Sludge Accumulation Rate Determination and Comparison for Nursery, Sow and Finisher Lagoons

Similar documents
Using ArcGIS to Identify Hog Farms that Pose a Risk to Cause Eutrophication in the Neuse River Basin. Nolan Kirkwood 12/5/2014 GEOG 591

Improving the Quality and Production of Biogas from Swine Manure and Jatropha (Jatropha curcas) Seeds

Sludge Survey Methods for Anaerobic Lagoons

CIF # City of Barrie. Large Curbside Containers. Final Report. Final Project Report, September City of Barrie. CIF Project # 801.

Cordova Psychrophiles Bio-Digester. Benefit-Cost and Sensitivity Analysis

S T A N D A R D. ASAE S FEB04 Front and Rear Power Take-Off for Agricultural Tractors

Evaluation of Single Common Powertrain Lubricant (SCPL) Candidates for Fuel Consumption Benefits in Military Equipment

Quarterly Hogs and Pigs

S T A N D A R D. Copyright American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers. All rights reserved.

MONITORING AND RESEARCH DEPARTMENT

Predicting Tractor Fuel Consumption

Lesson Plan. Time This lesson should take approximately 180 minutes (introduction 45 minutes, presentation 90 minutes, and quiz 45 minutes).

FACT SHEET. Lighting and Marking Recommendations for Buggies and Wagons AEX

Spatial and Temporal Analysis of Real-World Empirical Fuel Use and Emissions

The Electricity and Transportation Infrastructure Convergence Using Electrical Vehicles

An Evaluation of the Relationship between the Seat Belt Usage Rates of Front Seat Occupants and Their Drivers

Quarterly Hogs and Pigs

Guide to Determine What Weight Show Pig to Purchase

SEPTIC TANKS. Round septic tanks. Standard version ECO version. Rectangular septic tanks. ECO version

Multilayer Energy Dissipating Inlet Column in Center-Feed Clarifiers 1

PROCEDURES FOR ESTIMATING THE TOTAL LOAD EXPERIENCE OF A HIGHWAY AS CONTRIBUTED BY CARGO VEHICLES

Monthly Hog Market Update United States Hog Production

Baseline Update for International Livestock Markets

Welded and Seamless Wrought Steel Pipe

I. 22. Price. Technical Report Documentation Page

Quarterly Hogs and Pigs

ONYX VALVE CO. The Pinch Valve Authority

Metallic materials Rockwell hardness test. Part 2: Verification and calibration of testing machines and indenters

PREDICTION OF FUEL CONSUMPTION

Flywheel as High Power Storage Devices for Grid Load Balancing and Stabilization

WORTHINGTON SCHOOLS ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS REPORT FEBRUARY 14, 2018

Using Kinetic Energy for Plunger Lift Safety and Maintenance

Sheep and Goats. Final Estimates United States Department of Agriculture. National Agricultural Statistics Service

Deriving Background Concentrations of NOx and NO 2 April 2016 Update

RAS & WAS Pumps (FLYGT Pump)

Fuel Economy and Safety

An Update on Life Cycle Study of Soybean Oil Biodiesel Production

KENTUCKY TRANSPORTATION CENTER

Author(s) Affiliation. Author(s) Affiliation. Publication Information

* S stm. 0r 0. 0tin. and. Hadling. Ble. Lare~un I - I

Longevity of turf response to urea, coated urea, and blends

CHARACTERIZATION AND DEVELOPMENT OF TRUCK LOAD SPECTRA FOR CURRENT AND FUTURE PAVEMENT DESIGN PRACTICES IN LOUISIANA

FHWA/IN/JTRP-2000/23. Final Report. Sedat Gulen John Nagle John Weaver Victor Gallivan

EFFECTS OF FEEDSTOCK ph, INITIAL CO ADDITION, AND TOTAL SOLIDS CONTENT ON THE THERMOCHEMICAL CONVERSION PROCESS OF SWINE MANURE

Alfred & Plantagenet Multi-Residential Cart Recycling Program CIF Project Number # Final Report October 1, 2016

Installation, Operation & Maintenance Manual. TotlSep (TS) Series. FRP Oil/Water Separator

Increased Deflection Agricultural Radial Tires Following the Tire and Rim Association IF, VF, and IF/CFO Load and Inflation Standards

The Benefit of Sucker Rod Shot Peening

High Solids Loading for a DAFT Retrofit for Co-Thickening Operation

Study of intake manifold for Universiti Malaysia Perlis automotive racing team formula student race car

Tennessee Soybean Producers Views on Biodiesel Marketing

Large Diameter Steel Flanges

Distribution Uniformity of Multi Stream Multi Trajectory Rotary Nozzles Spaced Below Recommended Distance

A Study of Lead-Acid Battery Efficiency Near Top-of-Charge and the Impact on PV System Design

Monitoring of Shoring Pile Movement using the ShapeAccel Array Field

Pipe Flanges and Flanged Fittings

D-Net 8550 TM 3D ARM IMPACT SPRINKLER USER MANUAL

Selected Technical Papers STP1564 Viscosity and Rheology of In-Service Fluids as They Pertain to Condition Monitoring

Comparing FEM Transfer Matrix Simulated Compressor Plenum Pressure Pulsations to Measured Pressure Pulsations and to CFD Results

Effect of driving patterns on fuel-economy for diesel and hybrid electric city buses

DRIVER SPEED COMPLIANCE WITHIN SCHOOL ZONES AND EFFECTS OF 40 PAINTED SPEED LIMIT ON DRIVER SPEED BEHAVIOURS Tony Radalj Main Roads Western Australia

IEEE SCC21 Overview/Status IEEE Standards Coordinating Committee 21 on Fuel cells, Photovoltaics. Dispersed Generation, and Energy Storage

CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE GHG CALCULATION METHODOLOGY OF THE EUROPEAN RENEWABLE ENERGY DIRECTIVE FOR THE CASE OF PALM OIL IN INDONESIA

PIPELINE REPAIR OF CORROSION AND DENTS: A COMPARISON OF COMPOSITE REPAIRS AND STEEL SLEEVES

I. INTRODUCTION. Sehsah, E.M. Associate Prof., Agric. Eng. Dept Fac, of Agriculture, Kafr El Sheikh Univ.33516, Egypt

Large Electric Motor Reliability: What Did the Studies Really Say? Howard W Penrose, Ph.D., CMRP President, MotorDoc LLC

FEED SYSTEMS 2 FEED SYSTEMS

Economic and Social Council

Economic and Commodity Market Outlook

Automatic Tank Gauge (ATG) Water Detection Float Performance in Ethanol Blends Anne Marie Gregg Battelle Memorial Institute March 13, 2013

EUROPEAN COMMITTEE UNDER THE GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC LITHUANIA. September 5, 2001 Final report summary

MASTER \ C. Idaho National Engineering Laboratory. INEL 96J014t we.l~%/0o/60 PREPRINT. MOTOR-OPERATOR GEARBOX EFFICIENCY 5 i u.

Replacing the Volume & Octane Loss of Removing MTBE From Reformulated Gasoline Ethanol RFG vs. All Hydrocarbon RFG. May 2004

Prerequisites for Increasing the Axle Load on Railway Tracks in the Czech Republic M. Lidmila, L. Horníček, H. Krejčiříková, P.

Section 5. Crude Oil and Natural Gas Resource Development

PHYSICAL MODEL TESTS OF ICE PASSAGE AT LOCKS

GREENE COUNTY SCHOOLS ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS REPORT APRIL 12, 2017

Welded and Seamless Wrought Steel Pipe

Solar-Wind Specific Request for Proposals

BIOGAS PRODUCTION ENHANCEMENT BY USING GLYCERINE AS CO SUBSTRATE

WORTHINGTON SCHOOLS ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS REPORT JANUARY 25, 2019

Septage Land Application Module

Wide Tires, Narrow Tires

DIBELSnet System- Wide Percentile Ranks for. DIBELS Next. Elizabeth N Dewey, M.Sc. Ruth A. Kaminski, Ph.D. Roland H. Good, III, Ph.D.

Vehicle Systems Engineering and Integration Activities - Phase 3

LOW ENERGY AERATION AND PROBIOTICS RESOLVE SLUDGE MANAGEMENT ISSUES! Adam Wilson. Coffs Harbour Water

Assessing the Methodology for Testing Body Armor

SAN PEDRO BAY PORTS YARD TRACTOR LOAD FACTOR STUDY Addendum

ON-FARM EXPERIENCE WITH SWINE LIQUID FEEDING: GROW- FINISH PIGS

, NAS!?r-s~~if.{" WOQi2AN PIGS: FINAt:. EST'IHATES (STATISTICAL,,,", BULLETIN.) NATIONAL ' AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS SERVICE,, ':-'-"'-'-,,

ADOPTED REGULATION OF THE STATE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE. LCB File No. R Effective February 20, 2013

Development of Turning Templates for Various Design Vehicles

Cormorant Engineering

High Performance Bimodal PE 100 Materials For Gas Piping Applications

New Method for Improving On-Line Loading Rates on Mechanical Governors By Gerald G. Runyan

Driver perceptions of the benefits of reducing their driving speed on safety, emissions, and stress and road rage

Distributed Solar Generation

DRAFT. Enrollment Projections Report. November 25, 2015

Fuel Mix Disclosure 2016

CEMENT AND CONCRETE REFERENCE LABORATORY PROFICIENCY SAMPLE PROGRAM

Transcription:

This is not a peer-reviewed article. Paper Number: 034156 An ASAE Meeting Presentation Sludge Accumulation Rate Determination and Comparison for Nursery, Sow and Finisher Lagoons Anissa D. Morton, Engineer in Training Enviro-Ag Engineering, Inc., Engineering Consultants, Amarillo, Texas 79124. Gary M. Chapman, P.E., Senior Engineer Enviro-Ag Engineering, Inc., Engineering Consultants, Amarillo, Texas 79124. Norman H. Mullin, P.E., President Enviro-Ag Engineering, Inc., Engineering Consultants, Amarillo, Texas 79124. Brent W. Auvermann, Ph.D., Associate Professor and Extension Specialist Texas Cooperative Extension, Texas A&M Research & Extension Center, Amarillo, Texas. Written for presentation at the 2003 ASAE Annual International Meeting Sponsored by ASAE Riviera Hotel and Convention Center Las Vegas, Nevada, USA 27-30 July 2003 Abstract. Sludge was measured in the treatment lagoon at 15 swine finisher sites, seven sow sites and 15 nursery sites using a commercially available sludge level detector. Lagoon design dimensions or as-built survey data and the resulting sludge levels were used to calculate sludge volume in each lagoon using three-dimensional CAD analysis. Accumulation rates for each lagoon were calculated using the sludge volume, lagoon age, average headcount and total solids calculated using the composition of swine diets. Data indicates the average sludge accumulation rate (SAR) for swine lagoons is not statistically different than the current ASAE recommendation; however, the SAR for sow lagoons is significantly higher than for finisher and nursery lagoons. It is recommended that a revision of ASAE EP403.3 should include SAR values nearer 0.002 m 3 /kg TS (0.032 ft 3 /lb TS) for nursery and finisher lagoons and 0.0034 m 3 /kg TS (0.054 ft 3 /lb TS) for sow lagoons. Keywords. Sludge accumulation, swine lagoons The authors are solely responsible for the content of this technical presentation. The technical presentation does not necessarily reflect the official position of the American Society of Agricultural Engineers (ASAE), and its printing and distribution does not constitute an endorsement of views which may be expressed. Technical presentations are not subject to the formal peer review process by ASAE editorial committees; therefore, they are not to be presented as refereed publications. Citation of this work should state that it is from an ASAE meeting paper. EXAMPLE: Author's Last Name, Initials. 2003. Title of Presentation. ASAE Meeting Paper No. 03xxxx. St. Joseph, Mich.: ASAE. For information about securing permission to reprint or reproduce a technical presentation, please contact ASAE at hq@asae.org or 69-429-0300 (2950 Niles Road, St. Joseph, MI 49085-9659 USA).

Introduction Sludge was measured in the treatment lagoon at 15 swine finisher sites, seven sow sites and 15 nursery sites using a commercially available sludge level detector. The commercial sow sites ranged in size from 1,400 to 2,300 sows, on average. The units contributing to the sow lagoons consist of breeding, gestating, farrowing units. The commercial finisher sites ranged in size from 2,000 to 20,000 head, on average. The commercial nursery sites ranged in size from 3,400 to 14,000 head, on average. A review of the design criteria for each lagoon was provided by the producers. Design loading rates for each lagoon were based on either published data (ASAE, NRCS or MWPS) or dietary analysis. Based on information provided by the producers, all of the lagoons studied were precharged with freshwater prior to startup. All facilities in this study were constructed between 1994 and 1998 and have under-slat pits with pull-plug systems. The sites consist of both freshwater and recycle wastewater pit pre-charge. Lagoon design dimensions or as-built survey data and the resulting sludge levels were used to calculate sludge volume in each lagoon using three-dimensional CAD analysis. Accumulation rates for each lagoon were calculated using the sludge volume, lagoon age, average headcount and total solids production based on the composition of swine diets obtained from each producer. Objectives The objectives of this study were to: 1. Compare sludge accumulation rates (SARs) for finisher, sow and nursery sites. 2. Compare calculated SAR to the current recommendation in ASAE EP403.3. 3. To recommend a SAR to be accepted in a future revision to ASAE EP403.3. Background The current ASAE EP403.3 recommendation for sludge accumulation rate for swine lagoons is based on work done by Barth (1985) on six grower/finisher swine lagoons ranging in size from 2,467 m 3 (2 ac-ft) to 12,335 m 3 (10 ac-ft). Since that time, changes in modern commercial swine production have resulted in larger, more efficient facilities, better swine genetics and better feed. The sludge accumulation rate determined by Barth (1985) is likely no longer indicative of current swine waste management practices. Work done by Tyson (2002), demonstrated that sludge accumulation rates in swine lagoons are much lower than the current ASAE recommendation. Procedures Sludge Measurement Lagoon design dimensions or actual as-built dimensions were obtained from the cooperating producers. Rectangular grids were set up for each lagoon with at least 12 sludge measurement points per lagoon. In the field, the grid pattern was staked using a measuring tape extended along the inside top of berm. Two people standing on the lagoon berm, using ropes, navigated the boat to each measurement point using the stakes as a guide. Two readings were taken at each measurement point. The person in the boat obtained the depth from the water level to the sludge level using a Markland Model 10 Portable Sludge Level Detector to 3-cm (0.1-ft) increments. The sensitivity of the gun was held constant for each lagoon. A second 2

measurement was taken using a PVC pipe with 3-cm (0.1-foot) graduated marks to record the depth from the water level to the bottom of the lagoon. This process was repeated for each measurement point in each lagoon. Sludge Volume Determination Figure 1: Example of grid used to measure each lagoon. The lagoon bottom measurements were entered into AutoCAD/EaglePoint drawing files along with either design dimensions or as-built survey data to generate a three-dimensional base model of each lagoon. Figure 2: Example lagoon base model with contours. 3

Most of the sludge volumes in this study were calculated using lagoon design dimensions rather than actual as-built survey data. The use of as-built survey data to develop lagoon base models would increase the accuracy of the sludge volume calculation. The sludge levels were entered in a separate drawing layer. Based on field observations, sludge is generally distributed evenly across the pond, except for areas surrounding the inlet pipe in the lagoons. Based on this observation, sludge data was projected from the measured points to the lagoon based model. A separate three-dimensional sludge model was then generated using both the measured and the projected sludge data. The sludge volume was calculated as the difference between the sludge model and the lagoon base model using the prismoidal method contained in the Site Design module of EaglePoint CAD software. Sludge Accumulation Calculation Figure 3: Example sludge model with contours. The cooperating producers provided the original population date, average headcounts and typical swine diet information for each facility. The sludge accumulation rate for each lagoon was calculated using the following equations: Or: SAR = SV / (T * TSrate) (1) SAR = (SV * 365) / (LAW * T) (2) Where: SAR = Sludge accumulation rate in volume per mass TS added (m 3 /kg TS or ft 3 /lb TS), as reported in Table 1, ASAE EP403.3 (Equation 1), or in volume per mass LAW per year (m 3 /kg LAW-yr or ft 3 /lb LAW-yr) (Equation 2) SV = Measured sludge volume (m 3 or ft 3 ) 4

T = Sludge accumulation time in days LAW = Total Live Animal Weight = average headcount * average LAW (kg or lb) TSrate = Total solids production rate in mass per day (kg/day or lb/day) The sludge accumulation time was determined using the original date the facility was populated up to the date the sludge measurement was collected. Average live animal weights were obtained from each producer. Total solids production was calculated using the composition of the swine diets for each animal type as provided by the producers. Swine diet information included amount of feed delivered per animal per day, feed moisture content, feed dry matter digestibility and percent feed waste. Total solids production is taken as the sum of total solids excreted plus feed waste. Results and Analysis Sludge accumulation rates for each lagoon type are presented in Table 1. A statistical analysis was performed to determine if a significant difference exists between the SAR for finisher, nursery and sow sites. At a 95% confidence level using the Student's T test, the SAR for sow site is significantly higher than the SARs for finisher and nursery sites reported in sludge volume per mass total solids added. The opposite result occurs when reporting the SAR in terms of sludge volume per pound Live Animal Weight (LAW) per year. This can be attributed to the much higher LAW for gestating and lactating sows than for finisher and nursery pigs. There is no statistical difference between the SARs for finisher and nursery sites. Table 1: Summary of Calculated Sludge Accumulation Rates Type m 3 /kgts ft 3 /#TS m 3 /kglawyr ft 3 /#LAWyr Finish 0.0020 0.032 0.0041 0.066 Sow 0.0034 0.054 0.0020 0.032 Nursery 0.0018 0.028 0.0049 0.078 Overall Average: 0.0024 0.038 0.0036 0.058 Std. Dev.: 0.0009 0.014 0.0015 0.024 Barth (1985): 0.00303 0.0485 0.00784 0.1256 The SAR recommendation for swine lagoons in ASAE EP403.3 is based on Barth's (1985) work. The statistical test above was applied to determine if a significant difference exists between the average SAR and the value reported by Barth. As shown in Table 1, the SARs calculated in this study are not statistically different than Barth's when reported in terms of total solids added, but in terms of LAW, the average SAR is 1/2 of Barth's value. The LAWs used in this study and in Barth's study are shown in Table 2. Barth used 45.4 kg (100 lb) LAW, which is small by today's production standards. Today, grower/finisher swine are fed to a market weight of 113.4 kg to 120.2 kg (250 lb to 265 lb), resulting in a higher average LAW. 5

Table 2: Summary of Live Animal Weights Source Animal Type (kg) LAW (lb) Producer A Finisher 68.0 150 Nursery 15.9 35 Gestating Sow 170.1 375 Lactating Sow 181.4 400 Producer B Finisher 70.3 155 Nursery 15.0 33 Gestating Sow 192.8 425 Lactating Sow 192.8 425 Boar 215.5 475 Barth (1985) Grower/Finisher 45.4 100 Preliminary data from finisher sites, shown in Table 3, indicates that freshwater pit pre-charge sites have slightly higher SARs than sites using recycled wastewater from the lagoon for pit precharge. This may indicate that solids have less time to settle out in a recycle lagoon because pumping occurs on a more regular basis than in a freshwater lagoon, where pumping might only occur during irrigation events. Table 3: Sludge accumulation rates for recycle versus freshwater pit pre-charge. Lagoon system m 3 /kgts ft 3 /#TS m 3 /kglaw-yr ft 3 /#LAW-yr Recycle average: 0.0014 0.023 0.0036 0.057 Freshwater average: 0.0030 0.049 0.0054 0.087 Conclusions The calculated average sludge accumulation rate (SAR) in this study was found to be statistically similar to the rate reported by Barth (1985). However, the SAR for sow lagoons was significantly higher than for finisher and nursery lagoons in terms of total solids added. There was no significant difference between SARs for nursery and finisher lagoons. Today, many commercial producers are combining nursery and finisher operations to reduce labor costs and minimize animal stress. This study did not specifically address lagoons designed for a wean-tofinish system, but the results indicate that since the nursery and finisher SARs are similar, the same SAR would be valid for use in designing a wean-to-finish lagoon. Total solids production in this study was calculated using the composition of the swine diet. The reporting of sludge accumulation rates in terms of total solids and the use of this SAR in design work is valid when feed composition and digestibility data is available to calculate the total solids production on a site-specific or producer-specific basis. The use of published total solids production values may overestimate the actual total solids production for some stages of growth and underestimate it for others. The SAR reported in terms of Live Animal Weight (LAW) may be used when site-specific total solids production data is not available. Preliminary data for finisher lagoons indicates that freshwater pit pre-charge sites have higher SARs than sites using recycled wastewater from the lagoon for pit pre-charge. This may indicate that solids have less time to settle out in a recycle lagoon because pumping occurs on 6

a more regular basis than in a freshwater lagoon, where pumping might only occur during irrigation events. More work is needed to determine the effect of recycle pit pre-charge on sludge accumulation. Based on the results of this study, it is recommended that a revision of ASAE EP403.3 should include SAR values nearer 0.002 m 3 /kg TS (0.032 ft 3 /lb TS) for nursery and finisher lagoons and 0.0034 m 3 /kg TS (0.054 ft 3 /lb TS) for sow lagoons. Acknowledgements Thanks to the producers who participated in this study. References ASAE Standards, 48th ed. 2001. EP403.3. Design of Anaerobic Lagoons for Animal Waste Management. St. Joseph, Mich.: ASAE. ASAE Standards, 48th ed. 2001. D384.1. Manure Production and Characteristics. St. Joseph, Mich.: ASAE. Barth, C.L., and J. Kroes. 1985. Livestock Waste Lagoon Sludge Characterization. Proceedings of the Fifth International Symposium on Agricultural Wastes, 660-671. St. Joseph, Mich.: ASAE. Tyson, T. 2002. Sludge accumulation in Alabama swine lagoons less than 5 years old. ASAE Meeting Paper No. 024132. St. Joseph, Mich.: ASAE. 7