Agricultural Waste Characteristic

United States
Department of Part 651

Agriculture
Natural
Agricultural Waste Management Field
Resources
Conservation Handbook
Service
Chapter 4 Agricultural Waste

Characteristics
(210VIAWMFH, March 2008)

Chapter 4 Agricultural Waste Characteristics Part 651
Agricultural Waste Management
Field Handbook
Issued March 2008
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all

its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age,
disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental
status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, re-
prisal, or because all or a part of an individuals income is derived from any
public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.)
Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication
of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact
USDAs TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a com-
plaint of discrimination write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400
Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-
3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provid-
er and employer.

Acknowledgments
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.
(210VIAWMFH, March 2008) 4i

Field Handbook
4ii (210VIAWMFH, March 2008)

Chapter 4 Agricultural Waste Characteristics
Contents: 651.0400 Introduction 41

(a) Purpose and scope............................................................................................41
(b) Variations and ranges of data values..............................................................42
651.0401 Definitions of waste characterization terms 42
651.0402 Units of measure 48
651.0403 Animal waste characteristics 49

(a) As excreted manure.....................................................................................49
(b) Common management modifications.........................................................411
(c) Dairy................................................................................................................412
(d) Beef.................................................................................................................415
(e) Swine...............................................................................................................417
(f) Poultry............................................................................................................419
(g) Veal..................................................................................................................422
(h) Sheep...............................................................................................................422
(i) Horse...............................................................................................................422
(j) Rabbit..............................................................................................................423
651.0404 Manure as transferred for utilization 423
651.0405 Other wastes 426

(a) Residential waste..........................................................................................426
(b) Food wastes and wastewater......................................................................426
(c) Silage leachate...............................................................................................429
651.0406 References 432
(210VIAWMFH, March 2008) 4iii

Field Handbook
Table 41 Definitions and descriptions of waste characterization 43

terms
Table 42 Factors for determining nutrient equivalency 49
Table 43 Unit weights of common bedding materials 411
Table 44 Daily bedding requirements for dairy cattle 411
Table 45 Dairy manure characterizationas excreted 413
Table 46 Dairy water use for various operations 414
Table 47 Dairy waste characterizationmilking center 414
Table 48 Beef waste characterizationas excreted 415
Table 49 Nitrogen content of cattle feedlot runoff 416
Table 410 Swine waste characterizationas excreted 417
Table 411 Poultry waste characterizationas excreted 419
Table 412 Veal waste characterizationas excreted 422
Table 413 Lamb waste characterizationas excreted 422
Table 414 Horse waste characterizationas excreted 422
Table 415 Rabbit waste characterizationas excreted 423
Table 416 Manure as transferred for utilization 424
Table 417 Human waste characterizationas excreted 426
Table 418 Residential waste characterizationhousehold 426

wastewater
Table 419 Municipal waste characterizationresidential 427
Table 420 Dairy food processing waste characterization 427
Table 421 Dairy food waste characterizationprocessing 428

wastewater
Table 422 Meat processing waste characterizationwastewater 428
4iv (210VIAWMFH, March 2008)

Field Handbook
Table 423 Meat processing waste characterizationwastewater 429

sludge
Table 424 Vegetable processing waste characterizationwaste- 429

water
Table 425 Fruit and vegetable waste characterizationsolid 430

waste
Table 426 Typical range of nutrient concentrations in silage 431

leachate
Table 427 Leachate production based on percent dry matter 431

of silage
Figures Figure 41 Mass balance approach used for developing table 41

values for beef cattle, swine, and poultry
(210VIAWMFH, March 2008) 4v

Chapter 4 Agricultural Waste Characteristics
Of the total excreted solids, dry matter in urine typically

651.0400 Introduction contributes 10 to 20 percent of the volume.
These equations allow an estimate of as excreted ma-

nure characteristics relevant to a wide range of dietary
(a) Purpose and scope options and animal performance levels commonly ob-
served in commercial production. Considered are fac-
Wastes and residues described in this chapter are of an tors related to the feed efficiency in animal performance
organic nature and agricultural origin. Other by-products and to feed intake including crude protein, phospho-
of nonagricultural origin that may be managed within the rus, and dry matter. A full presentation and description
agricultural sector are also included. This chapter pro- of these equations is beyond the scope of this chapter.
vides information for estimating characteristics of live- They are, however, available in the American Society of
stock and poultry manure and other agricultural residu- Agricultural and Biological Engineers Standard D384.2.
als. The information provided is useful for the planning See http://www.asabe.org/standards/index.html.
and design of agricultural waste management system
(AWMS) components including: For dairy and horses, regression analysis was performed
storage function components such as ponds and on large data sets to determine appropriate equations.
tanks
In a number of situations, consideration should be giv-
treatment function components such as lagoons en to using equations instead of the as excreted values
and composting presented in the tables of this chapter. Typical or aver-
utilization function components such as land ap- age estimates of as excreted manure eventually become
plication out-of-date due to changes in animal genetics, perfor-
mance potential, feeding program strategies, and avail-
The information may also be useful in formulating the able feeds. If the timeliness of the data presented in this
environmental impact of manure and other agricultural chapter becomes problematic, consideration should be
wastes. given to computing values using equations. Other situ-
ations when use of equations should be considered are
This chapter includes table values for the typical charac- when:
teristics of manure as excreted by livestock and poultry comprehensive nutrient management plans are
based on typical diets and animal performance levels in being developed specific to a farm and its AWMS
2003. These typical values are most appropriate for use
when: data is available for a livestock or poultry opera-
tions feeding program and animal performance
planning estimates are being made on a scale larger
than a single farm such as county or regional esti- a feeding strategy or technology designed to re-
mate of nutrient excretion duce nutrient excretion is being used
a rough estimate is needed for farm planning

farm-specific information of animal performance
and feed intake is not available
Figure 41 Mass balance approach used for developing
table values for beef cattle, swine, and poultry
Much of the as excreted data included in the tables of
this chapter were developed using equations that are Feed nutrient intake
now available for predicting manure content, primar-
ily nitrogen and phosphorus, dry matter, and, depend-
ing upon species, other potential characteristics for beef,
swine, and poultry excretion. The fundamental model
Food
nutrient
intake
- = Nutrient
excretion
(fig. 41) on which these equations are based is:

Nutrient retention by animal or in the
Nutrient excretion = Nutrient feed intake Nutrient retention animals products such as eggs or milk
Dry matter excretion = Feed dry matter intake (1 dry matter digestibility ) + Dry matter in urine

Field Handbook
The chapter also provides table values for the typical

characteristics of manure at transfer from housing or 651.0401 Definitions of waste
from storage and treatment facilities. These values are
useful for long-term planning for utilization of manure characterization terms
and other wastes; but, they should not be used in deter-
mining a field-specific application rate.
Table 41 contains definitions and descriptions of waste
characterization terms. It includes abbreviations, defini-
(b) Variations and ranges of data values tions, units of measurement, methods of measurement,
and other considerations for the physical and chemical
In most cases, a single value is presented for a specif- properties of manure, waste, and residue. The physical
ic waste characteristic. This value is presented as a rea- propertiesweight (Wt), volume (Vol), moisture content
sonable value for facility design and equipment selection (MC), total solids (TS), volatile solids (VS), fixed solids
for situations where site-specific data are not avail- (FS), dissolved solids (DS), and suspended solids (SS)
able. Waste characteristics are subject to wide variation; are important to agricultural producers and facility plan-
both greater and lesser values than those presented can ners and designers. They describe the amount and con-
be expected. Therefore, much attention is given in this sistency of the material to be dealt with by equipment
chapter to describing the reasons for data variation and and in treatment and storage facilities. Of the chemical
to giving planners and designers a basis for seeking and constituents, nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), and potas-
establishing more appropriate values where justified by sium (K) are of great value to waste systems planners,
the situation. producers, and designers. Land application of agricultur-
al waste is the primary waste utilization procedure, and
Site-specific waste sampling, testing, and data collection N, P, and K are the principal components considered in
are essential for the utilization function of an AWMS. development of an agricultural waste management plan.
Such sampling can result in greater certainty and con-
fidence in amount of nutrients available. Care must be Volatile solids (VS) and 5-day Biochemical Oxygen
exercised to assure that samples are representative of Demand (BOD5) are used in the planning and design of
the waste stream and arrive at the laboratory in a time- certain biological treatment procedures.
ly manner. Since manure and other waste products are
in continual flux, it must also be kept in mind that the re- Data on biological properties, such as numbers of spe-
sults from such testing are only valid for the time when cific micro-organisms, are not presented in this chapter.
the samples were taken. Micro-organisms are of concern as possible pollutants
of ground and surface water, but they are not commonly
used as a design factor for no-discharge waste manage-
ment systems that use wastes on agricultural land.
When expressed in units of pounds per day or as a con-

centration, various solid fractions of manure, waste, or
residue are often measured on a wet weight basis (%
w.b.), a percentage of the as is or wet weight of the ma-
terial. In some cases, however, data are recorded on a
dry weight basis (% d.w.), a percentage of the dry weight
of the material. The difference in these two values for
a specific material is most likely very large. Nutrient
and other chemical fractions of a waste material, ex-
pressed as a concentration, may be on a wet weight or
dry weight basis, or expressed as pounds per 1,000 gal-
lons of waste.
The term agricultural waste was coined by those who

pioneered the technology. For them, the term seemed
appropriate because it was generic and could be used in
the context of the wide variety of materials under con-
42 (210VIAWMFH, March 2008)
Field Handbook
Table 41 Definitions and descriptions of waste characterization terms
Physical characteristics
Units of Method of
Term Abbreviation Definition Remarks
measure measurement
Weight Wt lb Quantity or mass Scale or balance
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
(210VIAWMFH, March 2008) 43

Field Handbook
Table 41 Definitions and descriptions of waste characterization termsContinued
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
Total nitrogen TN; N %; lb The summation of Macro-nutrient for plants

nitrogen from all the vari-
ous nitrogen
compounds
Phosphorus TP, mg Total phosphorus (TP) Laboratory procedure Critical in water pollution
SRP mg/L is a measure of all the uses digestion and/or re- control; may be a limiting
P lb forms of phosphorus, dis- duction to convert phos- nutrient in eutrophication
P2O5 lb solved or particulate, phorus to a colored com- and in spreading of wastes
that is found in a sample. plex; result measured by
Soluble reactive phospho- spectrophotometer or in-
rus (SRP) is a measure of ductive coupled plasma
orthophosphate, the filter-
able (soluble, inorganic)
fraction of phosphorus,
the form directly taken up
by plant cells. P is elemen-
tal phosphorus. P2O5 is the
fertilizer equivalent phos-
phorus
5-day BOD5 lb of O2 Extensive laboratory Standard test for measuring
Biochemical procedure of incubating pollution potential of waste
oxygen waste sample in oxygen-
demand ated water for 5 days and
measuring amount of dis-
solved oxygen consumed
Chemical COD lb of O2 Measure of oxygen con- Relatively rapid laborato- Estimate of total oxygen
oxygen suming capacity of or- ry procedure using chemi- that could be consumed in
demand ganic and some inorganic cal oxidants and heat to oxidation of waste material
components of waste ma- fully oxidize organic com-
terials ponents of waste

Field Handbook
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.
Because of the high moisture content of as excreted ma-

nure and treated waste, their specific weight is very sim-
ilar to that of water62.4 pounds per cubic foot. Some
manure and waste that have considerable solids content

Field Handbook
Example 41 Following are a number of relationships that may be

used to evaluate the constituents of manure or other
Given: A laboratory sample of manure weighing 200 wastes.
grams is oven dried. After oven drying, the sam-
% dw (oven dry weight of manure)
ple weighs 50 grams. Following oven drying, the =
remaining 50 grams is heated to 1,112 F. After % wb (weight of manure at excreted moisture content)
this heating, 20 grams remain.
% wb (weight of manure at excreted moisture content)
=
Calculate: % dw (oven dry weight of manure)

Moisture content (MC)
dry weight
% dry matter = 100
MC = wet weight dry weight wet weight

= 200 grams 50 grams
= 150 grams % moisture = 100 % dry matter
Percent moisture (%MC) % dry matter = 100 % moisture

MC
% MC = 100 (100 % moisture)
wet weight % w.b. = % d.w.
100
150 grams
= 100
200 grams
% w.b. 100
% d.w. =
= 75% 100 % w.b.

Percent total solids dry basis (%TS)
weight of manure (wet) = weight of total + weight of
dry weight solids (dry) moisture
% TS w.b. = 100
wet weight
50 grams
= 100 Carbon is a component of all organic wastes. Quantify-
200 grams ing it is important because of carbons impact on soil
= 25% quality and greenhouse gas emissions. Adding manure
and other organic material to the soil improves the soils
After the 50-gram dry sample (originally 200-gm wet structure and tilth and increases its nutrient storage ca-
sample) is heated to 1,112 F, the sample now weighs 20 pacity. As the soil sequesters the carbon in the manure,
grams. Since the fixed solids are what remain, they are: it reduces the emissions of carbon dioxide and methane
Percent fixed solids (%FS) into the air.
FS = 20 grams
VS = TS FS The carbon content of a material can be determined us-
= 50 grams 20 grams ing the following equation if the materials volatile solids
= 30 grams are known.
Percent volatile solids both wet basis and dry C = 0.55 VS

weight basis. (% VS w.b. and % VS d.w.)
where:
30 grams C = carbon (% C d.w.)
% VS d.w. = 100 VS = volatile solids (%VS d.w.)
50 grams
= 60%

Field Handbook
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.
% C d.w. = 0.55 % VS d.w. C

C:N =
= 0.55 60 TN
= 33.0 % d.w. 33.0
=
2.1
The manure has a moisture content of 80 percent. = 15.7 : 1
Compute the percentage of carbon contained in the ma-
nure on a wet basis. The following are equations for converting nutrient lev-
els reported on dry basis to a wet basis:
(100 % moisture)
% C w.b. = % C d.w.
100 nutrient level, (100 % moisture )
(100 80 ) dry basis
= 33.00 nutrient level, =
100 100
wet basis
= 6..6%
nutrient level, % dry matter
Knowing the carbon to nitrogen ratio (C:N) can be im- dry basis total solids
nutrient level, =
portant. For example, the C:N is an important aspect of 100
the compost recipe (ch. 10). If the C:N is high, such as it wet basis
might be in a manure containing organic bedding such
as sawdust, the carbon can tie up nitrogen from the soil Example 44
when land applied. The C:N can be determined using the
following equation. A manure testing laboratory reports that the manure
has a nitrogen content of 11.5 percent d.w. The manure
C sampled contained 85 percent moisture. Compute the
C:N =
TN pounds of nitrogen per ton of manure as it will be trans-

ferred for utilization.
where:
C:N = carbon to nitrogen ratio nutrient level, (100 % moisture )
C = carbon (%C d.w.) dry basis
nutrient level, =
TN = total nitrogen (%TN d.w.) 100
wet basis
11.5 (100 85 )
=
100
= 1.725%
1.725
lb N/ton = 1 ton 2,000 lb/ton
100
= 34.5 lb/ton

Field Handbook
in the tables with this format, such as dairy calves and

651.0402 Units of measure heifers, are expressed as mass or volume per day-animal
that is representative for the span of time when they are
in this age category.
In this chapter, English units are used exclusively for
weight, volume, and concentration data for manure, Food processing waste is recorded in cubic feet per day
waste, and residue. (ft3/d), or the source is included such as cubic feet per
1,000 pounds of potatoes processed.
The table values for as excreted manure from livestock
is expressed in three different formats. They are in terms The concentration of various components in waste is
of mass or volume per: commonly expressed on a milligram per liter (mg/L) ba-
sis or parts per million (ppm). One mg/L is milligrams
day per 1,000 pounds of livestock live weight of solute per liter of solution. One ppm is one part by
(lb/d/1000 lb) weight of solute in one million parts by weight of solu-
and tion. Therefore, mg/L equals ppm if a solution has a spe-
cific gravity equal to that of water (1,000,000 mg/L or 1
finished animal (f.a.) for meat producing animals kg/L). Generally, substances in solution up to concentra-
or tions of about 7,000 mg/L do not materially change the
specific gravity of the liquid, and mg/L and ppm are nu-
day-animal (d-a) for other animals merically interchangeable. Concentrations are some-
times expressed as mg/kg or mg/1,000g, which are the
Excreted manure table values are given in the NRCS same as ppm.
traditional format of mass or volume per day per 1,000
pounds live weight for all livestock and poultry types Occasionally, the concentration is expressed in percent.
and production groupings. The 1,000 pounds live weight A 1 percent concentration equals 10,000 ppm. Very low
or animal unit (AU) is often convenient because there is concentrations are sometimes expressed as micrograms
a commonality of expression, regardless of the species per liter (g/L). A microgram is one millionth of a gram.
or weight of the individual species.
Various solid fractions of a manure, waste, or residue,
A 1,000-pound AU is 1,000 pounds of live weight, not an when expressed in units of pounds per day or as a con-
individual animal. For example, a 1,400-pound Holstein centration, can be expressed either on a wet basis
cow is 1.4 AU (1400/1000 = 1.4). A 5-pound laying hen (% w.b.) or on a dry weight basis (% d.w.). The percent
would be 0.005 AU (5/1000 = 0.005). The challenge in us- w.b. is the as is or wet weight of the material, and the
ing table values in this format is for young animals. Since d.w. is with the moisture removed. The difference in
these animals are gaining weight, an animal weight that these two bases for a specific material is most likely very
is representative of the time period being considered large. Nutrient and other chemical fractions of a waste
must be determined. material, expressed as a concentration, may be on a wet
weight or dry weight basis, or expressed as pounds per
As an alternative, table values for excreted manure from 1,000 gallons of waste.
livestock and poultry being fed for an end result of meat
production are given in terms of mass or volume per fin- Amounts of the major nutrients, nitrogen (N), phospho-
ished animal. The table values given in this format are rus (P), and potassium (K), are occasionally expressed
the mass or volume for one animals finishing period in in terms of the elemental nutrient form. However, labo-
the feeding facility. Manure production expressed in this ratory analysis reports are more commonly expressing
manner eliminates the problems of determining a rep- the nutrients in manure as a common fertilizer equiva-
resentative weight of the animal for its tenure at a facil- lent, P2O5 for P and K20 for K. When comparing the nutri-
ity. Breeding stock weight for beef or swine is not given ent content of a manure, waste, or residue with commer-
in this format because the animals weight is stable, and cial fertilizer, the conversion factors listed in table 42
they are usually retained year-round. should be used, and comparisons on the basis of simi-
lar elements, ions, and/or compounds should be made.
Table values are also given in terms of mass or volume Nitrogen is always expressed as the nitrogen form such
per day-animal for dairy animals, beef and swine breed- as Total N, NO3-N, and NH4-N).
ing stock, and layer chickens. The young stock included
Field Handbook
Table 42 Factors for determining nutrient equivalency

651.0403 Animal waste
Multiply By To get characteristics
NH3 0.824 N
NH4 0.778 N
Whenever locally derived values for animal waste char-
NO3 0.226 N
acteristics are available, those values should be given
N 1.216 NH3 preference over the more general data used in this
N 1.285 NH4 chapter.
N 4.425 NO3
PO4 0.326 P
(a) As excreted manure
P2O5 0.437 P
P 3.067 PO4 When compared to other types of manure data, the data
P 2.288 P2O5 given for as excreted manure characteristics is the most
K2O 0.830 K reliable. The properties of manure and other wastes will
K 1.205 K2O vary widely when modified by management actions. For
example, manure that has been flushed, feedlot manure,
and poultry litter will have material added and/or lost
from the as excreted manure. Variations in other types of
manure data in this chapter and other references result
largely from additions/losses due to different manage-
ment practices.
The primary concern of this chapter is livestock manure

and waste produced in confinement and semiconfine-
ment facilities. Not considered is manure produced by
livestock and poultry on pasture or range. Manure pro-
duced in this manner is generally not collected for fur-
ther management by transfer, storage, and treatment. As
such, its management is significantly different than ma-
nure produced in confinement.
To determine the as excreted production of an animal

using the table values given in units per day per 1,000
pounds livestock animal unit requires that a representa-
tive weight of the animal in question be determined. This
approach is quite simple for mature animals that have
reached their final weight. However, for feeder livestock
and other immature livestock whose weight is changing
daily, the challenge in using units of mass or
volume/d/1,000 lb AU is to correctly determine the
weight of the animal that is representative over the pe-
riod of time being considered. For example, determin-
ing representative weight for an animal that has a begin-
ning weight of 400 pounds and an ending weight of 800
pounds is much more complicated that merely averaging
the two weights. Averaging in this manner does result
in a conservative assumption. However, presentation of
tabular data in units per finished animal eliminates this
problem because a value is given for the animals entire
finishing period.

Field Handbook
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
Field Handbook
precipitation/evaporation, bedding (litter), soil, and bi- (3) Flush water

ological activity. Management following excretion can Flush water added to the waste stream will affect the
also result in drying. For example, manure excreted in consistency of the manure to the extent fresh water is
feedlots in arid parts of the country can lose substantial added to the system. Using recycled water for flushing
moisture because of evaporation. Dust, hair, and feath- minimizes the amount of water added and needing to be
ers from the livestock and poultry can also add to ma- managed.
nure, but only in limited amounts.
(4) Precipitation/evaporation
(1) Wasted feed Precipitation and evaporation can impact the physical
Wasted feed can add nutrients and solids to the waste characteristics of manure significantly, depending on the
stream. Even though management can minimize the region. In regions of high precipitation, the added water
amount of feed wasted, a certain amount of feed that can impact the consistency of the manure unless man-
is presented to livestock and poultry will not be eat- agement excludes it. Evaporation, on the other hand can
en. Correcting the excreted values to account for what reduce the amount of water in the manure. But again,
could be considered normal wasted feed would usually management of the manure will determine its impact.
be small compared to the range of values in the excret- For example, allowing a crust to form on a waste storage
ed manure that result from variations in diet intake and pond will reduce evaporation.
animal performance levels. However, if wasted feed ap-
pears to be excessive, the table values should be adjust- (5) Bedding
ed to account for it. Livestock producers use a wide range of bedding mate-
rials as influenced by availability, cost, and performance
(2) Wasted water properties. Both organic and inorganic materials have
Wasted water must be expected and controlled. Excess been used successfully. Unit weights of materials com-
moisture content and increased waste volume can ham- monly used for bedding dairy cattle are given in table
per equipment operation and limit the capacity of ma- 43.
nure handling and storage facilities. Faulty waterers and
leaky distribution lines cause severe limitations. Excess Quantities of bedding materials used for dairy cattle are
water from foggers and misters used for cooling stock in shown in table 44. The total weight of dairy manure and
hot weather may also need to be accounted for in system bedding is the sum of the weights of both parts. The to-
design. tal volume of dairy manure and bedding is the sum of the
Table 43 Unit weights of common bedding materials 1/ Table 44 Daily bedding requirements for dairy cattle 1/
Material Loose Chopped Barn type
- - - - - -lb/ft3- - - - - - Stanchion Free- Loose

Material
stall stall housing
Legume hay 4.3 6.5
- - - - - - - - - lb/d/1000 lb - - - - - - - - - -
Non legume hay 4.0 6.0
Loose hay or straw 5.4 9.3
Straw 2.5 7.0
Chopped hay or 5.7 2.7 11
Wood shavings 9.0 straw
Sawdust 12 Shavings or 3.1
Soil 75 sawdust
Sand 105 Sand, or 35 2/
Ground limestone 95 limestone
1/ Adapted from the 1992 version of the AWMFH 1/ Adapted from the 1992 version of the AWMFH
2/ Table 13, Manure Characteristics, Midwest Planning Service Section
1.

Field Handbook
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

Field Handbook
Table 45 Dairy manure characterizationas excreted
(a) In units per day-animal 1/
Lactating cow 2/ Milk-fed

Calf Heifer Dry cow 2/
Components Units Milk production, lb/d calf
50 75 100 125 125 lb 330 lb 970 lb
Weight lb/d-a 133 148 164 179 27 54 85
Volume ft /d-a
3
2.1 2.4 2.6 2.9 0.44 0.87 1.4
Moisture % wet basis 87 87 87 87 83 83 87
Total solids lb/d-a 17 19 21 23 3.0 8.3 11.0
VS 3/ lb/d-a 14 16 18 20 3.0 7.1 9.3
BOD lb/d-a 2.9 1.2 1.4
N lb/d-a 0.90 0.97 1.04 1.11 0.017 0.14 0.26 0.50
P a
lb/d-a 0.15 0.17 0.19 0.21 0.02 0.04 0.07
Ka lb/d-a 0.41 0.45 0.49 0.52 0.04 0.11 0.16
1/ ASAE D384.2, March 2005
2/ Assumes 1,375 lb lactating cow and 1,660 lb dry cow. Excretion values for P and K not in bold are based on the assumption that intake
is equal to excretion
3/ VS based on 85% of TS
(b) In units per day per 1,000 lb animal unit

Lactating cow Milk-fed
Calf Heifer Dry cow
Components Units milk production, lb/d calf
50 75 100 125 125 lb 330 lb 970 lb
Weight lb/d/1000 lb AU 97 108 119 130 83 56 51
Volume ft3/d/1000 lb AU 1.6 1.7 1.9 2.1 1.3 0.90 0.84
Moisture % wet basis 87 87 87 87 83 83 87
Total solids lb/d/1000 lb AU 12 14 15 17 9.2 8.5 6.6
VS lb/d/1000 lb AU 9.2 11 12 13 7.7 7.3 5.6
BOD lb/d/1000 lb AU 2.1 1.2 0.84
N lb/d/1000 lb AU 0.66 0.71 0.76 0.81 0.11 0.42 0.27 0.30
P lb/d/1000 lb AU 0.11 0.12 0.14 0.15 0.05 0.05 0.042
K lb/d/1000 lb AU 0.30 0.33 0.35 0.38 0.11 0.12 0.10
(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.

Field Handbook
Table 46 Dairy water use for various operations
(a) Milking center (b) Alley flushing2/
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
Table 47 Dairy waste characterizationmilking center 1/
Milking center 2/
Component Units MH MH+MP MH+MP+HA
3/ 4/
Volume ft3/d/1000 lb 0.22 0.60 1.4 1.6

Moisture % 100 99 100 99
TS % w.b. 0.28 0.60 0.30 1.5
VS lb/1000 gal 13 35 18 100
FS lb/1000 gal 11 15 6.7 25
COD lb/1000 gal 25 42
BOD lb/1000 gal 8.4
N lb/1000 gal 0.72 1.7 1.0 7.5
P lb/1000 gal 0.58 0.83 0.23 0.83
K lb/1000 gal 1.5 2.5 0.57 3.3
C:N ratio 10 12 10 7.0
1/ Adapted from the 1992 version of the AWMFH
2/ MHMilk house; MPMilking parlor; HAHolding area
3/ Holding area scraped and flushedmanure excluded
4/ Holding area scraped and flushedmanure included

Field Handbook
(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.
Table 48 Beef waste characterizationas excreted
(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.)

Field Handbook
Table 48 Beef waste characterizationas excretedContinued
(c) Finishing cattle excretion in units per finished animal 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/f.a. 9,800 9,800
Volume ft3/f.a. 160 160
Moisture % w.b. 92 92
TS lb/f.a. 780 780
VS lb/f.a 640 640
BOD lb/f.a. 150 150
N lb/f.a. 53 53 75 66
P lb/f.a. 6.6 8.3 10 11
K lb/f.a. 38 38
1/ Assumes a 983 lb finishing animal fed for 153 days
(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
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
Below-average Average Above-average

Annual rainfall
conditions 3/ conditions 4/ conditions 5/
lb N/acre-in
<25 in 360 110 60
25 to 35 in 60 30 15
>35 in 15 10 5
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.
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
Table 410 Swine waste characterizationas excreted
(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/
Weight lb/d-a 11 25 8.4

Weight lb/d-1000 AU 25 59 19
Volume ft3/d-a 0.18 0.41 0.13
Volume lb/d-1000 AU 0.41 0.97 0.30
Moisture % w.b. 90 90 90
Moisture % w.b. 90 90 90
TS lb/d-a 1.1 2.5 0.84
TS lb/d-1000 AU 2.5 5.9 1.9
VS lb/d-a 1.0 2.3 0.75
VS lb/d-1000 AU 2.3 5.4 1.7
BOD lb/d-a 0.37 0.84 0.29
BOD lb/d-1000 AU 0.84 2.0 0.66
N lb/d-a 0.071 0.19 0.061
N lb/d-1000 AU 0.16 0.45 0.14
P lb/d-a 0.020 0.055 0.021
P lb/d-1000 AU 0.05 0.13 0.05
K lb/d-a 0.048 0.12 0.039
K lb/d-1000 AU 0.11 0.28 0.09
1/ Table 1.b, ASAE D384.2, March 2005
1/ Table 410(a) value (1000 lb/440 lb avg. wt.)
(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/f.a 87 1200
Volume ft3/d/1000 lb AU 1.4 1.1
Volume ft3/f.a. 1.4 20
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

Field Handbook
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
99 Using table 410d, select

lb VS/d = = 0.82 lb VS/d
120
VS = 5.4 lb/d/1000 lb AU
To calculate FS daily production, the fixed solids per fin- VS lb/d = 5.36 lb/d/1000 AU 1000 animals 154 lb/animal
ished animal must be first determined.
= 832 lb/d

FS = TS VS
= 120 99
= 21 lb

The daily FS production is calculated by dividing the per

finished animal FS production by the animals tenure in
the feeding period.
21
lb FS/d = = 0.18 lb FS/d
120


Field Handbook
(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
Table 411 Poultry waste characterizationas excreted
(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)

Field Handbook
Table 411 Poultry waste characterizationas excretedContinued
(c) Meat production poultry in units per finished animal 1/

Turkey Turkey
Components Units Broiler Duck
(toms) (hens)
Weight lb/f.a. 11 78 38 14
Volume ft3/f.a. 0.17 1.3 0.61 0.23
Moisture % w.b. 74 74 74 74
TS lb/f.a. 2.8 20 9.8 3.7
VS lb/f.a. 2.1 16 7.8 2.2
BOD lb/f.a. 0.66 5.2 2.4 0.61
N lb/f.a. 0.12 1.2 0.57 0.14
P lb/f.a. 0.035 0.36 0.16 0.048
K lb/f.a. 0.068 0.57 0.25 0.068
1/ Table 12(a) ASAE D384.2, March 2005
(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

Field Handbook
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

Field Handbook
(g) Veal (i) Horse
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.
(h) Sheep Table 414 values apply to horses 18 months of age or

older that are not pregnant or lactating. The representa-
As excreted manure characteristics for sheep are limited tive number applies to 1,100-pound horses, and the range
to those for the feeder lamb (table 413). In some cases, represents horses from 880 to 1,320 pounds. Sedentary
bedding may be a significant component of sheep waste. would apply to horses not receiving any imposed ex-
Table 412 Veal waste characterizationas excreted 1/ Table 413 Lamb waste characterizationas excreted 1/
Component Units Veal feeder Component Units Lamb

Weight lb/d/1000 lb AU 60 Weight lb/d/1000 lb AU 40
Volume ft3/d/1000 lb AU 0.96 Volume ft3/d/1000 lb AU 0.63
Moisture % 98 Moisture % 75
TS % w.b. 2.5 TS % w.b. 25
lb/d/1000 lb AU 1.5 lb/d/1000 lb AU 10
VS lb/d/1000 lb AU 0.85 VS lb/d/1000 lb AU 8.3
FS lb/d/1000 lb AU 0.65 FS lb/d/1000 lb AU 1.8
COD lb/d/1000 lb AU 1.5 COD lb/d/1000 lb AU 11
BOD5 lb/d/1000 lb AU 0.37 BOD5 lb/d/1000 lb AU 1.0
N lb/d/1000 lb AU 0.20 N lb/d/1000 lb AU 0.45
P lb/d/1000 lb AU 0.03 P lb/d/1000 lb AU 0.07
K lb/d/1000 lb AU 0.25 K lb/d/1000 lb AU 0.30
C:N ratio 2.0 C:N ratio 10
1/ Adapted from the 1992 version of the AWMFH 1/ Adapted from the 1992 version of the AWMFH
Table 414 Horse waste characterizationas excreted
(a) Horse in units/day-animal (b) Horse in units/d/1,000 lb animal unit
Sedentary Exercised Components Units Sedentary1/ Exercised1/

Components Units
(1,100 lb) (1,100) lb
Weight lb/d-a 56 57
Volume ft3/d/1000 lb AU 0.82 0.84
Volume ft3/d-a 0.90 0.92
TS lb/d/1000 lb AU 7.6 7.8
TS lb/d-a 8.4 8.6
VS lb/d/1000 lb AU 6.0 6.2
VS lb/d-a 6.6 6.8
BOD lb/d/1000 lb AU 1.0 1.0
BOD lb/d-a 1.1 1.1
N lb/d/1000 lb AU 0.18 0.31
N lb/d-a 0.20 0.34
P lb/d/1000 lb AU 0.026 0.066
P lb/d-a 0.029 0.073
K lb/d/1000 lb AU 0.05 0.19
K lb/d-a 0.060 0.21
Field Handbook
ercise. Dietary inputs are based on minimum nutri-

ent requirements specified in Nutrient Requirements of
Horses (NRCS 1989). Intense represents horses used
651.0404 Manure as transferred
for competitive activities such as racing. Dietary in- for utilization
puts are based on a survey of race horse feeding practic-
es (Gallagher et al. 1992) and typical feed compositions
(forage=50% alfalfa, 50% timothy; concentrate = 30% Many physical, chemical, and biological processes can
oats, 70% mixed performance horse concentrate). alter manure characteristics from its original as-excret-
ed form. The as transferred for utilization production
and characteristics values reported in table 416 allow
(j) Rabbit for common modifications to excreted manure resulting
from water addition or removal, bedding addition, and/
Some properties of rabbit manure are listed in table or treatment processes. These estimates may be helpful
415. The properties refer only to the feces; no urine has for individual farm long-term planning prior to any sam-
been included. Reliable information on daily production ples being available and for planning estimates address-
of rabbit manure, feces, or urine is not available. ing regional issues. Whenever possible, site-specific sam-
ples or other more localized estimates should be used in
lieu of national tabular estimates. To use table 416 to
develop individual year nutrient management plans for
defining field-specific application rates would be a mis-
Table 415 Rabbit waste characterizationas excreted 1/ use of the data. Where site-specific data are unavailable,
this table may provide initial estimates for planning pur-
Components Units Rabbit
poses until site-specific values are available. Chapter 11
of this handbook also presents another method of calcu-
VS % d.b. 0.86 lating as transferred for utilization values. The nutrient
FS % d.b. 0.14
accounting methodology presented in chapter 11 adjusts
as excreted nutrient values utilizing nutrient loss factors
COD % d.b. 1.0 based on the type of management system in place.
N % d.b. 0.03
P % d.b. 0.02
K % d.b. 0.03
C:N ratio 16

Field Handbook
Table 416 Manure as transferred for utilization
(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

Table 416 Manure as transferred for utilizationContinued
(b) Expressed as 1,000-lb animal units

Total Total
Mass in Volatile Volatile NH3-N P K
Type of Moisture, Total solids Total solids, Kjehldahl Kjehldahl NH3-N P K
lb/AU/d, solids, solids, % wet % wet % wet
production % wet basis 2/3 % wet basis 3/ lb/AU/d Nitrogen, Nitrogen, lb/AU/d lb/AU/d lb/AU/d
wet basis % of TS lb/AU/d basis basis basis
% wet basis in lb/AU/d 4/
Beef earthen lot 17 33% 67% 11 30.2% 3.4 1.18% 0.20 0.10% 0.017 0.50% 0.084 1.25% 0.21
Poultry leghorn 17 59% 40% 6.6 1.85% 0.31 0.88% 0.15 1.21% 0.20 1.31% 0.22
hen
Poultry broiler 17 31% 70% 12 70.0% 8.3 3.73% 0.63 0.75% 0.13 0.60% 0.10 1.37% 0.23
litter
Poultry turkey 231/ 30% 2.18% 0.51 0.33% 0.077 1.23% 0.29
litter
Dairy scraped 57 54% 46% 26 0.70% 0.40 0.25% 0.14 0.67% 0.38
earthen lots
Dairy scraped 65 72% 25% 16 0.53% 0.34 0.13% 0.084 0.40% 0.26
concrete lots
Dairy lagoon 171 98% 2% 3.4 52.0% 1.8 0.07% 0.12 0.08% 0.14 0.02% 0.034 0.11% 0.19
effluent
Dairy slurry 108 92% 8% 8.7 66.0% 5.7 0.30% 0.32 0.14% 0.15 0.13% 0.14 0.40% 0.43
(liquid)
Equine solid 64 43% 65% 42 26.3% 11 0.76% 0.49 0.24% 0.15 0.99% 0.64
manure
Swine finisher, 50 91% 9% 4.5 0.70% 0.35 0.50% 0.25 0.21% 0.11 0.24% 0.12
slurry w/ wet/

dry feeders
Swine slurry 23 94% 6% 1.4 0.47% 0.11 0.34% 0.077 0.18% 0.041 0.24% 0.054
storage w/ dry
feeders (sows)
Swine flush 80 98% 2% 1.6 0.20% 0.16 0.14% 0.11 0.07% 0.056 0.17% 0.14
building
(sows)
1/ Assuming raising an equal number of tom and hen turkeys
2/ Assuming moisture is equivalent to water, and whatever is not water is dry matter [TS+VS]
3/ Percent moisture plus percent TS can add up to more than 100% because solids estimates do not include solids in urine
4/ TKN includes ammonia N plus organic N. If the manure storage is aerobic, there would also be nitrate N
425
Field Handbook
Liquid and solid wastes of residential origin generally are

651.0405 Other wastes not a source of toxic materials. Some industrial waste,
however, may contain toxic components requiring care-
ful handling and controlled distribution. Planning of land
application systems for industrial waste must include
(a) Residential waste thorough analyses of the waste materials.
NRCS is seldom called on to provide assistance to mu-

nicipalities; however, the information provided here (b) Food wastes and wastewater
may be useful in area-wide planning. Rural residential
waste components are identified in tables 417 and 418. Food processing can result in considerable quantities of
Table 417 lists the characteristics of human excrement. solid waste and wastewater. Processing of some fruits
Household wastewater (table 418) can be categorized and vegetables results in more than 50 percent waste.
as graywater (no sanitary wastes included) and black- Many of these wastes, however, can be used in by-prod-
water (sanitary wastewater). In most cases, a composite uct recovery procedures, and not all of the waste must
of both of these components will be treated in a septic be sent to disposal facilities. Food processing wastewa-
tank. The liquid effluent from the septic tank generally is ter may be a dilute material that has a low concentration
treated in a soil absorption field. of some of the components of the raw product. On the
other hand, solid waste from food processing may con-
Municipal wastewater of residential origin is usually tain a high percentage of the raw product and exhibit
categorized into raw (untreated) and treated types (ta- characteristics of that raw product.
ble 419). Secondary (biological) treatment is common
for wastewater that is to be applied to agricultural land. Tables 420 and 421 present characteristics of waste-
Municipal wastewater sludge may also be in the raw, un- water and sludge from the processing of milk and milk
treated form or in the treated (digested) form. Municipal products.
compost is usually based on dewatered, digested sludge
and refuse, but can contain other waste materials, as Characteristics of wastewater and sludge from the meat
well. and poultry processing industries are listed in tables
422 and 423.
Table 417 Human waste characterizationas excreted 1/ Table 418 Residential waste characterizationhousehold
wastewater 1/
Component Units Adult Component Units Graywater Composite 2/ Septage
Weight lb/d/1000 lb 30 Volume ft3/d/1000 lb 27 38 35

of people
Volume ft3/d/1000 lb 0.55
Moisture % 99.92 99.65 99.75
Moisture % 89
TS % w.b. 0.08 0.35 0.25
TS % w.b. 11 lb/d/1000 lb 1.3 7.7 5.5
lb/d/1000 lb 3.3 of people
VS lb/d/1000 lb 1.9 VS % w.b. 0.024 0.20 0.14
FS lb/d/1000 lb 1.4 FS lb/d/1000 lb 0.056 0.15 0.11
N lb/d/1000 lb 0.0012 0.007 0.0075
COD lb/d/1000 lb 3.0
NH4-N lb/d/1000 lb 0.0018
BOD5 lb/d/1000 lb 1.3
P lb/d/1000 lb 0.0004 0.003 0.0019
N lb/d/1000 lb 0.20 K lb/d/1000 lb 0.003 0.0025
P lb/d/1000 lb 0.02 1/ Adapted from 1992 version of the AWMFH
2/ Graywater plus blackwater
K lb/d/1000 lb 0.07

Field Handbook
Table 419 Municipal waste characterizationresidential1/
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
Table 420 Dairy food processing waste characterization1/
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

Field Handbook
Table 421 Dairy food waste characterizationprocessing wastewater1/
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
Table 422 Meat processing waste characterizationwastewater 1/
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
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

Field Handbook
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
Table 423 Meat processing waste characterizationwastewater sludge 1/
Dissolved air flotation sludge
Poultry Swine Cattle Wastewater

Component Units
sludge
Moisture % 94 93 95 96
TS % w.b. 5.8 7.5 5.5 4.0
VS % w.b. 4.8 5.9 4.4 3.4
FS % w.b. 1.0 1.6 1.1 0.60
COD % w.b. 7.8
N % w.b. 0.41 0.53 0.40 0.20
NH4-N % w.b. 0.17
P % w.b. 0.12 0.04
Table 424 Vegetable processing waste characterizationwastewater1/
Cut French-style
Component Units Pea Potato Tomato
bean bean
Volume ft3/d/1000 270 3/

TS lb/1000 lb 2/ 15 43 39 53 4/ 130
VS lb/1000 lb 2/ 9 29 20 50 4/
FS lb/1000 lb 2/ 6 14 19 3 4/
COD lb/1000 lb 2/ 14 35 37 71 5/ 96
BOD5 lb/1000 lb 2/ 7 17 21 32 55
2/ lb/1000 lb raw product
3/ ft3/lb processed
4/ Total suspended solids
5/ Percent of TSS

Field Handbook
Table 425 Fruit and vegetable waste characterizationsolid waste 1/
Moisture Total Volatile Fixed

Fruit/vegetable N P K
content solids solids solids
Banana, fresh 84 16 14 2.1 0.53
Broccoli, leaf 87 14 0.30
Cabbage, leaf 90 9.6 8.6 1.0 0.14 0.034
Cabbage core 90 10 0.38
Carrot, top 84 16 14 2.4 0.42 0.03
Carrot root 87 13 11 1.3 0.25 0.04
Cassava, root 68 32 31 1.3 1.7 0.039
Corn, sweet, top 80 20 19 1.2 0.7
Kale, top 88 12 9.7 1.9 0.22 0.06
Lettuce, top 95 5.4 4.5 0.9 0.05 0.027
Onion top, mature 8.6 91 85 6.7 1.4 0.02
Orange, flesh 87 13 12 0.6 0.26
Orange pulp 84 16 15 1.0 0.24
Parsnip, root 76 24 0.47
Potato, top, mature 13 87 72 16 1.2
Potato tuber 1.6 0.25 1.9
Pumpkin, flesh 91 8.7 7.9 0.8 0.12 0.037
Rhubarb, leaf 89 11 0.20
Rutabaga, top 90 10 0.35
Rutabaga root 90 11 0.20
Spinach, stems 94 6.5 0.07
Tomato, fresh 94 5.8 5.2 0.6 0.15 0.03 0.30
Tomato, solid waste 89 11 10 0.9 0.22 0.044 0.089
Turnip, top 92 7.8 0.20
Turnip root 91 0.34

Field Handbook
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/
Concentration Dry matter content of silage Leachate produced of silage

Constituent
lb/ft3 % gal/ton
Total nitrogen 0.090.27 <15 10050
Phosphorus 0.020.04 1520 5030
Potassium 0.210.32 2025 305
1/ Adapted from Stewart and McCullough >25 50
1/ Adapted from Stewart and McCullough

Field Handbook
Stewart, T.A., and I.I. McCullough. 1974. Silage effluent

651.0406 References quantities produced, composition and disposal.
Greenmount Agricultural and Horticultural College.
Antrim.
Alexander, E.L., and G.A. Margheim. 1974. Personal com-
munications with C.E. Fogg. Westerman, P.W., L.M. Safley, Jr., J.C. Barker, and G.M.
Chescheir III. 1985. Available nutrients in live-
American Society of Agricultural and Biological stock waste. In Agricultural Waste Utilization
Engineers. 2005. Standard D384.2, Manure and Management. Proceedings of the Fifth
Production and Characteristics. International Symposium on Agricultural Wastes,
ASAE, St. Joseph, MI, p. 295.
Arrington, R.M., and C.E. Pachek. 1980. Soil nutrient
content of manures in an arid climate. Paper pre- Zehnder, C.M., and A. DiCostanzo. 1997. Estimating feed-
sented at Amarillo, TX. lot nutrient budgets and managing manure Output.
Minnesota Cattle Feeder Report B450.
Barth, C.L. 1985. Livestock waste characterization a
new approach. In Agricultural Waste Utilization
and Management. Proceedings of the Fifth
International Symposium on Agricultural Wastes,
ASAE, St. Joseph, MI, p. 286.
Clarke, S.P., and R.P. Stone. 1995. How to handle seep-

age from farm silos. Fact Sheet. Ontario Ministry of
Agriculture, Food, and Rural Affairs.
Davis, J.G., T.L. Stanton, and T. Haren. 2002. Feedlot

Manure Management. Colorado State University
Extension.
Garcia A.D., and K.F. Kalscheur. 2004. Ensiling wet

distillers grains with other feeds. College of
Agriculture and Biological Sciences / South Dakota
State University/USDA. Extension Extra 4029.
Koelsch, R.K., W. Powers, and A.L. Sutton. 2005.

Integrating animal feeding strategies into CNMP
processes: Role of Updated ASAE Standard D384.2.
Paper Number: 054074 of 2005 ASAE Annual
Meeting.
Shurson, G.C., M.H. Whitney, M.J. Spiehs, S.K. Baidoo,

and A. Renteria. 2000. The value of distillers dried
grain with solubles in pig diets. Department of
Animal Science University of Minnesota, St. Paul,
MN.
Stephenson, A.H., T.A. McCaskey, and B.G. Ruffin. 1989.

Treatments to improve the feed nutrient value of
deep stacked broiler litter. J. Dairy Sci. 67, Suppl. 1,
p. 441.

Agricultural Waste Characteristic

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Agricultural Waste Characteristic

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Agricultural Waste Characteristic

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

United States

Department of Part 651

Chapter 4 Agricultural Waste

(210VIAWMFH, March 2008)

Issued March 2008

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all

(210VIAWMFH, March 2008)

(210VIAWMFH, March 2008) 4i

4ii (210VIAWMFH, March 2008)

Contents: 651.0400 Introduction 41

651.0401 Definitions of waste characterization terms 42

651.0402 Units of measure 48

651.0403 Animal waste characteristics 49

651.0404 Manure as transferred for utilization 423

651.0405 Other wastes 426

651.0406 References 432

(210VIAWMFH, March 2008) 4iii

Table 41 Definitions and descriptions of waste characterization 43

Table 42 Factors for determining nutrient equivalency 49

Table 43 Unit weights of common bedding materials 411

Table 44 Daily bedding requirements for dairy cattle 411

Table 45 Dairy manure characterizationas excreted 413

Table 46 Dairy water use for various operations 414

Table 47 Dairy waste characterizationmilking center 414

Table 48 Beef waste characterizationas excreted 415

Table 49 Nitrogen content of cattle feedlot runoff 416

Table 410 Swine waste characterizationas excreted 417

Table 411 Poultry waste characterizationas excreted 419

Table 412 Veal waste characterizationas excreted 422

Table 413 Lamb waste characterizationas excreted 422

Table 414 Horse waste characterizationas excreted 422

Table 415 Rabbit waste characterizationas excreted 423

Table 416 Manure as transferred for utilization 424

Table 417 Human waste characterizationas excreted 426

Table 418 Residential waste characterizationhousehold 426

Table 419 Municipal waste characterizationresidential 427

Table 420 Dairy food processing waste characterization 427

Table 421 Dairy food waste characterizationprocessing 428

Table 422 Meat processing waste characterizationwastewater 428

4iv (210VIAWMFH, March 2008)

Table 423 Meat processing waste characterizationwastewater 429

Table 424 Vegetable processing waste characterizationwaste- 429

Table 425 Fruit and vegetable waste characterizationsolid 430

Table 426 Typical range of nutrient concentrations in silage 431

Table 427 Leachate production based on percent dry matter 431

Figures Figure 41 Mass balance approach used for developing table 41

(210VIAWMFH, March 2008) 4v

Of the total excreted solids, dry matter in urine typically

These equations allow an estimate of as excreted ma-

a rough estimate is needed for farm planning

(fig. 41) on which these equations are based is:

(210VIAWMFH, March 2008)

The chapter also provides table values for the typical

When expressed in units of pounds per day or as a con-

The term agricultural waste was coined by those who

Table 41 Definitions and descriptions of waste characterization terms

Weight Wt lb Quantity or mass Scale or balance

(210VIAWMFH, March 2008) 43

Table 41 Definitions and descriptions of waste characterization termsContinued