Application of Manure to Frozen Ground i
Application of Manure to Frozen Ground in Ohio
Lloyd Owens1, James Bonta1, Martin Shipitalo1, Shane Rogers2,and John Haines3*
1
USDA-Agricultural Research Service, North Appalachian Experimental Watershed (NAEW)
Coshocton, OH; 2Civil & Environmental Engineering, Clarkson University,
Potsdam, NY; 3USEPA, Cincinnati, OH
Introduction
Winter handling and storage of manure is a challenge for
livestock producers that have animals confined all or
part of the year. Manure storage facilities are
expensive, and the longer period for which storage is
required, the greater the expense. Management
practices that will allow winter application of manure in
an environmentally sound manner will reduce the costs
of animal production.
Objective
Using recommended best management practices, measure
nutrient concentrations in runoff from an area that has
received surface application of manure while the
ground was frozen. Both plots and small watersheds
were used (USEPA collaborators assessed
pathogens.)
Table 1. Manure analyses
Manure
Type
Solids
%
Tot N
(solids)
%
Org N
(solids)
%
NH4-N
(solids)
%
Beef slurry
9.0
2.8
2.2
0.6
0.44
Liquid swine
2.5
19.0
3.0
16.1
1.97
Turkey litter
52.5
3.7
2.2
1.5
1.68
Current Ohio NRCS Recommendations
Among the recommendations by Ohio NRCS for manure
application to frozen ground:
- limit of 22.4 wet Mg/ha (10 T/Ac) for solid manure >50%
moisture
- apply to land with >90% surface residue cover
- minimum setback of 61 m (200 ft) from grassed waterways,
surface drainage ditches, streams, water bodies.
- additional criteria apply when slopes exceed 6%
Materials and Methods
Plot Design:
Six plots: 61 x 12 m (average slope of approximately 10%)
- 3 plots with a 61 m filter bed
- 3 plots with a 30 m filter bed
Four plots received 22 Mg/ha of a beef slurry (9% solids) on
February 21, 2007 (surface was frozen, snow-covered
- 2 with a 61 m filter bed
- 2 with a 30 m filter bed
Two control plots received no manure.
Runoff samples were collected with “dust pan” samplers at the
edge of the application area and 11 m down slope as
well as with Coshocton wheels below the filter beds.
Watershed Design
Six small, continuous no-till corn watersheds (WS),
approximately 1 ha each
- 4 WS received manure targeted to supply 180 kg N/ha (N
rate for 18 Mg/ha corn yield) with a 30 m setback from
the bottom of the WS. Manure was applied to frozen,
snow-covered ground on February 21 & 22, 2007. N
fertilizer was applied at 180 kg N/ha in the setback area
prior to planting. “Dust pan” samplers were installed at
the application edge. Each WS had a Coshocton
wheel sampler.
- 2 WS received liquid swine manure (2.5% solids);
- 2 WS received turkey litter (52.5% solids).
- 2 control WS received 180 kg N fertilizer/ha prior to corn
planting
Sample Analyses
Samples were analyzed for:
- Nutrients – NH4, NO3, Org N, & PO4 (ARS)
- Pathogens – E. coli & enterococci (USEPA)
_________
*John Haines unexpectedly passed away in September 2007.
Tot P
(solids)
%
Figure 1. Cutoff walls, Coshocton Wheel samplers
(above), and runoff storage tanks for manure plots
(below).
Figure 2. Manure plot after application of beef slurry
with a 30 m filter bed below the application area.
Table 2. Runoff, concentrations and transport of Org N and
PO4-P from plots/filter strips (Feb 21 – July 21, 2007)
[CW = Coshocton wheel; 30 & 61 = length of filter strip
(m); 1 & 2 = replicates; C= control]
_____________________________________________
Plots
Runoff Org N PO4-P
Org N
PO4-P
_(Beef)
mm
kg ha-1 kg ha-1
mg L-1
mg L-1
CW-30-1
13.8
3.10
0.156
22.45
1.130
CW-30-2
3.8
0.47
0.0
12.37
0.0
CW-61-1
15.2
3.05
0.156
20.07
1.026
CW-61-2
12.3
3.11
0.090
25.28
0.730
CW-30C
27.0
1.10
0.008
4.07
0.030
235.6
Org N Conc -- Manured WS
PO4-P Conc -- Manured WS
25.1 T
219.5 T
50
16
Turkey litter applied
45
Liquid swine manure applied
20-Feb-07
22-Feb-07
40
Turkey CW
Swine CW
Control CW
Turkey DP
Swine DP
Control DP
30
25
20
Liquid swine manure applied
21-Feb-07
14
22-Feb-07
12
PO4-P (mg L-1)
Org N (mg L-1)
35
Turkey litter
Turkey CW
Swine CW
Control CW
Tiurkey DP
Swine DP
Control DP
10
8
6
15
4
10
2
5
0
11/29/2006
1/18/2007
3/9/2007
4/28/2007
6/17/2007
8/6/2007
0
11/29/2006
9/25/2007
1/18/2007
Org N Transport -- Manured WS
Liquid swine manure applied
Turkey CW
Swine CW
Control CW
21-Feb-07
7.0
Org N Conc -- Manure Plots
PO4-P Conc -- Manure Plots
60
3
30
2-Mar07
20
2.5
DP-0
DP-11
CW-30
CW-61
DP-0C
DP-11C
CW-30C
Beef slurry applied
20-Feb-07
2
PO4-P (mg L-1)
Org N (mg L-1)
40
15-Mar-07
1.20
21-Feb-07
22-Feb-07
PO4-P Transport (kg ha-1)
-1
1.00
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
0.60
0.20
0.0
11/29/2006
1/18/2007
3/9/2007
4/28/2007
6/17/2007
8/6/2007
9/25/2007
0.00
11/29/2006
1/18/2007
3/9/2007
4/28/2007
6/17/2007
8/6/2007
0
1/8/2007
1/18/2007 1/28/2007
2/7/2007
2/17/2007 2/27/2007
3/9/2007
3/19/2007 3/29/2007
4/8/2007
4/18/2007 4/28/2007
PO4-P Transport -- Manure Plots
0.14
Beef slurry applied
1.5
1.0
Beef slurry applied
0.12
0.10
20-Feb-07
CW-30-1
CW-61-1
CW-61-2
CW-30C
-1
PO4-P Transport (kg ha )
CW-30-1
CW-30-2
CW-61-1
CW-61-2
CW-30C
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.5
0.02
0.0
1/8/2007 1/18/2007 1/28/2007 2/7/2007 2/17/2007 2/27/2007 3/9/2007 3/19/2007 3/29/2007 4/8/2007 4/18/2007 4/28/2007
0.00
1/8/2007 1/18/2007 1/28/2007 2/7/2007 2/17/2007 2/27/2007 3/9/2007 3/19/2007 3/29/2007 4/8/2007 4/18/2007 4/28/2007
Figure 4. Organic N concentrations and transport (L, top &
bottom) and PO4-P concentrations and transport (R, top &
bottom) for runoff events from manure plots. CW =
Coshocton wheel; DP = dust pan samplers.
Most of the N in the runoff was Org N (>70%); concentrations of
Org N and PO4-P were lower in plot runoff than watershed
runoff (Figure 5), especially for PO4-P; with less runoff
(Table 2), transport was considerably less from the plots.
9/25/2007
Figure 5. Org N concentrations (top, L) and transport (bottom, L);
PO4-P concentrations (top, R) and transport (bottom, R) for
runoff events from the small watersheds – Jan - Aug 2007.
Table 3. Runoff, concentrations, and transport from the watersheds
(Feb 21 – July 21, 2007)
_____________________________________________________
Watersheds Runoff NO3-N NH4-N Org N PO4-P Org N PO4-P
mm kg ha-1 kg ha-1 kg ha-1 kg ha-1 mg L-1 mg L-1
Turkey CW
71
1.41 2.80 10.67 2.22 14.94 3.11
Swine CW 113
3.07 3.05 17.69 2.87 15.62 2.53
Control CW
44
0.68
0.07
0.91 0.05
2.07 0.11
Discussion
2.5
-1
0.80
15-Mar-07
Org N Transport -- Manure Plots
Org N Transport (kg ha )
Turkey CW
Swine CW
Control CW
2-Mar-07
1.5
0.5
0
1/8/2007 1/18/2007 1/28/2007 2/7/2007 2/17/2007 2/27/2007 3/9/2007 3/19/2007 3/29/2007 4/8/2007 4/18/2007 4/28/2007
2.0
22-Feb-07
Turkey litter applied
1
10
20-Feb-07
9/25/2007
2.0
Although the intent was not to apply manure to snow-covered
ground, the 2006-07 winter was such that there was only a
small window of application opportunity. Thus, manure
was applied to snow with precipitation within a few days
after application – a “worst case” scenario.
Most of the plot runoff samples collected within 10 days of
manure application were with Coshocton Wheels (CW) at
the base of the filter strips; after 10 days, most of the
samples were collected in the dust pan samplers (DP) –
very few at the base of the filter strips. There were only 2
dates when samples were collected at multiple points in
the plots (March 2 and 15), Figure 4.
DP-0
DP-11
CW-30
CW-61
DP-0C
DP-11C
CW-30C
8/6/2007
Liquid swine manure applied
1.0
Beef slurry applied
20-Feb07
6/17/2007
0.40
Preliminary Results
50
4/28/2007
1.40
Turkey litter applied
8.0
Org N Transport (kg ha )
Figure 3. Watershed with liquid swine manure (above) and same
watershed in late summer (below). The difference in the
color of the crop between the fertilized and manured areas
indicates that not all of the manure N was available.
3/9/2007
PO4-P Transport -- Manured WS
9.0
Elevated nutrient concentrations did not necessarily produce
elevated nutrient transport. Event runoff was often very low.
Rain soon after application was a major detriment (a “worst
case” scenario), although data are not available to quantify
the impact.
Even in this situation, there was some decrease in nutrient
concentrations between the dust pan and Coshocton wheel
samples.
The runoff and subsequent nutrient transport were much less
with the grassed filter strip than with the corn stover on the
watersheds. A winter cover crop in addition to the corn
stover may be beneficial.
Manure application increased losses of all forms of N & P
despite differences in runoff among watersheds.
Summary
Data are too limited to make firm recommendations. There
needs to be data from weather conditions that fit application
recommendations, i.e. not a “worst case” scenario.
Nevertheless, early indications are that filter strips are
beneficial and that heavy sod reduces runoff and nutrient
transport more than corn stover.
Lloyd Owens1, James Bonta1, Martin Shipitalo1, Shane Rogers2,and John Haines3*
1
USDA-Agricultural Research Service, North Appalachian Experimental Watershed (NAEW)
Coshocton, OH; 2Civil & Environmental Engineering, Clarkson University,
Potsdam, NY; 3USEPA, Cincinnati, OH
Introduction
Winter handling and storage of manure is a challenge for
livestock producers that have animals confined all or
part of the year. Manure storage facilities are
expensive, and the longer period for which storage is
required, the greater the expense. Management
practices that will allow winter application of manure in
an environmentally sound manner will reduce the costs
of animal production.
Objective
Using recommended best management practices, measure
nutrient concentrations in runoff from an area that has
received surface application of manure while the
ground was frozen. Both plots and small watersheds
were used (USEPA collaborators assessed
pathogens.)
Table 1. Manure analyses
Manure
Type
Solids
%
Tot N
(solids)
%
Org N
(solids)
%
NH4-N
(solids)
%
Beef slurry
9.0
2.8
2.2
0.6
0.44
Liquid swine
2.5
19.0
3.0
16.1
1.97
Turkey litter
52.5
3.7
2.2
1.5
1.68
Current Ohio NRCS Recommendations
Among the recommendations by Ohio NRCS for manure
application to frozen ground:
- limit of 22.4 wet Mg/ha (10 T/Ac) for solid manure >50%
moisture
- apply to land with >90% surface residue cover
- minimum setback of 61 m (200 ft) from grassed waterways,
surface drainage ditches, streams, water bodies.
- additional criteria apply when slopes exceed 6%
Materials and Methods
Plot Design:
Six plots: 61 x 12 m (average slope of approximately 10%)
- 3 plots with a 61 m filter bed
- 3 plots with a 30 m filter bed
Four plots received 22 Mg/ha of a beef slurry (9% solids) on
February 21, 2007 (surface was frozen, snow-covered
- 2 with a 61 m filter bed
- 2 with a 30 m filter bed
Two control plots received no manure.
Runoff samples were collected with “dust pan” samplers at the
edge of the application area and 11 m down slope as
well as with Coshocton wheels below the filter beds.
Watershed Design
Six small, continuous no-till corn watersheds (WS),
approximately 1 ha each
- 4 WS received manure targeted to supply 180 kg N/ha (N
rate for 18 Mg/ha corn yield) with a 30 m setback from
the bottom of the WS. Manure was applied to frozen,
snow-covered ground on February 21 & 22, 2007. N
fertilizer was applied at 180 kg N/ha in the setback area
prior to planting. “Dust pan” samplers were installed at
the application edge. Each WS had a Coshocton
wheel sampler.
- 2 WS received liquid swine manure (2.5% solids);
- 2 WS received turkey litter (52.5% solids).
- 2 control WS received 180 kg N fertilizer/ha prior to corn
planting
Sample Analyses
Samples were analyzed for:
- Nutrients – NH4, NO3, Org N, & PO4 (ARS)
- Pathogens – E. coli & enterococci (USEPA)
_________
*John Haines unexpectedly passed away in September 2007.
Tot P
(solids)
%
Figure 1. Cutoff walls, Coshocton Wheel samplers
(above), and runoff storage tanks for manure plots
(below).
Figure 2. Manure plot after application of beef slurry
with a 30 m filter bed below the application area.
Table 2. Runoff, concentrations and transport of Org N and
PO4-P from plots/filter strips (Feb 21 – July 21, 2007)
[CW = Coshocton wheel; 30 & 61 = length of filter strip
(m); 1 & 2 = replicates; C= control]
_____________________________________________
Plots
Runoff Org N PO4-P
Org N
PO4-P
_(Beef)
mm
kg ha-1 kg ha-1
mg L-1
mg L-1
CW-30-1
13.8
3.10
0.156
22.45
1.130
CW-30-2
3.8
0.47
0.0
12.37
0.0
CW-61-1
15.2
3.05
0.156
20.07
1.026
CW-61-2
12.3
3.11
0.090
25.28
0.730
CW-30C
27.0
1.10
0.008
4.07
0.030
235.6
Org N Conc -- Manured WS
PO4-P Conc -- Manured WS
25.1 T
219.5 T
50
16
Turkey litter applied
45
Liquid swine manure applied
20-Feb-07
22-Feb-07
40
Turkey CW
Swine CW
Control CW
Turkey DP
Swine DP
Control DP
30
25
20
Liquid swine manure applied
21-Feb-07
14
22-Feb-07
12
PO4-P (mg L-1)
Org N (mg L-1)
35
Turkey litter
Turkey CW
Swine CW
Control CW
Tiurkey DP
Swine DP
Control DP
10
8
6
15
4
10
2
5
0
11/29/2006
1/18/2007
3/9/2007
4/28/2007
6/17/2007
8/6/2007
0
11/29/2006
9/25/2007
1/18/2007
Org N Transport -- Manured WS
Liquid swine manure applied
Turkey CW
Swine CW
Control CW
21-Feb-07
7.0
Org N Conc -- Manure Plots
PO4-P Conc -- Manure Plots
60
3
30
2-Mar07
20
2.5
DP-0
DP-11
CW-30
CW-61
DP-0C
DP-11C
CW-30C
Beef slurry applied
20-Feb-07
2
PO4-P (mg L-1)
Org N (mg L-1)
40
15-Mar-07
1.20
21-Feb-07
22-Feb-07
PO4-P Transport (kg ha-1)
-1
1.00
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
0.60
0.20
0.0
11/29/2006
1/18/2007
3/9/2007
4/28/2007
6/17/2007
8/6/2007
9/25/2007
0.00
11/29/2006
1/18/2007
3/9/2007
4/28/2007
6/17/2007
8/6/2007
0
1/8/2007
1/18/2007 1/28/2007
2/7/2007
2/17/2007 2/27/2007
3/9/2007
3/19/2007 3/29/2007
4/8/2007
4/18/2007 4/28/2007
PO4-P Transport -- Manure Plots
0.14
Beef slurry applied
1.5
1.0
Beef slurry applied
0.12
0.10
20-Feb-07
CW-30-1
CW-61-1
CW-61-2
CW-30C
-1
PO4-P Transport (kg ha )
CW-30-1
CW-30-2
CW-61-1
CW-61-2
CW-30C
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.5
0.02
0.0
1/8/2007 1/18/2007 1/28/2007 2/7/2007 2/17/2007 2/27/2007 3/9/2007 3/19/2007 3/29/2007 4/8/2007 4/18/2007 4/28/2007
0.00
1/8/2007 1/18/2007 1/28/2007 2/7/2007 2/17/2007 2/27/2007 3/9/2007 3/19/2007 3/29/2007 4/8/2007 4/18/2007 4/28/2007
Figure 4. Organic N concentrations and transport (L, top &
bottom) and PO4-P concentrations and transport (R, top &
bottom) for runoff events from manure plots. CW =
Coshocton wheel; DP = dust pan samplers.
Most of the N in the runoff was Org N (>70%); concentrations of
Org N and PO4-P were lower in plot runoff than watershed
runoff (Figure 5), especially for PO4-P; with less runoff
(Table 2), transport was considerably less from the plots.
9/25/2007
Figure 5. Org N concentrations (top, L) and transport (bottom, L);
PO4-P concentrations (top, R) and transport (bottom, R) for
runoff events from the small watersheds – Jan - Aug 2007.
Table 3. Runoff, concentrations, and transport from the watersheds
(Feb 21 – July 21, 2007)
_____________________________________________________
Watersheds Runoff NO3-N NH4-N Org N PO4-P Org N PO4-P
mm kg ha-1 kg ha-1 kg ha-1 kg ha-1 mg L-1 mg L-1
Turkey CW
71
1.41 2.80 10.67 2.22 14.94 3.11
Swine CW 113
3.07 3.05 17.69 2.87 15.62 2.53
Control CW
44
0.68
0.07
0.91 0.05
2.07 0.11
Discussion
2.5
-1
0.80
15-Mar-07
Org N Transport -- Manure Plots
Org N Transport (kg ha )
Turkey CW
Swine CW
Control CW
2-Mar-07
1.5
0.5
0
1/8/2007 1/18/2007 1/28/2007 2/7/2007 2/17/2007 2/27/2007 3/9/2007 3/19/2007 3/29/2007 4/8/2007 4/18/2007 4/28/2007
2.0
22-Feb-07
Turkey litter applied
1
10
20-Feb-07
9/25/2007
2.0
Although the intent was not to apply manure to snow-covered
ground, the 2006-07 winter was such that there was only a
small window of application opportunity. Thus, manure
was applied to snow with precipitation within a few days
after application – a “worst case” scenario.
Most of the plot runoff samples collected within 10 days of
manure application were with Coshocton Wheels (CW) at
the base of the filter strips; after 10 days, most of the
samples were collected in the dust pan samplers (DP) –
very few at the base of the filter strips. There were only 2
dates when samples were collected at multiple points in
the plots (March 2 and 15), Figure 4.
DP-0
DP-11
CW-30
CW-61
DP-0C
DP-11C
CW-30C
8/6/2007
Liquid swine manure applied
1.0
Beef slurry applied
20-Feb07
6/17/2007
0.40
Preliminary Results
50
4/28/2007
1.40
Turkey litter applied
8.0
Org N Transport (kg ha )
Figure 3. Watershed with liquid swine manure (above) and same
watershed in late summer (below). The difference in the
color of the crop between the fertilized and manured areas
indicates that not all of the manure N was available.
3/9/2007
PO4-P Transport -- Manured WS
9.0
Elevated nutrient concentrations did not necessarily produce
elevated nutrient transport. Event runoff was often very low.
Rain soon after application was a major detriment (a “worst
case” scenario), although data are not available to quantify
the impact.
Even in this situation, there was some decrease in nutrient
concentrations between the dust pan and Coshocton wheel
samples.
The runoff and subsequent nutrient transport were much less
with the grassed filter strip than with the corn stover on the
watersheds. A winter cover crop in addition to the corn
stover may be beneficial.
Manure application increased losses of all forms of N & P
despite differences in runoff among watersheds.
Summary
Data are too limited to make firm recommendations. There
needs to be data from weather conditions that fit application
recommendations, i.e. not a “worst case” scenario.
Nevertheless, early indications are that filter strips are
beneficial and that heavy sod reduces runoff and nutrient
transport more than corn stover.