Sandhusker
Well-known member
LINCOLN — Lush grass fields are replacing wastewater-filled holding ponds as a means of managing rainwater runoff from small cattle feeding pens in Nebraska. The same systems could someday be approved for larger feedlots.
After a rain, the water on the left collected in a solids-separation basin at the low end of the feedlot pen on the right. After the solids settle, the water will be distributed throughout the vegetative treatment area.Researchers in Nebraska and Iowa are testing what are called "vegetative treatment systems" on cattle feedlots larger than 1,000 head, following success at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln with new systems on smaller feedlots.
If pilot projects indicate the systems are effective against pollution, the alternative pollution-control methods could save cattlemen thousands of dollars in construction costs and hundreds of hours in waste management time.
"The biggest challenge I had was getting over the idea that you had to have a holding pond," said Doug Ferguson, who installed new vegetative treatment systems on the family farm near Blue Springs.
Holding ponds are sometimes lightning rods for rural conflict over odors as they gather and hold storm runoff from sloped feedlots for months before pumping.
Although vegetative treatment systems have been studied for years, the research intensified in 2003 when the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency tightened its regulations against allowing rain runoff to reach streams and rivers.
Heavy rainfall has sometimes created overflows or breaches in ponds, resulting in pollution spills.
The holding pond (or settling basin) system is the only runoff management method approved by the EPA for feedlots of 1,000 head or larger.
The new vegetative treatment systems capture rain runoff from feedlots in shallow pits only long enough for solids to settle to the bottom. The remaining liquid is released gradually through gated pipe onto a grass field, where nutrients are used to produce a hay crop.
With either system, solid manure is later removed and marketed as fertilizer.
In new regulations adopted in 2003, the EPA said alternative systems can be used if they are proved to be as effective as holding ponds in avoiding pollution. The EPA also tightened its rules on feedlots of all sizes to make sure that runoff water can no longer be discharged into streams.
The EPA opening for alternative systems has intensified research into vegetative systems at UNL, the U.S. Meat Animal Research Center in Clay Center, Neb., and Iowa State University.
UNL focuses its research on smaller feedlots — those under 1,000 head — and has installed 31 of the systems. Data is being collected to measure how nitrogen and phosphorus are dispersed in the soil and grass and to what extent groundwater and surface water are protected.
"It's a really nice fit for smaller systems," said Chris Henry, an extension engineer with UNL. "There are a lot of smaller systems that don't have runoff control."
A vegetative treatment system can be installed for about $30 to $40 per head of cattle capacity, making up-front costs for a 500-head feedlot about $15,000 to $20,000. A holding pond system could cost twice as much.
Two of UNL's systems were installed at Ferguson's two small feedlots — 100 head and 180 head — near Blue Springs, using funds from $1.3 million in grants from the Nebraska Environmental Trust Fund and $221,881 from the EPA.
"I was used to the old holding-pond system," said Ferguson, "but they are nowhere near as simple as what I have today."
Ferguson said he aims to release water at the optimal time. "I try to hold it when the ground is saturated," he said.
Henry said that vegetative systems have the benefit of not generating odor. Ferguson said he has had no complaints from neighbors.
Duane Gangwish, vice president of environmental affairs for the Nebraska Cattlemen, said use of the vegetative treatment systems must be determined on a site-by-site basis
"They don't make sense for a commercial feed yard of significant size" — that is, tens of thousands of head, Gangwish said.
The U.S. Meat Animal Research Center at Clay Center and ISU are focusing their research on larger feedlots in hopes that vegetative systems will give large-scale feedlots a less expensive and more effective alternative to holding ponds.
"All we are doing is trying to simplify the control of the runoff, and I think this does it beautifully," said Jack Nienaber, the research leader at Clay Center.
"When the research is done and we have good solid answers, those methods are going to be more applicable," Gangwish said. "It has to be proven that it is as effective as the traditional systems."
The Clay Center researchers are collecting nutrient data from seven of their own systems as well as those at UNL and Iowa State.
ISU researchers have used funding from the Environmental Protection Agency and the Iowa Cattlemen's Association to construct six test systems.
"The question is, can they meet or exceed the performance of traditional systems?" said Robert Burns, head of the ISU research project. "The jury is still out.
"Certainly we think there is potential or we wouldn't be checking them out."
After a rain, the water on the left collected in a solids-separation basin at the low end of the feedlot pen on the right. After the solids settle, the water will be distributed throughout the vegetative treatment area.Researchers in Nebraska and Iowa are testing what are called "vegetative treatment systems" on cattle feedlots larger than 1,000 head, following success at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln with new systems on smaller feedlots.
If pilot projects indicate the systems are effective against pollution, the alternative pollution-control methods could save cattlemen thousands of dollars in construction costs and hundreds of hours in waste management time.
"The biggest challenge I had was getting over the idea that you had to have a holding pond," said Doug Ferguson, who installed new vegetative treatment systems on the family farm near Blue Springs.
Holding ponds are sometimes lightning rods for rural conflict over odors as they gather and hold storm runoff from sloped feedlots for months before pumping.
Although vegetative treatment systems have been studied for years, the research intensified in 2003 when the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency tightened its regulations against allowing rain runoff to reach streams and rivers.
Heavy rainfall has sometimes created overflows or breaches in ponds, resulting in pollution spills.
The holding pond (or settling basin) system is the only runoff management method approved by the EPA for feedlots of 1,000 head or larger.
The new vegetative treatment systems capture rain runoff from feedlots in shallow pits only long enough for solids to settle to the bottom. The remaining liquid is released gradually through gated pipe onto a grass field, where nutrients are used to produce a hay crop.
With either system, solid manure is later removed and marketed as fertilizer.
In new regulations adopted in 2003, the EPA said alternative systems can be used if they are proved to be as effective as holding ponds in avoiding pollution. The EPA also tightened its rules on feedlots of all sizes to make sure that runoff water can no longer be discharged into streams.
The EPA opening for alternative systems has intensified research into vegetative systems at UNL, the U.S. Meat Animal Research Center in Clay Center, Neb., and Iowa State University.
UNL focuses its research on smaller feedlots — those under 1,000 head — and has installed 31 of the systems. Data is being collected to measure how nitrogen and phosphorus are dispersed in the soil and grass and to what extent groundwater and surface water are protected.
"It's a really nice fit for smaller systems," said Chris Henry, an extension engineer with UNL. "There are a lot of smaller systems that don't have runoff control."
A vegetative treatment system can be installed for about $30 to $40 per head of cattle capacity, making up-front costs for a 500-head feedlot about $15,000 to $20,000. A holding pond system could cost twice as much.
Two of UNL's systems were installed at Ferguson's two small feedlots — 100 head and 180 head — near Blue Springs, using funds from $1.3 million in grants from the Nebraska Environmental Trust Fund and $221,881 from the EPA.
"I was used to the old holding-pond system," said Ferguson, "but they are nowhere near as simple as what I have today."
Ferguson said he aims to release water at the optimal time. "I try to hold it when the ground is saturated," he said.
Henry said that vegetative systems have the benefit of not generating odor. Ferguson said he has had no complaints from neighbors.
Duane Gangwish, vice president of environmental affairs for the Nebraska Cattlemen, said use of the vegetative treatment systems must be determined on a site-by-site basis
"They don't make sense for a commercial feed yard of significant size" — that is, tens of thousands of head, Gangwish said.
The U.S. Meat Animal Research Center at Clay Center and ISU are focusing their research on larger feedlots in hopes that vegetative systems will give large-scale feedlots a less expensive and more effective alternative to holding ponds.
"All we are doing is trying to simplify the control of the runoff, and I think this does it beautifully," said Jack Nienaber, the research leader at Clay Center.
"When the research is done and we have good solid answers, those methods are going to be more applicable," Gangwish said. "It has to be proven that it is as effective as the traditional systems."
The Clay Center researchers are collecting nutrient data from seven of their own systems as well as those at UNL and Iowa State.
ISU researchers have used funding from the Environmental Protection Agency and the Iowa Cattlemen's Association to construct six test systems.
"The question is, can they meet or exceed the performance of traditional systems?" said Robert Burns, head of the ISU research project. "The jury is still out.
"Certainly we think there is potential or we wouldn't be checking them out."
