastes
beneficial aspects, agricultural waste is so entrenched weigh 60 to 65 pounds per cubic foot is a convenient and
in the literature it would now be difficult to change. useful estimate for planning waste management systems.
Further, a consensus replacement term that is appro-
priate in every context has not come to the forefront. Because moisture content of manure is transitory, most
It must be understood that it was neither the intent of testing laboratories report results in terms of dry weight
those who initially developed the technology nor the (d.w.). However, equipment is calibrated and storage
authors of this chapter (with its continued use) to im- structures sized based upon wet weight. As such, it is
ply the materials being discussed are worthless and are important to understand the relationship of wet basis
only suitable for disposal. Rather, the materials are to be (w.b.) and dry basis (d.w.).
viewed as having value both monetarily and environmen-
tally if properly managed, regardless of what they are When test data is reported in terms of its wet basis, the
called. base is its hydrated weight.
Wastes are often given descriptive names that reflect weight of constituent
Percent wet basis =
their moisture content such as liquid, slurry, semisolid wet weight of samplle
and solid. Wastes that have a moisture content of 95 per-
cent or more exhibit qualities very much like water are When test data is reported in terms of its dry weight, the
called liquid waste or liquid manure. Wastes that have base is its dry weight.
moisture content of about 75 percent or less exhibit the
properties of a solid and can be stacked and hold a def- weight of constituent
Percent dry basis =
inite angle of repose. These are called solid manure or
dry weight of samplle
solid waste. Wastes that are between about 75 and 95
percent moisture content (25 and 5 percent solids) are Residue after oven drying the sample is the total solids.
semiliquid (slurry) or semisolid (chapter 9). Because Since the dry weight is equal to the total solids, they are
wastes are heterogeneous and inconsistent in their phys- always 100 percent d.w.
ical properties, the moisture content and range indicat-
ed above must be considered generalizations subject to The fixed solids are the nonorganic portion of the total
variation and interpretation. solids. The weight of fixed solids is determined by a test
that involves heating a sample of the waste to 1,112 F.
The terms manure, waste, and residue are some- The fixed solids are the ash that remains after the mate-
times used synonymously. In this chapter, manure re- rial driven off by the heating is the volatile solids.
fers to materials that have a high percentage of feces and
urine. Other material that may or may not have signifi-
cant feces, and urine is referred to as waste or a relat-
ed term such as wastewater. The term as excreted refers
to feces and urine prior to any changes due to dilution
water addition, drying, volatilization, or other physi-
cal, chemical, or biological processes. Litter is a specific
form of poultry waste that results from floor production
of birds after an initial layer of a bedding material, such
as wood shavings, is placed on the floor at the beginning
of and perhaps during the production cycle.
Example 42 Example 43
The testing laboratory reports that the manures volatile Determine the C:N ratio for a manure that contains 2.1
solids on a dry weight basis are 60 percent. Compute the percent d.w. of total nitrogen and a carbon content of
percentage d.w. carbon content of the sample. 33.0 percent d.w.
11.5 (100 85 )
=
100
= 1.725%
1.725
lb N/ton = 1 ton 2,000 lb/ton
100
= 34.5 lb/ton
Facilities for meat-producing animals are rarely in full other minerals is warranted, but they are not available at
production 365 days per year due to uneven growth rates this time. Until these models are available, consideration
of animals, time required for facility cleaning after a should be given to adjusting the table values to a greater
group, and availability of animals for restocking a facil- value if nutrient consumptions are very high.
ity. Planning based on number of finished meat animals
provides a more realistic planning estimate for annual Where dietary intake and animal performance lev-
manure volume and nutrient production. el based excretion estimates could not be made, cur-
rent references were reviewed, including the 1992 ver-
The values given in the as excreted tables dairy, beef, sion of the NRCS Agricultural Waste Management
swine, poultry, and equine were determined by one of Field Handbook (AWMFH); the American Society
the following two approaches. of Agricultural Engineers Standard D384.2; Manure
Production and Characteristics, March 2005; and Manure
Use of a nutrient balance estimate of excretion that
Characteristics in Midwest Plan Service Publication
assumes feed intake minus animal retention equals
MWPS18, Section 1.
excretion. This approach is used for all beef, swine,
and poultry animal groups.
The as excreted table values for veal and sheep are from
Use of existing research data and regression analy- the 1992 version of the AWMFH.
sis for dairy and equine.
As previously stated, table values given in this chap-
Table values are estimated for dietary intake and ani- ter are based on common dietary intake for livestock
mal performance levels common for livestock and poul- and poultry. If feed rations are atypical, excreted val-
try management in 2003 using the equations. Beef, poul- ues should be computed by use of equations or by other
try, and swine excretion characteristics are based on a means to more closely reflect actual values of the opera-
calculation using equations that considers dietary nutri- tion under consideration rather than using the table val-
ent intake minus animal nutrient retention using dietary ues. For example, table values may not be appropriate
and performance measurements typical for the indus- when by-products from the ethanol industry are includ-
try at the time these data were published. Nutrient re- ed in feed rations. The rapid growth of the ethanol indus-
tention estimates followed common industry methodol- try primarily for production of oxygenated fuel and, to
ogies used for estimating animal nutrient requirements. a much lesser extent, the alcohol beverage industry, has
Total nitrogen, total phosphorus, and dry matter excre- resulted in its by-products being available as a competi-
tion were estimated by these methods for all species. tively priced feed ingredient for dairy, beef, and, to some
Available research data or models allowed additional ex- extent, swine and poultry. Use of these ethanol products
cretion estimates for some species. Dry matter excretion may increase both nitrogen and phosphorus in the ex-
is estimated to be a function of dry matter intake minus creted manure beyond the values given in the tables.
dry matter digestibility.
Another example of when the table values are not ap-
Dairy and equine manure characteristics were developed propriate is when beef cattle are fed high forage diets.
using existing research data and regression analysis to Since beef cattle are ruminants, they can utilize forag-
identify relationships between feeding programs, animal es, which are generally lower in digestibility, as well as
performance, and excretion. A regression analysis in- concentrates, which are generally higher in digestibility.
volves the study of relationships between variables. Depending upon the stage of production, the roughage-
to-concentrate ratio can vary tremendously. When poorly
For some values, particularly potassium, previously pub- digestible forages (fiber) are fed as compared to concen-
lished excretion values were used instead of the equa- trates, volumes of manure produced are much greater
tion methods used exclusively for nitrogen and phos- than the values given in the tables.
phorus. As with most minerals, the amount of these
nutrients (minerals) consumed can vary significantly due
(b) Common management modifications
to regional differences. For example, some forages can
be quite high in potassium because of high amounts of
How the manure is managed following excretion will of-
available potassium in the soil. In these situations, the
ten result in changes to its basic physical and chemi-
amount of potassium consumed will be the major deter-
cal characteristics. These management actions include
minant in amount of potassium excreted. Development
those related to wasted feed, wasted water, flush water,
of modeling equations for estimating excretion of these
410 (210VIAWMFH, March 2008)
Chapter 4 Agricultural Waste Characteristics Part 651
Agricultural Waste Management
Field Handbook
Table 43 Unit weights of common bedding materials 1/ Table 44 Daily bedding requirements for dairy cattle 1/
manure volume plus half of the bedding volume. Only bedding materials added to cow stalls and resting areas
half of the bedding volume is used to compensate for the are shown in table 44.
void space in bedding materials. Typically, broiler pro-
ducers replace the bedding material after three to six Dairy cattle excretion varies dramatically with milk pro-
batches or once or twice a year. The typical 20,000-bird duction as illustrated in table 45. Higher producing
house requires about 10 tons of wood shavings for a bed- herds will have higher feed intake and greater total ma-
ding depth of 3 to 4 inches. nure and manure nutrient excretion. Recognition of herd
milk production is critical to making reasonable esti-
(6) Soil mates of manure excretion. Concentration of nutrients
Soil can also be added to manure after it is excreted. Its fed also varies significantly between herds. Farm man-
presence is most common on dairies and beef operations agement decisions on degree of addition of supplemen-
where cattle are confined in earthen feedlots or are pas- tal protein and minerals can have substantial impact on
tured as a part of their routine. Dry soil adheres to the the quantity of nitrogen and phosphorus that must be ad-
animals bodies in limited amounts. Wet soil or mud ad- dressed by a nutrient management plan. The equations
heres even more, and either falls off or is washed off at should be used instead of the as excreted table values to
the dairy barn. Soil and other inorganic materials used reflect this variation.
for freestall base and bedding are also added to the ma-
nure. Soil or other inorganic materials commonly added Milking centersThe amount of water used by dairies
to manure can result in a waste that has double the fixed ranges widely. Since the amount used will have a signif-
solids content of as excreted dairy manure. icant impact on the volume that must be managed, the
preferred approach is to actually measure it. Table 46
(7) Biological activity provides a range of water usage for various operations.
Biological activity can begin almost immediately af- Table 47 gives typical characterization of milking center
ter manure has been excreted. This activity, of course, wastewater.
changes both the physical and chemical aspects of the
manure. The manure can be managed to either increase Example 45
or decrease biological activity. For example, manure can
be treated in a waste treatment lagoon for the specific Estimate the daily production of volume manure and
purpose of providing the environment for biological ac- pounds of N, P, and K for 500 lactating Holstein cows
tivity to reduce the pollution potential of the manure. with an average weight of 1,400 pounds and with an av-
Another example is managing the manure so that urine erage milk production of 100 pounds per day.
and feces mixes. This mixing initiates biological activity
that releases ammonia resulting in a decrease in the ni- Using table 45(a), for 500 Holstein lactating cows:
trogen content of the manure. Separating urine and feces
will eliminate this nutrient loss. Volume = 2.6 ft3/d-a 500 = 1,300 ft3/d
N = 1.0 lb/d-a 500 = 500 lb/d
P = 0.19 lb/d-a 500 = 95 lb/d
(c) Dairy K = 0.49 lb/d-a 500 = 245 lb/d
Manure characteristics for lactating and dry cows and Using table 45(b), for 500 Holstein lactating cows:
for calves and heifers are listed in table 45.
1400
Volume = 1.9 ft 3 /d/1000 lb AU 500
Quantities of dairy manure vary widely from small cows 1000
= 1,330 ft3/d
to large cows and between cows at low production and
N = 0.76 lb/d/1000 lb AU 500 1400
high production levels. Dairy feeding systems and equip- 1000
ment often waste feed, which in most cases is added to = 532 lb/d
the manure. Dairy cow stalls are often covered with bed- P = 0.14 lb/d/1000 lb AU 500 1400
ding materials that improve animal comfort and clean- = 98 lb/d 1000
liness. Virtually all of the organic and inorganic bed- K = 0.35 lb/d/1000 lb AU 500 1400
ding materials used for this purpose will eventually be 1000
= 245 lb/d
pushed, kicked, and carried from the stalls and added to
the manure. The characteristics of these bedding mate-
rials will blend with those of the manure. Quantities of
(c) Jersey cows in units per day per 1,000-lb animal unit 1/
Lactating cow milk production, lb/d
Components Units
45 60 75
Weight lb/d/1000 lb AU 116 130 144
Total solids lb/d/1000 lb AU 15 17 19
N lb/d/1000 lb AU 0.72 0.80 0.88
P lb/d/1000 lb AU 0.12 0.13 0.15
K lb/d/1000 lb AU 0.42 0.46 0.50
1/ Excretion values were determined using intake based equations. Although the intake-based equations were developed for Holsteins,
Blake et al. (1986) and Kauffman and St-Pierre (2001) found similar dry matter digestibility between breeds. Excretion estimates were
determined using average dry matter intakes for Jersey cows (NRC 2001). Nutrient excretion estimates were based on cow consuming
a diet containing 17 percent CP, 0.38 percent P, and 1.5 percent K.
Operation Water use Alley slope Flow depth Flow rate Flush volume
(%) (in) (gpm)1/ (gal)1/
Bulk Tank Automatic 5060 gal/wash
1.0 7.0 1,306 220
Manual 3040 gal/wash 1.5 5.0 933 156
Pipeline In parlor 75125 gal/wash 2.0 4.0 747 125
Pail milkers 3040 gal/wash
2.5 3.4 635 106
Miscellaneous equipment 30 gal/d
3.0 3.0 560 94
Cow Automatic 14.5 gal/wash/cow 1/ Per foot of alley width
Preparation Estimated avg. 2 gal/wash/cow 2/ Table adapted from the Midwest Plan Service Dairy Housing and
Manual 0.250.5 gal/wash/d Equipment Handbook, 2000
Parlor floor
Cleaned with a hose 2040 gal/milking
Flush 8002100 gal/milking
Well water pre-cooler 2 gal/gal of milk cooled
Milkhouse 1020 gal/d
Milking center 2/
Component Units MH MH+MP MH+MP+HA
3/ 4/
(d) Beef monia. The major source of ammonia is urea from urine,
which can easily be converted to ammonia (NH3), a gas.
Table 48 lists characteristics of as excreted beef ma- Urea may account for 40 percent to more than 50 per-
nure. Feedlot manure varies widely because of climate, cent of nitrogen excreted in manure; therefore, it has a
type of feedlot surface, and management. Typical values potential for rapid loss. The volatilization of nitrogen as
for feedlot manure are given later in table 416. Nutrient ammonia depends on temperature, moisture content,
loss from feedlot manure is highly influenced by man- pH, air movement, and other factors. Ammonia is solu-
agement factors such as moisture control, animal densi- ble in water, which could be a potential threat if feedlot
ty, and cleaning frequency. The type of feedlot surface, runoff comes in contact with surface or ground water.
earthen or paved, has impacts, as well. The soil in unsur-
faced beef feedlots is readily incorporated with the ma- Once excreted, phosphorus is fairly stable. The usual
nure due the animal movement and cleaning operations. path of phosphorus loss is through runoff. As such, feed-
Surfaced feedlots produce more runoff than unsurfaced lot runoff control measures will reduce the environmen-
lots. Runoff water from beef feedlots also exhibits wide tal impact of phosphorus.
variations in nutrient content character (table 49).
Feeding of by-products from the food and corn process-
Moisture content of beef feedlot manure drops signifi- ing industries is becoming common in beef cattle pro-
cantly over time from its as excreted 90 percent to about duction. Use of distillers grains from the production of
30 percent. If the feedlot surface is too dry, dust will be- ethanol is growing rapidly in regions with significant
come a problem. If it remains too wet, odor may become corn production. Cattle diets commonly contain 20 per-
a concern. Feedlot surface moisture of 25 to 35 percent cent distillers grains on a dry matter basis and 40 per-
will generally minimize odor, fly, and dust problems. For cent inclusion is becoming increasingly common. The
characteristics of manure solids from a beef feedlot, see distillers by-product contains a concentrated source
table 416. of both protein and phosphorus. Use of these by-prod-
ucts can typically results in higher intakes of protein and
Nitrogen loss from feedlots can be by runoff, leaching, phosphorus, resulting in higher excretion of nitrogen
and ammonia volatilization. As much as 50 percent of and phosphorus (table 48). Nutrient management plans
the nitrogen deposited on feedlots may be lost as am- will need to reflect the impact of by-product feeding.
(a) Cow and growing calf in units per day-animal 1/ (b) Cow and growing calf in units per day per 1,000 lb animal
unit 1/
Growing calf Growing calf
Beef cow in Beef cow in
Components Units confined Components Units confined
confinement confinement 2/
450750 lb 450750 lb 3/
Weight lb/d-a 125 50 Weight lb/d/1000 lb AU 104 77
Volume ft3/d-a 2.0 0.8 Volume ft3/d/1000 lb AU 1.7 1.2
Moisture % w.b. 88 88 Moisture % w.b. 88 88
TS lb/d-a 15 6.0 TS lb/d/1000 lb AU 13 9.2
VS lb/d-a 13 5.0 VS lb/d/1000 lb AU 11 7.7
BOD lb/d-a 3.0 1.1 BOD lb/d/1000 lb AU 2.5 1.7
N lb/d-a 0.42 0.29 N lb/d/1000 lb AU 0.35 0.45
P lb/d-a 0.097 0.055 P lb/d/1000 lb AU 0.08 0.08
K lb/d-a 0.30 0.19 K lb/d/1000 lb AU 0.25 0.29
1/ Beef cow values are representative of animals during nonlactating 1/ Beef cow values are representative of animals during nonlactatin
period and first 6 months of gestation period and first 6 months of gestation
2/ Equals table 48a value x (1000 lb/1200 lb wt.)
3/ Equals table 48a value x (1000 lb/650 lb avg. wt.)
(d) Finishing cattle in units per day per 1,000 lb animal unit 1/
Finishing cattle
Components Units Corn, no Corn with Corn with 25%wet Corn with 30% wet
supplemental P supplemental P distillers grains corn gluten feed
Weight lb/d/1000 lb AU 65 65
Volume ft3/d/1000 lb AU 1.1 1.1
Moisture % w.b. 92 92
TS lb/d/1000 lb AU 5.2 5.2
VS lb/d/1000 lb AU 4.3 4.3
BOD lb/d/1000 lb AU 1.0 1.0
N lb/d/1000 lb AU 0.36 0.36 0.50 0.44
P lb/d/1000 lb AU 0.044 0.056 0.069 0.076
K lb/d/1000 lb AU 0.25 0.25
Table 49 Nitrogen content of cattle feedlot runoff (Alexander and Margheim 1974) 1/2
lb N/acre-in
<25 in 360 110 60
25 to 35 in 60 30 15
>35 in 15 10 5
1/ Adapted from the 1992 version of the AWMFH
2/ Applies to waste storage ponds that trap rainfall runoff from uncovered, unpaved feedlots. Cattle feeding areas make up 90 percent or more of
the drainage area. Similar estimates were not made for phosphorus and potassium. Phosphorus content of the runoff will vary inversely with the
amount of solids retained on the lot or in settling facilities.
3/ No settling facilities are between the feedlot and pond, or the facilities are ineffective. Feedlot topography and other characteristics are condu-
cive to high solids transport or cause a long contact time between runoff and feedlot surface. High cattle densitymore than 250 head per acre.
4/ Sediment traps, low gradient channels, or natural conditions that remove appreciable amounts of solids from runoff. Average runoff and solids
transport characteristics. Average cattle density125 to 250 head per acre.
5/ Highly effective solids removal measures such as vegetated filter strips or settling basins that drain liquid waste through a pipe to storage pond.
Low cattle densityless than 120 head per acre.
416 (210VIAWMFH, March 2008)
Chapter 4 Agricultural Waste Characteristics Part 651
Agricultural Waste Management
Field Handbook
(e) Swine excreted swine manure from feeding and breeding stock.
Breeding stock manure characteristics, also shown in
Swine waste and waste management systems have been table 410, are subject to less variation than those for
widely studied, and much has been reported on swine growing animals.
manure properties. Table 410 lists characteristics of as
(a) Mature swine in units per day-animal 1/ (c) Mature swine in units per day per 1,000 lb animal unit
Sow Sow
Boar
Components Units Gestating Lactating Components Units Boar 3/
440 lb
440 lb 423 lb Gestating 1/ Lactating 2/
(b) Immature swine in units of per finished animal (d) Immature swine in units of per day per 1,000 lb animal unit
Nursery pig Grow to finish Components Units Nursery 1/ Grow to finish 2/
Components Units
27.5 lb 154 lb
Weight lb/d/1000 lb AU 88 65
Weight lb/f.a 87 1200
Volume ft3/d/1000 lb AU 1.4 1.1
Volume ft3/f.a. 1.4 20
Moisture % w.b. 90 90
Moisture % w.b. 90 90
TS lb/d/1000 lb AU 10 6.5
TS lb/f.a. 10 120
VS lb/d/1000 lb AU 8.8 5.4
VS lb/f.a. 8.7 99
BOD lb/d/1000 lb AU 3.4 2.1
BOD lb/f.a. 3.4 38
N lb/d/1000 lb AU 0.92 0.54
N lb/f.a. 0.91 10
P lb/d/1000 lb AU 0.15 0.09
P lb/f.a. 0.15 1.7
K lb/d/1000 lb AU 0.35 0.24
K lb/f.a. 0.35 4.4
1/ Table 410(c) value (1000 lb/27.5 lb avg. wt.)/36 days fed
2/ Table 410(c) value (1000 lb/154 lb avg. wt.)/120 days fed
Example 46 Example 47
Estimate the total volatile and fixed solids produced dai- Estimate the average daily volatile solids production in
ly in the manure of a grow-to-finish pig with an average the manure of 1,000 grow-to-finish pigs with an average
weight of 154 pounds with a 120-day feeding period. weight of 154 pounds over the 120 days feeding period.
From table 410(b), in terms of mass per finished ani- Using table 410(b), select
mal, read TS = 120 lb per finished animal and VS = 99 lb
per finished animal. VS = 99.00 lb/f.a.
To calculate the daily total solid production per day, di- VS production for 1,000 animals =
vide the per finished animal VS value by the tenure of the 99.00 lb/f.a. 1000 f.a. = 99,000 lb
animal in the feeding period. VS daily production = 99,000 lb/120 d = 825 lb/d
21
lb FS/d = = 0.18 lb FS/d
120
(f) Poultry of broilers each year, and it is fairly common to take the
cake out after each flock. The cake generally consists
Because of the high degree of industry integration, stan- of the surface crust and wet spots that have clumped to-
dardized rations, and complete confinement, layer and gether. About 1 or 2 inches of new bedding is placed on
broiler manure characteristics vary less than those of the floor before the next flock.
other species. Turkey production is approaching the
same status. Table 411 presents waste characteristics When a grower manages for a more frequent, complete
for as excreted poultry manure. cleanout, the data in table 416 will require adjustment.
The birds still produce the same amount of N, P, and K
Table 416 lists data for poultry flocks that use a litter per day. However, the density and moisture content of
(floor) system. Bedding materials, whether wood, crop, the litter is different with a more frequent cleanout. The
or other residue, are largely organic matter that has lit- nutrient concentrations may also be lower since there
tle nutrient component. Litter moisture in a well-man- is less time for the nutrients to accumulate, and the ra-
aged house generally is in the range of 25 to 35 per- tio of bedding to manure may be higher. A further com-
cent. Higher moisture levels in the litter result in greater plication is that nitrogen is lost to the atmosphere during
weight and reduced mass concentration of nitrogen. storage while fresh manure is being continually deposit-
ed. This can create significant variations based on litter
Most broiler houses are now cleaned out one or two management.
times a year. Growers generally have five or six flocks
(a) Layer waste characterization in units of per day animal 1/ (b) Layer in units of per day per 1,000 lb animal unit
Components Units Layers Components Units Layers 1/
Weight lb/d-a 0.19 Weight lb/d/1000 lb AU 57
Volume ft3/d-a 0.0031 Volume ft3/d/1000 lb AU 0.93
Moisture % w.b. 75 Moisture % w.b. 75
TS lb/d-a 0.049 TS lb/d/1000 lb AU 15
VS lb/d-a 0.036 VS lb/d/1000 lb AU 11
BOD lb/d-a 0.011 BOD lb/d/1000 lb AU 3.3
N lb/d-a 0.0035 N lb/d/1000 lb AU 1.1
P lb/d-a 0.0011 P lb/d/1000 lb AU 0.33
K lb/d-a 0.0013 K lb/d/1000 lb AU 0.39
1/ Table 12(a) ASAE D384.2, March 2005 1/ Table 411(a) value (1000 lb/3 lb avg. wt.) (0.90)
(d) Meat production poultry in units per day per 1,000 lb animal unit
Turkey Turkey
Components Units Broiler 1/ Duck 4/
(toms) 2/ (hens) 3/
Weight lb/d/1000 lb AU 88 34 48 102
Volume ft3/d/1000 lb AU 1.4 0.57 0.77 1.7
Moisture % w.b. 74 74 74 74
TS lb/d/1000 lb AU 22 8.8 12 27
VS lb/d/1000 lb AU 17 7.1 9.8 16
BOD lb/d/1000 lb AU 5.3 2.3 3.0 4.5
N lb/d/1000 lb AU 0.96 0.53 0.72 1
P lb/d/1000 lb AU 0.28 0.16 0.20 0.35
K lb/d/1000 lb AU 0.54 0.25 0.31 0.50
1/ Table 411(c) value (1000 lb /2.6 lb avg. wt.) / 48 days on feed
2/ Table 411(c) value (1000 lb /17.03 lb avg. wt.) / 133 days on feed
3/ Table 411(c) value (1000 lb /7.57 lb avg. wt.) / 105 days on feed
4/ Table 411(c) value (1000 lb /3.51 lb avg. wt.) / 39 days on feed
Example 48 The sawdust used does not add nutrients, but it adds to
the volume of the litter.
Determine the volume of litter and the amount N, P, and
K produced for a 20,000-bird broiler house for six flocks From table 43, select for sawdust 12 lb/ft3
between cleanouts. Assume the house is initially bedded
Volume of sawdust placed =
with 10 tons of sawdust and that it is top-dressed with 5 (10 tons + 5 top-dressings 5 ton each)
tons between each flock. = 35 tons
(35 tons 2000 lb/ton) / 12 lb/ft3 = 5,833 ft3
Using table 411(c), select for broilers
As a rule of thumb, the volume of the sawdust will be re-
Volume = 0.17 ft3/f.a. duced by approximately half due to volatilization of car-
N = 0.12 lb/f.a. bon, removal of cake, and consolidation and filling of
P = 0.035 lb/f.a. voids with poultry excrement.
K = 0.068 lb/f.a.
Volume of sawdust added to manure =
5,833 ft3 0.5 = 2,916 ft3
For six 20,000-bird flocks the excreted amounts are:
Total volume of litter =
Volume = 0.17 ft3/f.a. 6 flocks 20,000 f.a./flock = excreted volume + volume of sawdust =
20,400 ft3 20,400 ft3 + 2,916 ft3 = 23,317 ft3
N = 0.12 lb/f.a. 6 flocks 20,000 f.a./flock = Layer lagoon sludge is much denser than pullet lagoon
14,400 lb sludge because of its high grit or limestone content.
Layer lagoon sludge accumulates at the rate of about
P = 0.035 lb/fa 6 flocks 20,000 fa/flock = 0.0294 cubic foot per pound of total solids added to the
4,200 lb lagoon, and pullet lagoon sludge accumulates at the rate
of 0.0454 cubic foot per pound total solids. This is equiv-
K = 0.068 lb/f.a. 6 flocks 20,000 f.a./flock = alent to about 0.6 cubic foot per layer and 0.3 cubic foot
per pullet annually.
8,160 lb
Data on manure characteristics from veal production are Table 414 lists characteristics of as excreted horse ma-
shown in table 412. Sanitation in veal production is an nure. Because large amounts of bedding are used in the
extremely important factor, and waste management fa- stables of most horses, qualities and quantities of wastes
cilities should be planned for handling as much as 3 gal- from these stables generally are dominated by the kind
lons of wash water per day per calf. and volume of bedding used.
Table 412 Veal waste characterizationas excreted 1/ Table 413 Lamb waste characterizationas excreted 1/
(a) Values 1/
Mass Moisture TS VS TKN NH3-N P K
(lb/hd/d) (% wb) (% wb) (% TS) (% wb) (% wb) (% wb) (% wb)
Beef
Earthen lot 17 33 67 30 1.2 0.10 0.50 1.3
Poultry
Leghorn pullets No data 65 40 2.1 0.85 1.0 1.1
Leghorn hen 0.066 59 40 1.9 0.88 1.2 1.3
Broiler litter 0.044 31 70 70 3.7 0.75 0.60 1.4
Turkey litter 0.24 30 2.2 0.33 1.2
Dairy
Scraped earthen lots 77 54 46 0.70 0.25 0.67
Scraped concrete lots 88 72 25 0.53 0.13 0.40
Lagoon effluent 234 98 2 52 0.073 0.08 0.016 0.11
Slurry (liquid) 148 92 8 66 0.30 0.14 0.13 0.40
Equine
Solid manure
Residential 71 43 65 26 0.76 0.24 0.99
Commercial 101
Swine
Finisher-Slurry, 6.68.8 91 9.0 0.70 0.50 0.21 0.24
wet-dry feeders
Slurry storage- 9.9 94 6.1 0.47 0.34 0.18 0.24
dry feeders
Flush building 35 98 2.0 0.20 0.14 0.07 0.17
Agitated solids and water 98 2.2 0.10 0.05 0.06 0.06
Lagoon surface water 99.6 0.40 0.06 0.04 0.02 0.07
Lagoon sludge 90 10 0.26 0.07 0.25 0.07
1/ Adapted from ASAE D384.2, table 19
425
Chapter 4 Agricultural Waste Characteristics Part 651
Agricultural Waste Management
Field Handbook
Table 417 Human waste characterizationas excreted 1/ Table 418 Residential waste characterizationhousehold
wastewater 1/
Wastewater Sludge
Component Units Raw Secondary Raw Digested Compost2/
Volume ft /d/1000 lb
3
90 85
of people
Moisture % 99.95 99.95 40
TS % w.b. 0.053/ 0.054/ 4.0 4.0 60
VS " 0.035 3.0 2.1
FS " 0.015 1.0 0.90
COD " 0.045
BOD5 " 0.020 0.0025
N " 0.003 0.002 0.32 0.15 0.78
NH4-N " 0.001 0.08
P " 0.001 0.001 0.036 0.067 0.20
K " 0.001 0.0012 0.010 0.17
Wastewater
BOD5
Weight lb/lb
Product/operation lb/1000 lb
milk processed
milk received
Bulk milk handling 6.1 1.0
Milk processing 4.9 5.2
Butter 4.9 1.5
Cheese 2.1 1.8
Condensed milk 1.9 4.5
Milk powder 2.8 3.9
Milk, ice cream, and 2.5 6.4
cottage cheese
Cottage cheese 6.0 34
Ice cream 2.8 5.8
Milk and cottage cheese 1.8 3.5
Mixed products 1.8 2.5
1/ Adapted from 1992 version of the AWMFH
Cheese
Component Units Industry wide - - - - - -- - - -Whey - - - - - - - - - - wastewater
sludge
Sweet cheese Acid cheese
Moisture % 98 93 93 98
TS % w.b. 2.4 6.9 6.6 2.5
VS % w.b. 1.5 6.4 6.0
FS % w.b. 0.91 0.55 0.60
COD % w.b. 1.3
BOD5 % w.b. 2.0
N % w.b. 0.077 7.5 0.18
P % w.b. 0.050 0.12
K % w.b. 0.067 0.05
1/ Adapted from 1992 version of the AWMFH
Red meat
Component Units Harvesting 2/
Packing 3/ Processing 4/ Poultry 5/ Broiler 6/
Volume gal/1000 lb7/ 700 1,000 1,300 2,500
Moisture % 95
TS % w.b. 5.0
lb/1000 lb 4.7 8.7 2.7 6.0
VS lb/1000 lb 4.3
FS lb/1000 lb 0.65
BOD5 lb/1000 lb 5.8 12 5.7 8.5
N lb/1000 lb 0.30
P lb/1000 lb 0.084
K lb/1000 lb 0.012
1/ Adapted from 1992 version of the AWMFH
2/ HarvestingEuthanizing and preparing the carcass for processing
3/ PackingEuthanizing, preparing the carcass for processing, and processing
4/ ProcessingSectioning carcass into retail cuts, grinding, packaging
5/ Quantities per 1,000 lb product
6/ All values % w.b.
7/ Per 1,000 lb live weight harvested
Table 422 presents data on raw wastewater discharges (c) Silage leachate
from red meat and poultry processing plants. Table 423
describes various sludges. Dissolved air flotation sludge Silage leachate, a liquid by-product resulting from si-
is a raw sludge resulting from a separation procedure lage production typically from whole corn plants or sor-
that incorporates dissolved air in the wastewater. The ghums, that drains from the storage unit must be consid-
data on wastewater sludge is for sludge from secondary ered in the planning and design of an AWMS. Silage is a
treatment of wastewater from meat processing. forage-type livestock feed that is produced by fermen-
tation at relatively high moisture contents and stored in
Table 424 presents raw wastewater qualities for sever- airtight conditions. Oxygen depletion of surface water is
al common vegetable crops on the basis of the amount the major environmental concern associated with silage
of the fresh product processed. Characteristics of solid leachate because of its high biological oxygen demand.
fruit and vegetable wastes, such as might be collected at This oxygen depletion is exacerbated because silage is
packing houses and processing plants, are listed in table usually produced in the late summer and early fall when
425. streams are already low in total dissolved oxygen due to
Cut French-style
Component Units Pea Potato Tomato
bean bean
seasonally high temperatures and low flow rates. Since ment decisions should be based on the results of timely
20 to 25 percent of the total nitrogen in silage leachate is sampling and testing at a specific site.
in the form of nitrate, it is also has the potential of being
a ground water contaminant. The factors that influence leachate production from si-
lage include the degree to which the silage crop has
Generally, the amount of leachate produced is direct- been chopped and the amount of pressure applied to the
ly influenced by the moisture content of the forage en- leachate in the silo, but the greatest single factor is the
siled and the degree of compaction to which the forage percent of dry matter in the silage. The peak rate of si-
is subjected. Silage leachate is typically 95 percent wa- lage leachate production has been measured with silage
ter. It has a pH that can range from 5.5 to 3.6. Table 426 at 18 percent moisture as 0.5 cubic feet per ton of silage
lists the range for typical nutrient concentrations in si- per day. The peak time of leachate production will usu-
lage leachate. ally be from 3 to 5 days following ensilage. Leachate pro-
duction as a function of percent dry matter is given in ta-
The range of uncertainty in nutrient content reflects the ble 427.
differences that can occur from year to year and from
site to site. Management decisions based on these nu- This variation in production can make a significant dif-
trient concentrations should also consider the associat- ference in the planning and design of systems to man-
ed volumes of leachate that are usually relatively small. age this effluent. The actual production rate used for a
In most instances, a practical design and plan for envi- specific design should be a reasonable conservative esti-
ronmental containment should be based on a reasonably mate that is based on these numbers, local data, and the
high concentration assumption. Operation and manage- experience of the managers of the silos.
Table 426 Typical range of nutrient concentrations in Table 427 Leachate production based on percent dry
silage leachate1/ matter of silage1/