Silage Runoff Characteristics                Michael Holly      University of Wisconsin - Madison         Dr. Rebecca Lars...
Introduction   Silage       Fermented forage used as animal feed       Corn and alfalfa are commonly used forage for da...
Introduction   Silage Runoff Characteristics       Nutrient concentrations within silage runoff are variable       Depe...
Introduction   Impacts   Surfacewater       Phosphorus and nitrogen loading of watersheds       Oxygen depletion     ...
Introduction   Benefits of Silage              watersheds    Runoff    Characterization       Knowledge of        relati...
Introduction       Characteristic Raw                           Silage Residential                             Leachate   ...
Introduction   Horizontal Bunkers       Common type of silage        storage for large dairies       Filled immediately...
Methods   Three Sites Sampled in WI over Spring, Summer    and Fall       Arlington Agricultural Research Station (AARS)...
Methods - AARS   530 head dairy   1.3 acre concrete    silage bunker       0.3 acres pad       1 acre bunker   Separa...
Methods - AARS
Methods - DFRC   350 Head Dairy   0.6 acre asphalt    bunker       0.2 acres        bunker pad       0.4 acres        ...
Methods – DFRC
Methods - Private Producer   3,500 head dairy   1.7 acre bunker       0.5 acres bunker pad       1.2 acres bunker   S...
Methods – Data Analysis   Average Storm Nutrient    Concentrations (mg/L)   Normalized Cumulative    Pollution Load Curv...
AARS – Storm Characteristics                                           Max      Average     Max     Average               ...
Results - AARS 0.98                                      0.52 ’                                         ’ 0.05’           ...
Results - AARS   Maximum average storm nutrient concentrations for    NH3, BOD5 and TP took place during early spring   ...
DFRC – Storm Characteristics                                               Max        Average      Max     Average        ...
Results - DFRC0.56                             1.26’                            1.14’                                     ...
Results - DFRCFigure 2 BOD5 and COD (mg/L) vs. Cumulative Flow for DFRC Storms One, Three and Ten
DFRC Sample Bottles October Event Figure 3 Samples Bottles for DFRC Storm Number One
Results - DFRC   Maximum average storm concentrations for    NH3, BOD5, COD, SRP, TKN, TP, and TS took place    immediate...
Private Producer – Storm Characteristics                                              Max        Average     Max      Aver...
Results – Private Producer 0.51                                              0.53 ’                                       ...
Results – Private Producer   Lag time in sample collection may have missed peak    concentrations   Max flow weighted nu...
Conclusions   Strongest first flush evidence took place in the fall    while strongest delayed storm curves were    docum...
Acknowledgements   Wisconsin Groundwater Coordinating Council       Funding   Dr. Rebecca Larson       Advisor   Zach...
References   Burks, B.D. and M.M. Minnis (1994). "Onsite    Wastewater Treatment Systems. " Madison, WI:    Hogarth House...
Questions?
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Silage Runoff Characterization

528

Published on

Proceedings available at: http://www.extension.org/67602

Silage leachate is a high strength waste which contributes to surface and groundwater contamination of various pollutants from runoff, direct leaching through concrete storage structures, and infiltration of runoff. Feed storage is required for the majority of dairy operations in the country (which are expanding in size and fed storage requirements) leading to widespread potential contamination. Limited data on silage leachate quality and treatment has made management and regulation based solely on observation. This project investigated three bunker silage storage sites to assess the water quality characteristics of silage leachate and runoff from various feed sources and surrounding environmental factors. Surface samples were collected from feed storage structures and analyzed for numerous water quality parameters. Using collected hydrologic data, contaminant loading was analyzed for various storm events and assessed for first flush effects and potential to impact handling and treatment designs. Determination of first flush provides essential data for separation of waste streams (high and low strength) to ease management in terms of operation and cost, reduce loading to treatment systems, and reducing the overall environmental impact.

Published in: Education, Technology, Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
528
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
3
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
10
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Good afternoon everyone, my name is Michael Holly and Silage Runoff Characterizaion and Treatment is my Masters project. My advisor is Dr. Rebecca Larson
  • Leachate moisture from within forage, runoff moisture from precip.
  • First flush high percentage of loading in the beginning of a hydrograph
  • Over application of wasewater leads to reducing conditions resulting in metal leaching
  • Reduction in storage for facilities that are required to collect silage runoff
  • Raw Silage Leachate nutrient concentration is higher than residential wastewater
  • After Sealing fermentation of forage takes place
  • Silage Runoff Characterization

    1. 1. Silage Runoff Characteristics Michael Holly University of Wisconsin - Madison Dr. Rebecca Larson, Advisor April 3rd, 2013
    2. 2. Introduction Silage  Fermented forage used as animal feed  Corn and alfalfa are commonly used forage for dairy operations Silage Leachate  Liquid by-product from ensiling forage  High nutrient concentration Silage Runoff  Flow of surface excess water over an area containing silage
    3. 3. Introduction Silage Runoff Characteristics  Nutrient concentrations within silage runoff are variable  Dependent on the following factors  Event size  Seasonality  Bunker condition  Silage quantity  First-flush  Analyzed in studies of urban runoff  80% of the total pollutant mass is transported within the first 30% of the total volume (Bertrand-Krajewski el al.,1998)
    4. 4. Introduction Impacts Surfacewater  Phosphorus and nitrogen loading of watersheds  Oxygen depletion  Eutrophication and fish kills  Low pH erodes structures and harms vegetation Groundwater  Conversion of organic nitrogen to nitrates  Metal leaching  Contamination of aquifers
    5. 5. Introduction Benefits of Silage watersheds Runoff Characterization  Knowledge of relationship of loading throughout an event  Reduction of utilized manure storage and hauling  Improved treatment of silage runoff  Standards for protection of
    6. 6. Introduction Characteristic Raw Silage Residential Leachate Wastewater pH 3.5-5.5 6-9 P (mg/L) 300-600 5-20Organic N (mg/L) 800-3,700 5-40 NH3 (mg/L) 350-700 10-50 BOD5 (mg/L) 12,000-90,000 100-400Table 1 Typical Silage Leachate and Residential Wastewater Characteristics (McDonald et. al.,1991 and Burks, et al., 1994)
    7. 7. Introduction Horizontal Bunkers  Common type of silage storage for large dairies  Filled immediately after harvest  Forage is compacted and sealed  High potential for silage runoff
    8. 8. Methods Three Sites Sampled in WI over Spring, Summer and Fall  Arlington Agricultural Research Station (AARS)  US Dairy Forage Research Center (DFRC)  Private Producer ISCO Automated Samplers Used for Sampling  2 Samples per bottle, 14 bottles total  Flow activated samples  Samples refrigerated within sampler Analysis  Completed at UW-Madison  Alkalinity, NH3, BOD5, COD, NO2, NO2 + NO3, SRP, pH, total P and total solids
    9. 9. Methods - AARS 530 head dairy 1.3 acre concrete silage bunker  0.3 acres pad  1 acre bunker Separate surface and subsurface collection system Surface samples collected
    10. 10. Methods - AARS
    11. 11. Methods - DFRC 350 Head Dairy 0.6 acre asphalt bunker  0.2 acres bunker pad  0.4 acres bunker No subsurface collection Surface samples collected for analysis
    12. 12. Methods – DFRC
    13. 13. Methods - Private Producer 3,500 head dairy 1.7 acre bunker  0.5 acres bunker pad  1.2 acres bunker Surface and subsurface were routed to the same culvert Surface and subsurface was sampled
    14. 14. Methods – Data Analysis Average Storm Nutrient Concentrations (mg/L) Normalized Cumulative Pollution Load Curves  Dimensionless plot of the distribution of pollutant load with volume (Tabei et. al., 2004)
    15. 15. AARS – Storm Characteristics Max Average Max Average Duration, intensity, Intensity, Flow, Flow, No. Date Depth, in h in/h in/h cfs cfs 1 11/2/2011 0.98 14.3 0.36 0.0698 0.639 0.046 2* 11/5/2011 1.5 24.2 0.72 0.0190 n/a n/a 3 4/26/2012 0.52 86.5 0.04 0.0056 0.857 0.085 4 5/30/2012 0.19 7.3 0.12 0.0267 0.699 0.236 5 7/18/2012 1.7 17.7 0.36 0.0972 2.544 0.253 6* 7/24/2012 0.64 7.7 0.92 0.0821 n/a n/a 7* 7/24/2012 0.56 46.9 1.16 0.0119 n/a n/a 8 8/2/2012 0.05 47.6 0.04 0.0010 1.818 0.016 9 8/7/2012 0.18 103.7 0.04 0.0001 3.774 0.230 Table 2 AARS Storm Characteristics
    16. 16. Results - AARS 0.98 0.52 ’ ’ 0.05’ 1.7’Figure 1 Normalized Nutrients vs. Normalized Flow for AARS Grouped by Season
    17. 17. Results - AARS Maximum average storm nutrient concentrations for NH3, BOD5 and TP took place during early spring Minimum concentrations for COD and TP occurred in the summer Storms three, five and eight illustrated an increase in concentrations with flow and a moderate delayed storm curve A mild first flush occurred in the fall
    18. 18. DFRC – Storm Characteristics Max Average Max Average Duration, intesity, Intensity, Flow, Flow, No. Date Depth, in h in/h in/h cfs cfs 1 10/23/2011 0.19 7.283333 0.32 0.02375 0.628 0.048818 2 11/2/2011 1.04 12.63333 0.48 0.152461 0.766 0.191801 3 11/8/2011 1.14 17.33333 0.52 0.12 0.79 0.146787 4 4/29/2012 0.76 12.25 0.4 0.057281 1.141 0.167488 5 5/30/2012 0.28 6.983333 0.16 0.036894 0.348 0.059283 6 7/18/2012 1.26 3.45 3.68 0.33767 0.684 0.127977 7 7/24/2012 0.56 41.18333 0.84 0.013363 2.663 0.194389 8 8/26/2012 0.38 21.78333 0.08 0.014462 1.536 0.051788 9 9/6/2012 0.03 77.91667 0.04 0.00036 0.923 0.019656 10 10/9/2012 0.19 6.466667 0.08 0.026525 0.036 0.009285 11 10/13/2012 0.33 12.8 0.08 0.026946 0.171 0.019054 12 10/14/2012 0.28 20.21667 0.04 0.0126 0.45 0.034852 13 10/25/2012 0.28 9.266667 NA NA 0.13 0.011481 Table 3 DFRC Storm Characteristics
    19. 19. Results - DFRC0.56 1.26’ 1.14’ ’0.52 0.76’ 0.19’ ’ Figure 4 Normalized Nutrients vs. Normalized Flow for DFRC for Select Storms
    20. 20. Results - DFRCFigure 2 BOD5 and COD (mg/L) vs. Cumulative Flow for DFRC Storms One, Three and Ten
    21. 21. DFRC Sample Bottles October Event Figure 3 Samples Bottles for DFRC Storm Number One
    22. 22. Results - DFRC Maximum average storm concentrations for NH3, BOD5, COD, SRP, TKN, TP, and TS took place immediately after filling the bunker (large amount of feed on pad) Minimum average storm concentrations for BOD5, COD, and SRP occurred during the summer with a large storm (high dilution effect) In the fall runoff indicated strong decay of nutrient concentrations with accumulated flow In the spring weak first flush In summer with large storm events with high peak flows resulted in a more delayed nutrient loading
    23. 23. Private Producer – Storm Characteristics Max Average Max Average Duration, intesity, Intensity, Flow, Flow, No. Date Depth, in h in/h in/h cfs cfs 1 4/29/2012 0.71 10.9 0.36 0.0639 15.412 1.378684 2 5/30/2012 0.53 38.81667 0.36 0.013731 8.433 0.706653 3 7/18/2012 0.82 11.91667 0.92 0.063687 32.945 3.081982 4 7/24/2012 0.75 8.116667 0.92 0.093755 7.472 0.726338 5 7/25/2012 0.49 6.766667 0.72 0.073995 4.864 0.943187 6 8/9/2012 0.44 6.9 0.68 0.065835 9.67 1.459689 7 8/16/2012 0.51 6.616667 0.64 0.079687 7.821 1.513229 8 8/25/2012 0.52 34.7 0.28 0.01508 7.821 0.665683 9 10/13/2012 1.74* 31.21667 NA NA 3.071 0.296152 10 10/17/2012 0.67* 14.95 NA NA 1.681 0.173354 11 10/18/2012 0.78* 145.4333 NA NA 0.894 0.014115 Table 4 Private Producer Storm Characteristics
    24. 24. Results – Private Producer 0.51 0.53 ’ ’ 0.52 0.49’ ’Figure 5. Normalized Nutrients vs. Normalized Flow for Select Private Producer Storms
    25. 25. Results – Private Producer Lag time in sample collection may have missed peak concentrations Max flow weighted nutrient concentrations for NH3, COD, TKN, TP, and TS took place during filling Minimum flow weighted concentrations for NH3, BOD5, SRP, TP and TS were in the spring (a large portion of the feed and all corn silage had been used) Some summer runoff events displayed a moderate delayed storm curve Following filling in the fall, data demonstrated a moderate first flush
    26. 26. Conclusions Strongest first flush evidence took place in the fall while strongest delayed storm curves were documented in the summer Highest average storm nutrient concentrations were in the fall following filling and sometimes in the spring Lowest average storm nutrient concentrations were in the summer Highest concentrations among all sites was for DFRC’s initial samples in the fall (due to collection methods)
    27. 27. Acknowledgements Wisconsin Groundwater Coordinating Council  Funding Dr. Rebecca Larson  Advisor Zach Zopp  Lab and Field Tech Shayne Havlovitz  Undergraduate Research Assistant Dr. John Panuska  Committee Member Dr. KG Karthikeyan  Committee Member
    28. 28. References Burks, B.D. and M.M. Minnis (1994). "Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems. " Madison, WI: Hogarth House, Ltd. McDonald, P., et al. (1991). The Biochemistry of Silage, Scholium International: 340. Taebi, A. and R. Droste (2004). "First flush pollution load of urban stormwater runoff." Journal of Environmental Engineering and Science 3(4): 301- 309.
    29. 29. Questions?
    1. A particular slide catching your eye?

      Clipping is a handy way to collect important slides you want to go back to later.

    ×